On CiF today Polly Toynbee takes issue with Tory attempts to wrestle the tag ‘progressive’ from Labour, dismissing both the sincerity of Cameron’s use of the word as well as it’s original relevance to New Labour anyway. Curiously she credits Peter Mandelson with ‘devising’ the word in the early 90’s as a way to avoid saying ‘centre-left’ when in fact the term’s been reasonably common currency in US politics since Teddy Roosevelt formed the ‘Progressive Party’ in 1912. Polly’s objection to Tory use of ‘progressive’ sits in the same vein as Alex Hilton’s diatribe on Saturday about the inherent evils of Toryism – both are desperate to tether the Tories to the Thatcherite hard-right caricature because they know how electorally damaging that would be. What’s more, far too many Tories would be happy to be described as such when in truth a little history shows a different picture.
As Prime Minister Disraeli embraced social reform precisely because it relieved poverty and hardship – this was the birth of “One Nation” politics. He passed many major acts of social reform including trade union rights, factory conditions, public health, education and housing. The Tories have always been political magpies, picking and choosing between ideas to suit the moment, appropriating their opponents’ most popular themes and readily discarding hitherto fervent beliefs once their electoral value waned. Critics of course might condemn this as the subjugation of abstract principle to the goal of winning and maintaining power but it’s surely no accident that the Conservative party spent two-thirds of the 20th century in government.
From their 2006 publication Compassionate Conservatism, Jesse Norman and Janan Ganesh summed it up as follows:
As Prime Minister Disraeli embraced social reform precisely because it relieved poverty and hardship – this was the birth of “One Nation” politics. He passed many major acts of social reform including trade union rights, factory conditions, public health, education and housing. The Tories have always been political magpies, picking and choosing between ideas to suit the moment, appropriating their opponents’ most popular themes and readily discarding hitherto fervent beliefs once their electoral value waned. Critics of course might condemn this as the subjugation of abstract principle to the goal of winning and maintaining power but it’s surely no accident that the Conservative party spent two-thirds of the 20th century in government.
From their 2006 publication Compassionate Conservatism, Jesse Norman and Janan Ganesh summed it up as follows:
A political conservative must determine the requirements of a particular situation, and reflect on which of his or her principles are to be deployed and how. This may require a shift from one principle to another over time, or the simultaneous application of different principles to different situations. Such shifts may be disdained as hypocrisy, and of course sometimes they may actually be hypocritical. But politics is not logic. Absolute consistency in the application of abstract principle to practical politics is rarely possible and never wise. The British electorate, with its preference for common sense over grand theory, usually rewards this insight at elections, even as it abuses it between them.Quite.
What ultimately distinguishes conservatism from its rival creeds, therefore, is not so much the views it holds, though some of these are unique to conservatism, as the way it holds them. Socialism and liberalism are, at root, theories and ideologies: fundamental interpretations of the nature of history and of “the good”, from which policy programmes are supposedly inferred. Conservatism is no such thing. It is instinctive, not theoretical; a disposition, not a doctrine; realistic and sceptical, not grandiose or utopian; accepting of the imperfectability of man, not restless to overcome it; and anxious to improve the lot of the many not by referring to some plan, but by working with the grain of what Kant called “the crooked timber of humanity”. It is precisely its reluctance to accord sacred status to any abstract idea that allows conservatism to incorporate so many of them. It is precisely its refusal to regard change as a good in itself thatmakes it uniquely qualified to manage change most prudently.
Labels: Politics
2 Comments:
I very much like that quote C. It certainly describes the sort of Conservative I am very well. I have never liked the term progressive anyway. Progressing into a stinking swamp is not as positive as it may sound. I think there is a fair point in that progressive element in the Labour Party are now on the right routed temporarily by Brown. Same with the Liberals .
All these elements are ranged against Old Labour now quietly reasserting itself from its Celtic strongholds. Higher taxes, less freedom less choice , bigger government and a disinterest in new ideas about welfare education and the environment .
I don1t know about you but I often find m, as I did recently with Alex Hilton , that he makes accusations about me that mean nothing whatsoever. You hate blacks and homosexuals and women and the disabled. Nothing to do with me and actually little to do with politics unless spouting about your willingness to give other peoples money to your favourite charity counts.
I certainly consider myself modern but progressive ? ......well that depends in which direction we progress.
Very interesting, and as far as the conservatism (and Conservatism) I support quite correct. Interesting that it effectively defines conservatism as, well, liberal (not Liberal - they are in fact rather illiberal).
We appear to have our party names the wrong way round. Do you think the LibDems would agree to swap?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home