Translating Burke: How the Conservative Party can overcome its crisis

Edmund Burke, the ‘founder of modern conservatism’. Photo: Roger Marks (Flickr)

The Conservative Party is in a crisis, there’s no doubt about that. Apart from the polls – Labour has taken a 12 point lead – the party seems unable to cope with a serious identity crisis, a crisis that makes one think of the fundamental questions the Republican Party in the United States is currently facing.

So how to characterize this identity crisis? In an article for the Spectator philosopher Roger Scruton argues, reacting on the recently published books Britannia Unchained and Tory Modernisation 2.0, that the conservatives are having trouble formulating a coherent and genuine ”conservative” philosophy. The so called modernisers, including David Cameron, are leading the party to ”a new kind of conservatism which conserves nothing, changes everything, and is guided by the very same rhetoric of equality (the Conservative Party website says on equality: ‘We want a fairer society and will use every lever to tear down barriers that prevent equality’) and human rights that shapes the left-liberal agenda.” The modernisers, Scruton says, don’t seem to understand that their efforts to reformulate the conservative philosophy are actually counterproductive.

But the attempt to modernize the Conservative Party does not mean making it ‘2.0’, ‘innovative’ and ‘fresh and colourful’. Neither does it mean that some sort of post-modern conservative agenda has to be developed. It does mean however, that conservative principles, rooted and clearly traceable in British history, must be reformulated and translated to our century.

In reformulating, the Conservatives are confronted with the fact that their philosophy is not like that of other parties. Labour has had it’s Clause IV and the Liberal Democrats too value their party constitution. For the Conservative Party however, a constitution or a pamphlet has a different, less fundamental, meaning. The American political theorist and historian Russell Kirk (1918-1994) wrote that conservatism ”being neither a religion nor an ideology…possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata.”

Where to start then? From the very beginning, I would say, without ignoring both the history of conservatism and the realities of the twenty-first century. The eighteenth-century statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke (1729-1797) is generally considered to be the father of (British) conservatism, and it is Burke that the Conservative Party shoud take as a starting point.

In order to understand Burke properly, one needs to keep in mind that (and this is self-evident yet of crucial importance) that the eighteenth century differs in almost everything from modern times and this requires a translation of his ideas. Conservatives tend to forget that ideas are no ‘solid rocks’, that they do not exist in isolation and that their meaning changes over time.

What is Burke’s philosophy all about? Without popularizing his thought, it comes down to the following statement made by Burke in the House of Commons:

Combine devotion to liberty with respect to authority; hope for the future with reverence for the past; support of party with service of the nation; profound patriotism with sincere goodwill to all the vincinage of mankind; essential moderation with zealous enthusiasm; a sane conservatism with cautious reform.

The first ‘object of translation’ that the Conservative Party should derive from Burke’s philosophy, is his notion of constructive change. Constructive change means that one needs to be very careful with reform, whether it’s economic, legal or political. Take the issue of gay marriage which many people experienced as an attempt to ”enforce social equality” upon the nation. The Burkean conservative would stress the importance of public support or opposition in this matter. Issues that lead to great turmoil, such as gay marriage or the European Union, should either be left alone in order to let time do its work or seen as long-term matters. Change must be organic. At the same time change as a political term has changed : the change Burke talked about cannot be compared with what we see in our century. Translating Burke’s constructive change therefore means two things: seeing cautious reform or gradual development as the cornerstone of policy making, but also acknowledging that social hierarchies and traditional orders do change, and sometimes even rapidly in this century, whether you like it or not.

Burke believed that the state ”ought not be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern…” and he stated that the end of government is the welfare of the nation. The Conservative Party should turn to the idea of the state again with Burke’s central thoughts as a guide. Burke believed in the classical liberal laissez-faire economics of Adam Smith, but he would also admit, if we interpret his philosophy properly, that a libertarian stance towards government, markets and people in a  globalised, interconnected, world of multinationals and NGO’s would contradict his conservatism, which sees the role of the state as something more fundamental than just a ‘sleeping regulator’. Translating Burke’s notion of government to the 2013 reality therefore means moving away from libertarian politics without embracing an articial ‘planning and control’ view. This is not necessarily incompatible with Big Society, the Conservative Party greatest tribute to Burke (despite it’s failed execution).

Reinterpreting the state also means reviewing the market. The Conservative Party should develop a critique on the market (‘the’ referring here to the larger companies and banks) based on a moral premise (something which the Christian Democratic party in the Netherlands tried to do during the last Dutch general elections), as formulated by Burke: ”…liberty with respect to authority”. Burke always stressed the importance of virtue and moral consciousness, just as much as liberty. Moral critique provides an opening to critize the market without advocating state regulation, and it may help get rid of the Conservatives’ toxic image. In this sense the crisis makes it the right time (constructive change) to let Burke colide with Thatcher.

Last, Burke had a great disposition for spiritual values and he saw religion as an essential element in society. Cameron sees this as well but the problem is that the Conservatives can’t bring about a message that makes non-material values and religion not an object of mockery but  a means for living a good, virtuous and happy live. It could also provide the Tories with a language that goes beyond the pure political and sees a party as more than a mangerial organisation, something which Burke maybe more than any other politician in his time expressed.

In conclusion, translating Burke for the Conservatives means acknowledging the rapidness of change in our modern age as well as the significance of constructive change, perceiving the different meaning of state and market in modern, post-industrial society as the ‘adapting’ Burke would have seen them, and stressing the importance of spiritual values in an increasingly materialistic world.

Daniel Boomsma is an Associate Editor of Politiker

One Nation is the right direction for Labour

Photo: Plashing Vole (Flickr)

At the last general election under Gordon Brown, Labour failed to convince the electorate that it was the party to lead Britain. Despite re-branding the Conservatives, Cameron fell short of achieving an overall majority, but through a deal with Nick Clegg gained the keys to Number 10.

Three years on from the last general election, we have seen the Coalition government move from crisis to crisis. Osborne’s ‘omnishambles’ budget, a double dip recession and recently the loss of Britain’s coveted triple A credit rating. Recent polls have shown Labour to be leading the Tories by double digits, however even with poll leads and the poor economy commentators have highlighted that Labour, with a void of policy and clear direction, have nothing to offer.

Some refer back to Neil Kinnock; citing his poll leads prior to 1992 general election. Indeed, polls at this stage rarely reflect the final outcome of general elections.

Stepping aside from speculation, it is clear that three years on, the Labour Party under Ed Miliband has remained united and stable. This stability at the autumn Labour Party conference was further reinforced; Ed Miliband boldly answered his critics by re-branding Labour under his One Nation vision. A move which enabled him to rid himself once and for all of the ‘red Ed’ label, and firmly demonstrate the direction he wishes to take the nation.

The party has admitted its past mistakes, and the electorate are warming to Labour’s message. With a policy review starting to produce results, if communicated with the right policies the One Nation vision will continue to move Labour in the right direction.

However the One Nation vision may not be sufficient alone. Labour must improve the campaign on the ground. Getting their message across to voters in every marginal seat, putting the coalition cuts and people’s experiences at the centre of their argument.

Ed Miliband has done a great job in cutting ties with Labour’s past, but what he must now do is to convince the public that Britain will be better under his One Nation vision. This will not be an easy task, but with the economy in free fall and the coalition cuts beginning to bite, this is the perfect moment to lay out an alternative plan for Britain.

Martin Edobor writes about health and foreign policy. Follow on Twitter @martinedobor

The uncomfortable truth about the Left’s ‘monopoly’ on caring

The most caring way to spend £2.50? Photo: Rohit Sharma (Flickr)

Accusations of ‘champagne socialism’ are not legitimate arguments against those who advocate a larger state. But they do put pay to fallacious myths of right-wingers exclusive ‘selfishness’, writes Daniel Pryor.

In all probability, you have at some point preferred sipping a skinny latte to saving a dying African child. In fact, if you have ever drunk a cup of coffee, at any point, you have irrefutably demonstrated your callous disregard for the preservation of human life. That £2.50 could have been donated to any number of charities that effectively save lives: contributing to the search for a cure for AIDS, sending food aid to alleviate starvation in the developing world, or supplying mosquito nets to malaria-ridden countries. Through a gross, inhuman act of negligence, you have explicitly demonstrated that you value a cup of coffee above a human life.

The above assertion – that buying coffee (or indeed any selfish indulgence) reveals a demonstrated preference in that particular instance for self-satisfaction over charity – is valid. However, the accompanying ‘think of the children’ guilt-trip that one so often hears from the self-proclaimed ‘champions-of-the-oppressed’ on the Left is not. Such frequent intimations of right-wingers’ exclusive greed, sanctimoniously spat out by socialist commentators (think Polly Toynbee, Laurie Penny, Seumus Milne), are hypocritical in the extreme. The cold, hard truth is that all but the most hardcore of egalitarians must admit to conducting themselves with a degree of selfishness; like the rest of us, they too have stooped to the base level of living in excess of necessity.

According to the Left’s own (flawed) proletarian logic, buying a cup of coffee from Evil Capitalists Inc. does not benefit the poorest in society. Instead, it is supposedly a naked exploitation of the workers that produced said coffee. Those who consume the luxuries that they themselves declare to be wasteful are providing rope with which to hang themselves, if ever they should criticise right-wing greed. At what point does living beyond essential requirement become self-indulgence? Is there an acceptable level of poverty at which one can pack up and go home, satisfied that quotas for saving the poor have been met? Apparently so. Some profligacy is apparently fine, but we should raise taxes and welfare slightly because forcing people to be a little less selfish would be lovely.

Greed is admittedly a relative concept, as well as an absolute one. It is absolute in that any consumption above the absolute minimum for sustaining life is, by definition, more than necessary. Equally, one can legitimately argue that Starbuck’s tax avoidance is greed on a grander scale than a Guardianista indulging in a cup of Starbuck’s coffee (ignoring, of course, the positive ramifications of such tax avoidance). But those who advocate freer markets and reducing the size of the state are often not greedy in the relative sense. Various studies have shown that in recent history, government welfare has ‘crowded-out’ private donations. New Deal government spending reduced charitable activity within churches, post-Second World War increases in US government spending reduced charitable giving, and contemporary analysis of the German welfare state indicates that increased welfare spending engenders a ‘significant…crowding-out of private philanthropy’. Milton and Rose Friedman summarised this phenomenon in ‘Free to Choose: A Personal Statement’:

‘We believe that one of the greatest costs of our present [American] welfare system is that it…poisons the springs of private charitable action.’

Therefore, reducing compulsory transfer payments (welfare) to the poorest in society actually incentivises individuals to contribute more directly through voluntary private charity. Freeing markets encourages the proliferation of not-for-profit, charitable organisations: encouraging more people to voluntarily choose to help others. The beauty of free market capitalism is as well as harnessing self-interest as a productive force for the betterment of society, it also motivates those who’s natural desire to do good of their own accord is depersonalised and superseded by the state.

‘Right-wing’ is not a synonym for selfish and ‘left-wing’ is not a synonym for selfless. This pernicious and false dichotomy, espoused daily on the comment sections of news websites and across social media, replaces genuine intellectual debate with crude caricatures and ad hominem attacks. The free market may allow you to pursue a materialistic lifestyle, but it certainly does not force you to.

Daniel Pryor writes on political and economic issues from a libertarian perspective. Follow on Twitter @DanielPryorr

Book review: The Conservatives: A History by Robin Harris

”At first sight it does not seem difficult to be a Conservative”, the essayist and journalist Walter Bagehot (1826-1877) once wrote. And indeed he was right. But it will occur to those who study conservatism thoroughly that it is only ”at first sight” that conservatism seems a simple way of thinking. Being a conservative is not an easy business. It asks for a different view on politics, one that is not less complex than a liberal or socialist outlook. And above all, it requires a thorough understanding of one’s own history.

In his The Conservatives: A History Robin Harris shows what it means to be a conservative. At the same time his book is an elaborate history of the Conservative Party, though Harris is not particularly interested in organisational matters. Conservatives with a small c, as Harris defines them (though he finds Michael Oakeshott’s definition ”the single best”), are in favour of keeping the country recognizable in its identity and secure in its future, an echo it seems of Edmund Burke who had ”a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve.”

Starting with the Tory beginnings in the eighteenth-century, with the eloquent and ‘philosophical’ Burke – a politician is a philosopher in action, Burke stated – the practical William Pitt the younger, Robert Peel and the consistent Derby, Harris accurately illustrates the rise of the oldest and most successful political party in, arguably, Europe.

The success of the Conservative Party was not self-evident however. By the mid/end of the nineteenth-century, Harris points out, a majority of political commentators were convinced of the fact that the liberals and later the socialists or Labour movement would ultimately be victorious, simply because they ”understood their time better”. The liberals had their democracy, and the socialists a growing working class.

But commentators proved to be wrong. Harris shows that it was because of their great leaders that the Conservative party survived. Indeed, their personalities are the key to understanding the Conservative party, a party that is essentially an elective dictatorship. Control lies fully with the leader. Consultation is really a Labour thing.

Disraeli, Lord Salisbury, Baldwin, Thatcher; they all had an appetite to lead and, indeed, lead well. Disraeli set the party on a new path with his one nation politics, the ”fastidious aristocrat” Lord Salisbury achieved real dominance by staying in office for fourteen years, Baldwin, who had ”a kind of magic in his day”, made it the ”natural party of government”, and Thatcher ”rescued and strengthened” the party, re-established the country’s reputation and crushed the unions after a period of stagnation.

So what about David Cameron, one is inclined to ask? Harris ends his book with a chapter on the current prime minister and he is not particularly positive. First of all, Cameron, Harris says, ”owes his leadership of the part to Michael Howard’s patronage, David Davis’s errors and his own talents, in roughly that order. In short: he’s had a lot of luck. Cameron is not like Thatcher or Disraeli; he is too polished and too little a thinker or a strategist. Secondly, Harris thinks Cameron has failed concerning his big idea, the Big Society. It’s ”yet another ‘Third Way’ strategy – in this case, a third way between the Scylla of Thatcherite individualism and the Charybdis of Big Government socialism.”

The Conservatives: A History is well written, elucidating and especially a must read (with John Ramsden’s An appetite for power. A history of the Conservative Party since 1830), for Conservatives (with a capital C that is) who want to understand their party and their politics.

The Conservatives. A History
Bantam Press, 640pp, £30.00
Published December 2011, London

Daniel Boomsma is an Associate Editor of Politiker

North Africa, the new Afghanistan?

Photo: U.S. Department of Defense (Flickr)

In the outer regions of the Sahara, Islamist extremists have been steadily increasing their influence. The number of terrorist attacks and abductions of westerners have been growing.

In the political vacuum of North and West Africa, the Islamists have a potential stronghold from which to re-group and launch attacks against the West.  To prevent this region from descending into chaos, the international community and UN must give assistance to governments wherever possible.

We have seen a bold response from France aided by Britain, in Mali after armed militant Islamist groups linked to Al-Qaeda attempted to seize large areas in the north of the country. In January, with UN backing French President, François Hollande ordered a military ground assault supported by West African troops, followed by a series of strategic military strikes targeted against Islamist rebels.

Mali was a French colony until 1960, after which a series of military rulers governed for decades, until democratic elections in 1992. It remained politically stable until March last year, when a government coup occurred led by a group of soldiers angry with their government’s response to Tuareg rebels in the north. Local Al Qaeda-linked groups took advantage of the power vacuum, and took control of large areas in the north.

Speaking to Radio Europe 1, French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian explained France’s aim was to “eradicate” terrorism within the region. North African terrorist groups pose a general risk to western nations, however due the location to France and its historical ties to the region, it is no surprise that such rhetoric is being used.

François Hollande’s intervention so far has been viewed as a success internationally. Following the liberation of Timbuktu from the fundamentalist rebels, Hollande proclaimed victory.  The swift and surgical French intervention, with UN backing and collaboration with African nations, is seen as a blueprint for future interventions.

However with a key part of the French campaign over, we cannot be certain whether of a lasting peace.  In order to prevent the return of the rebels, and a possible guerrilla war, France must maintain a military presence in Mali.

The United States stayed out of the conflict in Mali, however, according the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Michael McCaul  (R-Texas), terrorist safe havens in the North of Africa pose a real threat to the security of the United States.  Following the recent terrorist attack in Algeria, McCaul compared North Africa to thee “Lawless safe havens in Afghanistan”. This is becoming the mainstream view in Washington, and may have played a part in the creation of a new drone program in North Africa by the Obama administration.

With the potential for North Africa to become the new Afghanistan, it is crucial that the international community continue to evaluate military options. Security in the region must be a priority; only through a coordinated international effort can we truly prevent extremists from gaining a foothold.

Martin Edobor writes about health and foreign policy. Follow on Twitter @martinedobor

Film review: Zero Dark Thirty

Photo: Sony/Columbia Pictures

It became one of the most widely circulated images ever. Pete Souza’s capturing of the moment the leading figures of the United States crammed into the White House Situation Room to follow the progress of the hunt for the world’s most wanted man, Osama bin Laden. President Obama, in a white polo shirt and blue jacket, looks small and powerless on the edge of his seat. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton holds her hand to her face in suspense.

But what about the scenes behind the screen they all appear to be watching? Zero Dark Thirty, a documentary-style drama film, aims to recreate a picture of the self-described ‘greatest manhunt in history’ and shed some light onto the events leading up to the assassination. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who has form in the field having previously directed The Hurt Locker to six Academy Awards, the film focuses on Maya, a young CIA officer, and her journey of uncovering the intelligence needed to confirm Bin Laden’s whereabouts.

Throughout, Maya (Jessica Chastain) is clinging on to a lead by the name of Abu Ahmed, thought to be a close associate of Bin Laden’s. But when a detainee, after looking at a photograph of Ahmed, claims he is dead, the game appears to be up; that is until it emerges that the man in the photograph is in fact Ahmed’s older brother. From here on in, Maya has the self-belief to follow through on her lead; committed and determined, she is essentially portrayed as locating Bin Laden all by herself. Whether or not, in reality, the character played by Chastain was quite so central to the search is questionable; to this date she remains strictly undercover and lips closed.

That being said, whilst not claiming absolute historical accuracy, Zero Dark Thirty clearly attempts to offer a respectable recreation of what is still a very recent event. At 157 minutes long, it is a challenging watch; the first hour is particularly torturous, quite literally. Featuring uncomfortable scenes of water-boarding and other forms of torture, it has provoked controversy in the US; with Washington insiders claiming it overstates the use of torture, and others claiming it promotes torture as the necessary means to an end.

The film’s highlight, the night US Navy SEALs raided Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, is a worthy climax; part Call of Duty, part Splinter Cell, the scene is tense and personal. Interestingly, Barack Obama, who broke the news of Bin Laden’s assassination to the world on May 2nd 2011 and benefitted politically from the event, hardly features; his face on a screen in the background of a meeting room being the sole reference.

Only the harshest critic would claim Zero Dark Thirty is guilty of hyperbole or excessive American patriotism. Ending with a close-up of an emotional Maya, many questions remain unanswered; was she pleased to have finally caught the man she had been seeking for so long? Had the success of the mission justified the use of torture in the process? Were the benefits of US involvement in the Middle East outweighing the costs? Ultimately, as much as you could wish for from a film of this kind, Zero Dark Thirty allows viewers to decide for themselves.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

Equal Marriage and the Conservatives: The Price of Victory?

Photo: Kurtis Garbutt (Flickr)

A week of trials and tribulation for the Conservatives has meant that the divisions in the party are becoming ever clearer; a divided Cabinet on the issue of gay marriage, reports of an estimated one-hundred-and-twenty Conservative MP’s rebelling in today’s vote, and more than twenty Conservative Chairmen, past and present, having handed a letter of opposition on Sunday to Number 10.

After less than a fortnight since David Cameron offered out his hand to his core supporters in the form of a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, the walkout of many of his activists over gay marriage does not bode well for success at the 2015 General Election and for the future of the party.

But does equality prevail over electoral victory? Not for some.

The Surrey Heath Conservative Constituency Association Chairman, Geoffrey Vero, had recently summarised the view for many of the core Conservative supporters that remain unwavering on their views on gay marriage when he said, “It is my judgement that in order to get elected, certainly at General Elections, you need to get your vote out. And that is the risk that I think David Cameron is taking on this issue.” He had previously explained that many party activists have declined the opportunity to support the party at the next General Election – this being the key concern for Mr Vero. Can the loss of the Tory core cost them the 2015 election? After all, what is a party without man-power? But surely the price of equality, fairness and justice is one that must be paid over party politics and election victories?

Whilst the concern for many Conservatives with similar views to Mr Vero is a significant one, perhaps the loss of such would not be missed from the party? The debate on gay marriage appears to be ‘clearing out’ the Tories that remain impartial to change, paving the way for a more open-minded generation that can now appreciate the party, not on its past, but on its future as a leading proposer of greater equality and fairness. The party of the moral high-ground will no-doubt be its paramount characteristic in the near future, rather than that of an archaic, soul-less community of anti-progressive minds. The loss of the traditional core and the replacement of enthusiastic youthful activists will re-install life into the dying limbs of the party that are the branches of those willing to walk-out and leave all that they’ve worked so hard for in the past.

It is this movement of immeasurable respect for the Conservative party from young and first-time voters after the outcome of today’s vote, which is sure to pass in The House of Commons, that is most likely to secure victory in 2015. After all, the young vote that the Liberal Democrats had benefited from in the 2010 General Election is ‘up for grabs’.

This could be the momentous occasion when Cameron disentangles the chains that have loomed over his party for decades and brings about further equality in the face of outdated beliefs and at the same time achieving party victory in 2015 by revitalising the Tories with young ‘blue blood’.

Alex Bright is the Managing Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @alexanderbright