Whatever Happened to Traditional Conservatism?
Guest contributor Michael Merrick takes on the shibboleths of progressivism
Originally posted at Michael's own blog, Outside In.
***
An interesting piece in Prospect here from ResPublica Director, Phillip Blond, giving his account of why the Tory lead has shrunk to once-imaginable levels, and what the Party must do to avoid making it worse. For Blond the shrinking polls have come against the backdrop of an unpopular ascetic conservatism, as the Tory high command allowed itself to be charmed into an austerity narrative that brought with it a resurgence of Thatcherite economics - or, in Blond's words,
'Out went optimism about the future, and concern for the struggles of ordinary people. In came Conservatives with scary talk of emergency budgets, and violent images of slashing spending. The result: a gradual re-toxification of a brand Cameron had painstakingly cleansed, and a retreat from his often visionary and transformative agenda.'
The article is well worth a read, and there is little to directly disagree with, save for perhaps a change of emphasis here and there - and this is where I hope, with the following post, to provide an alternative diagnosis.
If one criticism can be levelled at Blond, it is that he often falls into the trap of all too readily accepting a left-wing account of social reality, thereby positing economic settlement as the cause of, and solution to, all societal discontent (and the sum of all voters' priorities). This is not to say that the march toward economic empowerment shouldn't be foremost: however, it is to say that politics must have more ambition than simply economic management and advice, and must not ignore (or indeed actively dismantle) those other structures that have given meaning and value to society over the course of hundreds of years and more. Or, to borrow from Aidan Nichols,
"Where its higher functions are concerned, over and above the defence of the national territory and the preservation of fundamental order (including, as we have seen recently, economic order), it is not the task of the State to invent new moralities, but to guard the spiritual civilization of its own society. For the legislature and judiciary that means being guided in the formulation and interpretation of laws by the moral ethos which forms a given society's spiritual patrimony."
Recognising this leads one to accept that there is more at play in the fall of the Tories than their downbeat approach to the economy.
As a starting point, it is worth looking at how common perception of Cameron himself is changing. For it is becoming increasingly obvious that, for all his much-trumpeted likeability, David Cameron arouses suspicions on both sides of the political divide. Partly, this unhappy situation is of his own making. With regards the distrust of his own side, by choosing to openly flirt with LibDem voters Cameron succeeded in alienating swathes of his own party, not least because this flirtation has brought with it the distinct impression that Cameron is embarrassed by many of his Conservative colleagues, and appears to spend more time apologising for being a Conservative than he does advancing the vision of what conservatism is about. As such, Cameron utilises the Obama-esque self-deprecation approach mercilessly, and in so doing peddles the myth that there is indeed something deeply anti-social about traditional conservatism. One should not be surprised to see people bray against this - like the anger of an aging housewife, left at home whilst her vainglorious husband takes a younger woman for drinks, where they both spend time mocking 'her indoors'.
Whilst this irritation is real, it is doubtful whether Cameron really cares all that much. A product of the Thatcherite years, many of his inner-circle are essentially libertarians, and whilst the destructive effects of this in the economic sphere are being addressed by the Red Tory, it as yet rules uncontested under the ambiguous guise of 'freedom' in the minds of those charged with social policy. Accordingly, there is a genuine disdain for social conservatives, as witnessed by Michael Gove's snide and sanctimonious jibes at Tory 'backwoodsmen'. Thus, openly snarled at by Conservative high command, just as they were by New Labour, for little more than believing the exact same things as their parents did, and indeed the exact same things that were embraced as orthodoxy not two decades ago, one can hardly be surprised if these very same people lose faith and question whose side 'their' Party is really on.
Of course, this is the nature of the new 'progressive conservatives' - they are as authoritarian and shrill about their social liberalism as are their comrades on the opposite side of the House, and both are willing to sling seven shades of muck at those who dare defy their dogma. Even so, CCHQ need to accept that there is a price to pay for this. If, as I have argued before, Labour needs to prepare itself for a loss of votes if it chooses to become exclusively the 'Progressive Party', then how much more is this true for the Conservatives should they seek to adopt wholesale the left-liberal wastelands in which the 'progressive' flag is planted.
This is not to say that an emphasis on various 'progressive' causes is wholly without value, and it undoubtedly plays well with the newsmakers and opinion formers in the small and incestuous bubble of Westminster and Fleet Street. However, it is also the case that, beyond the trendies in Islington, metropolitan ethics is rather less popular, and it can alienate. The list of potential examples is extensive, though for brevity I shall only pick out a few here. In his unswerving devotion to 'equalities', David Cameron has decided to embrace every demand of a particular single-issue lobby group, and this has lead him into some political cul-de-sacs. For example, was it not a curious position for a Conservative leader to be in, when Cameron could be found voting to effectively shut down Catholic adoption agencies for refusing to abandon their Christian conscience whilst performing a public good (a decision made to look all the more silly in light of the recent court case victory for Catholic Care)?
Additionally, what Conservative would really suggest that all schools, even the new generation of free-schools, should teach sex-education along the lines of state-approved views, even when it contradicts millenia-old Christian belief ? (Though as ever there is an ambiguity, with Cameron maintaining that he wouldn't wish to do it 'on high' from Westminster). On this, it is worth remembering that Section 28, bad legislation as it was and against which Cameron was grandstanding, nonetheless did not arise because of the dogmatic bigotry of Tories, but rather in response to a parental backlash against some of the things being peddled in schools by militant homosexualist lobby groups. Putting aside theological considerations, and concentrating solely on the voting numbers, according to the recent social attitudes survey ('which proves we're all becoming more socially liberal'), 27.2% of people think homosexual act are always wrong, and a further 6.9% think they were almost always wrong. That, whichever way you look at it, constitutes a fair chunk (34.1%) of the electorate who might well feel more than a little rebellious against Cameron's determination to have schools force upon their kids the view that homosexual practice is perfectly normal. Unless he is careful, Cameron might find himself walking straight into his own equivalent of Section 28 - only this time it will be of his own making.
In addition, and to broaden the picture a little, one might also add the divisive and sectarian approach toward candidate selection, and the open warfare launched by CCHQ against their own local associations (Turnip Taliban, etc.). Then there was the hug-a-hoody movement, against the backdrop of increasing fear of what some have termed 'feral youth', the Green Dave cycling to work and sledging with huskies, just as opinion swung massively against the anthropogenic global warming narrative, and, more light-heartedly, the Dave who thought the language of Lily Allen was too excessive for his young daughter, even after having swore repeatedly on national radio, no doubt in an attempt to 'get down with the yoof'. One could also add the near refusal to talk about immigration, or multiculturalism, or the EU, or grammar schools (still a hot topic) or countless other live issues.
I point these things out not only to be mischievous, but because it also gives an indication of why those to whom Cameron is desperately reaching out remain unconvinced too. They see him trying to be all things to all people, and they doubt his sincerity - and even though he has gambled his house to get them, they seem unsure it was ever really his house to gamble in the first place, and are unwilling to move in until they know they will be truly welcome. Thus, Cameron has alienated natural conservatives, whilst simultaneously hardening swing-votes against him, as the undecideds buy the Labour attack that he is disingenuous, and merely sugar-coating his words for pre-election marketability. Shot from both sides - and only himself to blame.
At the centre of all this, then, stands the 'modernising' agenda enthusiastically embraced by the Cameron cabal, or more particularly (imho) the social narrative that underpins it. The question is, why has it gone so wrong? As Blond notes, the Tory leadership was once confident of 'winning a social election', but they 'feared the change of terrain to economics'. There is truth in that: the Tories that were strong on the social narrative were strong mainly because of their diagnosis - they evoked the image of the 'Broken Society', and swathes of the electorate, experiencing it every day, bought into it. However, the time came when the electorate moved beyond mere agreement and began to look to Cameron for solutions. To which the meek response has been, up until now, 'more of the same'.
And it is the feebleness of this response that has divided opinion about the sincerity of the Cameron project. All too often it wants to face two-ways at once, and in so doing it often misses what is standing four-square in front of it (see Norman Tebbit's account of the missing Conservative voters here). A nice example of this is the issue of the family - coming up with 'pro-family' economic policies (to quote Blond, ''what about radical Tory pro-family policies, like a living wage, allowing families to prosper without being propped up by tax credits?), whilst simultaneously doing its best to avoid the word family, or at least extirpate it of all meaning, and promote a 'pro-relationships' agenda instead. By trying so very hard to appease those who are not really pro-anything, let alone pro-family, Cameron has managed to convince even his own party that his own policies are at very best highly nuanced (an incoherence explored by Melanie Phillips here).
Of course, this alternative analysis of Cameron's fall will arouse the usual howls of derision by those proud enough to believe that any opposition to their thought must by definition be regressive, and there will always be those who think, like the alcoholic who believes that one more drink will satisfy his cravings, that the real problem is that the Tories haven't modernised nearly enough. And in one sense, it can be admitted, this is true, though in another it is absolutely not true. To briefly revert back to the economic realm, Blond is right to suggest that, in light of the return of Thatcherite economics, 'Oddly this recent fall caused by a return to Thatcherite orthodoxy has provoked loud demands for more of the same—as if intensifying the approach that lost support somehow holds the key to arresting the damage.'
But this is the very same counter-argument that could be offered against those who wish to 'modernise' Conservative social doctrines - which essentially means declaring yet more bloody war on social conservatives. Because the uncomfortable fact is, the more Cameron has reached out to his 'progressive' friends in the thinktanks of Islington, and adopted in totum New Labour's social doctrines, the more he has lost support, and the more people like Danny Finkelstein inexplicably think he ought to redouble his efforts and do more of the same (and all on the basis of little more than some decidedly ambiguous polling, as Janet Daley has highlighted here, here and here). To recycle a phrase from an unhappy speech, the right-on 'modernisers' in Camp Cameron are like so many fretting ants, busily stacking their own funeral pyre.
Against this one will inevitably have flung back the response 'we've tried all that before, and it lost us three elections,' as if that settles the argument, and Robert the Bruce's wisdom formed in a cave on Rathlin Island applied nothing to political duels of the contemporary age. Here, Melanchthon's recent analysis on ConservativeHome has a kernel of truth to it: to deny a strategy on the basis that it was once unpopular completely ignores the radically changed social scene within which that thrice-defeated narrative might now actually gain serious traction. Circumstances change, and people might recognise that what you said would come to pass has indeed come to pass, and they might therefore look to you to lead them out of the mire (immigration being a perfect example here). As with the popularity of the 'Broken Society' narrative, people were finally looking around and recognising what the economic good years had encouraged them to ignore; the worklessness, the broken families, the entrenched welfarism - and it struck a chord. If ever an electorate were primed ready for something different it was then - when so many 'modernisers' wish simply to ape precisely that which has been rejected, is it any surprise if those voters turn away unimpressed?
As such, the better question would be of what precisely it is that was tried, and what precisely was rejected, and even more importantly what it might be more appropriate to keep. To my mind, those who urge more social 'modernisation' are on the wrong side of this societal change, whilst those who urge economic modernisation, pitted against those who wish to return to devil-take-the-hindmost-and-most-of-the-North-too economics, have it right. As such, I think Blond is correct in his call for more progress, whilst the bien-pensants are wrong - after all as a nation we are, by rule of thumb, economically left-of-centre (try mentioning cuts to the NHS) and socially conservative.
For this reason, I think there is less distance between Montgomerie and Blond than many would think, because often their reaction to modernisation, and the lack/excess of it, are focussed on different things. Certain 'modernisers' are using the opportunity to create a new economic settlement as an opportunity to ram through a new social one too, and whilst Blond is enthusiastic about the former, Montgomerie has shown himself more cautious, and rightly so, about the latter. What is needed is a neat dissection of the two, and a grown up discussion of how far to go on both. At the moment the whole agenda is bundled together as one big homogenous ball of ''progress'' - and it is proving to be an exceedingly large hammer, comically ill-suited to the cracking of a not altogether elusive nut.
There is indeed a great opportunity, in the charred remains of our economic system, to create a new, fairer, more just economic settlement, bringing back into economic society all those that have been systematically stripped of wealth and assets. The danger is, in the desperation to achieve this goal, one unwittingly becomes a carrier for less constructive doctrines, and turns a blind eye to the weaving through of the kind of nihilistic social liberalism that is antithetical to the very Tory tradition in which the economic arguments might neatly nestle. As Blond says, 'Without this [new economic model], Cameron risks repeating the historical failure of one nation Toryism: not creating a political economy for the poor.' Equally, without a social doctrine brave enough to diagnose the causes of societal malfunction, and the willingness to slay a few of liberalism's holy cows in the process, the very things that underpin the current milieu will proceed undaunted, sewing their pernicious seeds along the way.