On conservatism
Jan. 14th, 2014 01:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerI know good, decent, courageous and kind-hearted people who believe that it is a good thing, or that it can be a good thing, to be a conservative. I'm going to try to explain, in this piece, why it is that I believe they are mistaken; why it is that I believe that political ideologies in the real world are not morally neutral, and that of all of them, conservatism has wrongness most deeply embedded in it; why it is that, while it is possible to be a Conservative and a good person, one must in the end militate against the other, and always will.
The DNA of conservatism, from its earliest beginnings, has been about preserving (conserving) the status quo. The opposite of "conservative" is not "liberal," not "socialist," not "communist"; those are just ideologies which have set themselves up to be progressive, and are therefore in opposition to conservatism in its purest form. The opposite of "conservative" is not even necessarily "progressive"; the status quo can be changed in many ways, including regression to an earlier state, an objective dear to the hearts of many who now call themselves Conservative, as we shall see later. No, the opposite of "conservative" is "radical." The opposite of "no change" is simply "change."
One might contend that conservatism is actually about conserving what is "best" about the status quo, but when you actually consider the status quo itself, that almost infinitely complex interlocking mechanism of cause and effect, it's impossible to avoid seeing at last that that just won't fly. It's like taking out the sugar that's been stirred into a cup of tea, extracting the yolk of an egg while leaving the white sealed in the unbroken shell. If conserving the status quo is the goal, then it's an all or nothing job. Any change will have good and bad consequences, so if bad consequences are to be avoided, any change must, logically, be resisted.
And all progress is change, though not all change is progress.
Thus we see that what we might call classical conservatism is irremediably opposed to progress. Individual conservatives may support progress, but they do so only by violating their conservatism. Committed conservatives know that progress is a snare and a delusion, that all change is change for the worse, and that there can be nothing better than the status quo, unless it be the status quo ante, as for example the Victorian era to which our current leaders are so keen to return us.
So, what do we know about the status quo, and what happens if it is conserved over the long term? Well, one immediately obvious result is that those who have benefited under the status quo will continue to benefit indefinitely, and those who have suffered under the status quo will continue to suffer. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. That is the direct result of conservatism. It's not a fact of life or a law of nature; if you think about it, there's no reason why it should be. It's just what logically happens, in the absence of any other circumstance, when change is successfully resisted.
Progressives, as a general rule, want to change that; want to make the poor a little richer by making the rich a little poorer, or at least less rich. This is a red alert warning to conservatives that the status quo is being threatened. And, since those who have consistently benefited under the status quo tend to be those who, by virtue of money or power, control society, and also tend, for obvious reasons, to be conservatives, they are in a far better position to protect the status quo than progressives usually tend to be in to change it. Thus conservatism starts out with what might be called an unfair advantage, if you think fairness has any role to play in politics. If you are a conservative, of course, you can't think that, because that would mean giving progressives an even chance to upset the status quo, and the status quo must be protected at all costs.
So, as we have now seen, conservatism in its purest form is utterly invested in ensuring that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, will use any means necessary to bring that about, and if it can undo any social progress that has been made in the past, to create a more perfect reflection of the status quo ante, will turn every stone to do so. Whether it does it subtly and unobtrusively, as under Macmillan and Heath, or blatantly and radically, as under Thatcher and her successors in all three major parties, it is never incompetence, or ignorance, or an unfortunate mistake, or an unforeseen circumstance: it is conservatism doing exactly what it says on the tin, and it is opposed to the interests of the majority, opposed to fairness and social justice, opposed to scientific and technological progress, opposed to enlightenment and understanding, opposed to equality and tolerance, opposed to anything and everything that represents change for the better. Because all change is change for the worse, to be resisted at any cost.
And if you are not opposed to any of those things--and if you are among my friends, then I sincerely hope you are not--then perhaps you should wonder if conservatism is really for you.
More may follow on this.
The DNA of conservatism, from its earliest beginnings, has been about preserving (conserving) the status quo. The opposite of "conservative" is not "liberal," not "socialist," not "communist"; those are just ideologies which have set themselves up to be progressive, and are therefore in opposition to conservatism in its purest form. The opposite of "conservative" is not even necessarily "progressive"; the status quo can be changed in many ways, including regression to an earlier state, an objective dear to the hearts of many who now call themselves Conservative, as we shall see later. No, the opposite of "conservative" is "radical." The opposite of "no change" is simply "change."
One might contend that conservatism is actually about conserving what is "best" about the status quo, but when you actually consider the status quo itself, that almost infinitely complex interlocking mechanism of cause and effect, it's impossible to avoid seeing at last that that just won't fly. It's like taking out the sugar that's been stirred into a cup of tea, extracting the yolk of an egg while leaving the white sealed in the unbroken shell. If conserving the status quo is the goal, then it's an all or nothing job. Any change will have good and bad consequences, so if bad consequences are to be avoided, any change must, logically, be resisted.
And all progress is change, though not all change is progress.
Thus we see that what we might call classical conservatism is irremediably opposed to progress. Individual conservatives may support progress, but they do so only by violating their conservatism. Committed conservatives know that progress is a snare and a delusion, that all change is change for the worse, and that there can be nothing better than the status quo, unless it be the status quo ante, as for example the Victorian era to which our current leaders are so keen to return us.
So, what do we know about the status quo, and what happens if it is conserved over the long term? Well, one immediately obvious result is that those who have benefited under the status quo will continue to benefit indefinitely, and those who have suffered under the status quo will continue to suffer. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. That is the direct result of conservatism. It's not a fact of life or a law of nature; if you think about it, there's no reason why it should be. It's just what logically happens, in the absence of any other circumstance, when change is successfully resisted.
Progressives, as a general rule, want to change that; want to make the poor a little richer by making the rich a little poorer, or at least less rich. This is a red alert warning to conservatives that the status quo is being threatened. And, since those who have consistently benefited under the status quo tend to be those who, by virtue of money or power, control society, and also tend, for obvious reasons, to be conservatives, they are in a far better position to protect the status quo than progressives usually tend to be in to change it. Thus conservatism starts out with what might be called an unfair advantage, if you think fairness has any role to play in politics. If you are a conservative, of course, you can't think that, because that would mean giving progressives an even chance to upset the status quo, and the status quo must be protected at all costs.
So, as we have now seen, conservatism in its purest form is utterly invested in ensuring that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, will use any means necessary to bring that about, and if it can undo any social progress that has been made in the past, to create a more perfect reflection of the status quo ante, will turn every stone to do so. Whether it does it subtly and unobtrusively, as under Macmillan and Heath, or blatantly and radically, as under Thatcher and her successors in all three major parties, it is never incompetence, or ignorance, or an unfortunate mistake, or an unforeseen circumstance: it is conservatism doing exactly what it says on the tin, and it is opposed to the interests of the majority, opposed to fairness and social justice, opposed to scientific and technological progress, opposed to enlightenment and understanding, opposed to equality and tolerance, opposed to anything and everything that represents change for the better. Because all change is change for the worse, to be resisted at any cost.
And if you are not opposed to any of those things--and if you are among my friends, then I sincerely hope you are not--then perhaps you should wonder if conservatism is really for you.
More may follow on this.