Conservatism the Strengths and Weaknesses of Conservatism

Conservatism

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Conservatism

Conservatism has existed since long before it acquired its modern title. Indeed, conservatism is not limited to the modern-day philosophy of the Repbulican Party; instead, elements of conservatism originated with the first form of society that featured an unequal distribution of power. Essentially, the underlying principle of conservatism is that the populace should be ruled by an elite governing body that holds a superior grasp of the best interests of the public, thus preventing the eruption of chaos. As Huntington (1957) noted over fifty years ago, "Liberalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, socialism and Marxism the ideologies of the proletariat, and conservatism the ideology of the aristocracy" (p. 182). Conservatism is thus not limited to a particular epoch, and instead encompasses a broad and continuous conviction that society is best regulated when under the control of a ruling elite. This paper explores the strengths and weaknesses of conservatism, considering factors such as the distinction between reform and reaction, the attitude toward the disenfranchised, and the manifestation of power under conservatism.

The roots of conservatism lie in a pessimistic view of human nature, with the Hobbesian belief that men left to their own devices will destroy each other. As Rubin (2011) notes, "the conservative position stems from a genuine conviction that a world emancipated will be ugly, brutish, base, and dull. It will lack the excellence of a world where the better man commands the worse" (p. 16). There are benefits and complications to this belief. On the one hand, it is difficult to argue against the belief that society should be run by the most talented men. However, there is no objective way to quantify exactly what constitutes a "better man" and as a result, those in power often have a primary interest in themselves and do not capably serve the interests of those below them.

In its ideal form, conservative regimes draw from the wisdom gleaned over time, with a respect for longstanding customs and cultural establishments. If conservatism were entirely oppressive toward the masses, it would not have been able to sustain itself across different civilizations over hundreds of years. The chief underlying principle that makes conservatism worthwhile in the eyes of the populace is simply the fact that conservative societies remain sustainable. Successful conservative societies are able to deftly balance the rights of the individual members with the broader social order, resulting in a system in which everyone's rights are protected with no drastic upheavals. In this regard, there is an inherent stability to conservatism that makes it preferable in the eyes of many to liberalism.

On the other hand, there are many criticisms of liberalism; one of the most notable is the belief that conservatism takes a disparaging view of the disenfranchised, as the ruling elite place their personal interests ahead of those of the masses. Robin goes so far as to claim that the control over the public by conservative rulers signals how "the real subject of their deliberations is the private life of power" (10). There is no way of countering this conviction; conservatism is built on the unequal distribution of power, and those in the lower strata of society will not enjoy the same degree of privilege as those with power. To this end, Agre (2004) contends that "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy," and while this description is blunt, it is not incorrect (n. pag.). Moreover, Agre (2004) argues, "Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world" (n. pag.). Agre's view is essentially the liberal response to conservatism, reflecting the belief that conservatism necessarily violates each man's right to be treated equal.

One contemporary issue that illustrates the difference between the conservative and liberal attitudes toward the disenfranchised is the plight of those on welfare. During the 1980s and 1990s, it was argued by conservatives that the impoverished should not be rewarded with welfare, as it would not encourage them to work hard to advance in society. Meanwhile, the liberal view understood that the poor often have circumstances beyond their control that lead to them becoming impoverished, and that welfare was necessary in sustaining them until they are able to obtain full employment. Neither position was inherently wrong, but the issue illustrates the contrasting attitudes toward the disenfranchised between conservative and liberal cultures.