The Case of Schizophrenic Conservatism

Conservatism – or politics of the Right – originated historically when a group with political power reacted to challenges to the status quo which might encroach on their privileges.

It was during the 17^th century that a faction in England decided to side with Charles II against their parliamentary colleagues when the latter tried to exclude the king’s brother, James, from succeeding to the throne (because otherwise, a Catholic monarch would become the head of the Protestant Church of England). For them, backing the king – and the royal favours he would grant them – was more important than any other consideration. Initially labelled ‘Tories’, they later adopted ‘Conservative’ as the formal name of their party, and defence of their hierarchical power and privileges has always been their unifying objective.

The Right, as a political term, appeared later in the 18^th century when the National Assembly was set up as a result of the French Revolution and the deputies who were pressing for radical changes to the iniquitous power structures of the time sat to the left of the president of the assembly, and those who were firmly against such changes sat to the right.

Conservatives/the political Right may belong to parties with different names in different countries at different times, but the overriding concern that brings them together is invariably to secure those conditions which underpin the distribution of power and privileges that favour them.

The problem for Conservatives is that there are times when what it takes to secure those conditions come into conflict with each other.  Whenever that happens, polarising forces present them with unsettling choices.

For example, US Republicans claimed to be champions of the rule of law, but when they thought Trump could overturn a legitimate election and enable them to have four more years of plutocratic excesses, many of them sided with the would-be usurper (albeit without success).  Thatcher claimed to side with religious traditionalists, but when she had the chance in 1986 to change the law to allow shops to sell most goods on Sundays (in the interest of the business class), she pushed for it (and ended up being defeated by a combination of the Opposition and a minority of Conservatives who were unyielding traditionalists).  And in the case of Brexit, many Conservatives opted to fuel anti-foreigners/anti-EU sentiments to win votes even though it would substantially weaken their own country’s economic system.

Unfortunately for Conservatives, the forces which could help them retain and accumulate privileges are increasingly pulling in incompatible directions.  Those who demand strict national law and order don’t see eye to eye with anti-multicultural groups who think they can defy the law to preserve their own ‘traditional’ way of life.  Religious fundamentalists want to interfere with people’s lives while large corporations oppose such interference for being bad for business.  Global profit-making clashes with xenophobic obsessions. Self-centred isolationism collides with volatile jingoism.  Tax deals for the rich conflict with meeting the demands of the financial markets.

Some Conservatives have taken the position that what really matters is their own wealth and power, and they must focus above all on pushing through policies that reinforce their status and bank account in years to come.  But others take their personal versions of ‘faith, flag, and family values’ rather seriously and would not hesitate even if pursuit of them could threaten their country’s democracy as well as damage its economy.

Conservatives can be a formidable political force when there is one coherent set of conditions they can promote to increase their power and privileges.  But when there are multiple conditions that call for conflicting policies to support them, schizophrenic implosion draws ever nearer.