This core belief of tradition is one of the first points that can be used to prove conservatism is a ruling class ideology. The very fact that they are so eager to conserve and maintain the political system that has resided in the country or even the world since they came into prominence says a lot. This was at a time when in England a very small minority of rich lived in splendour, whereas the rest of the country was confined to atrocious poverty and living conditions. It doesn’t seem as though the wisdom of generations was being used to wisely, and seems more of a reason for change than preservation. Yet radical change was avoided, unwanted by the rich men of the era.
It would then appear that conservatism finds inequality acceptable. If we were to judge this at face value, it would easy to argue that conservatism is simply for the ruling-class. But conservatism actually believes is not only acceptable, but also is not detrimental to the individual, it indeed helps them.
A conservative view of human nature is one that is weak, selfish and irrational. This means that the masses need a strong set of laws, and a government whose sole job is to maintain order. This government needs to be made up of the elite, as they can stave away their selfish natures, and therefore has a duty to the masses. It is in this case then, that maintaining the rule of the top classes, means keeping the cream at the top, and having them do their ‘duty’ to society. Given this natural inequality in the spread of talents and effort, it is obvious that a hierarchical society will exist. It also means that ideologies such as socialism are trying to reverse the natural way. It is in this way that the state should allow those who are more successful or less flawed to achieve the success they deserve, and that there should be an unequal distribution of wealth.
This wealth would apparently trickle down to those at the bottom of the social scale, like a champagne pyramid. This wealth would be part of a gradual development of society, and act to drag it up. Therefore they lead by example, and pull the whole of society up by the bootstraps. This improvement means an increase of standard of living for those at the bottom also. This is a conservative view of inequality, and to them it justifies the fact that there is inequality on the economic and social scale of the society.
The other view would be that it is simply the ruling-class making excuses for remaining in power, without being any less selfish than the poorer members of society. In philosophical terms conservatism claims that human nature is selfish, but can this be proved? It is just a tool for those on top to remain there. Also according to conservatism, especially the New Right, the two most successful economies should have been Britain and the USA, but it was in fact Germany and Japan. This goes further to disprove the fact that letting those ‘elite’ take charge and let those without privileges sink, as they did so with a mixed economy. The same mixed economy which Von Heyeck claimed would lead to a totalitarian state, and yet none of the leading ones have become so.
As with Regan’s policy of keeping a tighter belt where money was concerned, the Welfare state was jeopardised. One of the points of conservatism is the removal of the ‘nanny state’. It is this state which catches the poor when they fall, and in doing so encourages them to fall again, which undermines the freedom of choice and freedom. Conservatism believes in self help, responsibility and entrepreneurialism. This rolling back of the state is not only to help the individual, as it encourages them to become self dependent, but it also saves a great deal of money in taxes.
But if this was the case, it would mean an easier life again for the ruling-class, and a much harder one for the working class, which has nothing to catch an individual in case of trouble, no safety net underneath the economic ladder. This again benefits the ruling-class, and we are further led to believe that conservatism is only looking out for number one, those in control.
The view of ‘reform from above’ being preferable to ‘revolution from below’ shows exactly how conservatives saw the situation. Keep those at the top in charge and they can change their ways rather than have a new set of leaders or class in charge. The Tory position shows not the idea of social equality, but instead a cohesive and stable social hierarchy. The pragmatic approach to the economy is clearly a conservative way, with laissez-faire economy
There is a belief in hierarchy; leadership should come from those best fitted to lead by reason of inheritance or personal merit. Conservatives believe in rule by an elite because the mass of people need to be led and guided by those best equipped for the task. The people will accept this elite leadership in the interests of social stability and because they can see the benefits, both spiritual and material, of being ruled by those best fitted for the task. The elite should not be a closed one; it should be open to those who can demonstrate their fitness to enter. Nor should it rule in its own interest; the tradition of social paternalism has always been strong in the Tory Party and is symbolised by 'One Nation' conservatism.
This view of society means that inequality, far from being an evil to be tackled by collective action through the state, is a fact of life. Attempts by the state to reduce it are bound to fail and to produce even greater evils. Conservatives support equality before the law and equality of opportunity, while opposing social and political equality, especially if imposed by state action. Conservatives argue that people are mainly motivated by self-interest; the resultant distribution of property is unequal but merely reflects the unequal distribution of ability in society.
Critics have pointed out that these principles are only indirectly relevant to the actual policies of Conservative governments, which have abandoned large elements of them if it was thought necessary in the interests of the maintenance of Tory governments. They can also be seen as an elaborate set of justifications for the continued rule of those who have wealth and power and as a way of resisting the efforts of their opponents to change the basis of that wealth and power. Ingle put the point: "...the policies of Conservative governments in the past have always embodied more than class interests. To believe otherwise would be absurd. On the other hand, to believe that the assortment of principles which make up the conservative tradition and which is only randomly related to the policies of Conservative governments could have survived as an ideology had it not also suited the interests of the advantaged, ...would be even more absurd... It is the existence of this relationship between the interests of capital and conservative ideology which makes us confident that, like the poor, the Conservative party will always be with us."
So do we believe that the whole ideology of conservatism is one which is based on the maintenance of power for the elite of the ruling-class? Well I believe that although it does have a great many points which would lead you to believe so, this is not the prime aim. It means well, and also tries to help, encouraging people to try harder and gain wealth for themselves. It is the promotion of a free market and lack of Nanny State, and even ideas such as noblesse oblige mean well, despite being somewhat arrogant.
