David Offei Boadu

CONSERVATISM
INTRODUCTION: TRADITIONAL AND CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATISM The term conservatism dates back to the 1830s; roots of conservatism date back to Toryism of late 17th century and even further back. A pragmatic philosophy that changes considerably in response to altered circumstances. An attitude of mind rather than a system of thought? No predetermined blueprint but rather a common sense approach to practical problems? Conservative Party seen as pragmatic rather than ideological. Lack of key theoretical texts/ideas ideological inspiration often comes from outside Tory ranks (e.g. Burke (Whig), Chamberlain (radical Liberal Unionist), Keynes, neo-liberalism). Party has been flexible in adapting policies to circumstances accounts for much of its enduring success, and ability to bounce back from disaster (1832, 1906, 1945). Implies lack of consistency in conservatism? Certainly considerable change since 1975 Thatcher a conviction politician, bringing change of style and direction; ideological rather than pragmatic approach; inspired by many thinkers not associated with mainstream conservatism. Gilmour argues Thatcherism marked a decisive break from the mainstream conservative tradition yet Utley claims Thatcher was an instinctive and wholly English conservative. Easy to exaggerate the breach with the past; possible to argue the shift was consistent with traditional flexibility. Nevertheless, the party was not always the champion of market forces and individualism.

THE TORY TRADITION Origin of British conservatism. Toryism dates from 17th century, though conservatism dates from Peels 1834 Tamworth Manifesto, and thus modernisation of the party. Hence the conservative tradition (like liberalism) pre-dates the Conservative party, and includes Burke a Whig rather than a Tory. Yet in common parlance a Tory is simply a conservative often used also as a term of abuse by opponents. Whigs wanted to limit royal authority; Tories supported the monarchy. Whigs upheld the right to religious dissent; Tories were the party of the C of E. Whigs, though led by aristocratic landowners, were associated with commercial/manufacturing interests; Tories were the party of the landed gentry. And Tories stood for traditional authority and hierarchy in society values that were largely carried forward into conservatism.

SUMMARY OF THE HISTORICAL TORY-CONSERVATIVE TRADITION Late 17th century: Toryism Monarch, Church of England, landed interest. 18th century: Toryism Jacobitism tradition (Bolingbroke); limitations of reason (Burke, Hume).

David Offei Boadu

Early 19th century: Reactionary Toryism (Liverpool, Castlereagh) fear of revolution, repression; agricultural protection; romanticism (Coleridge). 1820s: Liberal Toryism liberal foreign policy, reform, Catholic emancipation (Canning, Robinson, Huskisson). 1830s/1840s: Peelite Conservatism pragmatism, gradualism, acceptance of parliamentary reform, repeal of Corn Laws. 1860s/1870s: Disraeli Conservatism one nation, paternalism, patriotism and imperialism, Tory democracy. (Disraeli, R. Churchill). Mid 1880s to 1930s: Unionism (Salisbury, J. Chamberlain, Balfour, Baldwin) preservation of Union with Ireland, imperial preference, protection, social reform. 1940s to 1960s: Postwar One Nation Conservatism (Churchill, Butler, Macmillan, Macleod) Keynesianism, mixed economy, welfare state, conciliation of trades unions, planning, end of empire. 1970s/1980s: Thatcherism (Thatcher, Joseph, Hayek, Friedman) free markets, competition, privatisation, traditional Conservative values, strong state, national sovereignty. 1990s and 21st century: Post Thatcherism (Major, Hague, Duncan Smith).

CONSERVATISM; REACTION AND GRADUALISM Oakeshott: To be conservative is to prefer the known to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded a general aversion to change. The man of conservative temperament believes that a known good is not lightly to be surrendered for an unknown better. (1962) But conservatism does not simply consist of maintaining the existing state of affairs, resisting change until it occurs and then defending the newly-established status quo. In practice conservatives may be reactionary not only in the sense of reacting against change, but often in seeking to restore the past/turn back the clock. But the British Right has seldom been reactionary in the sense of seeking the restoration of an earlier constitutional order/regime (though in the 18th century the Tory cause was for a time tainted with and divided by Jacobitism). Yet British Tories/Conservatives might be described as reactionary in the more literal sense of reacting against the changes proposed or made by their opponents so in the 17 th century Tories reacted against the Puritan assault on the authority of the Church, against the limits the parliamentary opposition to the Stuarts wished to place on toyal authority, and against new sources of income and wealth that seemed to threaten their interests. 18 th century Toryism and 19th century Conservatism can be seen more generally as a reaction against the major upheavals/developments in the western world against the Liberalism resulting from the 18 th century Enlightenment, the American and French Revolutions and above all industrial capitalism. Suspicious of the claims made for reason, and of the accompanying threat to

David Offei Boadu

secular and spiritual uthority; hostile to language of equal rights (US and France) and horrified by claims/conduct of rebels/revolutionaries; fearful of changes resulting from industrialisation; Tory squires threatened by the new wealth and its growing political weight. But the Conservative Party has seldom been reactionary in the sense of resisting ALL progress. A readiness to adapt and change the key to electoral success. Fierce opposition to change often followed by subsequent acceptance; on occasions the party has been convinced of the need for change, and has itself promoted it. But conservatives have generally preferred cautious/gradual reforms, and which are consistent with tradition attitude to reform best expressed by Burke (1729-87). Burke, like all Whigs, celebrated 1688 Glorious Revolution and supported the American War of Independence. But horrified by post 1789 developments in France his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) makes a careful distinction between the conservative ideas behind 1688 and the radical ideas behind the French revolution. 'All the reformations we have hitherto made have proceeded upon the principle of reference to antiquity. The very idea of the fabrication of a new government is enough to fill us with disgust and horror. Reform should grow organically out of the past, and be based on precedent, authority and example rather than abstract reason. Peel the best example of the partys attitude to organic change and reform. Resisted change on Catholic Emancipation, Parliamentary Reform and Corn Law Repeal, but finally conceded it. Helped Wellington to carry C.E. in 1829. Following 1832 Act, 1834 Tamworth Manifesto recognises clock cannot be put back, and articulates his own gradualist attitude to reform. After years of defending Corn Laws, he carried through reform with Whig upport against a majority of his own party in 1846. A preference for gradual reform and organic change, rather than either reaction or radical change, often seen as a defining characteristic of British conservatism though there are significant exceptions, notably Disraeli, Chamberlain and Thatcher (all radicals). More typical gradualist line represented in turn by Halifax (17 th century), Burke and Pitt the Younger (18th), Peel and Salisbury (19th) and Baldwin (Safety First), Butler and Whitelaw (20th).

REASON AND TRADITION Conservative preference for limited change combined with suspicion of the pure reason behind schemes for radical reform. In this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings .. we are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his private stock of reason, because we suspect that the stock of each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages (Burke). Men neither act particularly rationally, and neither should they a view of human nature far removed from Benthams rational calculator. Disraeli particularly critical of utilitarianism There has been an attempt to reconstruct society on a basis of material motives and calculations. It has failed (Coningsby). Oakeshott decries the Rationalist who stands for independence of mind on all occasions the enemy of authority, of prejudice, of the merely traditional, customary or habitual . familiarity has no worth he alwys prefers the invention of a new device to making use of a current and well-tried expedient (1962). Conservatives by contrast prefer innovations that

David Offei Boadu

grow out of the present, and in response to some specific defect he will find small and slow changes more tolerable than large and sudden; and he will value highly every appearance of continuity. HUMAN IMPERFECTION Pessimistic assumptions about human nature and human potential for social progress. A philosophy of imperfection (Quinton, 1978). Belief in the perfectability of man seen as a liberal or socialist error; conservatives have a consciousness of original sin. Ideologies such as liberalism, socialism and anarchism, all presenting an optimistic picture of human nature/potential, are seen to be at odds with orthodox Christian faith Christs intercession is necessary for human salvation. Humans are too flawed to achieve salvation through their own efforts, and the same weaknesses prevent spontaneous cooperative social endeavour, thus requiring authority and strong government to keep men in order. Quinton (1978) distinguishes between religious (Hooker, Clarendon, Johnson, Burke, Coleridge, Newman) and secular (Halifax, Bolingbroke, Hume) traditions of conservative thought the latter stresses the radical intellectual imperfection of the human individual as well as a parallel belief in the moral imperfection of mankind. Is Hobbes (1588-1679) part of the conservative secular tradition? Very gloomy view of human nature without order, life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Rationale behind strong government with absolute powers. Quinton argues Hobbes not a conservative on account of his absolutism, his rationalism and his individualism. But without Hobbes, Quintons secular conservative tradition is fairly insubstantial. Many conservatives quite explicitly associate political principles with Christian faith and Anglicanism in particular is highly compatible with conservatism, sharing the same pessimistic assumptions about human nature, and both involving an acceptance of authority and hierarchy as an antidote to human moral and intellectual shortcomings.

AUTHORITY, LEADERSHIP AND TORY DEMOCRACY Above assumptions about human nature lead to conclusion that democracy is a hazardous enterprise for much of 19th century conservatives viewed it with abhorrence. Peel opposed 1832 Reform Bill; Salisbury (1860) referred to the democratic forces which are now labouring to subvert the English constitution, seeing the resulting State power as a threat to the better off. Qualified acceptance of democracy only when it became clear that it was compatible with maintaining existing social order and defending property Disraeli believed working classes could be won for conservatism, and persuaded his party to dish the Whigs by promoting the 1867 Reform Bill. Gladstone won 1868 election, but in the longer run the Conservatives won and held on to a substantial minority of the working class vote. Realisation too that there was no harmony of interest between industrial workers and their liberal bosses no accident that Manchester (home of liberalism in mid 19th century) later established a strong tradition of working class conservatism.

David Offei Boadu

Acceptance of democracy did not involve significant dilution of the conservative endorsement of authority, hierarchy and the mixed constitution. Mass suffrage simply grafted onto and adapted to a Tory view of the Constitution in which all initiative comes from government. Government by consent, not by delegation (Beer, 1982); seen also in Schumpeter (1943) view where all initiative comes from leaders and not the masses so democracy equals a constrained competition for votes and not popular participation in government. Coupled with this is Tory view of an organic society made up of unequal but mutually dependent classes, where few have the qualities and experience to govern; hence the masses defer to the judgement and experience of the governing class Bagehot suggested that this deference was one of the main supports of the constitution. Lord Randolph Churchill (author of the term Tory democracy) believed it possible to secure popular support for existing institutions. Conservatives assume a common national interest which transcends individual or class interests; all share the benefits of an ordered society and system of government; the poorest can be made to appreciate the sanctity of property and existing social arrangements. Critics regard this as a confidence trick which serves to conceal from the lower classes their true interests God bless the squire and his relations, And keep us in our proper stations. The conservative response is that inequality is natural and inevitable; preaching equality stirs up envy and hatred, since the passions aroused can never be satisfied.

THE DEFENCE OF PROPERTY Unequivocal defence of property unlike socialists (anti) and liberals (ambivalent elaborate justifications based on natural rights, but with particular problems over inherited wealth). No problem of justification for conservatives, since existing property rights are part of traditional social arrangements. Inequality in property reflects inequality in ability/energy. Even if the existing property distribution does not accord with dessert, no ideal social justice is obtainable; attempts to justify interference with existing property rights in pursuit of social justice threatens the whole institution of private property. But conservatives concede that possession of property entails obligations. Strong defence also of inherited property seen by Burke as a means of perpetuating society itself. Oakeshott (1962) associates private property with freedom, and suggests that private ownership of the means of production is a necessary condition of liberty. Scruton (1980) refers to mans absolute and ineradicable need of private property, which represents the common intuition of every labouring person attacks state intervention to redistribute property through progressive taxation, wealth and inheritance taxes. Towards the end of 19th century the Conservative party became the party not only of landed property, but of property in general, as the manufacturing interest, alienated by radicalism, deserted the Liberals. Key conservative problem how to persuade those with little or no property to accept its existing distribution. So deliberate attempt, especially recently, to widen and extend property ownership hence Edens property-owning democracy and postwar efforts to promote home and share ownership, including compulsory sale of council houses and privatisation of major industries on favourable terms for small investors. Nevertheless, despite wider ownership of property, its very uneven distribution persists.

David Offei Boadu

PATERNALISM AND SOCIAL REFORM Until recently the defence of private property was not accompanied by an unqualified acceptance of the free market and laissez-faire. Indeed, most Tories were of the view that people unable to perceive and pursue their own rational self-interest were in need of help and guidance, even control. The states authority provided order and discipline, but also support for the weak. And others more fortunately placed (natural endowments or wealth) had a responsibility to provide that help, guidance and control. View of society as an organic whole, involving ties of mutual dependence, which in turn suggested social duties/responsibilities as well as individual rights. Disraeli most notably associated with such Tory paternalism. Sybil attacks the whole system of capitalist values associated with industrialisation since the passing of the Reform Act the altar of Mammon has blazed with triple worship. Based in part on a nostalgia for a (fictitious?) romantic past a society of mutual dependence, where privilege entailed obligations, and where social division/class conflict did not exist. Disraelis references to the two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy. Like later Conservatives who adopted the One Nation slogan, Disraeli hoped that social divisions could be transcended. An element of the pragmatic here too the palace is not safe when the cottage is not happy. Opponents of conservatism see this as a con trick, with conservatives masking inevitable class conflicts in their own interests. Conservatives convinced that they stand for the nation and against sectional interests a potent appeal. Paternalism has not always necessarily implied state action (indeed very much the last rather than the first resort in the 19th century) Disraeli felt the necessary help should be provided by the aristocracy, the church and from voluntary activity. His targets in Sybil were uncaring landowners who neglected their tenants and new exploitative capitalists; at Shrewsbury in 1843 he blamed current political evils on the development of property divorced from duty very much counter to the notion of rational self-interest and self-help, but not viewing the state as the principal vehicle for the alleviation of social distress. By 1872, however, Disraeli was describing the elevation of the condition of the people as the third great object of the Tory party though historians have exposed the myth that there was any clear, consistent programme of reform behind the Disraeli governments legislative record (Smith, 1967). Commitment to social reform of his successors also questionable Randolph Churchills enthusiasm for Tory democracy and reform owed more to rhetoric than reality; even the adhesion of Joseph Chamberlain made little difference to the period of Conservative inertia.

PROTECTION AND TORY COLLECTIVISM In the early 19th century the Tories were the party of protection particularly agriculture. Party split in 1846 after repeal of the Corn Laws, with most remaining protectionist; later in the 19th century the demand for fair trade (rather than free trade) was articulated. Chamberlain, in 1903, turned the issue into a crusade with his demand for imperial protection; Baldwin defeated in 1923 on this issue; conservative protectionists views prevailed in the 1930s National Government. Enthusiasm for protection dropped by the party only after WW2.

David Offei Boadu

Collectivism has strong negative connotations for modern conservatives, yet this was not always so Chamberlains state-interventionist policies to rationalise industry (managed capitalism) in the 1930s are described as collectivist rather than socialist by Gilmour (1978). Macmillan preached an interventionist Middle Way between laissez-faire capitalism and socialist state planning. The wartime Tory Reform Group urged the acceptance of social reform and the recommendations of the Beveridge Report, declared to be the very essence of Toryism. Butler (1947) declared: We are not frightened at the use of the State endorsed by Eden: We are not the political children of the laissez-faire school. We opposed them decade after decade. The Welfare State established by the coalition/Labour governments was maintained, even enhanced. A policy of compromise/accommodation was applied to the unions. And, after denationalisation of steel and road haulage, other nationalised industries were maintained. Role of government continued to expand, as did public expenditure indeed, Macmillan accepted resignation of entire Treasury team in 1958 rather than the spending cuts they demanded. The commitment to full employment policies was maintained, and through orthodox Keynesian demand management policies; when such policies failed to raise growth (and failed to deal with B of P and sterling crises) Macmillans government went for more intervention rather than free market solutions NEDC (long term economic planning) and the NIC (incomes policy). Some Conservatives regard this highpoint of Tory collectivism as a monstrous aberration Joseph (1976) recanted, declaring he only subsequently discovered true conservatism. Others such as Gilmour (1958) claim that Butler/Macmillan represent the mainstream Tory tradition, and that it is the free market neo-liberal nostrums of the New Right that are heretical. Beer (1982) sees post WW2 One Nation conservatism as the culmination of a Tory collectivist tradition a rather selective interpretation of Conservative history. Greenleaf (1973) suggests a lasting tension within conservatism between its libertarian and collectivist strands; Freeden (1996) sees this dual conservative tradition as a chimera the contradictions were more apparent than real, and partly reflected a rhetorical conservative response to the contrasting challenges of liberalism and socialism. Arguably, both strands of conservatism require a strong state, and emphasis upon leadership and authority. A perennial Tory theme is the need for leadership Bolingbroke, Carlyle and Disraeli, Churchill and Thatcher. Respect for authority is a key message in the thought of Burke and Salisbury.

PATRIOTISM AND IMPERIALISM The strong state was even more important in foreign policy than in domestic policy. Its authority chimed in easily with Conservative nationalism and imperialism though no monopoly of patriotic sentiment until the later 19th century. Nationalism was associated with liberalism under Palmerston, but Disraelis assiduous promotion of imperialism and the national interest contrasted with Gladstones internationalism, and associated the Conservatives with patriotism a highly successful electoral strategy, particularly with the newly enfranchised working classes, and effectively making Tory social reform redundant in the late 19th century.

David Offei Boadu

From the 1880s to the 1960s liberals, radicals and socialists were constantly accused in Tory party literature of being unpatriotic and undermining English/imperial interests (McKenzie and Silver, 1968). In 1900 the radicals were associated with a small England, a Shrunken England, a Degraded England, a Submissive England; a 1910 pamphlet claimed If you fight for radical socialism you fight for a divided nation .. a divided Kingdom .. the Union sold! A British isle no more, Ireland breeds treason to the Empires core. In 1924, the Labour Government was accused of putting the foreigner first and preferring the Bolsheviks to our own people. Perhaps such sentiments are a better guide than philosophy to the popular appeal and interpretation of conservatism? Overlap with nationalism which has also coloured Liberalism and Labourism. But the Conservatives most successfully exploited the patriotic theme, reinforcing claims to stand above narrow class interests, and for the nation as a whole. Hogg Being Conservative is only another way of being British. Baldwin and Churchill particularly astute in associating themselves and their party with British values and interests, but the more internationalist climate post WW2, coupled with the decline in the British empire and British power, made patriotic rhetoric seem outmoded. Macmillan and Heath pursued entry into the EEC, but Powells English nationalism, expressed in his opposition to black immigration, the EEC and concessions to the Catholics in Ulster, showed that chauvinism still had popular appeal, especially from the working class. Further shown by Thatcher Falklands War was the most dramatic illustration of renewed Conservative nationalism, while emphatic assertion of British interests has been a consistent theme in defence and foreign policy since 1979 a reminder that Thatchers brand of conservatism involved significant elements of continuity with the past. But in other respects Thatcherism (New Right) involved a break with the Conservative tradition see paper on Thatcherism and the New Right.

Conservatism
Hegel's view was that the process of dialectics constitutes the mechanism by which ideas change. Out of each thesis (or idea) necessarily arises an anti-thesis (or challenging idea) which inevitably becomes a synthesis of the two. Whether this is indeed the driving force in human intellectual development may never be known, but the development of conservatism bears a close resemblance to this process. Whereas liberalism sought to liberate mankind from oppressive institutions (be they governments, religious institutions, oppressive social customs and traditions, or vast economic enterprises), conservatism developed as a reaction to what was perceived as dangerous tendencies within the liberal movements toward radicalism and a wholesale rejection of the past as valuable. There was and is an element within conservatism that holds the past in reverence and views with skepticism most change, particularly if it was planned change. If, however, conservatism means nothing more than a rationale' justifying the maintenance of the status quo then it cannot be correctly adjudged an ideology for it would be content neutral. Conservatism could, in that instance, be used to support political systems ranging from democratic to communist to fascist to anarchistic.

David Offei Boadu

A closer examination of conservatism does reveals a more meaningful doctrine than merely conserving that which exists. Whereas liberalism embraces societal and governmental change as both necessary and desirable, conservatism does indeed adopt a much more doubtful view of the desirability of altering proven institutions and societal values. Respect for authority, custom, and tradition permeate a conservative value system. In particular, changes in the moral ordering of society are seen as very suspicious and probably harmful. Aside from this ingrained suspicion of change there are at rock bottom values within the conservative tradition that remain constant. Once again it is an Englishman who first expounded the moderate political doctrine in question. Edmund Burke (1729-97) did not create conservatism but as Locke did for liberalism, became its most eloquent spokesman and advocate. In numerous pamphlets this scholar-politician put on paper what was to become the anti-thesis to liberalism run riot (in Burke's view). Throughout his long and lustrous career within the British political system Burke expressed a profound admiration for the success of the British "Glorious Revolution" of 1688-89 in which the Parliament asserted its power as against royal prerogatives. The Bill of Rights was adopted which limited the power of the Monarch and protected itself from arbitrary royal enactments. His was a passion for justice, sound governmental administration, devotion to religion and unrelenting opposition to tyranny. For over twenty-five years he was the leading intellectual force in Whig party politics in Great Britain. As a Member of Parliament he supported the American independence movement largely on practical grounds. He continuously advocated policies that produced peace and prosperity. What galvanized Burke most intensely was the French Revolution. In his work Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) ideas were set forth that shaped political thinking down to the present time. His intense opposition to and condemnation of the French Revolution as destructive to French society did irreparable damage to his political career and caused estrangements with old friends. Ultimately the Whig party itself was split asunder over this issue. Burke had long be reluctant to engage in a discussion of the general principles of his ideas. He initially felt that broad abstractions were to be avoided. The French Revolution, however, forced his basic views out in the open. In his refutation of the justifications of the French Revolution Burke attempted to destroy the logic behind the revolutionist reliance on reason and logic as tools guiding social change. Human beings did have rights, Burke did readily admit, but they were conventional not natural. These rights were organically related to society and could not be divorced from it. People need to have a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves; something that will endure beyond their own short lives. Base feelings of love and loyalty bind members of society together giving them a sense of purpose that permits and encourages self-sacrifice for the larger purposes of the community. Deep emotional attachment will nurture a sense of duty and responsibility that ultimately produce a better society for all. Society is not held together by abstract principles such as a "social contract" but by people bound together through a sense of history, shared experiences and common

David Offei Boadu

beliefs. The role of irrationality in society can be ignored only at the risk of misunderstanding a most important inherent characteristic in all mankind. Human institutions have evolved over time and are not the product of rationally constructed plans of action. Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure -- but the state ought to be considered as something far better and more significant "than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern." The State us not to be taken as something of a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence. . . "It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. . . . Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds ass physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place." (Reflections 1790, Works, Vol. II p. 368)In this statement Burke makes little distinction between state and society. The overall message is crystal clear: that which binds humans together is far more than any commercial contract which is subject to abrogation at will. No well-reasoned rationale' can justify overturning what time immemorial has produced. Moreover, reason running rampant becomes raging radicalism inevitably destined to destroy much of what generations of human experience has produced. The religious foundations of society almost inexorably come to support conservative political doctrine. Burke himself exhibited a devotion to religion and to the religious foundations of the just state. Government, the State and society in general were all part of a divine order though which God's will exhibits itself. This religious orientation in Burke's conservatism may be found in most, if not all, conservative movements. Regimes that call themselves "Marxist" have been seen to resort to religious-like defenses when confronted with serious challenges. Stalin urged Soviet citizens in the second world war to come to the defense of "Mother Russia." More commonly those espousing a conservative position refer to some "divine" purpose inherent in their society and state. At best this places moral obligations on the state to follow policies that are just and fair (however these terms may be defined). At worst this "divine" purpose becomes a justification for domination of peoples outside the "chosen" ones. Without this religious anchor the development of some "special" social cause or purpose becomes very difficult to maintain. Just as mankind's need to have some transcendental system of belief in an ordered universe was seen an necessary, so too was a government which emphasized order, custom, and tradition. Order is needed to reign in mankind's ingrained selfish tendencies and proclivity toward savagery. The state, which is the enforcement arm of society, must rule in a strong and resolute manner providing swift, sure and harsh punishment for those who violate the law. Proper respect for the roles and responsibilities of private institutions must be observed by government and support should be provided. Custom and tradition should receive their due for they are the outgrowth of generations of experience. Reverence for that which has stood the test of time is ignored at the risk of instability,

David Offei Boadu

disorder and social disintegration. A sense of community that is both broad and deep is needed if long-term adherence to social values is to be obtained. This sense of community is no conscious, voluntary and rational decision that one chooses to accept. Society is no debating group says the conservative. People must feel they are a part of something larger and more important than themselves. Pride in and love for the institutions and traditions of one's society go beyond mere knowledge and willful acceptance of these things. From the earliest childhood and continuing throughout life individuals need to be made a part of the great traditions of his/her people. Accomplishments in the arts and sciences, cherished customs, linguistic uniqueness, religious traditions, economic practices, and especially established human relationships including marriage and family values must be embraced and supported with fervor. Symbols need to be revered and treated with the utmost respect for they represent the very basic elements of society. The nature of humanity, according to conservative doctrine, is far less admirable than seen in the liberal view. All humans are essential self oriented and in pursuit of their own best interests as they see those interests These irrational drives and self-serving tendencies must be tempered by social control mechanisms that are the outgrowth of centuries of experience. In addition to this selfish characteristic of humans, conservatives believe that the concept of equality is both inaccurate and undesirable. People are not equal in their abilities or value to society. Those who are more able and who contribute more to the well being of their community are deserving of greater rewards. These rewards include not only enhanced material wealth, elevated social status but also a greater role in the governance structure. While traditional conservative doctrine supported the notion of a hereditary aristocracy, modern conservatives support what might be called an aristocracy of talent and morality. Societies leaders should be chosen from those individuals who have by their own talents demonstrated superior abilities through recognized achievements. But even they cannot properly be given unlimited powers because like all humans they are flawed and cannot be trusted to do what is right. They too must be restrained in their powers by the same institutions and customs operating to maintain stability in society. Just as great societal changes (industrialization, organization, technological innovations, and modernization generally) forced liberalism to alter its stance regarding the proper role of government in economic matters, so too has conservatism changed its position in the face of such great forces. Regarding the important question of the proper relationship between government and the economy conservative doctrine has taken the somewhat ambivalent position of supporting government actions that simultaneously encourage and yet does not control or even closely regulate business activities. This often amounts to a "hands off" policy insofar as government regulation is concerned, but a "helping hand" policy regarding such matters as favorable taxation rates, beneficial tariffs (legislation protecting home business from foreign competition), price supports and countless other schemes. As liberalism began to espouse the need for increased governmental regulation of business enterprises conservatives, particularly during the depression years in the United

David Offei Boadu

States, adopted increasingly anti-regulatory positions. Cries of "creeping socialism" were raised against liberal efforts to increase governmental control over the economy. Aside from questions of economics conservatism has retained, and in recent years emphasized, its original emphasis on maintaining traditional values and institutions. Social maladies that seem to accompany Twentieth Century intensive urbanization (family disintegration, drug and alcohol abuse, soaring street crime rates, and a general loss of a sense of safety) are seen by conservatives as clear evidence of a need to return to basics: faith in God, hope for a better future, love of country and family, instillation of self-discipline in the young, willingness to sacrifice immediate gratification for future goals, industriousness, and a sense of belonging. Exactly how these values are to be implanted remains controversial even among conservatives but the goal of returning them to their proper place in society drives conservatives to offer a wide range of governmental policies: swift and harsh punishment for criminals, "no frills" education with strict discipline in schools, governmental protection of institutions devoted to maintaining traditional values (including churches), elimination of welfare programs believed to encourage immorality and indolence, expansive (and expensive) military policies ostensibly protecting the home country from foreign threats and a host of other proposals. In summary, conservatism does contain basic beliefs and values beyond a mere mistrust of change. Certain core concepts remain throughout the long spectrum of the conservative ideology. They may be seen as: 1. high value on existing institutions as produced by custom and tradition 2. a belief in mankind's essential base and irrational nature 3. faith in some supernatural force guiding human affairs 4. acceptance of human inequality and the attending consequence of social hierarchy 5. recognition of the need for a sense of community among individuals that will bind them emotionally to their society.