The Spirit of Conservatism
An analysis of the state of contemporary conservatism
Preface
The decline of conservatism in the West in the past few decades is no secret. As politics has polarised and globalisation has made the world smaller, adherence to traditional conservatism has fallen steadily out of favour. This essay is an attempt to return to first principles and give an overview of the essence of small-c conservatism (that is, conservatism as a political philosophy, not necessarily affiliated with any Conservative parties). This task is undertaken in the hope that further work can be done to revive the spirit of conservatism.
Reference is made to, and conservatism contrasted against, various movements and ideologies to provide fuller historical and philosophical context. The author does not claim to always detail these ideas with objectivity, but emphatically attempts to represent and deal fairly with differing ideas when discussing them.
What is conservatism?
In order to have a constructive conversation about political philosophy, it is proper that the first task undertaken is that of defining terms.
One definition of conservatism, from Merriam-Webster, is “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.”
This is a broad definition, but one which accurately encapsulates the basic premise. Conservatism as a philosophy is relative - it will express itself differently depending on time and place. Referring back to the above definition makes this point clear. The traditions and established institutions of different nations in different eras vary widely, thus, conservatism is particular to that society which it seeks to conserve.
For a less academic definition, the English philosopher Michael Oakeshott stated that “To be conservative ... is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss."
To speak only in definitions is to provide a one-dimensional summary of an idea. We will now discuss some of the fundamental underpinnings of conservatism in order to get a more solid grounding.
Conservatives generally favour a smaller state, which exists primarily to protect the rights of its citizens and to uphold a single body of law which applies equally to all subjects or citizens. They have a distrust of radical change, and prefer gradual reform, trusting in the wisdom of those who built the nation they have inherited. Conservatives are typically opposed to the globalisation and internationalisation of the world; the means by which the world has been made much smaller by liberalism and free trade. Patriotism and nationalism are common features of a conservative disposition, as the sovereignty of the nation is seen as the fundamental base on which politics can be formed.
Conservatives do not have an aversion to hierarchy - in fact they view it as natural and normal. They see that the differences between people and groups of people are what allow the categorisation of people and groups of people - difference is literally what allows us to make such distinctions in the first instance. These differences don’t necessarily have to be ordered in a hierarchy, though some forms of hierarchy (hierarchies of competence, for example) are natural, and often warranted. Conservatives believe that two things which are different are, by definition, inherently not equal, and that this fact is not so much a moral question as a neutral statement of metaphysical reality. This belief, combined with the emphasis conservatives place on equal rights before the law, means that while difference is acknowledged, everyone is theoretically equal in the eyes of the state - thus, a spirit of tempered individualism is preserved.
A sharp distinction between conservatives and the far-right is that conservatives are content with naturally occurring, just hierarchy, while ethno-nationalists, fascists, and other extreme right-wing ideologues seek to create and violently enforce hierarchies along their prejudicial lines, and may wish to subjugate or eliminate ‘lesser’ groups. While the extreme right would strip certain groups of their rights, conservatives believe in equality in the eyes of the law, and the importance of the individual rights of all citizens.
Rights
Conservatives favour negative rights over positive rights. Negative rights can be seen as liberties with which the state may not interfere; conversely, positive rights are entitlements which oblige the state to action in order to guarantee them.
Examples of negative rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. The only requirement for negative rights to be fulfilled is to allow citizens to do as they please, so long as their actions do not impinge on the rights of others.
Positive rights, on the other hand, are much more contentious. These rights are granted by the state and require action on the part of the state or other actors in order to properly guarantee them. Such examples are the right to healthcare or shelter. When an individual is given the positive right to something, another individual is obliged (i.e. coerced by the state) to provide this for them, lest the rights of the former go unfulfilled. This presents a conundrum, in that the latter’s negative right to freedom from interference and the ownership of his labour are now stolen from him.
One way to determine whether a right should be categorised as negative or positive is to ask “Absent civilisation, would an individual be wronged if this right went unfulfilled?” Certainly it would be the case that an individual’s negative rights to life, property, and freedom of religion are natural and, were these rights impeded, an injustice would have occurred. However, an individual’s positive right to food, shelter or water would simply not exist in a state of nature, as these would be existential requirements, for which the responsibility of supplying falls solely on himself - in their absence, no one has wronged him, because nobody has the duty to provide them.
In the conservative preference for negative rights can be seen an inherent impulse to want to be simply left alone by the state, except for in the cases of political representation, national defence, guaranteeing of rights, and the providing of public services such as policing and firefighting. A wish can be seen for minimal intrusion into the lawful and moral behaviour of citizens, qualified by an understanding that, if left to their own devices, many would seek to do injustice to others, and, as such, a state is required to deter such behaviour and protect citizens’ rights and safety.
On Localism
Inherent to conservatism is a love of local community, a preference for self-sufficiency, and a distrust of globalisation. Conservatives understand that charity begins at home, and that the natural bonds with those in our local areas, the constituents of our local communities, who therefore share similar experiences to us, are, naturally, to be given precedence over those from further afield or abroad.
Due to the flattening effects of globalisation, the sway of localism has been severely diminished - we rarely, if ever, buy shoes from a local shoemaker; we shop in chain supermarkets rather than the farmers’ markets; we buy our clothes from multinational brands online and have them delivered to our doors.
We used to know the names of our neighbours. We were not strangers in our communities. Our children went to school together and played together on the streets. These kinds of tight-knit communities may yet exist in the Shires and other rural areas of the country, but this is no longer the norm.
We now mostly live in a fast-paced, internationalised, diverse world in which the parochial nature of localism is frowned upon, and shunned as “non-inclusive”. But a community cannot afford to be so inclusive that it erases its own existence. Without exclusion, we could not define anything - without giving preference to some things over others, we could not act.
In cities, where there is no homogenous group and vastly higher numbers of foreigners, there is no sense of community, because nothing ties the inhabitants together but proximity. There are simply too many people in metropolitan urban areas to form strong community ties. It is too fast-paced, too streamlined, and too generalised (or, inclusive) to foster any sense of community spirit or culture.
Without commonalities, city dwellers live solipsistically, viewing the nameless, faceless members of the crowd which surrounds them solely in terms of their function - as merely means to ends - the Starbucks employee who makes their coffee, the delivery driver who hands them their Amazon package.
Those fortunate enough to have been raised in, or at least to have resided in, a village or very small town will have felt the weight of history, and seen the hand of time in their surroundings. The shabby charm of a centuries-old cottage, with its thatched roof and foliage growing on its brick wall exterior. The vast, rolling farm fields which, year upon year, through the labour of the farmers and the changing of seasons, provide sustenance and jobs to the local community. The magnificent trees which make up the vast forests in which children climb and play games, and people walk their dogs.
Another cause of the solipsism in those who inhabit cities is that they do not get the opportunity to see how things are made - they only see the end product as they put it in their basket in the supermarket. They cannot see the rows and rows of cabbages growing in the fields, nor can they greet the bleating sheep and sleepy cows they encounter while enjoying a leisurely stroll on a crisp Sunday morning. Their clothes and electronics are mass-produced abroad by underpaid workers.
In the glass-and-steel jungle of a large multicultural city, any sense of the hand of time is overshadowed by gargantuan concrete tower blocks and lost among grim, grey parks containing gormless, nihilistic teenagers smoking, drinking, and arguing. One cannot feel at home in such an environment as a busy high street, alienated amongst bustling crowds, deafened by the roar of the double-decker buses, and aggravated by pushy beggars. As such, one turns to the fictional world of social media and finds only simulated human interaction and the heavily curated lives of those whom they follow. It is no wonder that mental health has been affected so dreadfully by modernity - humans were not designed for the panoply of changes that have taken place in so short a time.
A renewed interest in localism would do wonders for individuals and for society as a whole. Through the myopic lens of globalism and globalised capitalism, this would be a disaster. But from a cultural and societal standpoint, this would slow the homogenisation of cultures and incentivise nations to once again become self-sufficient. From the standpoint of the ordinary man, this would allow him to get back in touch with his roots, to leave behind the urgency and vertigo of modern society, and embrace a more meaningful existence among his family and fellow people, creating bonds of sentiment with those in his local area, and enjoying life outside of the machinery of soul-destroying global capitalism.
The difficulties in creating a positive vision for conservatism
Leftists’ critique of conservatism is that it is an ideology which exists to restrict the rights of women and minority groups, to perpetuate white supremacy, to fill the pockets of the rich; the list goes on. This is, of course, not actually true, but the left must frame it in that way because conservatives hesitate in the face of, and thereby present an obstacle to, the radical change for which they agitate.
Conservatism, as it is more of a sentiment than an organised political philosophy, suffers from a difficulty in making its case, especially when it is drowned out by the sloganeering and self-righteous indignation of the more systematic, logical philosophies spawned by the Enlightenment paradigm. As such, the main obstacle to creating a positive (in a morally neutral sense, that is, forward-looking, or active) vision for conservatism lies in its lack of an articulated ideology.
There is no marketing for conservatism. In examining it one finds that there is no brand, there is no logo, there is no symbol to define it. It is not sexy, it is not revolutionary, it is not radical. For Communism for example, there is the hammer and sickle, for Nazism there is the swastika; there exist symbols with which people can identify and under which people can unify, for better or worse - in the cases of Communism and Nazism, obviously for the worse. The late philosopher Roger Scruton proved the point succinctly when he said that if one had to summarise conservatism in a word, this word would be “...hesitate.”
In failing to meet the challenge of articulating a positive vision - without making the case for their ideals - modern day conservatives restrict themselves to mere political reflexivity. In so doing, leftist activists, taking the initiative, are permitted to position themselves as the agents of morality and societal progress. Conservatives allow the left to portray them as people who selfishly obstruct that progress. In looking at the leftist conception of history and comparing it to the Whig theory of history, in which progress marches on inevitably, one sees the similarities; in the case of leftists, “the arc of history bends towards justice.”
Leftist activists, having successfully carried out der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen (the long march through the institutions), have seized for themselves control of the field of education, as well as social media platforms, charities, law schools, and many governmental and media organisations. This tactic has given them the near-unrestricted capacity to frame the terms of political debate, absent widespread pushback from conservatives: ‘We must liberate society from the shackles of conservative ideology, which serves only to oppress minority groups, perpetuate inequality, and restrict human flourishing.’
Without putting in the work to create an ecosystem of conservative culture (literature, art, poetry, philosophy, etc.), the cause of conservatism will remain confined to the shadows while radical activists and revolutionaries continue to subvert our institutions and burn our inheritance to the ground for the misguided goal of constructing utopia.
“How can we do away with the oppressive structures which have been erected in the past, by the dead?“ ponders the leftist. One hears the term ‘dead white men’ used jarringly often when Western leftists speak of the philosophies developed in, and institutions founded by, past generations. “How can we liberate ourselves from restrictions imposed on us by those who are no longer with us?”
Now, the conservative framing is that we should be very thankful for what our ancestors have done for us. One looks around and feels incredibly grateful for the work, the blood, sweat, and tears which went into providing us with everything we take for granted today. The average person no longer has to grow his own food, hunt his own food - we simply go to the shop and it is there waiting for us.
Conservatives of the Burkean or Scrutionian persuasion believe in the organic construction of society, social relations, and the institutions that make up the nation state. Time is a fundamental component in this process as gradual change through successive generations forms a stable society with a strong sense of identity; conversely, Enlightenment ideologues have a kind of blank-slate, ‘year zero’ mentality in which history is only relevant insofar as it provides evidence which can be used to further their causes.
Conservatives view society as arising from the bottom up - they pay more attention to the process by which society gradually grows and develops organically, and how the great minds and hard work of previous generations came together to erect the institutions and traditions from which we benefit today.
The conservative view is quite sentimental, really. It eschews rationality in favour of proven results. But what does this mean, in concrete terms? It means that we can look around us at the things that work and assume that, due to the fact that these institutions work, and this way of doing things works, and has withstood the test of time, it must be ’correct’ in some quasi-Darwinian sense as a stable system of social organisation; accordingly, as humans who value human wellbeing, we see that it has intrinsic moral value contained within it, which we have a duty to uphold and defend.
Proponents of Enlightenment ideologies which support a centrally-planned system (such as socialists, communists, and fascists) approach societal arrangement from an abstract, top-down perspective, a sort of managerial position from which society can be rationally planned and shaped. The idea that such a complex ecosystem as a modern nation state can be rationally planned is absurd, as the myriad examples of failed centrally planned economies shows.
The Enlightenment paradigm & central planning
Growing from the Enlightenment paradigm, in which rationality was promoted to prime virtue, is the view, adopted by socialists and fascists alike, that humans can logically deduce, a priori, how the ideal society would function, and shape the world to realise this ideal. It should be noted that, while idealism as a philosophy goes back at least as far as the ancient Greeks, it has steadily risen to dominance as a result of the Enlightenment paradigm in which we find ourselves. “We can tear all of this restrictive, oppressive rubbish out, root and branch,” claims the leftist, “and replace it with a more logical, rational system.” Alas, history tells us, this simply does not work.
Idealism does not hold up to scrutiny when applied to the real world, for there will always be unforeseen consequences, there will always be factors which have not been considered in the sterile realm of abstract reflection. Real life is messy, inconsistent, and unpredictable. The cure for this is a social arrangement which holds stability in high regard, mitigating the inherent unpredictability of the world. The belief that abstract reason alone is sufficient for the task of deconstructing and reconstructing vast systems in the real world is folly. As humans, subject to the physical and epistemological restrictions thereof, perfect knowledge is impossible; every abstraction stems from a particular subjective perspective and is necessarily flawed.
These incalculable factors make all the difference in a centrally-planned system - with catastrophically negative effects. The little things that go overlooked during the rational calculation of a perfect society are a part of what leads to genocide and totalitarian police states. One need only look at the moral and material deprivation of the 20th century Communist states: the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia. All examples of systems which were rationally planned, idealistic in outlook, and which failed miserably, resulting in the oppression, murder, and starvation of millions.
This is not to say that it is only minor flaws in the rational planning of centralised states which cause their dysfunction; the plans are formulated in the first instance according to fundamentally false axioms.
The Enlightenment paradigm & the state of nature
The Enlightenment paradigm, through its theorising on human behaviour in the state of nature, gave rise to concepts such as the noble savage, representing the inherent goodness of man before his corruption by civilisation. The state of nature, however, never existed - it is a pure abstraction.
The very first line of Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s 1762 work ‘The Social Contract’ is “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” In this work, he puts forth a thought experiment based on his conception of the state of nature, a pre-civilisational state of affairs in which man, unrestricted by the expectations implicit in relations with others, lives a life of total freedom.
It does not take long to find the flaws in this thought experiment. The very premise can be readily discarded. Man is not born free - man is born assuredly unfree, entirely dependent for survival on his family during the lengthy period of childhood and adolescent development. Early humans and archaic human species such as homo erectus would certainly not have survived long running around alone in forests, as Rousseau’s thought experiment implies. Humans have always been social animals, and have always lived in bands or tribes for survival. As a result of this existential interdependency, the restrictions imposed by social expectations are an unavoidable byproduct of social belonging. For the vast majority of human existence, to be cast out from the tribe was a death sentence.
Building on this absurd premise, Rousseau goes on to construct a totalitarian system in which the members thereof surrender their negative rights and in return are granted civil (positive) rights by the state, to be determined according to the “general will”.
The general will, the will of the people as a whole, takes precedence over individual wills. This is a tyrannical form of radical democracy in which the majority is always correct. As such, he whose will is not in accordance with consensus must be “forced to be free”, because, in participating in this system, he has agreed to subordinate himself to the general will. Thus, in a state which recognises only those rights granted by the state, and in which the general will is held above all else, anything is permitted against those who are not in accordance with the general will. In fact, dissent must be crushed because it opposes the general will and is, therefore, wrong. In a critique, philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin called Rousseau “one of the most sinister and formidable enemies of liberty in the whole history of human thought.”
The view that man is inherently good almost by necessity leads to genocidal action - in eliminating those who have been infected, who are beyond help, who will not surrender their rights to the tyranny of the majority, the ideologue thinks himself justified by the cause of achieving utopia and breaking the chains imposed on man by society.
It is precisely this strain of thought - freedom is obedience, coercion is liberty - which led to the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France; the revolutionaries were heavily influenced by the work of Rousseau. In a speech in 1794, Maximilian Robespierre, as a member of the Committee for Public Safety, said “If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the basis of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is baneful; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the fatherland.”
An important distinction in political philosophy is the one between those who perceive man either as inherently good but corrupted by civilisation, or as intrinsically flawed, requiring civilisation to disincentivise the natural temptation of immoral behaviour. Conservatives fall into the latter category.
Those who believe in the inherent imperfection of man (or man’s fallenness, in the language of Christians) construct pragmatic societies, of which - as noted in the chapter on ‘Rights’ - the prime function is the fostering of human liberty by protecting the individual from the collective. A society with an emphasis on individual rights will always be superior to one which emphasises group rights or collective rights.
Conservatism and reform
The leftist looks at the civilisation he inhabits and judges that it does not reflect the idealised, rationally calculated one that is in his head. As his idealised, rational calculus is aimed at an implausible level of equality (or even equity, now), the existing system in the real world simply cannot possibly measure up. He sees evident in this disparity that there is something morally reprehensible about the existing system - as such, it must be torn down and subsequently rebuilt. As such equality will not arise spontaneously, society must be engineered to create this outcome. It is precisely herein that the danger lies - how far is one willing to go to effect the desired result, what is morally permitted in the cause of the ‘greater good’?
The conservative approach to social arrangement and reform is decidedly restrained, and not utopian, unlike that of the various Enlightenment political philosophies.
Conservatives take a stance of practicality and pragmatism, understanding that utopia is unachievable. One looks at what works, and says “Great, this works. Can we improve it? Realistically, can this be improved?”
One looks at the institutions which are degrading, falling apart, no longer fit for purpose, no longer suitable in the era in which we find ourselves, and concludes thus: these institutions can be reformed, and if absolutely necessary, replaced, but this should be a task undertaken with great trepidation. We are surprisingly few well-meaning mistakes away from reverting back into skull-bashing savages.
The difference is not insignificant. Despite the fact that conservatives can also critically examine their institutions and observe that there are aspects which need to be changed, reformed, or done away with, they are looking from entirely different first principles. Conservatives are not looking from a blank slate rationality, but take what exists in the present as a starting point, from which to institute either preservation or gradual reform. While leftists see conservative traditions and modes of action as unnecessary and restrictive in favouring certain behaviours over others - punctuality, thrift, forward planning, objectivity, monogamy, politeness, etc. - conservatives acknowledge that traditions most often don't become traditions unless there is some truth in them, or some value in adhering to them.
This explains why conservatives are emphatically not revolutionaries. Conservatism and revolution are antithetical to one another. The left will often conflate conservatism with Nazism - this is a false comparison. The National Socialist Party and its followers did not represent a conservative movement, but a revolutionary one. It did not aim to conserve the existing order of Germany (nor that of Europe) but to fundamentally and permanently alter it. National Socialist ideology was built, similarly to communism and socialism, on Enlightenment foundations - and social conflict theory, which originated in the works of Karl Marx.
Leftist metaphysics
In order to gain a deeper insight into the politics of conservatism, it will be useful to delve into the metaphysics which underlie it. One method we will use in this chapter to clarify these metaphysical beliefs may seem counterintuitive - we will examine the metaphysics of modern leftism, in the hope that the contrast will provide a context in which conservative metaphysics can be more fully understood.
The conservative can observe a metaphysical constancy in the world - facts of reality and forms of categorisation which do not change over time. In other words, they are essential, not socially constructed; necessary, not contingent; objective, not a matter of perspective. The conservative acknowledges that he is a product of the natural, material world, limited by the specific needs and hardships which accompany such a state of existence. Whether he is religious or not, his direct life experience is that of a human mammal, in a physical form, born and existing within the physical world - not a spirit, nor an ethereal being, nor a self-contained consciousness. There is an objective logic and truth to the universe which exists separately from the prevailing human judgement in a given time and place. Truth and morality are unchanging facts of the universe which precede human perception and personal judgement. The conservative is a realist.
The opposite of the realist is the idealist. Idealists view the material world as a sort of ‘sandbox’ which exists as a platform which one interacts with and shapes, for the purpose of expanding self-knowledge; through interaction, one comes to know themselves as a subject and not a mere object. It exists, wholly or in part, as an object of collective subjective consciousness, ontologically determined by socially constructed modes of categorisation. In this view, the material world exists as an extension of collective subjective consciousness, in a binary dialectical relationship with it.
Man, the rational animal, is uniquely gifted with consciousness and self-awareness. Man looks at the world, imagines how he would like it to be, endeavours to make it so, and, reflected in the outcome of his labour, comes to recognise himself as a subject. The honeybee’s labour is unconscious, a product of instinct, but man’s labour is conscious, a product of reflection and planning.
Following this conception of man’s place in the world, the left-idealist perceives that the fabric of reality is shapeable through concentrated mental and physical exertion; he concludes that, as a co-‘creator’ of the world, he has the right and duty to collaborate in the formation and reconstruction of the metaphysical and the ethical, aimed at the fulfilment and flourishing of humanity, through the alleviation of the worldly constraints of the physical form and its accompanying essential characteristics. The etymological roots of the word ‘collaborate’ are the Latin ‘com’ and ‘laborare’, meaning “to work with.”
Through the left-idealist lens, the world is seen as being defined uniquely from the perspective of each individual consciousness. As each perspective shines a unique light on a phenomenon, they gain a unique insight into it (this is why “lived experience” trumps reality, because, without seeing a given situation from that particular individual’s subjective perspective, it is theoretically impossible to understand how that situation revealed itself to them). Through the process of dialogue, the singular subjective perspectives of individuals can be dialectically synthesised to form the collective subjective perspective. This is the process by which individual opinions shape collective consciousness, which in turn influences individual perceptions, and so on. As the object of reflection undergoes a transformation as a result of the shift in the collective subjective perspective, the new metaphysical constitution of the object becomes reified through the new language used to describe it.
While singular subjective perspectives come together to form the collective subjective perspective, different communities are seen to have distinct collective subjective consciousnesses - feminists, anti-racist activists etc. see the world in a very specific way due to the lens through which they perceive it. It is for this reason that the concept of ‘intersectionality theory’ was created by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a critical race theorist and activist. This was a dialectical synthesis of differing identity-based conflict theories, resulting in one theory by which multiple aspects of critical consciousness can be raised at once; a coalition of grievances which, it was hoped, could be used to expedite the process.
Take the feminist movement of the 20th century, which black feminists critiqued as “white feminism”, as they saw it as focusing solely on the bourgeois interests of white, middle class women. Pitting “white feminism” against the branch of feminism being developed by black women, incorporating elements of class struggle along the way - the synthesis which results is the theory of intersectionality. A feminism which has been fundamentally broadened to include components of race and class; a dialectical synthesis which resolved the contradictions between white feminism and black feminism. The conflicts in the binaries of male and female, white and non-white, and the “haves” and the “have-nots” have been distilled into one conflict theory. Through this process, there now exists a thoroughly inclusive intellectual grounding on which a coalition for “Social Justice” has been formed, which has far greater resources and power at its disposal than the individual movements had had before.
As the world is seen to be shaped by collective subjective consciousness, the manipulation of language can be employed to circumvent the need to promote a collective change of perspective organically. Concept creep is a sociological and psychological term which describes the process by which harm-related concepts are steadily expanded to encompass topics which previously would not have been included; the terms racism, sexism, trauma, violence, etc., have all experienced semantic bloating and are now regularly used to describe situations and actions which they did not originally encompass. Through language manipulation, the way society perceives - and therefore, addresses - a topic can be fundamentally altered ‘through the back door’. It is for this reason that the ubiquitous portrayal of leftist narratives and the unrestricted ability of the left to frame the terms of political debate is critical to their success. First you change the culture, then you change the world.
To the leftist, the limitations imposed by reality are oppressive and must be ended. The messy, frightening, restrictive material world cages the pure consciousness in flesh, thereby placing fundamental constraints on possibility - it must, therefore, be overcome through a radical shift in the collective subjective perspective. Some work has been done exploring the similarities the left-idealists’ views share with gnosticism.
Each person is born with unique essential features, which box them into categories not of their choosing, which they did not consent to inhabit. The mind-body dualism of this view is clear - they view the mind not as an extension of the body (specifically the brain), but as separate from it. Thus the limitations placed on the pure conscious mind by the flawed physical body are a form of cosmic oppression to be abolished. Their belief in the primacy of subjectivity over objectivity means that these essential characteristics can be transcended by a radical reconstitution of the metaphysical categories through which we order the world, to end the oppression of essentialism.
The existence of the natural constraints reality imposes on freedom is seen as fundamentally unfair, though it is never explained how, in the absence of a Creator, it can be objectively determined what is fair from what is not. Without an objective basis on which to make moral claims, moral judgement carries no weight. The only plausible option, it seems, is that left-idealists believe that morality is conceived through the same dialectical process of collective reflection detailed above.
The relativism of this belief is self-evident. If morality is contingent, (fluid, ever-changing, defined varyingly according to contemporary social arrangements) the world can be remade without regards to morality. “If there is no God, everything is permitted”, as Dostoevsky put it. This is why the left, infected by postmodern theory, places so much emphasis on power. We seem to have reverted to a “might makes right” mentality, in which, as long as they are successful in bringing everybody to share in their beliefs, they are justified in whatever means they employ to achieve their ends. If morality is defined by whichever group is able to frame reality, all is fair in the pursuit of being the arbiters of reality - the morality of their actions can be justified ex post facto.
The philosopher Collin Cleary identifies two main aspects of leftist metaphysics: “a radical, egalitarian denial of difference and insistence upon sameness (coupled, bizarrely, with a rhetoric celebrating difference); and an insistence on the primacy of subjective states over facts.”
He continues: “the Left is allergic to difference because recognition of difference leads to recognition of superiority and inferiority. In order to see difference, we must make comparisons.”
With the recognition of superiority and inferiority, the justification for hierarchy follows. In the leftist view, as hierarchy interacts with the world, it shapes social expectations, leading to the marginalisation of those who do not adhere to these standards. This leads to a cultural reification of “structural” power imbalances - as those who adhere to the standards of a given society are judged favourably and rewarded, the hierarchy becomes calcified, and society begins to believe that these structures are simply facts of nature.
It is for this reason that the denial of the reality of difference must be reinforced, to maintain the comforting belief in the functional equality of all humans (note: functional equality; moral worth is not what we are discussing here). They believe that as hierarchy is solely formed on the basis of differing levels of adherence to the imposed societal standards of the day, it is necessarily contingent, and therefore unjust in its exclusion of those who do not fit its criteria. All differences between groups of humans are socially constructed, something to be overcome through deconstructing “dehumanising” modes of human thought and action.
The solution to structural forms of oppression is to “raise the consciousness” of those who cannot yet see the truth - here we can see a parallel with gnosticism in this belief. The ‘gnosis’ (a form of mystical wisdom) reveals itself to the enlightened revolutionary - the knowledge that we are caged in a restrictive system which is revealed to be contingent, and therefore surmountable through collaboration; this calls for a concentrated collective recreation of the world. The process of enlightening others so as to strengthen the collective subjective consciousness is called ‘conscientizaçao’ (conscientisation) by influential Communist philosopher Paulo Freire, whose ‘critical’ (i.e., consciousness-raising, i.e., brainwashing) approach to pedagogy is the reason our schools have become factories of indoctrination.
Thus the leftist trait of monomaniacal fixation on power is explained: if morality is not fixed, only determined by the collective subjective perspective, then all methods are acceptable in the struggle to realise (to ‘make real [the imagined]’) the idealised utopian state, the ultimate emancipation of the soul. Power must be centralised in the hands of those who aim to radically restructure society towards equity. Dissent must be silenced, and institutions which shape public opinion subverted for use in the goal of ideological thought reform and power consolidation.
Steps toward a positive vision for the future
If conservatives require a positive vision for the future, where can one be found, and what should that positive vision encompass? This is a difficult question, because, in attempting to put forward a positive vision, one may fall into the Enlightenment trap of attempting to rationally plan society. Conservative doctrine makes that difficult because conservatism generally focuses on the organic growth of society and the institutions thereof.
The answer will not be found by hiding in the shadows, afraid to voice opinions for fear of retribution. The conspiracy of silence in the present day is exactly the desired outcome of the radical manoeuvring - outlined by leftist intellectuals like Herbert Marcuse - to make opposition to revolution futile. The deliberate conflation of conservatism with extreme right-wing ideologies is one method by which leftists discredit it; this framing must be emphatically dispelled if conservatism is to flourish. To achieve this, conservatives must be resolute and public in their rejection of the hateful, genocidal ideologies of the far-right.
The problem will not be solved by reactionary behaviour in the culture war (though participation is, unfortunately, required in order to keep the Overton window from shifting further to the left than it already has). Conservatives must endeavour to influence the culture war - to frame the terms of the debate in a way which is favourable to them - in order to win converts from the ever-growing pool of political refugees disillusioned by the ever-increasing madness and polarisation of modern political discourse.
The answer will be found in providing the spirit of conservatism more opportunity to spread and grow. Those who wish to see a return to genuinely conservative politics must form affiliations with like-minded people; local and national clubs must be founded, ideas explored, and an intellectual corpus of work created, around which a concrete approach to conservative politics can begin to be formulated. This process will not play out overnight. Commitment will be required to undo the societal shift the left has effected.
Conservative outreach must take place at both the local and national level. Conservative social media presence is needed to present an alternative to the skewed narrative to which the youth is daily exposed, and to halt the leftward momentum of public discourse.
Schools should return to teaching the nation’s parochial, particular literature and history, rather than the new “diverse and inclusive” curricula propagated by leftist teacher-activists. If children do not learn about our past, they will naturally take to the ‘blank slate’ view of society which dominates; they will feel no urge to defend the inheritance we are striving to preserve and pass onto them. The field of education must be purged of its Freirean infection, and brought to heel - it must once again exist solely for the purpose of educating our children, not for propagandising and radicalising them.
Why conservatism matters
Civilisation is fragile. Radicals know not what adverse effects their actions will have on it. To believe that our private stock of wisdom is superior to that of the inherited wisdom of innumerable generations is folly. The spirit of conservatism and adherence to tradition ensure stability through gradual change. This is why conservatism builds - it develops organically - while radical movements can only destroy.
It is, unfortunately, far easier to destroy than it is to create. Tearing down is exciting; building is slow and laborious, and potentially painful. To build is to plan for the future, to plan for the future is to forgo the pleasures of today in favour of something more meaningful in the long term. The civilisation we have inherited is the product of many lifetimes’ hard work - painful, bloody, sweaty, deadly labour which our ancestors put in, selflessly and unflinchingly, to provide their offspring (and, by extension, us) with a better life than they themselves had. Having built it, they fought and died to defend it, to preserve it and pass it on. The mantle has been passed to us; we have a moral obligation to follow in the footsteps of those who came before us.
We hold this civilisation in trust for the next generation, to whom we have the duty to safeguard it, in order that they too can enjoy its fruits. We have been entrusted by our ancestors, to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude and reverence, with this task. To focus only on ourselves, today, is solipsistic and foolish. There is a great deal more to humanity than just we who are alive today; there is the dead, whom we have to thank for what we have inherited, and the yet-to-be-born, who will, in turn, inherit what we leave behind when we are gone. It is a great unbroken chain which stretches back for millennia, of which we are a mere link, and which we are responsible for extending.
Who are we to smash the traditions of those who provided us with the comforts we have inherited? Do we really suppose ourselves so exceptionally gifted with intellect that we can disregard the accumulated wisdom of countless generations, in favour of our current whims? The opponents of our heritage will fight unceasingly to crush it; we must fight unceasingly to protect it.