February 10, 2003
I came across this article on Australian conservatism. Its called, 'Conservatism is not evil, stupid nor ignorant - it's just misunderstood', by Stephen Barton who has taught politics at several universities and is currently a staffer for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Hon Jackie Kelly MP.
Good oh, I thought. It looks promising. I concurred with his main thesis that conservatism is misunderstood in Australia. And Stephen has good creditionals to help us in figure out what Australian conservatism is about. How is Australian conservatism different from Anerican conservatism, which is primarily a Locken liberalism; or an English Burkean-Humean conservatism?
Well, Stephen doesn't really say. He mentions the poor quality of the public debate in Australia (we all do); fires some arrows at the left for their moral high ground stance (fair enough); and describes the uncomfortable experience of being a conservative in a left-liberal world. When he does turn to that conservative tradition that we misunderstand in Australia, he is a bit light on the content about what it is.
Stephen does say that conservatism's philosophical roots extensive, subtle and nuanced (agreed) and that it can vary so much between nations and cultures (agreed). So British conservatism is different to American conservatism, whilst English Speaking conservatism, with its bedrock of liberalism, is different to European conservatism. And Australian conservatism? Stephen says:
"Given the shallowness of Australia's intellectual pool, Australian conservatives draw heavily on either British or American conservatism or a combination of both."
That's reasonable enough. If the bedrock of conservatism in Australia is liberalism. then what sort of liberalism would that be? A rights-based liberalism?; utilitarian liberalism?; or a social liberalism? Stephen doesn't say.Is it important? Yes, because they have different views about the state and freedom and, since nearly all debates in Australia take place within liberalism, its sort of like a family quarrel. Stephen needs to tell us very much here.
What interests Stephen is the conservative mindset (mentality? form of consciousness, political unconscious? discourse?) He says that perhaps the best description of the conservative mindset comes from Michael Oakeshott. He then quotes the English political philosopher:
"... men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting point nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to be kept afloat on an even keel; the sea is both enemy and friend; and seamanship consists in using the resources of a traditional manner of behaviour in order to make a friend of every hostile occasion."
I love the quote. I always have. Now I'm on the left side of politics yet I can accept the quote with ease. Maybe 'traditional' would need to be teased out a bit, but I accept a lot of the tacit, practical knowledge embodied in everyday life in contrast to big modern scientific theory. That knowledge is embodied in various historical traditions. And as a good citizens who loves his country I am quite willing and happy to defend Australian customs and institutions without embarrasment. I am also conscious of the value of historical memory and the bringing to consciousness of long forgotten things.
This indicates that conservatism is more than a habit of mind. It is a political tradition that has historically engaged with the competing traditions of liberalism and socialism. So what would be a conservative gloss on this Oakshott passage? Stephen gives one when he says;
'Conservatism is keeping "your head when all about you are losing theirs", especially when half the crew thinks they have spotted Shangri-La to port. The conservative knows there is no Utopia or temporal heaven, and wishing for it won't make it so. The only solution for a quiet life is to rely on the tried and tested, to promote evolution not revolution. This is not to say conservatives can't be radical or reforming; when the safety of the ship is at risk conservatives can and do implement drastic changes and reforms. Above all, keeping the ship afloat involves sober reflection and a continued rearguard action against some of the crew's more crazy ideas, which left unchecked would sink the ship in shark-infested waters."
Again, as a lefty I have no problem with this. I reckon those who continued to defend social democracy kept their head whilst the politicians and economists lost theirs as they rushed to embrace the free market. I would identify the crazy ideas as neo-liberalism whilst the Shangri-La to port some of the crew thinks they have spotted is the temporal heaven of the competitive free market.
We really do need a bit more content at this point than a rejection of utopian politics or what Oakeshott called rationalism in politics. Maybe it is the lack of content in Australian conservatisms that causes so much misunderstanding? I will be provocative here and introduce some strands from British conservatism, which has dropped out of Stephen's picture.
This has more of the content missing from Stephen's article. (Thanks to Scott Wickstein for the link). An American equivalent would be Russell Kirk.
Scruton's reading of Burke takes us beyond the anti-utopian politics that Stephen uses to characterise conservatism. Scruton finds four characteristics in his reading of Burke that forms the basis for his understanding of conservatism:
1. the defense of authority and obedience;
2. the subtle defense of tradition, prejudice and custom, against the enlightened plans of the reformers;
3.the reworking of theory of the social contract. Though society can be seen as a contract, we must recognize that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. Rightly understood society is a partnership among the dead, the living, and the unborn. Without what Burke, called the “hereditary principle,” according to which rights could be inherited as well as acquired, both the dead and the unborn would be disenfranchized.
Scruton also mentions Burke's deep negative thesis, the glimpse into Hell contained in his vision of the French Revolution.That glimpse had shaken Burke to the depths of his being. I have introduced this theme under the absolute freedom and terror posting.
Scruton says that the positive aspect of Burke’s philosophy (1-3) can be seen as a response to that vision of hell. It overs us something that human beings can hope for, and as the sole and sufficient vindication of our life on earth.
How about that for a bit of content? It gives conservatism a bit of ooomph at a time when there is notable lack of academic discussion of contemporary conservative philosophy. That ooomph is better than moaning about how how liberals have all the power, that people think conservatism sucks, and that a small left-wing professoriat leads to a narrower scope of debate on politics. Why don't the Australian conservatives get on with and start elaborating some content.
|
I do wonder if it is really possible for a left-leaning individual to really understand conservatism. I must admit, I just can't get my head around the left way of looking at things- clearly there's just some barrier in the way that prevents me from understanding what the leftist view is like.
For me, being conservative isn't a matter of faith or reason- you just are. There is no 'why'.