I tend to believe the problem with ideologies is that they are products of the social, political and economic conditions of their times. As such they reflect the intellectual understanding of these conditions. As conditions change, ideologies risk losing the resonance they originally had or even worse their relevance. I am afraid this is the case of conservatism, and especially classical conservatism.
I came to this topic after reading what traditional conservative thinkers have to say about the chasm that has opened between the conservatism exemplified by the populist base of the Republican Party and classical conservatism. (Of course, there is also a critical appraisal of the new liberalism as exemplified by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.)
As a matter of historical interest, the term conservatism was first used by the French diplomat Francois-Auguste Rene vicomte de Chateaubriand in 1815 when the Bourbon monarchy was restored back to the French throne. However, the intellectual father of conservatism is Edmund Burke, the 18th century British-Irish statesman and intellectual. Burke’s conservatism was premised on the ideas of David Hume and Adam Smith that sentiments, not reason, are the leading factors that explain human behavior.
According to Burke, humans, driven by passion and emotions, are unable to put reason to good and effective use when it comes to building social and political systems. Therefore, the safest course of action is to rely on traditions and existing institutions, such as the family, community, organized religion, and the political order. Practiced traditions and institutions in place reflect the wisdom of past generations and should be changed only gradually and cautiously. This skepticism toward reason, or epistemological modesty (as David Brooks of the New York Times calls it) is behind the conservative resistance to state-led or top-down dictated reforms. That is, any kind of social engineering is fated to fail since we do not understand human nature and, thus we cannot draw any predictable connection between planned reforms and ultimate results.
Classical conservatism does not consider society as a mere collection of individuals but rather as an organic whole whose common good is attained through the selfless contributions of all its members. Because classical conservatism considers human nature to be fallible and fickle, individual discipline is assured by observing the norms of the social, religious, and political authorities. Classical conservatism requires individuals to rely on and live by moral, social and political tradition and accept inequality and social ills as part of an imperfect world and imperfect institutions created as a matter of how nature works. This explains the much wider acceptance of inequities among conservatives to this day.
So, what could go wrong in societies organized under conservative principles? Here is what David Brooks has to say on this question. In real life, conservative epistemological modesty can turn into anti-intellectualism and a contempt for learning and expertise; love of community can turn into xenophobia, parochialism and anti-pluralism; and social change can be regarded as evidence of moral decline. Brett Stephens, the NYT columnist, fears that American conservatism has degenerated to mere anti-liberalism without any viable political message of its own.
There are, however, more fundamental drawbacks that prevent conservatism to stay relevant in an evolving world. Edmund Burke himself believed that economic interests should be subordinated to the conservative social ethic and capitalism should be subordinated to the medieval social tradition. His beliefs were justified. Capitalism survives on constant innovation and creative destruction. It requires societies to adapt demographically, institutionally and technologically in order to thrive. Hence, the gradualist and tentative adaptation conservatism prescribes is unsustainable. Furthermore, capitalism puts the individual’s interests, not society’s, at the center of decision making and optimization. It is the individual’s utility or economic gain that must be maximized. The spillover effects on the whole (community or country) are beyond the immediate concern of the decision rules of capitalist agents (individuals or firms).
There is also tension between conservatism and the needs of modern world. How can conservatism address the need to fight the dangers from climate change or life-threatening pandemics? The response to such global threats requires we upend some traditions or rely on top-down planning and action. Moreover, this approach demands collective action on a scale that only organized governments and science can mount. Conservatism distrusts all these.
Conservative ideals also have come to clash with conservative policies. Conservatism requires that it supports policies that preserve the social fabric, which depends on the well-being of individuals, families, and their communities. Heeding Burke’s concerns, conservatism ought to be first in the effort to offset the deleterious effects of capitalism on the stability of traditions and institutions. Instead, modern-day conservatism is the primary defender of unfettered capitalism. The fear of government inspired and led initiatives and solutions, renders conservatism incapable of fighting the corrosive effects of economic interests on the things it values the most: stability of traditions and social infrastructure.
Finally, conservatism can stand in the way of social and political progress. The traditions it finds defensible may be the result of ill-conceived ideas about equality of races, genders and people in general. Or they may be the result of ill-gotten power concentrated in the hands of the few. Such were the traditions and powers the French Revolution rallied against. The pursuit of equality through radical than incremental means was the purpose of the American Civil War. Conservative gradualism and respect for the old can often solidify the unacceptable than work toward social progress.
To remain relevant, conservatism has to accept that the established order of the day is not necessarily the best humanity can achieve. And to guard against the deterioration of the human condition it has to refocus again on the common good of the society as we move on to future challenges.
Let's Reason 