What is Conservatism?

There is an endless supply of articles and books about the ideas and doctrines that might have shaped the politics of those who embrace Conservatism (in the sense that encompasses Conservatives in the UK and Canada, Republicans in the US, the Liberal Party in Australia, and the National Party in New Zealand). But while the works of Burke, Oakeshott, Hayek, and Scruton may provide some post-hoc rationalisation here and there, Conservative politics has never been about theoretical doctrines, but is above all a strategic agenda for defending and expanding power advantages in society.

If we look closely at what the political leadership of parties aligned with Conservatism has sought over time and in different countries, the one common feature that stands out is the focus on securing public office to help entrench arrangements that will continue to safeguard the greater wealth, status, privileges of those in dominant positions in society.  And so long as a group can gain that dominance, their interests will become paramount for the champions of Conservatism – remember how 18^thcentury Tories looked down on merchants and manufacturers but held them in high esteem in the 20^thcentury.

Correspondingly, what Conservatism stands against is any political idea, campaign, movement, or party that may challenge that dominance.  It does not matter what the reason is behind that challenge – the opposition to inequalities, concern for the environment, liberation from oppressive customs, the fight against poverty, objection to corrupt practices – so long as it poses a threat to the advantages possessed by the dominant ones, it will be a target for Conservatives to discredit and defeat.

Conservatism is not inherently kind or nasty.  Where showing kindness can promote gratitude and contentment amongst those who might otherwise start supporting their political rivals, kindness may be readily bestowed – so long as it does not undermine the overall power structure of society and the ‘have plenty’ can stay well above the ‘have little’.  Nastiness, similarly, could be brought into play if it would help to win political battles.  Stirring up prejudices against foreigners and minorities is one of the oldest tricks.  Blaming the poor for their own predicament is another favourite.  Fuelling ‘culture wars’ is a natural extension of the familiar divide-and-rule tactic.

 

Writers seeking philosophical doctrines or political theories that supposedly define (or ought to define) Conservatism may find it a diverting pastime. But ultimately, while some Conservative politicians may genuinely appreciate the intellectual respectability that such talk may confer, Conservatism is best understood as the relentless manoeuvring to protect and strengthen hierarchies and practices that serve those who have gained the most from them.

Learning to Question

When we have claims or proposals put to us, it matters if we accept them on good grounds or not.  And to establish their acceptability, we need to question them properly.  The problem is that questioning, if done arbitrarily, is no better than blind acceptance or kneejerk rejection.

Our response to a police investigation, a proposed medical treatment, a politician’s claim, or a report on economic trends, can have significant consequences for ourselves and others.  So how should we go about questioning them when no one can possibly possess the expertise to assess the myriad factors involved.

 

One thing that all citizens should learn, beyond the areas they have acquired specialist understanding about, is how to gauge the reliability of assertions when they do not possess the relevant expert knowledge themselves.  This would broadly encompass three areas of general assessment each with three tests to be applied: 

 

Structure of Content

[1] Clarity

Is what is said sufficiently clear?  Do we really know what we are being asked to give our backing to?  Is it actually fully of pseudo-profundity?  What is the substance beneath the rhetoric?

 

[2] Coherence

Does it make sense?  Does it in fact contain contradictory elements which leave it with no coherent assertion?  Can it be rephrased to that what it claims or demands is unambiguously set out?

 

[3] Correctability

Is it a circular statement in disguise?  Does it beg the question by offering, not an answer, but simply an assumption that the question has already been settled?  Is it framed in such a way that no evidence can count as disproving it?

 

These tests can reveal if any claim is ultimately vacuous, or if it has real content that one can consider with the help of other assessments.

 

State of Mind

[4] Deceitful

Are the people making the claim known for their honesty or deceitfulness?  Are they more prone to lie and misdirect to gain advantage for themselves at the expense of others? Are they accusing others with contrary views of being deceitful when past fact-checking would undermine that stance?

 

[5] Delusional

Are there signs that the people in question are susceptible to imagining what is not there? Are they known for sincerely believing what is overwhelmingly contradicted by the evidence?  

 

[6] In Denial

Have the people invested so heavily in a set of beliefs that they cannot bear to face up to the fact that those beliefs are unfounded?  Do they react in frustration and anger if any fact or argument is cited that goes against those beliefs?

 

These tests can reveal if any claim should be taken seriously, or if it should be treated with caution because of its unreliable source.

 

Standard of Reasoning

[7] Expertise in Assessment

What relevant expertise is possessed by the people making the claim? If they do not have the requisite expertise, are they drawing on what is set out by experts with an established record in the field in question?

 

[8] Evaluation System Robustness

Are there evaluation systems in place – peer reviews, watchdog, investigative reporting, audit arrangements, further research, appeal processes, etc – that can check on the robustness of the claims under consideration? Are those systems respected and operating well in the given case?  Or has the claim been made in a free-for-all forum with no independent evaluation at all?

 

[9] Evidential Support 

Is the claim backed by evidence?  How does that compare with the evidence that may support what goes against that claim? Is the evidence subject to examination? Is it open for further evidence to be obtained?

 

These tests can reveal if any claim has a high or low degree of reasonable support based on current levels of expertise and findings.  Together with the other tests mentioned above, they should be applied to claims and assertions that are put to us, especially in politics where our subsequent action (or inaction) can have major consequences for our lives.