John Major extolling the virtues of a classless society. Dave Cameron explaining that he supports same-sex marriage not in spite of being a conservative, but because of it. His Chancellor, much to his fulsomely professed chagrin, being unable to justify the abolition of the 50-percent tax bracket.
It’s tempting to suggest that these so-called Tories simply don’t understand the meaning of the word ‘conservative’. But, as simple explanations tend to gravitate towards simplistic, do let’s try to delve a bit deeper.
Every word today’s spivocrats use has two meanings: one is the actual dictionary definition; the other, something they wish to communicate in order to get reelected. If the two coincide, fine. If they don’t, the second will take precedence over the first every time. Keep misusing words long enough and often enough, and their true meaning will gradually fade away not only for the spivocrats themselves but also for their audience. As Aquinas suggested, repetition is the mother of all learning. So we learn.
To counter this kind of education, before Dave and his merry men come out in favour of post-natal abortion as the ultimate expression of conservatism, do let’s try to grasp the true meaning of the term. (Incidentally, as a conservative, I find abortion abhorrent, and the post-natal variety beyond abhorrent. However, every time I see a picture of Tony Blair’s smile I get second thoughts.)
Conservatives are people who wish to conserve something, that’s basic. Since different nations cherish different things they wish to conserve, the word doesn’t easily cross national borders. In the USA, for example, a conservative means mostly a Whiggish economic libertarian, which isn’t the same thing. In Russia the word means a Stalinist. And in France it means nothing at all. To find a way out of this semantic maze one would have to narrow the word’s meaning to a British conservative, or, even further, to an English one.
So what would English conservatives like to conserve? First they’d observe that England has been blessed with a comparatively smooth historical continuum. Represented graphically, it would be somewhat jagged, but not nearly as much as in any other sizeable European country this side of Switzerland. Obviously, an invisible chain binds the past, present and future generations of Englishmen, and it’s this chain that a conservative would strive to keep intact.
In order to do so, he’d have to identify the key links, which is a fairly straightforward task. In politics, he’d like to preserve the constitutional makeup of the realm. In matters of the spirit, he would be aware of the critical role Christianity in general and the established church in particular play in every aspect of the realm — so he’d want to maintain that. In culture, he’d favour the eternal over the transient, so, if he found himself in a position to finance, say, music, he’d choose the tradition that links William Byrd with James McMillan over one that connects Sid Vicious with Led Zeppelin. In clothes he’d prefer a three-piece suit to a ‘Kiss me, I’m British’ T-shirt. Given the choice between a woman with and without a tattoo, he wouldn’t hesitate to choose the latter.
A complete list, if it were at all possible to compile, would be inordinately long, but you get the picture. An English conservative would amalgamate his intuitive, temperamental predisposition with a certain system of thought to make sure that England’s political, spiritual and cultural history proceeds on a relatively smooth course. In other words, he’d do his bit to make sure England remains England.
That doesn’t mean he’d be opposed to any kind of change. Without peripheral changes, no civilisation would be able to keep its core together. Or, as Burke, one of history’s greatest conservative thinkers, wrote, ‘A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.’ Trust a Whig to explain conservatism to future generations.
But the key word in his pronouncement is ‘some’. Burke didn’t say ‘any old’ because, as a true conservative, he refused to assume that any change is automatically for the better. Some changes serve conservative ends and ought to be hailed. Others undermine it and ought to be decried.
Now, if we apply our understanding of conservatism to today’s Conservative party, we’ll instantly see that the two simply don’t mesh. For the sake of brevity, let’s just look at the current debate on the House of Lords, heir to the barons who 797 years ago gave us Magna Carta, the bedrock of English liberties.
The traditional, constitutional role the House of Lords plays in the English realm is to act as a counterbalance to the unelected power of the monarch and the elected power of the Commons. It has been understood for the best part of a millennium that hereditary peers have a vested, historical interest in preserving the realm with its traditional liberties. Since they owe their political presence to birth and not politics, they aren’t subject to political pressures and can freely proceed with the business at hand: preventing either the king or the majority from acquiring dictatorial powers.
Thus, having the Lords either appointed by politicians or elected by the people is a travesty of the system, its gross perversion. I’m not even arguing against this sort of thing on merit — such an argument would hardly be sporting for being too easy. I’m simply saying that a conservative would under no circumstances support either an appointed or elected Lords.
So here’s a Conservative MP Martin Vickers, writing to The Times in support of an elected upper House. ‘A key to any reformer should be to sweep away the many unaccountable bodies that rule our lives and that must include the House of Lords.’ Mr Vickers then goes on to equate an unelected Lords with the European Commission as one of those unaccountable bodies that tyrannise the English. I’m surprised he left the Queen out.
That this is frankly idiotic and ignorant is so obvious it hardly needs saying. But the interesting thing is that for Mr Vickers and presumably for his ‘conservative’ colleagues the debate is between an appointed and an elected Lords. An hereditary upper House, which even Harold Macmillan’s generation of the Tories would have regarded as a given, isn’t even mentioned any longer. The English constitution has been buried under the rubble of political correctness and political expediency.
In the good tradition of English pragmatism, something to which I’m privy only vicariously, one can’t just point out what’s wrong. One must answer the perennial question ‘So what are we going to do about it?’ Well, the immediate measure I’d propose would be to deselect any Tory candidate who scores below the national average on an IQ test and fails a simple test on the constitutional history of the English realm. That wouldn’t guarantee the survival of conservatism in this country. But at least it would keep the likes of Vickers out.
He could then apply for citizenship in America where they already have an elected Senate. In due course, Vickers could stand in senatorial elections and conceivably win. Try that, Martin, you never know your luck.