The Bankruptcy of Conservative Politics

The Illiberal and unscientific ‘ideology’

Conservatism found its calling during the liberal revolutions and reformations of Europe. Noblemen looked at the revolutions of France and the American colonies in horror as the nations violently refused the idea of Monarchy and the arbitrary powers that came with it. Fearing a similar fate, these noblemen doubled down in their philosophies and power structures to make sure that the guillotine blade or the pen stroke of law that would do away with them never fell.

Centuries later and the kernel of conservative politics remains the same all around the world — an insecurity found at the top that festers its way down, convincing us that our enemies are our neighbors and not those above.

The Forces of Conservatism

The first ideas that conservatives fought against were those of representational democracy and parliamentarianism. Monarchy was what kept a nation together and any challenge to that rule would lead to anarchy. The challenge to monarchy was not just a political and philosophical one, but a spiritual one. The king/queen operated by divine right and it was by that right that they ruled over all. A removal of the monarch also meant the upset of the religious moral order and the power religious institutions shared and even bestowed on the Monarch.

Noblemen too, due to their position of power as assigned by monarchs, were at risk. As the intelligentsia of the time, and the holders of significant wealth, they mobilized to convince the masses of the horrors democracy and representation will bring. The collapse of moral institutions, the tragedy of the commons and the inability of common folks to self-manage, the various ways that individuals can be cheated by those they elect. Surely, the best thing for them to do is to fight to maintain the monarchies.

And fight they did, liberal and progressive philosophers and revolutionaries such as Thomas Paine had effigies of them burned in protest and faced exile all because they believed the people should be able to choose their leaders and that money being spent by monarchs on war should be used to assist the poor.

We would like to think that today this would all sound ridiculous but the dynamic persists till today. The ideas of moral panic that noblemen of the past drew on are still with us. Today the threat isn’t democracy (at least people haven’t gotten there yet) but it’s immigration, refugees, gay marriage, gender neutral bathrooms, feminism, civil rights and racial inequality etc.

Immigration and refugees will pull apart the fabric of society, our sense of identity — who are we without the king? what makes us who we are? gay marriage, gender fluidity, and feminism will break apart the family unit and with it all sense of morality — how will we know how to behave without the guidance of the church? Fighting for civil rights and racial inequality will erase our history, traditions and culture — it’s the king who made our country what it is, we should be grateful!

The attacks on today’s ‘threats’ also remain much the same. Effigies and misrepresentation of the politicians and the philosophies behind progressive movements rolled up to create ad hominem attacks and present false equivalencies.

Authoritarianism

Although these issues seem significantly more ‘tame’ than fighting for monarchy they all have authoritarian appeals to them; sometimes strong enough that they do lead to attacks on democratic institutions and the consolidation of power especially when problems can be pinned on the workings of democratic institutions themselves.

Politicians, within their democratic right, can be elected on platforms to fight against these ‘threats’ and pass laws that strip away personal liberties to enforce what is seen as ‘traditional’ or ‘natural’ law. This can range from the passing of anti-abortion laws to anti-gay marriage and even anti sex-ed laws and anti immigration laws. Authoritarianism here is not absolute, but it leans on power to enforce ‘correct’ behaviors on individuals.

And this is what conservative parties of today have become, parties that espouse the upholding of ‘traditional institutions’ which they believe have a foundation in nature or history. Politicians can take this a step further though with the rhetoric that the participatory nature of the country is what is allowing ‘internal disruptive elements’ to operate and create social incohesion/are the threat to society (our way of life) and therefore democracy itself needs to be repealed.

Illiberalism

Conservatism has found a comfortable place for itself as the ideology that seeks to maintain and uphold traditional values. It has even been able to present the ideology as a necessary check against the chaos of turbulent or sudden change. But this presentation assumes that progressive movements always need to be violent or turbulent and not that they become so because of conservative illiberalism and resistance to change. Indeed change becomes violent only when it is so brutally opposed and suppressed.

This, then, reveals the core of conservatism not as a voice of reason or caution— but a champion of illiberalism. An ardent opponent to the maxim of live and let live and the upholder of the ‘right way’ to live. But where does their assessment of the right way to live come from? Simply put, it is based in the preservation of traditional power structure (not just tradition as they would posit).

This is why conservative politics is always also unscientific, denial of climate change, a believe in acute punishment of crimes instead of rehabilitation, a preference for abstinence (drugs, alcohol, sex, new age music), and others all find their home in conservative politics. Denialism is necessary to the ideology as preserving the current state of affairs demands the outright refusal of the possibility that there might be a better way.

The Conservative Defense

Conservatives will jump to the defense here and claim that this is a gross mischaracterization. Interestingly, they will fail at providing a correct characterization or one that is not either authoritarian or unscientific as the entirety of the movement is based on reaction to suggested changes and as such may not even qualify as being an ideology or cohesive movement at all!

Its here where Conservatives also claim that their opinions, which express an attachment to cultural and political inheritance, are censored or attacked. But why wouldn’t they be since historically their have always, and continue to, belong in the past as that is what the ideas are predicated on. Here, conservatives are essentially crying wolf for having their opinions attacked for being exactly what they are.

A Place for Conservatism?

So why does conservatism still exist? Is the movement’s role simply to be on the wrong side of history all the time? Or does the fact that conservatism still plays a major role in our contemporary politics mean that we have yet to reach the liberal ideals fought for in 19th century revolutions?

As we’ve already said, conservatism exists today very much as it did at its inception — a gilded concept meant to protect those in power, full with its own intelligentsia, and make belief problems. Today, however, and even though conservatism itself hasn’t changed, what constitutes power has. Political elitism, market forces, and identitarianism continue to hold us back from scientific progress and self-representation (greater democracy). The divisive nature of conservatism makes it easy to accept it as a politics that is looking out for our best interests but its reliance on illiberalism and scientific denialism means that it will never be able to meet our needs on any level, individual or social.