Burkean conservatism: less an ideology than an anti-ideology?

Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R. Wittkopf in their book ‘World Politics, Trend And Transformation’ define an ideology as: “A set of core philosophical principles that leaders and citizens collectively hold about politics, the interests of political actors, and the ways people ought to ethically behave”. Via this definition I will examine the case for a conservative ideology and the parallel idea of it as an anti-ideology before arriving at a conclusion. One of the ironies of Burke’s ‘Reflections’ is that as a man he placed enormous value in “ancient principles”, yet this ancient dogma would be regarded centuries later as the foundations of modern conservatism. Yet the contradictions within this conservative school of thought perpetuate the difficulties in prescribing it into set ‘ideology’ or ‘anti-ideology’ camps, something I will examine in the conclusion.

One of the recurring themes in Burke’s ‘Reflections’ is the high value he attaches to the idea of stability over justice and a deep respect for existing institutions. Burke is adamant that such institutions like the monarchy are “positive” and operate within the “spirit of our constitution”, and of “inestimable value to our liberties”. This faith in the virtues of stability and hereditary principle are key philosophies of Burke’s. Whether or not this can be interpreted as evidence of a specific conservative ideology is ambiguous. The old grandees of the USSR Communist party undoubtedly believed in the value and totalitarian stability of their institutions, and could be reasonable described as conservatives compared to their reforming liberal counterparts such as Gorbachev. Yet their conservative faith was based on principles of law, order and society very different to Burke’s, a point that highlights the difficulty in establishing a trans-national ideological code of conservatism.

Within the UK conservatism evolves to fit differing definitions with each passing generation. Burke believed in “eternal society” and like Rousseau believed in the concept of a cult community in opposition to what he regarded as the destabilising hegemony of the liberal individualist cult, twinned with the idea of an Englishman’s fundamental connections with the revered institutions of the land. Whereas the late 20th century apostle of conservatism Margaret Thatcher testified to they’re being “no such thing as society”. Conservatism can thus be seen as an abstract belief, applicable to differing ideological systems and nations and a guarantee of the status quo, even if the ideological status quo can differ radically for different polities, substantiating the case for conservatism being a purely reactionary, ‘un-ideology’.

Yet if the genetics of ideology are that of a core set of “philosophical principles” then conservative faith in institutions can be regarded as ideological, by its universal philosophical applicability. It may be irrelevant that these institutions justify a plethora of differing ideologies, from radical Marxism to classical Liberalism; the faith in institutions is enough to substantiate the idea of universal conservative ideology. Furthermore that this faith in the sanctity of existing bodies of law and order persists in modern day conservative parties is surely evidence of one strain of consistent ideology. That the modern day Tory party opposed Tony Blair’s plans for the abolishing of the centuries old post of Lord Chancellor in the British government is evidence of this consistency in opposition to reform, validating the theory of a conservative ideology.

Yet whereas Marx and classical liberals such as Smith and Schumpeter attach paramount importance to the economy in their respective beliefs conservatism essentially subjugates the economy to a position subordinate to the polity. As in realist mercantilist economics, where wealth and industry are subordinate to the whims and needs of the state as a rational functioning unit competing in a permanent Thomas Hobbes-style “state of war” with other nations, traditional conservatism does not subscribe any specific role or ideological imperatives to the economy. It is arguably the sole post-modernist ideology to neglect such a crucial facet of political life, negating its relevance, importance and questioning its acceptance as a timeless ideology. Just as the British Labour party was forced away from its old socialist beliefs to navigate towards election victory in the mid nineties, ditching clause 4 of its party manifesto, so arguably was Margaret Thatcher negating Burke’s sovereign realist heritage with her domineering obsession in free-market, classically liberal economics. Thatcher’s beliefs were a reaction to economic necessity, a necessity that conservatives such as Burke place as that of secondary importance. Within ‘Reflections’ it is perhaps the notable absence of talk of economics and “wealth of nations” that contributes to the impression of conservatism as an empty ideology.

Burke’s view of human nature provides similar ambiguities with regards to conservatism legitimate place within the pantheon of ideologies. Burke passionately describes how it is “natural” for Englishmen to; “fear God, look up with awe to Kings; with reverence to priests; and with respect to nobility” describing how “we cherish” old prejudices and “should employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them This reverence for existing norms of behaviour is given special place in Burke’s ‘Reflections’, as a counterweight to ideals of revolution and violent change. It also illuminates a conservative idea of human nature, in which God fearing, institutionalised benevolence on the part of populace is beneficial for internal stability and a thoroughly utilitarian approach to societies needs. Burke, like the ancient Greek philosopher Thucydides believes in a stasis with regards to human nature in history, and in stark contrast to liberals and socialists dismisses the idea of developmental historical truth. It was after all Burke who first referred to the “great unwashed mass of humanity”. This dictates a pessimistic view of human nature that dominates conservative thought to this day.

With regards to the imprisonment of the Queen of France in the revolution, Burke remarks: “I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators succeeded”. The case for the age old Tory propensity towards a belief that society and human nature is actually getting worse could possible be made from this extract, but a more relevant question may be; is a supposed ideology that bases legitimacy of institutions in as abstract and indefinable a notion as human nature ever a realistic, coherent political philosophy for governance?

Grounds for ideological reconciling do however conceivably exist within such a structured, assertive view of humans. That conservatives, unlike the ideologue utopians of liberalism and socialism recognise clear faults in human nature place it squarely within the remit of the “philosophical principles” and “ethical behaviour” required for a supposed ideology. That this is an abstract notion, one which is hard to prove could also be a point in favour of conservatives as more ideological coherent than there Marxist or liberal counterparts, in that on such key conservative issues as institutions, human nature and a commitment to heritage they are more ideologically in tandem than any of there rivals. Liberals, on their key issue of economics vary hugely, between the all-out libertarian ‘laissez-faire’ Adam Smith approach and the welfarist, interventionist approach of ‘New liberals’ of the Lloyd George school. Similarly, with Marxists, on the key ideological issue of world proletariat revolution, disciples of Marx vary, Trotsky in favour of spreading the doctrine of revolution far and wide, whilst Stalin was content with his policy of ‘socialism in one country”. Both Marxism and socialism have huge scope for interpretation within them. Arguably conservatism greatest ideological strength is its inherently pessimistic static approach to human nature, perfectly summed up by Burke’s remarks on democracy; “A perfect democracy is, therefore, the most shameless thing in the world” and the staid veneration of institutions and modes of governance that are common to conservatives of all ages.

Burke’s explicitly anti-democratic leanings are in contrast to forms of liberalism and socialism that are profoundly democratic, bringing into doubt whether conservatism necessitates a contract between “leaders and citizens”. It is also worth considering that if a prerequisite of an ideology is a belief in the way people ought to “ethically behave” then conservatism fails. An esteemed conservative belief in the lack of natural ‘rights of man’ in contrast to Locke, Paine etc means that ethics are surely made redundant by the overwhelming necessity for subservience to existing institutions, and the man-made artificial law codes of these institutions. Conservatism in Burke’s form leaves questions of ethics solely to the church, a body Burke has much evident respect for; “The body of all true religion consists, to be sure, in obedience to the will of the Sovereign of the world, in a confidence in His declarations, and in imitation of His perfections”. This therefore robbing conservatism as an ideology of the chance to dictate ethics to the masses, unlike for example socialism, or communism which in extremities reject religion as an ideal.

Conclusively it is difficult to evaluate as to whether conservatism necessarily fits the mould of the explicitly ideological. The traditional subservience to monarchy and other regal forms of establishment, as well as the explicit rejection of much enlightenment thinking via the unthinking subjugation to religious authority would fit the idea of it as an anti-ideology, incorporating medieval ideas of religion and divine rule of kings with a post Cromwell acceptance of Parliaments sovereignty and role in public life. But the consistency in much conservative thought with regards to institutions and the bleak view of human nature validates the strength of conservatism as a school of thought; whether that makes it explicitly ideological is doubtful.

Like its antithesis, feminism, conservatism in Burke’s form in ‘Reflections’ governs certain issues with iron resolve, yet cannot be accepted in all circumstances because of its failure to address certain issues, such as the role of its beliefs in the functioning of the economy, or the question, surely that there are times in governance of nations when radical decisions are called for? Burke’s ‘Reflections’ contain more critique of change than an ideology necessitates, meaning it is to sum up an ideology of the status quo, rather than one of change or dynamics like socialism or liberalism potentially are.