Survival of the fittest or the adaptation of conservative and liberal states
Ricardo Moreno Contro
Survival of the fittest or the adaptation of conservative and liberal states
Liberalism and conservatism have shaped and altered western nations for the past two centuries into the democratic governments we now see in every developed country. Of the major political doctrines to emerge since the Middle Ages these two have withstood, almost intact, through the passage of time, why? Liberalism can trace its roots to the Carta Magna, but as a structured set of beliefs, it wasn't until the Enlightenment that it evolved into what is now considered "classical liberalism". Conservatism, on the other hand, first developed in the writings of Edmund Burke and his book Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Both conservative and liberal states share the characteristics of any modern state (sovereign, independent, territorial, monopoly on power and taxation, public and private spheres, etc.), but they differ greatly on the role of the government and in the rights and obligations of the individual. But as I will argue later it is not their differences or similarities the reason for their survival in the political jungle, but their relationship.
Contemporary conservatism and liberalism
If any set of events influenced Hegel to argue that freedom is the "...leading principle of development" (Hegel: 18) and world history is the "...realization.... of that consciousness of freedom" through the dialectic process" (Hegel: 80), it had to be the French Revolution; which is also, not coincidentally, the starting point of the conservative/liberal rivalry. A monarchy is abolished by a revolution that stands on the concept of natural, universal rights. Meanwhile a synthesizing force emerges in the form of Burke's conservatism; a philosophy promoting civil order and slow gradual change, refuting the violent events in France. Classic liberalism, calls for a government to protect these universal rights, while traditional conservatism emphasizes means (slow change) over ends (any particular form of government) where the government protects civil order not rights. The underlying notions of these opposing doctrines have changed over time, but the basic principles remain in the contemporary interpretations of John Rawls and Roger Scruton, two of the most famous interpreters of liberalism and conservatism in the twentieth century.
The role that the government has in either political theory is directly related to how these doctrines perceive religion, tradition, the individual, and the source of authority. Scruton argues against the liberal idea of a government legitimized by a social contract. In his theory the social contract could not exist with out a pre-existing social order, where contractual sides could commit (Scruton: 20). In his view a state's authority emanates from the given fact that "...we exercise it understand it and submit to it." (Scruton:23) just in the same way that a family does not need an artificial ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The role that the government has in either political theory is directly related to how these doctrines perceive religion, tradition, the individual, and the source of authority. Scruton argues against the liberal idea of a government legitimized by a social contract. In his theory the social contract could not exist with out a pre-existing social order, where contractual sides could commit (Scruton: 20). In his view a state's authority emanates from the given fact that "...we exercise it understand it and submit to it." (Scruton:23) just in the same way that a family does not need an artificial contract to establish loyalties, a bond between individuals and the government "exists" not out of artificial choice but "out of natural necessity" (22). "The family is where the habits of allegiance are acquired." (23) For Scruton, the family is the first natural step towards the inevitable relationship between government and individuals. If it works don't fix it, "...conservatives place their faith in arrangements that are known and tried". A Darwinian logic, where institutions that exist survived due to their proved effectiveness, consequently religion and traditions exist because they are necessary, if not they would have disappeared. They are reliable agents that withstood the pass of time, and have only been tuned in synchronization to the state. Just as Weber argues that capitalism arose due to its coordination with Puritan work ethics (Weber: 162), Scruton argues that the contemporary conservative state was incited by: religion, ""real" traditions, and other institutions, like monarchy, that have survived due to their proven effectiveness. Scruton claims that there is no need to radically alter institutions, take monarchy, when proved ineffective it was slowly delegated to a "break" to keep the democratic process from getting out of hand (49), and thus the state modernizes and evolves by itself with out a radical intervention.
Liberalism has different view on what the government should stand for, according to Rawls, it should work towards social justice, (Rawls: 5-6), and any social scheme is only just depending on "...how fundamental rights and duties are assigned and on the economic opportunities and social conditions in the various sectors of society," (7) so then a government can only be just, therefore justifiable as long as it is egalitarian. The way to reach this egalitarian government and society is a social contract that should begin with what Rawls calls the "original agreement". Rawls follows the liberal dogma that individuals posses certain inalienable rights (which inevitably lead to obligations) making it the responsibility of the government to protect these rights (and enforce obligations). These rights should be universal and just, and the only way to achieve the highest level of universality and fairness is to create a hypothetical original agreement, debated under a "veil of ignorance", that will inevitably lead to a social contract which will not favor any social group. This social contract creates a society where institutions can exist as long as they don't commit injustices.
The symbiotic relationship between liberalism and conservatism
As the new century unfolds, every developed nation has a democratic state dominated by liberal and conservative politics. There is no purely conservative or liberal state, in the western world we have seen a constant balancing shift between these two doctrines, and while the intelligentsia keeps on perfecting political ideologies, no degree of perfection has allowed for conservative or liberal doctrine to have a monopoly on state policies. This is due to several elements; the human and present factor, the democratic inevitability of conservative-liberal politics, and the globalization effect.
The human factor; while no definite consensus exists on what is human essence or in what constitutes humanity, (Skinner: 5) some characteristics are widely accepted as universal, for example: complex cognitive process, language and culture. The last two depend on the human ability to learn, and as Skinner might argue, the ability to become indoctrinated. This human trait, which probably helped humankind survive, has also served to perpetuate the present. The present world is constantly indoctrinating the human mind; an individual can only exists in the present and in contemporary society, a good example is Tawney's argument of why a society inevitably leads to a "man of the times", "...Puritanism [the standing social order] was the school master of the English middle classes [read indoctrinated]. It heightened their virtues, sanctified, without eradicating their convenient vices, and gave them an inexpugnable assurance [could Puritanism survive if it hadn't?]..." (Tawney: 176). It is then almost impossible to escape indoctrination from the present. However, states become "indoctrinated" in this process as well , society does not tolerate doctrines which radically want to alter its present existence, doctrines that survive the leap from theory into practice are the ones that manage to indoctrinate the standing social order, therefore political theories need to compromise with the present if they wish to survive. Changes can happen in a conservative-gradual manner or they can happen in revolutionary bursts, but even the most radical political idea will not survive if society has not been indoctrinated to accept the change, China's Cultural Revolution tried to indoctrinate with out taking into consideration the present factor, by breaking completely with the present it became impossible to have a background to indoctrinate, whereas a revolutionary change from a monarchy to a republic to a communist regime conducted a slow, gradual change in the lifestyle of the average Chinese, however in the Cultural Revolution it was radically altered in a short period of time, thus it did not survive.
Conservative/liberal politics adapt perfectly to this model of indoctrination, conservatism works to eliminate change, and if society becomes too static and the social gap grows, a liberal government might gain ground and give the lower classes a burst, if it becomes too reactive the opposite effect takes place, which leads to another factor for the survival of liberal/conservative politics, their democratic inevitability.
Conservatism and liberalism, as I have argued supplement one another, but their alternate shifts in power can only take place in a democracy, because it is the election process that decides when its time for the change to happen, therefore a purely conservative or liberal state can never exist. First of all because that would mean suppressing opposing political opinions and the democratic process, which can not happen in a "liberal" state, it could happen theoretically in a conservative state if its done in a very gradual manner which is rather unlikely, due to the second reason why this can not happen. Because it would eliminate the indoctrination of the state by the present and by society; the election process has proven to be the best way to have peaceful revolutions to remove unwanted "monarchs", making it ideal to indoctrinate the state and therefore political ideas as well.
Globalization is another reason why conservative/liberal politics flourished; democracy is intricately attached to capitalism due to its liberal economic policies, and capitalism is the driving force of globalization, (Toynbee: 267). Therefore if globalization attempts to indoctrinate markets from around the globe into accepting capitalism, it consequentially indoctrinates nations into accepting democratic style governments that are composed of conservative and liberal policies (for the most part). Globalization has an exponential effect on the indoctrination of the masses; through popular media outlets, nations reluctant to western indoctrination are helpless, because social indoctrination is done gradually with out a radical change in lifestyles and thus eroding the natives concept of normality (Horney: 18), making it inevitably for society to indoctrinate the state into accepting western influence.
