Nick Timothy
Tories need to be more Conservative
‘Nobody voted to make themselves poorer,” the Chancellor likes to say about Brexit. In doing so, his intention is to make the case for keeping Britain closely aligned with the EU, but he also reveals something about his philosophical assumptions. The phrase assumes, mistakenly, that people believed Britain’s membership of the EU was good for the country’s economy, that national prosperity automatically means personal prosperity for all, and that economics overrides all other issues. It implies that people would never put any other consideration ahead of making themselves a little better off.
I know Philip Hammond does not think very deeply about philosophy. There is no harm in that – politics is a practical profession as well as an intellectual pursuit. But his language shows that his assumptions are not conservative, but liberal.
This might sound like an odd thing to say about a politician who disliked liberal reforms such as the introduction of same-sex marriage, but it is true, and it is not unusual: our political system is dominated by leaders whose assumptions are liberal. They favour individual rights over the interests of the community. They neglect or even reject unfashionable traditions and institutions. Their decision-making is often crudely utilitarian, working on the basis that what works for the majority of people is what matters.
The result is often bad – and unpopular – policy. Mass immigration, expensive tuition fees, the invasion of Iraq, European integration, a refusal to reform dysfunctional markets, the bureaucratic marketisation of the NHS, and huge international aid spending, unlinked to the British national interest, can be attributed to the liberal assumptions of our leaders.
The Liberal Party and the Lib Dems have rarely been in power in the last century, but liberals have dominated the main parties for decades. Their supporters condemn alternatives to their policy consensus as “populism”: a loaded term which can be defined as the adoption of positions that are popular, but with which they disagree.
Yet there are legitimate alternatives. For Labour, there is orthodox social democracy. For Conservatives, there is conservatism.
I do not mean that the Conservative Party should become more reactionary or Right-wing. Instead, it must rediscover its philosophical roots.
Doing so should make the Conservatives less Right-wing in fundamental ways, and more open to the kinds of change the country needs and the public want. First, though, they need to understand the difference between liberalism and conservatism.
The starting point of liberal philosophy is an imagined “state of nature”. Life in the state of nature, according to Hobbes, was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”, and to escape this hellish existence, humans agreed a “social contract” to form a government. The content of that contract depends on the philosopher – Locke, Rousseau and Rawls conclude differently – but it always contains fundamental rights. Those rights are universal and as a result liberals often divorce social and political organisation from its historical, cultural and institutional context.
Modern conservative philosophy arose in response to the violent application of these principles during the French Revolution. Government should be grounded not in abstract ideas but in experience. Traditions and institutions should be defended, as they encourage trust, reciprocity and good behaviour. There is an important role for government, but a strong society protects the individual from an over-mighty state. Rights are not universal: citizens acquire them through gradual legal change.
These are the reasons why Edmund Burke, the founding father of modern conservative philosophy, was opposed to the French Revolution but supported the American Revolution. The former saw the imposition of a government founded on abstract ideas, while the latter was a restoration and extension of legal rights that had developed through time. This distinction is why I believe Burke would be a supporter of Brexit.
In distinguishing between conservatism and liberalism, it is important not to go too far. As Roger Scruton, today’s pre-eminent conservative philosopher, argues: “conservatism began life as a qualification of liberal individualism” rather than a rejection of it.
“Conservatism is about freedom,” he explains, “but it is also about the institutions and attitudes that shape the responsible citizen, and ensure that freedom is a benefit to us all. Conservatism is therefore also about the limits to freedom.”
The Conservative Party needs to better reflect this balance between individualism and social solidarity, freedom and responsibility, and capitalism and community. There is no need for any one of the party’s policy traditions to be vanquished, but just as Adam Smith reminded us of our “interest in the fortunes of others” as he made the case for free markets, the modern Conservatives must establish the right balance for today.
Instead of reducing conservatism to a series of privatisations, spending decisions and tax cuts, Conservatives need to rediscover the social essence of their philosophy. Then they can offer a vision based on our responsibilities towards one another; on family, community, and nation; on local and national institutions; on the rights of the individual, yes, but the significance of society too; and on the importance of free markets, but on the necessity of good government as well.
The act of negotiating Brexit and securing Britain’s new place in the world is an enormous task. But our country faces other challenges that cannot be ducked. How to make the economy more productive. How to make it work more fairly. How to cope with change caused by globalisation and new technology. How to ensure fairness between the generations. How to balance individual freedom with our obligations to one another. How to bring together citizens of different races and religions to form one successful society.
Adherents of the liberal consensus often defend their position by denying its ideological basis and claiming their policies are based only on “what works”. But there is plenty in the existing consensus that does not work. As Conservative MPS are beginning to realise, they need to govern with more urgency and greater purpose. The key to finding that purpose lies not in a further excess of liberalism, but in a modern application of real philosophical conservatism.