On what grounds have conservatives defended private property?
(Qu.3 – 20 marks/15minutes Jan 2008)
Private property is property that individuals have an exclusive legal entitlement to use however they choose. The traditional conservative defence of private property draws on one of three arguments. Property has been seen as a source of personal security in an inherently insecure world (property gives us ‘something to fall back on’). Property has been seen as an exteriorisation on one’s own personality, in the sense that people’s attachment to property (cars, houses, personal possessions) has a powerful psychological and emotional dimension. Property has also been valued as a means of strengthening social values and promoting order, as property owners are more inclined to respect the property of others and therefore more willing to obey and uphold the law. New Right conservatives have nevertheless embraced an essentially liberal view of property based on individual rights and economic incentives. In this view, the right to property is based on hard work or just transfer (inheritance). This view differs from the traditional conservative view in that it suggests that property is merely a right and never an obligation (for example, it does not entail duties towards the larger society or later generations – ‘the family silver’).
To what extent have conservatives supported ‘free market’ capitalism?
(Qu.5 – 60 marks/45minutes Jan 2008)
Free market capitalism is a form of capitalism that is free from government regulation, based on the principle of laissez-faire. Conservative support for free market capitalism has grown through the advance of neoliberalism or the liberal New Right (in the UK, associated with Thatcherism). Rolling-back the state in the interests of the market and economic individualism has, arguably, been the dominant theme in UK and US conservatism since the 1980s, reflected in support for privatisation, deregulation, tax cuts and so on. Such free market policies are underpinned by the core belief that unregulated capitalism tends naturally towards equilibrium, and helps to promote efficiency, incentives and competition. Any form of state intervention can only threaten growth and prosperity, and transfer property unfairly.
On the other hand, paternalistic or One Nation conservatism has rejected free market capitalism on the grounds that it is firmly rooted in unreliable economic theories and it threatens social stability by generating wide inequalities. They have therefore favoured a ‘middle way’ economy, in which the market is regulated by prudent levels of economic and social intervention. Such thinking has had some impact on modern conservatism, which has edged away from, but not broken with, free market thinking.
How, and why, have conservatives objected to social equality?
(Qu.4 - 20 marks/15minutes June 2008)
Traditional conservatives have objected to social equality on the grounds that society is naturally hierarchical. Social equality is therefore undesirable and unachievable, as power, status and property are always unequally distributed. Hierarchy is an inevitable feature of an organic society, not merely a consequence of individual differences. Society is composed of a collection of different groups, bodies and institutions, each with its own role and purpose, just as the body is composed of a collection of different and 'unequal' organs. One Nation conservatives have further argued that the natural inequality of wealth and social position is justified by a corresponding inequality of social responsibilities, as the wealthy and prosperous have a social duty to look after the less well-off.
The liberal New Right, however, has embraced an essentially liberal critique of social equality. This accepts the principle of equality of opportunity (an absurd idea for traditional conservatives), but stresses that individuals should be able to realise their unequal talents and capacity to work. Social equality is therefore rejected on the grounds that it is a form of 'levelling' that treats unalike people alike and damages the economy by removing incentives to work and enterprise.
Why have conservatives supported tradition and continuity, and to what extent do they continue to do so?
(Qu.6 – 60 marks/45minutes June 2008)
Tradition refers to values, practices and institutions that have endured through time and, usually, have been passed down from one generation to the next. Tradition thus represents continuity with the past. Conservatives have supported tradition and continuity on a number of grounds. First, some conservatives have defended tradition on grounds of religious faith. If social customs and practices are regarded as 'God given', human beings should not question or challenge them. Second, the most significant of conservative arguments in favour of tradition is that it reflects the accumulated wisdom of the past. Customs, institutions and practices that have been 'tested by time' have been proved to work. They have survived by benefiting past generations and should be preserved for the benefit of present and future generations. Chesterton described this as a 'democracy of the dead'. Third, tradition helps to uphold social stability, generating a sense of identity for both society and the individual. In this view, the benefit of tradition is that it is familiar and reassuring. For the individual it generates 'rootedness' and belonging; for society it generates cohesion and a common culture.
Neoliberal trends within modern conservatism have departed from traditionalism, however. Neoliberals have supported radical change, in line with their desire to 'roll back' economic and social intervention in the name of the free market and self-sufficient individualism. In a sense, they place reason above tradition in being guided by abstract economic theory rather than a desire for continuity with the past. This may, nevertheless, be a form of reactionary radicalism, as it reflects a desire to 'turn the clock back' to the alleged economic vigour of the laissez-faire nineteenth century. On the other hand, neoconservatives have placed renewed emphasis on tradition, particularly in the defence of so-called ‘traditional values’, needed to give society a clearer moral identity. This is also reflected in a defence of the so-called ‘traditional family’.
Why have conservatives been concerned about moral and cultural diversity?
(Qu.4 – 20 marks/15 minutes Jan 2009)
Conservatives have been concerned about moral and cultural diversity because of their implications for the individual and for the health and stability of society.
• As individuals are psychologically dependent creatures, moral and cultural diversity creates a sense of rootlessness and insecurity, the absence of a stable social framework in which to live.
• This is also reflected in the organic structure of society, based as it is on a fragile balances between and amongst their various parts. The possibility of social breakdown and disorder is therefore ever present. A single culture and a shared morality are thus necessary for any successful and stable society.
• Conservatives therefore emphasise the importance of a shared national (and therefore cultural) identity as well as traditional or established values. Multiculturalism, based on value pluralism, therefore tends to lead towards conflict and weaken society. Permissive societies are also viewed as unstable and morally rootless.
‘Conservatism is a philosophy of human imperfection.’ Discuss.
(Qu.7 – 60 marks/45 minutes Jan 2009)
Conservatism is a philosophy of human imperfection in a variety of sense.
• Conservatives believe that people are psychologically imperfect, in the sense that they are limited and dependent creatures, needing the support of tradition, authority and social stability. This view, however, has become less prominent within conservatism due to the emphasis within the liberal New Right of rugged individualism ('there is no such thing as society' etc).
• People are also considered to be morally imperfect, in the sense that they are driven by non-irrational lusts and impulses, creating the need for ‘tough’ law and order measures. Traditional conservatives have emphasised this view, and it has been reinforced by the conservative New Right in recent years. Nevertheless, One Nation conservatives provide the basis for acknowledging that there are social roots to crime and disorder, suggesting that it cannot all be put down to moral imperfection.
• Finally, conservatives have thought people to be intellectually imperfect. This means that society should rely more on pragmatism and experience than abstract theories. The liberal New Right nevertheless rejects the idea of intellectual imperfection, placing considerable stress on theories and ideas, particularly those associated with free-market economics.
How do the New Right and traditional conservative views of society differ?
(Qu.2 – 20 marks/15minutes June 2009)
Not online
Why, and to what extent, have conservatives supported One Nation principles?
(Qu.5 – 60marks/45minutes June 2009)
Not online
Jan 2010
4) To what extent do traditional conservatives and the New Right differ in their views of society? (15)
· Traditional conservatives adopt an organic view of society. This implies that society works like a living thing, an organism, which is sustained by a fragile set of relationships between and amongst its parts. The whole is therefore more than just its individual parts.
· This implies that the individual cannot be separated from society, but is part of the social groups that nurture him or her, reflecting the dependent and security-seeking tendencies within human nature. Organic societies are fashioned ultimately by natural necessity, and therefore cannot be ‘improved’ by reform or revolution. Indeed, reform or revolution is likely to destroy the delicate fabric of society, creating the possibility of radical social breakdown.
· The liberal New Right, by contrast, adopts an atomistic view of society that is based on the assumption that human beings are self-seeking and largely self-reliant creatures. This view differs substantially from the organicist view, as society consists only of a collection of independent individuals and their families, implying that ‘there is no such thing as society’. Such ‘rugged’ individualism implies that society should afford individuals the greatest possible scope to make their own moral decisions and accept their consequences.
· However, the conservative New Right remains essentially faithful to the organic model. Its emphasis on the importance of authority, established values and national identity is based on organic assumptions.
How have conservatives justified private property?
(Qu.2 – 15 marks June 2010)
Traditional conservatives have justified private property in at least three different ways:
• Property has been seen as a source of security in an uncertain and unpredictable world – something to ‘fall back on’. Property therefore provides individuals with a source of protection – hence the importance of thrift.
• Property ownership also promotes a range of important social values. Those who possess their own property are more likely to respect the property of others, which means that they will be law-abiding and support authority. Property therefore gives people a ‘stake’ in society.
• Property can be seen as an extension of an individual’s personality. People ‘realise’ themselves, even see themselves, in what they own. Possessions are not merely external objects, valued because they are useful, but also reflect something of the owner’s personality and character.
• However, libertarian conservatives and supporters of the liberal New Right have embraced an essentially liberal view of property as something that is ‘earned’. In this view, property represents individual merit (ability and hard work), meaning that property is an absolute right. Such a position contrasts with the traditional conservative belief that property also entails duties.
To what extent do conservatives believe in tradition and continuity?
(Qu.6 – 45 marks June 2010)
• Tradition refers to ideas, practices or institutions that have endured through time and have therefore been inherited from earlier periods. Tradition therefore creates continuity between the past, the present and the future. The issues of tradition and continuity have deeply divided conservatives. Traditional conservatives have placed strong stress on the importance of tradition and continuity, while the New Right, particularly the liberal New Right, has often rejected tradition and continuity.
• Traditional conservatives have extolled the virtues of tradition in a number of ways. For some conservatives, tradition reflects religious faith, being fashioned by God the Creator. Traditional institutions and practices therefore constitute ‘natural law’. A more widely held view portrays tradition as the accumulated wisdom of the past. The institutions and practices of the past have been ‘tested by time’, and should be preserved for the benefit of the living and for generations to come. In this view, society consists of a partnership between the living, those who are dead and those who are to be born. It has also been described as a ‘democracy of the dead’, reflecting the fact that the dead will always outnumber the living. A third advantage of tradition and continuity is that they help to generate, for both society and the individual, a sense of identity. Established customs and practices are ones that individuals can recognise; they are familiar and reassuring. Tradition thus provides people with a feeling of ‘rootedness’ and belonging. Such an emphasis on tradition has meant that traditional conservatives have usually venerated established institutions and been at least cautious about change. Change is a journey into the unknown: it creates uncertainty and insecurity.
• The New Right has significantly revised the relationship between conservatism and tradition, however. The New Right attempts to fuse economic libertarianism (the liberal New Right or neoliberalism) with state and social authoritarianism (the conservative New Right or neoconservatism). As such, it is a blend of radical, reactionary and traditional features. Its radicalism is evident in its robust efforts to dismantle or ‘roll back’ interventionist government and liberal social values. This radicalism is clearest in relation to the liberal New Right, which draws on rational theories and abstract principles, and so dismisses tradition. New Right radicalism is nevertheless reactionary in that both the liberal and conservative New Right hark back to a 19 th century ‘golden age’ of supposed economic prosperity and moral fortitude. However, the conservative New Right also makes an appeal to tradition, particularly through its emphasis on so-called ‘traditional values’.
Jan 2011
5) On what grounds have conservatives supported tradition and continuity? (15)
Tradition refers to ideas, practices and institutions that have endured through time and have therefore been inherited from an earlier period. Tradition thus establishes continuity between present generations, past generations and future generations.
There are various conservative justifications for tradition and continuity. These include the following:
· Tradition has been justified on the grounds that it has been tried and tested by history, having proved its value to the larger society by its capacity to survive. In this view, traditions are more reliable than abstract theories as guides to action.
· Tradition and continuity are psychologically reassuring, generating a sense of stability and belonging precisely because they are familiar.
· In some cases, tradition has been justified on religious grounds, linked to the idea that inherited practices and institutions are ‘God given’.
The intellectual skills relevant to this question are as follows:
· The ability to analyse and explain conservative arguments in favour of tradition and continuity.
Level 3 (11-15 marks)
· Full and developed knowledge and understanding of relevant institutions, processes, political concepts, theories or debates.
· Good or better ability to analyse and explain political information, arguments and explanations.
· Sophisticated ability to construct and communicate coherent arguments, making good use of appropriate vocabulary.
Jan 2010
6) ‘Conservatism favours pragmatism over principle.’ Discuss. (45)
Pragmatism is the belief that behaviour should be shaped in accordance with practical circumstances and goals rather than principles, beliefs or ideological objectives.
· Traditional conservatives have undoubtedly favoured pragmatism over principle. The basis for this position is the belief that human beings are intellectually limited. The world is simply too complicated for human reason to fully grasp, hence the belief that the political world is ‘boundless and bottomless’. Traditional conservatives are therefore suspicious of abstract ideas and systems of thought that claim to understand what is simply incomprehensible. They prefer to ground their ideas in tradition, experience and history, adopting a cautious, moderate and above all pragmatic approach to the world, and avoiding, if at all possible, doctrinaire or dogmatic beliefs. Principles such as ‘rights of man’, ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’ are fraught with danger because they provide a blueprint for the reform or remodelling of the world, and all such blueprints are unreliable. Pragmatism thus ensures that ‘the cure is not worse than the disease’.
· This emphasis on pragmatism can be illustrated by the development of the One Nation tradition. As deepening social inequality contains the seeds of revolution, conservatives came to recognise that prudent social reform was the best protection against the danger of popular insurrection. A pragmatic concern to alleviate poverty is therefore in the interests of the rich and prosperous.
· However, the rise of the liberal New Right challenges this emphasis on pragmatism. The liberal New Right adopts a principled belief in economic liberty and the free market, borne out of a commitment to economic liberalism and thus a rationally-based approach to politics. This, in turn, significantly altered the conservative approach to change, New Right conservatives being much more inclined to endorse radical reform on the basis of the ideological blueprint that had been provided by free-market economics. This was evident in attempts by conservatives since the 1980s to ‘roll back the state’. Some, nevertheless, explain this anti-statist turn in conservative politics in terms of pragmatism, seeing it as partly motivated by the failure of economic and social intervention to deliver sustained economic growth.
June 2010 qu.6
To what extent do conservatives believe in tradition and continuity? (45 marks)
Tradition refers to ideas, practices or institutions that have endured through time and have therefore been inherited from earlier periods. Tradition therefore creates continuity between the past, the present and the future. The issues of tradition and continuity have deeply divided conservatives. Traditional conservatives have placed strong stress on the importance of tradition and continuity, while the New Right, particularly the liberal New Right, has often rejected tradition and continuity.
• Traditional conservatives have extolled the virtues of tradition in a number of ways. For some conservatives, tradition reflects religious faith, being fashioned by God the Creator. Traditional institutions and practices therefore constitute ‘natural law’. A more widely held view portrays tradition as the accumulated wisdom of the past. The institutions and practices of the past have been ‘tested by time’, and should be preserved for the benefit of the living and for generations to come. In this view, society consists of a partnership between the living, those who are dead and those who are to be born. It has also been described as a ‘democracy of the dead’, reflecting the fact that the dead will always outnumber the living. A third advantage of tradition and continuity is that they help to generate, for both society and the individual, a sense of identity. Established customs and practices are ones that individuals can recognise; they are familiar and reassuring. Tradition thus provides people with a feeling of ‘rootedness’ and belonging. Such an emphasis on tradition has meant that traditional conservatives have usually venerated established institutions and been at least cautious about change. Change is a journey into the unknown: it creates uncertainty and insecurity.
• The New Right has significantly revised the relationship between conservatism and tradition, however. The New Right attempts to fuse economic libertarianism (the liberal New Right or neoliberalism) with state and social authoritarianism (the conservative New Right or neoconservatism). As such, it is a blend of radical, reactionary and traditional features. Its radicalism is evident in its robust efforts to dismantle or ‘roll back’ interventionist government and liberal social values. This radicalism is clearest in relation to the liberal New Right, which draws on rational theories and abstract principles, and so dismisses tradition. New Right radicalism is nevertheless reactionary in that both the liberal and conservative New Right hark back to a 19th century ‘golden age’ of supposed economic prosperity and moral fortitude. However, the conservative New Right also makes an appeal to tradition, particularly through its emphasis on so-called ‘traditional values’.
