Understanding Conservatism: Key Notes and Thinkers

Conservative Origins and Core Values

Conservatism emerged in the late 18th century as philosophers watched the chaos of the French Revolution unfold. Early conservatives believed that societies based purely on reason would fail, leading to suffering rather than the promised liberty and equality.

The ideology rests on several key pillars. Pragmatism means taking a practical "what works" approach rather than following abstract theories. Tradition values customs and institutions passed down through generations - as Chesterton put it, "Tradition is the democracy of the dead." Human imperfection assumes people are flawed and have limited abilities to govern themselves effectively.

Conservatives also believe in an organic society where everyone has different roles within a natural hierarchy. Property ownership provides security and maintains order, whilst empiricism suggests changes should be based on proven experience rather than untested ideas.

Key Point: Modern conservatism isn't just one ideology - it's evolved into authoritarian, paternalistic, one nation, neo-conservative, neo-liberal, and libertarian branches, each emphasising different aspects of these core values.

Conservative Views on Human Nature, Society, and Economy

Most conservatives share a pessimistic view of human nature, seeing people as fallible and weak. However, they disagree on the details: Hobbes viewed humans as purely selfish and power-hungry, whilst Burke saw them as flawed but capable of goodness through community bonds.

Regarding society, traditional conservatives favour a paternalistic approach where natural hierarchies exist for everyone's benefit. The state should act like a caring parent, protecting citizens through moderate social reforms. New Right conservatives reject this organic view, seeing society as a collection of individuals pursuing their own rational goals.

On economic matters, all conservatives agree that private property is a fundamental right and capitalism creates wealth most effectively. However, traditional conservatives support pragmatic state intervention - including welfare systems and mixed economies - to prevent the worst effects of unregulated capitalism. New Right conservatives prefer minimal state involvement, trusting free markets to reward hard work through "trickle-down" benefits.

Remember: These internal tensions show that conservatism adapts to changing circumstances rather than following rigid doctrine - a perfect example of pragmatism in action.

Thomas Hobbes: The Authoritarian Conservative

Hobbes lived through the English Civil War, which shaped his dark view of humanity. He believed people's primary drive is "power after power" - making them selfish, competitive, and dangerous to each other. Without strong government, life becomes "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short."

His solution was the social contract - people voluntarily give up freedoms to a sovereign with absolute power in exchange for security and stability. This sovereign (preferably a monarch) should control society, law, religion, and the economy completely.

Hobbes argued that only after creating a strong state can economic activity flourish, because the state provides the order and authority needed for people to trust each other enough to make contracts and trade.

Interestingly, Hobbes believed authority comes from the people's consent - they agree to be governed. However, once they've made this choice, the sovereign has almost unlimited power. People only have the right to disobey if their lives are directly threatened.

Exam Tip: Hobbes bridges conservatism and liberalism - he sees humans as rational (liberal idea) but believes they need absolute authority to function properly (conservative idea).

Edmund Burke: The Father of Modern Conservatism

Burke supported the American Revolution but opposed the French Revolution - this wasn't contradictory but showed his principle of "change to conserve." Americans were protecting existing rights, whilst the French were destroying established institutions.

Burke believed in "little platoons" - local communities where traditions and customs develop naturally. He famously said society is "a contract between the dead, the living and those yet to be born," meaning we inherit wisdom from previous generations and have duties to future ones.

His theory of representation argued that MPs shouldn't just follow voters' wishes like puppets. Once elected, representatives should use their judgment to act in constituents' best interests, even if voters disagree at the time.

Burke saw society as organic - developing naturally like a living thing rather than being artificially constructed. Change is inevitable and shouldn't be resisted, but it should be gradual and based on experience rather than abstract theories.

Key Quote: "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation" - Burke understood that societies must adapt to survive, but carefully and gradually.

Michael Oakeshott: The Sceptical Conservative

Oakeshott was deeply suspicious of politicians who claimed they could remake society based on grand ideas. He believed rationalism in politics - trying to perfect society through abstract theories - was dangerous because humans are too limited to understand the world's complexity.

His famous phrase "to prefer the familiar to the unknown, the actual to the possible" captures conservative scepticism about untested change. Oakeshott argued that localised communities are essential for human survival because they preserve practical knowledge gained through experience.

He proposed a "politics of scepticism" - being deeply suspicious of government attempts to perfect society, as these usually threaten human liberty. Politicians shouldn't try to lead society toward some ideal future but should focus on preserving public order and letting communities develop naturally.

Oakeshott saw the free market as volatile and unpredictable, requiring pragmatic state intervention when necessary. However, this intervention should be based on practical experience rather than theoretical ideas about how economies should work.

Remember: Oakeshott famously described conservatism as "a conversation not an argument" - emphasising gradual discussion over radical debate.

Ayn Rand: The Radical Individualist

Rand developed objectivism - the philosophy that rational selfishness forms the basis of morality. She argued that pursuing your own happiness isn't immoral but represents the highest form of morality, as long as you use reason rather than emotion or faith.

Her view of society was atomistic - she saw no such thing as "society," only collections of individuals pursuing rational self-fulfilment. This puts her at odds with traditional conservatives who believe in organic communities and social obligations.

Rand supported economic libertarianism - complete separation of state and economics. She believed the most talented individuals would naturally become business owners and innovators, creating wealth that benefits everyone. The state should only provide law and order, national security, and protection of free markets.

She completely opposed welfare states, seeing them as unjust restrictions on individual freedom. In her view, people should keep the full product of their own labour rather than being forced to support others through taxation.

Think About It: Rand shows how New Right conservatism can conflict with traditional conservative values - she rejected hierarchy, tradition, and social obligations in favour of pure individualism.

Robert Nozick: The Minimal State Theorist

Nozick argued that taxation is "legalised theft" and that welfare spending creates dependency culture rather than helping people. He believed attempts at social justice through wealth redistribution reduce individuals to slaves serving collective goals.

His vision of society was atomistic like Rand's - geared toward individual self-fulfilment rather than social obligations. However, he thought this would naturally lead to small voluntary communities where like-minded people could live according to their own values and preferences.

Nozick championed natural justice - the idea that justice occurs naturally through free interactions rather than state intervention. This directly opposes social justice theories that support government redistribution of wealth to create equality.

His minimal state would only handle law and order, contract enforcement, and protection of person and property. Everything else should be privatised and deregulated, allowing individuals to realise their full potential without government interference.

Nozick had an optimistic view of human nature, seeing people as dignified and rational. He believed in self-ownership - individuals own their bodies, minds, and abilities, so should be free to use them as they choose.

Key Insight: Nozick represents the libertarian extreme of New Right thinking - his minimal state would be far smaller than what most conservatives historically supported.