The Nature of English Conservatism
In 1933, the eminent conservative historian F. J. C. Hearnshaw published an excellent book entitled “Conservatism in England: An Analytical, Historical, and Political Survey”. The aim of the book was not just to provide a history of conservatism, but to characterise it, and to make a case for it. It is very successful in the first two aims, but not in the third. Today I would like to cover some of the basic points of this book, and use them as a means for understanding the failure of conservatism. (I should note at the outset that I am speaking here of conservatism as it operates in Britain. Therefore, certain assertions which I make about conservatives might not apply to, say, American conservatives, who are working in somewhat different circumstances.)
Early in the book, Hearnshaw provides a concise description of the conservative spirit:
Conservatism is primarily a defensive creed: it aims at preserving and safeguarding the old, the familiar, the beloved, the well-tried.1
Many other conservatives, from Michael Oakeshott to Roger Scruton, have echoed this sentiment. Conservatism is first and foremost, “not a creed or a doctrine, but a disposition”.2 But we should not identify conservatism with reaction. Conservatism, according to Hearnshaw, accepts the need for change in society, for without it, society can ossify into tyranny and backwardness.
The impression of conservatism being essentially dispositional is further entrenched by Hearnshaw’s lamentation of the difficulty which many conservatives have, both in expressing what exactly their beliefs are, and why they hold them:
Conservatism…tends to be silent, lethargic, confused, incoherent, inarticulate, and unimpressive.3
It is peculiar that an advocate of conservatism should present such an unflattering picture of his fellows. This being said, Hearnshaw goes on to note the conspicuous lack of conservative political literature in his time, at least compared with their opposition. This resulted partly from the above-mentioned difficulty, which tends to undermine projects to create conservative theory.4 However, there is another reason, again stemming from the conservative disposition:
Further, conservatism springs from contentment; it tends to tranquillity and to a desire to be left alone; it is frequently either satisfied with things as they are, or apprehensive that any change will be a change for the worse. Hence it prefers not to argue or to agitate; it assumes the existence, the continuance, and the general adequacy of established institutions; and, taking these for granted, it devotes its attention to what it regards as the proper business of life-namely, work, or recreation, or culture.5
The conservative does not participate to the same degree in academia or journalism as his progressive counterpart, not just because of discrimination against conservatives in these areas, but because the conservative is generally unsuited to, and disinclined towards, participation in these areas. Despite having characterised conservatism as a disposition, Hearnshaw objects to the idea that conservatism is without principles. In his book quoted above, he identified 12 principles that he saw as central to conservatism:6
Reverence for the past.
The organic conception of society.
Communal unity.
Constitutional continuity.
Opposition to revolution.
Cautious or evolutionary reform.
The religious basis of the state.
The divine source of legitimate authority.
The priority of duties to rights.
The prime importance of character.
Loyalty.
Common sense, realism, practicality.
Hearnshaw made an admirable attempt at identifying a theoretical core to conservatism. Nonetheless, whether all 12 of these principles are consistently upheld, or even implicitly believed by conservatives is doubtful. To give three examples:
The religious basis of the state and the divine source of legitimate authority are rejected by many self-professed conservatives, who are either secular themselves or else believe strongly in a secular state, keeping their “private” religious views to themselves.
Most modern conservatives believe very strongly in human rights, and seem to give these rights primacy over duties. The “sovereign individual” and his supposed rights form a central part of a modern conservative platform, even for those who are not affiliated with the Conservative Party. See Douglas Murray et al.
Reverence for the past does not seem to be a consistent principle of contemporary conservatives, because if you were to confront them with the reality that our ancestors were racist, they would either have to deny that they were racist, or to condemn them for it; similarly, they have little respect for biological ancestry, which undeniably forms part of our heritage; or, further, they would have to reject laws that were in place for centuries, such as those concerning homosexuality, on the grounds of the abstract and decidedly progressive values of liberalism. Some conservatives make a weak complaint against the destruction of our heritage, but do not go as far as they would if they genuinely had reverence for the past.
More examples could be given, but in the interests of space, I will assume that the remaining principles that Hearnshaw lists are commonly adhered to by conservatives. The issue is that these remaining principles are very vague, and do not in themselves entail any particular programme. Hearnshaw himself even speaks in the book of the “relativity of conservative doctrine”, and goes so far as to say that:
[…] the nature of its defence depends on the nature of the attack which it has to repel, and the doctrines which it propounds are largely determined by the radical or revolutionary doctrines which it is called upon to refute.7
So we can see that, even in the view of Hearnshaw, much of what conservatives profess in one age they will not profess in another. The conservative, in his view, is always playing a balancing act between chaos and order, continuity and change, which necessitates an altering of emphasis and policy over time.
A related issue with Hearnshaw’s 12 principles is that they can be reinterpreted to mean different things. Even if conservatives do hold to these principles, they are very easily corrupted. The organic conception of society leads them to accept past liberal reforms—long since accepted as “tradition”—as a natural growth from the people; the importance of character leads to an excessive focus on individual character, and not folk character, further entrenching social atomisation; loyalty becomes attached to party over principle, even when the party utterly capitulates to the programme of the progressives; “common sense” and “practicality” lead to the acceptance of compromise with the enemy, in the mistaken belief that they have to accept the existence of opposing parties (because, naturally, the conservative is a democrat).
The concerns listed above should be sufficient to indicate the lack of substance and lack of a fixed meaning of these principles; their relativity commits the conservative to conserving the revolutions of the past (lest he be called a “reactionary”) and allows him to be shaped by the progressive opposition in the future.
The Failure of Conservatism
Having said something concerning the character of conservatism, we can move on to a consideration of its past performance, and its future prospects.
Essentially, as we have said, a conservative is someone who wishes to conserve what already exists, but recognises the supposed need for change, and adopts a reformist—rather than revolutionary—attitude towards it. Naturally, this is relative to time and place, and so what a conservative actually stands for on specific issues (what he wishes to preserve, and what he wishes to change) will differ depending on the context he finds himself in. The crux of the matter is that since his instinct is to conserve, the conservative is always in a defensive position. His opponents—the progressives—are always in an offensive position, pushing for further changes and concessions.
If you are always on the defensive, and your enemies are always on the offensive, eventually you will lose ground. Even a mighty cliff can be worn away by the incessant beating of the waves upon it. This is precisely what the history of conservatism reveals to us: a constant loss of ground. On issue after issue, from free market capitalism (originally a progressive position, now conservative) to abortion, to gay rights, conservatives have lost. At this point, one might reasonably think, there is very little left to conserve. The conservatives of today are like the defenders of a walled city who have abandoned everything except the castle itself, and have left themselves no way of escape; but they have deluded themselves into thinking that every previous concession of territory was necessary for the preservation of the city.
Yet not only have conservatives failed to conserve anything: they have actually aided the progressive cause. How have they done this? One thing that should strike the reader about conservatives is their readiness to debate, to compromise, to have a “reasonable discussion” with the other side. But a compromise between a progressive and a conservative is always a net loss for the conservative, because it means that he must change, abandon or destroy something of what he values, and the progressive gets to implement something of what he wants. The progressive demands, and the conservative, after some pitiful objection, accedes. All that the conservative gets under such a reformist compromise is a slightly longer lease of life for his heritage than he might get if a revolution occurred.
It is not only ill-advised compromise that has led conservatives to implement “progressivism”. Sometimes, even with no electoral incentive to do so, conservatives have insisted on promoting progressive measures. For example, the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which decriminalised homosexuality, was first proposed by the conservative Lord Arran in 1965, and voted for by none other than Enoch Powell in 1967. Margaret Thatcher opened up the UK economy during her tenure as Prime Minister, making England a mere playground for international capital. David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party from 2005 to 2016, introduced the “A-List” in 2005, which aimed to increase the proportion of people from minority groups among Conservative MPs, MEPs, and peers. In recent times, the Conservative Party has overseen unprecedented levels of legal and illegal immigration. Once again, more examples could be given, but to enumerate them all would be tedious, precisely because they are so numerous.
Because the conservatives are believed to represent the “status quo”, once they incorporate some aspect of the progressive program into their own, it becomes the new baseline, and it becomes almost impossible to return to the old status quo, the old equilibrium, within the context of the liberal-democratic system. Anyone who advocates repealing these measures is denounced as “far-right”, and the conservative is anxious to disavow them, so concerned is he with appearing “respectable”. In this way the conservative secures the steady march of “progress”. It is important to note that the conservative often does somewhat slow down the rate of progress—he slows it down to levels that won’t cause too much of a backlash and threaten the integrity of liberal democracy. The conservative is the normaliser of progressive ideas. Without him, the system could not function properly. He is perhaps the strongest supporting pillar of it.
Conclusion
People on the moderate right often call for a return to “true conservatism”. We have it now. We have always had it. The conservatives of today, in perfect accord with their conservative disposition, have decided to preserve what we currently have, and have had for some time—namely, the liberal-democratic system—from the enemies that threaten it, so that it might go further in the direction of liberal “progress”, the necessity of which they agree with.
It is not a matter of the conservative surveying the mistakes of conservatives in the past and adjusting his conduct, so that conservatism will prevail. Conservatism itself signifies no fixed creed. To win, the conservative would have to abandon conservatism.
F. J. C. Hearnshaw, Conservatism in England: An Analytical, Historical, and Political Survey. New York: Howard Fertig, pg. 7.
Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and other Essays. Liberty Fund. Pg. 407.
F. J. C. Hearnshaw, Conservatism in England: An Analytical, Historical, and Political Survey, pg. 6.
It is notable that much of the so-called “Neo-Tory” literature being produced around the time of Hearnshaw’s writing was really either reactionary or revolutionary in character, regardless of the “conservative” or “Tory” label attached to it e.g. the works of William Sanderson, Anthony Ludovici, Douglas Jerrold, and others.
Hearnshaw, pg. 8.
Ibid, pp. 22-33.
Ibid, pg. 21.