"Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself"
- Quintin Hogg, chairman of the British Conservative Party in 1959.
Vox populi, vox dei?
The split between left and right, or indeed socialism and conservatism, has defined politics at home and abroad for centuries now. Of course - or so history would tell us - the modern demarcations of left and right were originally to signify the seating of the Ancien Régime in France. The aristocracy would sit on the benches to the right, and thus ‘right-wing’ came to signify aristocratic and royalist interests.
What can we say for the conservatives today, though? A political school split by playground-esque in-fighting over Europe, trade and borders. The EU leave/remain division revealed, or at least sharpened, a chasmic separation that has exacerbated negative perceptions of the Tory party. David Cameron faded away, George Osborne followed suit through the exit door (although he did open the door on to six/seven other jobs), and it seems other limbs of the Tory body are now fraying.
However, much of this is, fortunately or unfortunately, journalistic rhetoric perpetuated by tabloids and broadsheets. The values of self-determination, economic and social responsibility, individual liberty, market prosperity, property rights and freedom from a nanny state remain as vital as ever as paragons of optimism.
The Tory movement epitomizes these virtues. A firm belief in managing one’s own social and financial affairs, socioeconomic growth, improvement, competition and free trade. From Burke to Disraeli, through to Hayek and Thatcher, the audacity of believing in the individual as the primary driver of wealth, success and well-being has become the raison d’être of many a Tory champion (as well as many of those neutral mugwumps).
Margaret Thatcher injected the idea of ‘no such thing as society’ into the mainstream political lexicon, but the phrase is - sadly - misused, misunderstood and misplaced. Thatcher was not discrediting the merits of societal values, or the protection of groups and communities, but rather was focusing on the great power of the individual in terms of securing a thriving livelihood as the organism without which these external groups would be unimaginable. Indeed, what would society be without its individuals other than a vague, intangible notion?
Thatcher’s insidious mistake, however, was overextending the logic of the free market to the wrong realms. A quasi-religious attachment to market liberalism, even in areas such as healthcare and education, was the diamond blade that cut through the Iron Lady.
When David Cameron famously – or infamously – rephrased Thatcher with ‘there is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state’, our former PM was carefully writing the new hymn sheet for the Tory choir. One that simultaneously espouses the merits of free-market capitalism and individualism, whilst ensuring the society we create blossoms as a corollary. To distinguish between society and the state in such a soundbite was rather novel from a standpoint of liberalism. Throughout Mr Cameron’s tenure as both leader of the opposition and Prime Minister, it was the arguments on the state that exacerbated the fractured landscape.
The debates over the collective and the individual, philosophically speaking, run much deeper than party politics, though. The cultural tone of society for centuries relates to the compromise, or disagreement, between the individual and the collective (consider Lorca's Blood Wedding, Satre's Nauseau or Camus' L'Etranger). One automatically reflects on the classical liberal thinkers such as John Stuart Mill in this regard, whose opposition to ever-encroaching customs, regulations and conventions as dictators of individual life was a powerful fuel against unwanted - or unneeded - government intervention.
The magnum opus of On Liberty set the dramatic stage for British liberalism and, more generally, contemporary conservatism. A belief in the individual as the primary agent in matters concerning his or her self – with the harm principle guiding this – formed a picture of human affairs and political action that continues to inform modern decision-making, within the Cabinet and beyond.
The Left often misunderstand conservatives. The reason for this is not because they are lacking in intellectual capacity (in fact, Labour’s ideological forefathers are often viewed as some of the most intelligent individuals the world has seen), but rather a dispute over what conservatism actually means. This is in large part due to the contested, fluid and malleable notions of the Tory movement in terms of policy.
Yet here in lies the beauty of conservatism. It is not so much a deficit of firm belief, clear direction or clear definition, but rather a refusal to strictly advocate any type of rigid ideology, regulation, generalization or interference with our individual lives. The flexibility of conservatism as a driver of human affairs has allowed it to stand strong over the ages - nobly suffering the strings and arrows of the tyranny of the majority, and continuing to prevail.
The ‘secret’ of conservatism, ignoring the crassness of such wording for a moment, may simply be that it allows for flexible reshaping and organic growth (a loaded term, I realize). Logically, though, if the individual is the key driver of his or her own path and life trajectory, then it follows that there is no actual need for an extensive, overly paternalistic government intervention where personal affairs are concerned. Where an individual is unable to do so - due to reasons of health or circumstance, for example - then this is exactly where the safety of the welfare state should come in. To give you an idea of the role of the welfare state, UK social spending in 2016 amounted to 21.5% of GDP.
The right to property, the right to innocence until proven guilty, habeas corpus and the (admittedly contested) right to freedom of speech are all variations on the great themes of liberalism, individualism and contemporary conservatism.
Stripping back the lofty ideals of monarchy, crown-in-parliament and aristocracy, modern conservatism is simply an opposition to imposing anything unnecessary on the individual by the state.
This is a nebulous claim, however, the successful unity of conservatives and non-conservatives over the years has been the agreement – implicitly or explicitly- that the welfare, wellbeing and happiness of individuals themselves should be the overarching goal.
It is the means by which we achieve it that divides us so bitterly.