There were four of us huddled in a corner of the coffee shop, each clutching a warm beverage as the rain was beating down outside the window. Retreating to coffee shops had become a regular occasion for us and on this particular occasion the topic was Conservatism. One of my companions held that Conservatism was now non-existent in modern society because the values that its founding members espoused were no longer in line with those of the modern party. This is hardly an uncommon view, with the likes of former Conservative MP, turned Independent, Rory Stewart, expressing similar views about the party’s neglect of ideological values in modern times. Indeed, some express that, in practice, the party appears to stand for nothing. However, my companion’s core point was not of political action within the 21st century but rather rested with Thatcherism and the ‘Thatcherite Revolution’. My companion held that these Thatcherite morals are more revolutionary and transformative than traditional Conservative roots would hold. I rebutted his claims that there is no such thing as Conservatism in modern society, on the basis that it is short-slighted to believe that a political ideology would always stay exactly the same and not develop with time. If we are really to consider the ideological minutia, we can see that it is natural for new strands of an ideology to develop. For example, take Liberalism, in the late-18th and early-19th centuries Liberalism came in the form of Classical Liberalism. Later these ideas developed in the late-20th century to Neoliberalism – and that is not to mention the forms of Social Liberalism that are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I then realised that we had found ourselves with the philosophical dilemma that poses the question; if I replace all the parts of a ship, one by one, over time, is it the same ship? If political ideologies, as products of a particular period, shift and change over time, can we claim them to still be that same political ideology? Must we always specify 19th century Conservatism and 21st century Conservatism, just as we identify Disraeli’s ‘One Nation Conservatism’? Regarding my companion’s assertion about Thatcher being ‘too revolutionary’ for Conservatism, I felt this an interesting view as many would perceive quite the opposite. Many would argue that Thatcher spearheaded a return of more forceful Conservative values in Britain, where post-war consensus politics had strayed from it. Indeed many Conservatives today hold Thatcher up as their ideological inspiration. For example, in the 2022 Conservative leadership election, winner, Liz Truss, was portrayed as a modern-day Thatcher, as well as other prominent Conservative politicians in the race, such as Jeremy Hunt, expressing Thatcherite influence. Conversely, my companion asserted that Margaret Thatcher was not true to traditional Conservatism due to the fact that she ‘revolutionised’ Britain, a concept incompatible with traditional Conservative values. For me, this is a questionable argument with a somewhat tenuous explanation of logic, due to the fact that Thatcher aimed for a return to traditional values in line with Victorian morals where the political tide had strayed into new territory. Of course, she was not fully successful in everything she aimed to achieve, such as decentralisation of the state in every way, and promoting a society that displayed Victorian frugality. However, one can assert that this is how modern society at the time received her traditional Conservatism. Although it must be acknowledged that she brought with her politics, modern influences and political developments, most nobly Neoliberalism, with policies such as monetarism. This piece of writing will consider whether Conservatism can still exist in the modern world, whether it has simply developed, or rather changed too much. We shall consider whether, perhaps we need to acknowledge the differences, and recognise that political ideologies change throughout time and that new strands develop. Thus, when it comes to political ideologies, comparison with the past may not be the best approach.
There is no doubt that the modern age has come to equate Conservatism with economically liberal ideologies including Neoliberalism. Both are right-wing ideologies that have been married together, and economic views of Conservatives are seen to be those in line with Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is a product of the earlier Classical Liberalism, a form of economic liberalism that developed in the late 18th and 19th century. Many of its messages are in line with Neoliberalism, for example the emphasis on laissez-faire economics and limited state intervention. Thus, surely if we are to assert whether Neoliberalism is compatible with traditional Conservatism, we must consider the the founding fundamentals of Conservatism and Liberalism (that initially created Classical Liberalism). However, as we consider the distinctions, you will then see, reader, why strong reliance upon ideological roots is not so very helpful in understanding political theory today. What fundamentally overarches the ideologies is that Liberalism is scepticism of government power, as it sees it as oppressive towards individuals’ freedoms, and therefore seeks to reduce government control. However, of course there are levels at which government authority is seen as necessary. What portrays the divide between Liberalism and Conservatism best for me was what Roger Scruton asserts in his book, ‘The Meaning of Conservatism’. He argues that the distinction between the two is that Liberalism focuses on individual liberty whilst Conservatism emphasises tradition and the established authority of government structures. Meaning, whereas Liberalism is about government structures fitting the individual, Conservatism is about the individual adhering to government structures; the individual is not the focus but rather the result. Therefore, revolutions that disregard pre-existing tradition and government structures would not be in line with the Conservative point of view. Indeed, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Conservatism rejected revolutionary change and wanted to preserve traditional monarchical structures. Thus, clearly anything revolutionary is not in line with Conservative values. However, ‘revolutionary’ has come to be used more broadly in the modern day. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, revolution was only known as something that sought to change government structures bringing about a completely new system. That was what the Conservatives rebutted; a very specific type of ‘revolution’. Now something that is ‘revolutionary’ is simply a great change from its current state, it doesn’t even have to have immediate results; it might be a slower development, but with huge change in the long term. This change of definition alters the path of political ideologies, and is the crux of why we cannot rely on past definitions to make analysis’ about more modern politics. To return to the ‘revolutionary changes’ of Thatcher, this was not the type of revolution that traditional Conservatives knew existed when they criticised the process. Indeed, Thatcher wanted to return to traditional values through her ‘revolution’, because since the early 19th century, other revolutionary changes had taken place, and moved away from tradition. Whether you agree or disagree with her policies, I’d say it’s clear that what Thatcher brought was new and didn’t preserve traditional structures in many ways. Thus, one could say this broke with the Conservatism that had developed in the early 19th century, but her context was different; the modern world wouldn’t allow traditional Conservatism to exist. It does appear that Conservatism today has a more blurred distinction from forms of Liberalism, whereas previously there was more tension. However, that tension came from factors specific to the time that are no longer present to cause friction; a very specific type of revolution that goes to the heart of government. However, we can see that Conservatism can still be a distinctive ideology in placing emphasis upon tradition and authority to a greater extent than that of fully Liberal ideologies would. Simply because there is overlap between the two does not deny the existence of one. Just because the differences are less stark in our current political climate, as we lack an issue that highlights said differences as clearly does not mean there are no differences. An ideology’s characteristics may not be exactly the same as what they were two centuries ago, but that is hardly surprising. This leads me onto a wider question.
This is where the question does not become whether Conservatism still exists, but rather whether we should be clinging to the particulars of political ideology in an ever-changing world. It’s clear that political ideologies change with time, in fact it’s inevitable; they cannot stay true to original doctrine and there will be overlap between various different strands of political thought. This doesn’t only apply across time but also across space and nations. Even the word ‘liberal’ can mean something different in different countries. For example, to identify as a ‘liberal’ in the US would be to identify as socially liberal, which is the left-wing version of liberalism. Whereas, in France, if you say ‘uber liberal’ it is perceived as very right-wing laissez-faire capitalism; economic liberalism. Ironically, this is a term that the French would apply to US politics. If we are to use ideological distinctions as a useful tool to better enable us to understand politics, we must recognise the lack of rigidity within ideologies that span across time and space. We cannot apply 19th century Conservatism today, just as: we cannot apply US Conservatism to Britain, assuming that because of the word ‘Conservatism’ it must be the same. Categorising political thought can be helpful in grasping understanding, but let us not forget that politics is incredibly varied within these categories; consider Liberal Conservatism and Fiscal Conservatism, One Nation Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Social Liberalism and Neoliberalism. There’s no doubt that political ideologies are complex and with sometimes hazy boundaries; but when using them to gain understanding, we must at least try and consider with these intricacies so as not to be further confused.