Liberalism III:
liberal versus conservative practicioners
In my last article on
liberalism, Liberalism: from Philosophers
to Society? I surveyed a number of philosophers, with the view of seeing
how far they could be a new concept, social liberalism. Adam Smith basically added the social – and economic - dimension with
his Wealth of Nations, and his
formalisation of a laissez-faire economics.
But he urged the abolition of slavery.
John Stuart Mill is seen as the
father of Social Liberalism, and is noted for his marriage of utilitarianism
and this concept of social liberalism.
But his predecessor Jeremy
Bentham (England, 1748-1832) set the path.
It should be noted that Bentham [according to Wikipedia] “demanded
economic and individual freedom, including the separation of the state and
church, freedom of expression, completely equal rights for women, the end of
slavery and colonialism, uniform democracy, the abolition of physical
punishment, also on children, the right for divorce, free prices, free trade
and no restrictions on interest.” But
nevertheless he was not an economic liberal or libertarian, urging government
intervention in the form of restrictions on monopoly power, pensions, health
insurance and other social security.
Now
here we have a liberal who is unlike the self-styled liberals who followed him:
he rejected colonialism and laissez-faire, whereas among modern politicians,
liberalism differs from conservatism in the way these are implemented, even if
they are now called the market economy and neo-colonialism. Here we come back to socialism, which as I
argued, sometimes equated to non-economic liberalism, and sometimes to an
economic liberalism termed the ‘social market economy’, which I rejected.
I
stated:
When we move from philosophies to politics,
we move into an area where I believe we must look into the political adherents’
motivations in terms of their part in patterns of exploitation. And in the developed countries, this really
means thieves squabbling over the booty from exploitation of the Third World. This issue is in no way addressed by social
marketers and mainstream social democrats.
So,
as I argued, regardless of the self-image of liberals and conservatives, we
must consider their behaviour in practice among leading world powers. The liberals, or in former days the Whigs,
were smart at advancing power and making tactical retreats. A notable example of their callousness when
in a position of advance is in 1846, when Lord Russell succeeded Sir Robert
Peel. Peel, originally a Tory, repealed
the Corn Laws which protected British agriculture in good times, but in times
of food shortages exacerbated them. In
1846, Lord Russell took over, heading a free trade government with Peelite
support, but now extended free trade to outright laissez-faire, and refused to
intervene in the market to ease the Great Potato Famine (roughly 1845-52).
Here
the Tories appeared more humane than the laissez-faire Whigs, not least in the
writings of Benjamin Disraeli (PM
1868 and 1874-1880). However a
generation after the Famine, when the Irish were becoming more militant, William Ewart Gladstone (PM 1868-1874,1880-5, 1886, 1892-4) realised that Home Rule was inevitable. This realisation came in 1886, and triggered
the critical divide between Liberals and ‘Unionists’ (Conservatives and Liberal
Unionists): the Liberals believed in strategic advance and withdrawal, whereas
the Conservatives were slow to advance, but under Disraeli and his successors,
staunchly adhered to a policy of ‘what we have we hold’. Disraeli strongly celebrated Imperialism,
making Victoria Empress of India, and his successors, notably Salisbury,
resisted any loosening of the British hold on Ireland. They felt that concessions led to a slippery
slope which would to the dissolution of Empire.
They could not find a flexible approach, drawing on the fact that Irish
, both Catholic and protestant, had no objection to being part of Empire.
This
leads me to an analysis of liberals and conservatives behaviour, regardless of
their self-image. Basically we see an
interaction of culture and power:
LIBERALS,
the flexible exploiters
 |
TORIES,
hanging on to what they’ve got
 |
(i)
Centre: culture of exploiters,
(ii)
Skills and technology of exploiters(pink)
(iii)
Superior power (blue),
(iv)
Ignorance and fear of the exploited (grey),
(v)
Culture of exploited
(vi)
Wi(l)der environment.
|
(i)
Centre: culture of exploiters,
(ii)
Ignorance and fear among exploiters(grey)
(iii)
Superior power of exploiters(blue),
(iv)
Skills and technology (e.g. military) used against the
exploited(pink),
(v)
Culture of exploited
(vi)
Wi(l)der environment.
|
Note
the contrast: the liberals value and develop their skills, and are quite ready
to create empires and ‘neo-colonies’, which take advantage of their targets’
ignorance and often fear. The approach
of the Tories, with whom conservatism is an asset, is to frighten would-be
supporters into loyalty, playing on ignorance and fear. This rather than technology is their power
base, but despite its shaky nature, they will resort to force against their
opponents rather than persuasion.
So
in the two diagrams, the pink and the grey are switched round.
Martin
Prior
The
Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'
