David Cameron, Conservative (and let's not forget it)

****

Yesterday evening, amongst the usual chatter and gossip, we had a few thoughts about what we mean by being a ‘conservative’. And, in some ways, with the loudness of the Tory “right” and the seeming success of UKIP this discussion is important. After all (and I know it’s not universally agreed) UKIP folk often lay claim to being “libertarian”.

The starting point was my observation that David Cameron is the most “High Tory” – the most ‘conservative’ – prime minister since Stanley Baldwin. I was asked to explain not least because, as readers here know, I get very angry at Cameron’s knee-jerk nannying fussbucketry. So how could I, as a conservative, describe Cameron as the “most Conservative leader”?

The answer to this lies in two central concepts of conservatism (or at least English conservatism) – the first is what we might call ‘noblesse oblige’ and the second is the idea of government as administration.

‘Noblesse oblige’ is the idea that a person laying claim to nobility is obliged to act nobly. We could describe it as a duty on the citizen to assist those less fortunate or even, to borrow from Hillaire Belloc:

Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light
Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.

Some recoil from this concept seeing in it the ossification of society, the triumph of aristocracy as an institution. But for Cameron – and we see this in his enthusiasm for “social action” – such an obligation to act nobly is essential to conservatism. We are defined by what we do rather than what we support. Passing laws to help the poor in Africa or to care for communities in England is not sufficient; we must act ourselves to help society. A central tenet of Cameron’s conservatism is the idea of “giving back” – we are fortunate so it behoves us to put some of that fortune back into society.

The second concept is the idea of administration. Some people see the purpose of securing political power as the way to effect change, to direct the forces of government so as to improve mankind. In Cameron’s conservatism this is not the case; the purpose of power is administration – the running of good government.

A Tory friend at university once described this as “soft loo paper conservatism” – the object of government is to deliver contentment, comfort, security and maybe happiness to the citizen. There is no place in conservatism for the idea that mankind can – or should – be bettered or that government, through planned action, can improve society. If society is to get better, it will do so because people act nobly not because government willed it so.

As importantly, Cameron’s “conservatism as effective administration” requires attachment to and confidence in institutions – the National Health Service, the Civil Service, Royal Colleges, Universities. Government should concern itself with ensuring these institutions are well administered rather than with the outcomes of the institutions work. Put the right leaderships in place and trust in their judgement is what government must do – and then act to implement and enforce the plans those leaders create.

This may not be my conservatism – mine is founded on the idea of place, the principle of responsibility and the imperative of freedom – but no-one can say that Cameron is not a conservative.

....

Musings from a thick Tory...

A Thick Tory Ponders Life's Deep Truths

It is quite remarkable that I, as a Conservative, am able to make use of this laptop in order to write coherent sentences. Perhaps this is a credit to the education I received and to the glorious simplicity of the English Language plus of course the forgiving nature of you the reader.

It seems that the great minds of Canadian academe have cast the runes (or whatever it is that psychologists do in order to garner “data” for their published work) and have discovered what my left-wing friends have known for years – Conservatives are thick. Or rather that – as I understand the work in question (bearing in mind that I am a Conservative) – a shadowy cabal of clever people manipulate us thickos through ideology:

Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo".

Now, dear reader, Mr Monbiot who wrote that is left-wing so able to use multi-syllable words without getting severe headaches. We must therefore see clearly that he is right even though those long words hurt our eyes.

Now there’s nothing new in the left explaining to us right-wingers – often in the most patronising tone – that our problem is that we’re stupid. Ergo, we should let them run everything since they’re so much better qualified in the brain department. Here’s grumpy old Liberal John Stuart Mill:

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.

Not of course that J S Mill with his belief in free markets, liberty and self-determination would qualify these days as a left-winger. But, hey, it’s a good quote! And since that time Conservatives (with and without the big ‘C’) have lived with the designation of stupidity. And it’s the worst form of stupidity – a sinful, corrupting, evil stupidity that divides not the stupidity of Homer Simpson as idiot savant.

So George Monbiot cries the oldest insult levelled at Tories, one that meant little when J S Mill said it and means little today – “you’re thick you are, what do you know?” And George’s ‘oh-so-superior’ left-wing pals echo him (and some second rate jokester called Brooker) in giggling about how they always knew Tories were stupid and right-wingers were thick. I mean look at what they read! Surely anyone intelligent would read the Guardian?

If there is an antonymic personification to the idiot savant then George Monbiot is that person – so well educated, well read, filled with eclectic ideas, a veritable fountain of knowledge. Yet, at the same time, so comprehensively, categorically and consistently wrong.

Let’s grant left-wingers their superiority, let’s embrace our Tory thickness – for all their knowledge these socialists, progressives and the like have brought us oppression, state control, obscene taxes, political correctness and the nanny state. Anyone who takes more than a moment to look at socialism’s record would conclude that these awfully clever (and mostly wealthy and privileged too) people visited disaster upon the ordinary people for whom they claimed to care.

It’s no use having great brain power if you use it to make the simple complicated, the obvious obscure and the common-sensical illegal. Yet that is the legacy of the progressive left.

If that is “intelligence” then I’m staying right here being “thick”.

....