To what extent are conservatives united in their attitude towards the state?
United:
Favour a strong state
o Hobbes says it is established by consent of people who authorise those in power - "a
common power to keep them all in awe", autocratic, Leviathan 1651 and social
contract; Burke says "the wiser, stronger and more opulent" establish a hierarchy of
privilege and power
o Oakeshott says it should maintain social stability by emphasising moderation
o Rand says the state needs to be strong enough to enforce law and order - "the only
power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals"
Primary role for the state is to preserve law and order and security
o Hobbes says the state is authorised by the people to do whatever is necessary to
preserve social stability, "How could a state be governed if every individual
remained free to obey and not obey the law according to his private opinion?"
o Oakeshott says the state should "prevent the bad things" by emphasising social
stability and gradual change
o Rand says the state should confine itself to maintaining law, order and national
security, negative liberty, "the only power any government has is the power to crack
down on criminals", Nozick said the state should be a 'night-watchman' and only
intervene to prevent violence, theft and fraud
All believe in the state imposing common moral standards, based on traditional values
o Hobbes says this must be so in order to preserve rights, he advocates for the
monarchy based on traditional values in 'Leviathan'; Burke emphasised the need to
respect tradition in order to promote cohesion and stability, 'noblesse obliges'
o Oakeshott advocated preserving stability by using gradual change and conserving
historical continuity
o Rand says any attempt to promote positive liberty via state intervention should be
resisted which is commonly associated with modern day and thus wouldn’t be seen
as traditional???
Disunited:
Traditional and one nation defend a state where power is wielded by a natural "ruling class"
- pragmatic about extent of state and prepared to enlarge it to preserve social stability:
o Hobbes said there should be an absolute sovereign; Burke said the state arose
organically, that the state should be autocratic, led by a hereditary elite, born to rule
in interests of all, 'noblesse obliges', "obey the great law of change"
o Oakeshott said the state should be pragmatic including potential to expand scope of
state intervention, gradual change
New right want to "roll back the frontiers of the state" (Thatcher) -> advance individual
freedom and reverse a dependency culture - hostile to autocratic rule and authority
o Rand says "potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights",
negative liberty; Nozick says the only state that can be justified in a minimal
state/'night-watchman'/'minarchist' with public services outsource to private
sphere, negative liberty
To what extent is socialism more disunited than united?
To what extent is liberalism more concerned about society than economy?
, To what extent is there more to unite than to divide the New Right from One Nation
conservatives?
LoA: more divide than unite
Criteria: whilst there is some agreement on the vague and broad themes of conservatism (e.g. the
state can be positive, protection against law and order, capitalism), there is much more division as
NR proclaims much less state intervention in the economy than ON, backs an individual and
atomistic society, and is grounded in a more positive view of human nature than ON (which sees
society as fallible and in need of guiding).
More to unite:
Both say there must be a state in society and that it can be a positive force.
o ON says state exists to further pragmatism by intervening to a limited extent in the
economy and existed to "prevent the bad things rather than create the good".
o NR says the state exists to ensure individualism is protected, and to ensure that law
and order is kept in check.
o Both agree the state needs to defend property, traditional values, and institutions.
Both agree that society has to be protected by a series of clear and robust law and order
policies.
o ON says the state exists to "prevent the bad things rather than create the good" and
argues that the state needs to guide people through cautious change in order to
protect law and order.
o NR says "the only power any government has is the power to crack down on
criminals" and that the state should be a "night-watchman" in order to protect
society against theft, fraud and violence.
o Both agree that order in society is promoted by well enforced laws and that humans
need clear moral direction.
Both support and uphold the system of capitalism as the only manner in which to un the
economy.
o ON recognises the benefits of private property and property ownership and prefer it
to common ownership in the economy.
o NR champions free market capitalism that is "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated
laissez-faire" and respects individuals, 'minarchist' state role is to arbitrate between
private and economic agents (consumers and firms).
o Both have a pro-business approach
More to divide:
ON hold an organic view of society; NR more favour an individualist view of society.
o ON views society as a whole and all parts are connected - maintain social stability
and cohesion by emphasising moderation, cautious change, and conservation of
historical continuity.
o NR views society as self-reliant individuals - atomistic - "self-ownership" and "side
constraints", "there are only individual people, different individual people with their
own lives"
ON values are based on an imperfect view of human nature; NR appear to support the idea
of human rationality.
o ON ideas about paternalism, tradition and organicism are based on human
imperfection - "fallible but not terrible", conservatives are reconciled to human
imperfections and have a greater appreciation of existing pleasures on life.
o NR has a more optimistic view of human nature and champions individualism and
rationalism - objectivism, altruism = evil, driven by a quest for "self-ownership",
