|
I have
often argued that the official right-wing parties are better
described as “right-liberal” parties, rather than conservative ones.
The
argument runs as follows. The orthodox political philosophy in the
West is liberalism. The basic liberal idea is that we are made human
by our capacity to choose who we are and what we do through our own
individual will and reason. However, this philosophy leaves us as
atomised individuals each pursuing our own individual desires. So
liberals have to provide some account of how a society made up of
millions of such self-seeking individuals can hold together.
There
have been many answers. Some philosophers, for instance, have argued
that people are naturally good, so that if you take away distorting
social constraints, the result will be a more harmonious society.
But the
two most influential answers are those belonging to the left and
right wing of politics. The classical (right-wing) liberals believed
that society could be successfully regulated by the hidden hand of
the free market. Even if people acted selfishly for their own
profit, the free market would maintain a balance for the progress of
society as a whole.
The “new
liberals” (left-liberals), however, rejected the market solution.
They believed that a society could be regulated in a more
deliberately rational way by the state. Beatrice Webb explained this
new approach clearly in 1928, when discussing the politics of
herself and her husband, Sidney, compared to their recently deceased
friend R.B. Haldane:
“What
bound us together was our common faith in a deliberately organised
society – our belief in the application of science to human
relations, with a view of betterment. Where we clashed was that he
believed more than we did in the existing governing class … whilst
we held by the common people, served by an elite of unassuming
experts, who would appear no different in status from the common
men.”
So the
clash of politics over the last one hundred years has not been about
political fundamentals, but about different solutions to the liberal
problem of “regulating individual wills”.
The
so-called conservative parties, in reality right-liberal parties,
have generally stood for an economic view of man, and a desire to
maintain a free market (for instance, through economic deregulation
and privatisation). In theory, the right-liberal parties have wanted
to limit the role of the state, and so have been more sympathetic to
the role of “civil” institutions like the family in providing
“services”.
All of
which brings us to the new leader of the British Conservative Party,
David Cameron. He has been in the news since his ascent to the
leadership because of his claim to be creating a “compassionate
conservatism”.
The
first thing to note about Cameron’s policy speeches is that he is
happy to describe his politics, and that of his party, as being
liberal. For instance, he has
called for
the creation of “a modern, progressive, liberal, mainstream
opposition to Labour”. He has also said that “today we have a
Conservative Party … which wants Britain to be a positive
participant in the EU, as
a champion of liberal values”.
Cameron,
in describing his party as a “champion of liberal values”, is simply
confirming its longstanding role as a right liberal party. He keeps
to this tradition when he further declares that his party “supports
open markets”; is “committed to decentralisation and localism”; and
wants to strengthen “our economy by freeing the creators of wealth,
especially small businesses, to create the jobs and prosperity we
need.”
However,
there is no doubt that Cameron has made some shifts leftward in his
party’s policies. For instance, both the left and right wing parties
generally support feminism, because both accept the view that we
should not be “limited” in our choices by something we are born
into, such as our sex. Neither the left nor the right wants to
accept that gender might influence our life choices, so both assume
that any disparity in the representation of the sexes must be caused
by an oppressive discrimination.
So on
fundamentals the left and right are united on feminist issues.
However, it’s been more typical of the left to want to impose quotas
to enforce “equality”. The right generally shies away from formal
quotas because what’s more important in a market setting is equality
of opportunity rather than outcome.
It’s
significant, therefore, that Cameron has stated that his party
“would aim to select women candidates for at least half the 140
target seats at the next election”. This is more in the style of
left-liberal quotas, rather than a typical right-liberalism.
Cameron
has also adapted to the left-liberal style in his emphasis on social
justice and quality of life. The right liberal parties have
typically viewed man primarily in his economic aspect, because they
view the market as the mechanism by which human freedom is
expressed.
Left-liberals usually don’t see life in such narrowly economic
terms, with some even prepared to champion the idea of economic
“downshifting”.
That
Cameron wishes to reposition his party in this area is clear, not
only from the fact that he has established social justice and
quality of life policy groups, but also from his statements on the
environment, such as the following:
“too
often, we’ve allowed the impression to develop that we Conservatives
are supporters of economic growth at all costs … The impression that
we put the needs of big business before the future of the planet …
Well as someone who regularly uses both four wheels and two … and
who believes in wealth creation but also that business has vital
social and environmental responsibilities ... I say … join me in my
mission to put green politics at the top of the national and
international agenda.”
Finally,
right-liberal parties have generally sought to win office by
appealing to genuinely conservative rank and file voters. Cameron
has moved decisively against this usual right-wing policy, and has
made it clear he is aiming for the left-wing vote, even at the cost
of alienating conservatives.
This is
most obvious in his willingness to put down white men, such as when
he declared that “We will reflect the country we aspire to govern,
and the sound of modern Britain is a complex harmony, not a male
voice choir”.
Similarly, his decision to drop the worker registration scheme,
which controls the number of immigrants from former Eastern Bloc
countries, shows a readiness to ignore the preferences of rank and
file conservatives.
Will
Cameron’s leftward move work? This I don’t claim to know. But one
thing it will do is to open up a space in British politics. If
Cameron is no longer making an appeal to rank and file
conservatives, then there is room for some other party to do so.
Perhaps there will be a chance for a more genuinely conservative
party to emerge in Britain.
Related article:
The
confusion of right liberals
|