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.

The Politics of Egoism

Egoism, in holding that individuals ought only to consider what they want for themselves, may at first glance appear to have little mileage in politics.  With people being told they should just care about their own desires, society is most likely caught in a perpetual state of conflict.  The rule of law could hardly prevail when self-centred behaviour everywhere is deemed acceptable.

However, what recent decades have revealed is that a hierarchical form of egoism can become a serious political force.  It operates on three levels.

First, it glorifies the ego of the leader.  Instead of subjecting those seeking or holding power to moral scrutiny – demanding that they care for others and put the interests of society above their own – it encourages the virtual worship of those who arrogantly present themselves as unquestionable.  Such egoistic leaders can make false accusations against innocent people, but whenever they commit a crime themselves, they claim they are being set up.  They indulge in corrupt practices routinely, and lie shamelessly to deny their countless wrongdoing.

Secondly, the hyper-egoistic leaders attract as followers those with strong egoist inclinations. They offer validation and support to people who have few qualms about pursuing their own preferences at the expense of others.  They seek to bring into the fold anyone who considers being concerned with the feelings and wellbeing of other people as a sign of weakness. The leaders tell their followers that they are right to always put themselves first, they should hold on to their prejudices against others, and they should seek their own betterment irrespective of the damages that might cause everyone else.

Thirdly, the relationship between leaders and followers is reinforced through [a] the followers vicariously identifying with their ‘faultless’ leaders so that they can feel powerful when the arrogant leaders act with impunity; and [b] the leaders enabling the followers to neglect, mock, despise, intimidate, exploit, or injure others who are unable to defend themselves. The followers are thus made to feel gratified and righteous when they get their own way at the expense of those derided as ‘weak’ as well as the genuinely vulnerable.

The pattern outlined above would be familiar enough given the behaviour of recent demagogues who won power in the US, UK, Brazil, etc. Their strategies are reminiscent of abusive cults where the followers go along with whatever their leaders say or do – no matter how groundless or outrageous it might be.

Like cults, it can be difficult to get those who have been drawn into it to see sense and disengage from it.  There are cases where a cult implodes – where the corrupt and abusive practices of the leaders become so excessive that even their fervent followers have had enough and abandon them.  In other cases, where the leaders lose their grip and one by one their followers are reached by friends and families who reconnect them with reason and common humanity – leading to the cult dissipating.  But there are also cases where the cult gains strength and threaten the lives of others on an ever-larger scale, and society has to respond with robust law enforcement.  In those cases, the cult leaders scream that they have been victimised, that their followers will readily use violence to defend themselves against ‘injustice’.  Provided those on the side of fairness and democracy stand firm, the reign of such cults can be brought to an end.

This is the challenge we now face in relation to the threat of hierarchical egoism.