What is conservatism? An attempt at an A-level primer
Those of you on the left reading this might think, “Who cares how you define conservatism? I’m not a conservative”. And I would disagree with you there - I think understanding what conservatism consists of in the early 21st century is important for everyone who is even marginally interested in politics. Even if you consider yourself an enemy of conservatism, understanding it is key to defeating it. And in doing this exercise - see the video above - I found it was more difficult than I’d imagined going in.
For instance, I googled “conservatism” to see what I’d find. The first thing that came up was a definition of the word, which went like this:
1. commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.
2. the holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.
As the sharper amongst you will spot, there are huge contradictions that exist between those two definitions of conservatism. The biggest, in my view, is that if your ideology supposedly sits in opposition to change and innovation, favouring free enterprise is extremely difficult. The free market exists to provide innovation and change - that is why those who support free markets do so, explicitly.
I would argue that when this paradox has been thought about and dealt with effectively, conservatism has been the dominant electoral force in the western world. However, these same paradoxes are now ripping conservatism apart. We see that in Kemi Badenoch’s confused platform; it is obvious in Trump’s embrace of tariffs while talking about turbo charging growth.
In the video, I go over a brief history of conservatism as it relates to its current crisis and try and map some possible ways out for conservatives. I think though, that conservatism is about to enter a real crisis phase, with some rough patches ahead. Whether you think that’s good news or bad, have a listen and let me know your thoughts.
Please subscribe to the Substack if you haven’t already, and also please subscribe to the YouTube channel if you give the video a watch (it helps a huge amount in terms of the algorithm). Thanks again for reading and watching.
I think political conservativism can be boiled down to the preservation of power by those who have it. Linked to this is the preservation of wealth - again by those who have it. Also linked, but of not quite as much importance*, is the preservation of culture / way of life / the ability to continue to act as one is accustomed to doing.
* I say not as important, though obviously there are important exceptions. But it should be recognised that some of the value placed in 'culture' is that it reinforces and reflects the having and exercising of power and wealth. Conservatives have always, again with some exceptions, been willing to change elements of culture in service to continuing to live well.
Having said this, I don't want to sound like I'm saying conservativism is completely ammoral (or immoral). While I think this explains what political conservativism fundamentally is, I'd agree with you that in practice, there is often much more to it than this. Humans need more than money to feel like life is worth living. The philosophical justification for conservativism isn't just guff disguising self-interest. And as you say, when conservatives have managed the contradictions and had an attractive moral and economic mission combined with the above, it can be a great force.
Things which keep and have kept conservatives voting conservative despite Conservative leaders and parties acting in very unconservative ways - habit, hope (self-delusion?), vibes, liking of particular personalities, group-think, social pressure, fear of an alternative - none of these are unique to conservatives.
But recent years have shown very starkly that the proportion of conservatives willing to stand up to radicals trashing everything they supposedly value is not high if those radicals describe themselves as conservatives or act within an established conservative political structure.