POS 254 Political Ideologies
The conservative disposition

Classical conservatism: A disposition that contends that the purpose of politics is to preserve the social fabric through gradual, cautious reform.

Conservativism's skepticism toward Enlightenment ideals

1. Human autonomy:

Humans are not just isolated, atomized masses. We are part of communities, and communities are defined through common traditions and experiences. Interconnectedness defines humans as much as autonomy. We are not billiard balls, we’re like organisms.

2. Reason:

Experience (rational prudence, practical knowledge) is more important than abstract reasoning.

3. Universalism:

Local custom and tradition are more important than abstract ideals that are supposed to apply to everyone, everywhere.

4. Progress:

Change is not inherently good. We prefer the familiar to the new. Cautious reform that reflects traditions and experience is fine, innovation based on abstract reasoning is bad.

5. Secularism:

Religion is part of our tradition and common experience. Separating church and state is okay, but that doesn’t mean completely eliminating religious traditions that shaped our society.

6. Centrality of economics:

Private property and markets are the best way to organize an economy. However, we shouldn’t reduce all human relationships to economic ones (e.g. we shouldn’t consider the teacher-student relationship to be another version of the business-consumer model)

7. Popular government:

Tends to be suspicious of the masses; only those with lots of experience should actively participate in government. Let the experienced act as umpires while the young and inexperienced play the game of life.

Criticisms of classical conservatism

1. Is conservatism elitist?
It implies that only those with "experience" should rule. But why should experience be the criteria for participation in politics? Isn't participation a fundamental right?

2. Is the government really like an umpire?
Oakeshott says that the government is only the umpire or the facilitator of the game of life. But isn't the role of the state much more significant than that? Isn't it much more powerful--and sometimes coercive?

3. What's wrong with Enlightenment ideals?
These ideals are much more democratic and egalitarian than previous ideals. Classical conservatives claim they are not reactionaries, but aren't they really trying to take us back to an era in which people "know their place" in society and don't rock the boat?

4. Does it make sense to be "radical" in economic matters and "conservative" in political ones?
Can you be radical in one sphere and conservative in the other?