Conservatism; necessary “evil”?
Universal basic income will only make the poor lazier! They should work harder! The commies just want my money! Do you not like to own things? Abortions should be illegal! Go back to your own country, he doesn’t belong here! Tax foreigners more, they are the ones stealing our jobs! Trump only did what was right! George Floyd was a criminal!
What truly defines a conservative? I pulled that the one binding glue that holds it, is the idea of a permanent moral truth ( An axiom, if you will). Every conservative statement mentioned above was backed by an ‘absolute’ truth to a conservative. What really differs the liberal from the conservative lies in the permanent or temporary belief in these truths! Take for example, the act of committing an abortion is seen as a sin and an act of heresy against the christian God and that this killing betrays and acts against him, thus why many conservatives are pro-life (In general), this belief in this moral ‘truth’ is a ground example to what all conservatives in general follow and are guided by.
The initial thought that came to mind when these comments were made can be summarized by a quote from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. How do these people believe that the same rights that protect them should be retracted to another while sitting on their throne of privilege? How could anyone with a spot of compassion even say such things? To sacrifice yourself for the greater good, is that not what everybody wants? I debated about this in my head when an epiphany struck; of course, they do, they want to be the main characters of their own stories which reflect their conservative ‘truths’.
So I began to expand this thought and push it further. Let us first critique on liberalism. In the age of neoliberal tendencies, the conquest to reduce traditional values to ashes has obviously been done in a very ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’ -esque. Walls like patriarchy, slavery, and homosexuality have been knocked down, these concepts were social structures that have been in place for 75,000 years yet in the short span of 300 years they have been rearranged and deconstructed in most developed countries.
I am only privileged to witness this era of moral enlightenment and these great civil changes in its pure, comedic, blissful yet cringe-worthy form. However, let us imagine the extremes. Let us say the world was completely filled only with radical libertarians (Anarchist Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), wouldn’t this swing towards the left-wing creating new enemies that range from left anarchist liberals to right conservative liberals? Novel differing opinions will only replace its predecessors so would it not be simply just a newer form of chaos that arises?
Let's imagine, the world falls into anarchy and is under the Far-left. If everyone has to be seen as equal, would it then be wrong to be seen as unique? These far-left swings clash with our innate humanitarian tendencies. Think about it, what are the first thoughts that surface when you meet somebody new? Our first impressions are formulated because of our very tendency to observe for differences between us, them, and others. There is an interesting study which was done by a collection of universities; which concluded that if you minimize differences in national wealth and gender difference, you maximize the biological differences in gender. This leads me to believe that it is possible that if you maximize equality for everyone at a societal level, you may also maximize the differences in society — breeding new set of problems.
We have seen the detrimental effects of liberalism in many European countries already, these sculptural embodiments of culture that have once inspired many civil rights movements have almost turned unto themselves. The French Revolution that inspired the masses to overthrow the rich and noble has taken shape in the form of modern-day protests led by the divisive people with a stronger and smarter agenda. Liberalism as much as conservatism has led to the bipartisan decision-making process in Congress, which its effectiveness is still up for debate.
Perhaps with this birth of ultra neoliberalism, its own fated peril quickly advances?
So why is conservatism necessary? Conservatism in its purest form is irrational and how can irrationality even float in politics and civil policies, when at its heart is the replacement of pure reason with arbitrariness.
Conservatism is nothing new. It was what was used to help aristocracies (the rich and powerful) maintain power in the past, which unfortunately provide remnants of it which can still be seen till this day. Their introduction of traditions of which encompass many of what is deemed as “good” values ultimately maintain their power and assert control over masses and has been prevalent in many examples of governance. These “good” values are thus what holds society in place and disrupts the potential chaos that arises without it. There are so many examples of this that I can even generalise the process and the outstanding characteristics of a conservative government.
Here are some obvious telltale signs of a conservative government (with a relative degree of fascism). Notice how majority of conservative governments conveniently has a group of “intruders” to blame for a nation's downfall or rainy times; this is the habit of conservatism, to villanize a group and use a simple tag line (e.g MAGA) to encourage nationalistic uniformity allowing the unquestioned execution of private agendas. (Prominent examples are Hitler and the Jews or Trump and the immigrants) This was often done through the method of dismissing education, suppressing informative literacy, and ‘dumbing’ down the public murdering reason in the process.
The simplest answer to why conservatism is still around is because aristocracies still exists under the captivating facade of wealth, and the dire need for its opposition is what helps hold society in relative equilibrium. In a sense, it can be seen as a circuit breaker to liberalism which could be illustrated as an electric current quickly sprinting through wiring. A necessary opposition if you will to all definite forms of anarchy — the almost destined outcome of any radical leftist change.
The problem with conservatism is not because they are always wrong; for truly who is ever right? Its problem is by standing firm beside traditional values, it encourages rigidity and irrationality opposed to modernity and opportunity for advancement at the expense of the masses. However, every weakness brings about its own advantages — Because of conservatism’s firm beliefs in traditional values, it also serves to ground the foundation of political structure and social calm. A total abandonment of these inherited structures will only lead to a gap that would leave the world in darkness and chaos for a momentary epoch. An example of a conservative policy that has served the world well are the your famous individual liberties (Individual rights), so just think of a world without them.
This is thus why a mix of both liberal and conservative policies encourages harmonious and conducive exchanges, conservatism is necessary to avoid a total collapse in what we know as social structures.
To conclude, conservatism has been neutered down by liberalism to a flood gate. The last 100 years have produced many great economic, educational, and technological leaps resulting in many of us having the privilege to be educated. This has led to the rapid increase of liberalism with reference to many movements like BLM, LGTBQ+, and many more as well as bipartisan discussions like this. This influx of liberalism can be seen as moral enlightenment, however, as with all things in life it has to be kept in balance, and conservatism in its base state is the “necessary evil” to keep as a powerful counterweight to liberalism.
I hope this article provides a decent enough of a shallow insight into 2 behemoths of ideologies. Subsequent articles will be on subjects of democracy, voting and many other philosophical theories; I believe upon further reading into those articles, you can return to this article to help understand my reasonings better.
I would like to emphasize that my views do not represent any cooperation or entity. These are no means of an attack on anyones right of speech, views, or religion but rather to explore and share my train of thought. I ask not for everything to be taken in strict correctness but rather for you to read or look for other sources to formulate an individual opinion so as to appropriately discuss and learn.
Bradley Zander
