NYT
May 9, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

The Conservative Revival

By DAVID BROOKS

For years, American and British politics were in sync. Reagan came in
roughly the same time as Thatcher, and Clinton’s Third Way approach
mirrored Blair’s. But the British conservatives never had a Gingrich
revolution in the 1990s or the Bush victories thereafter. They got
their losing in early, and, in the wilderness, they rethought modern
conservatism while their American counterparts were clinging to
power.

Today, British conservatives are on the way up, while American
conservatives are on the way down. British conservatives have moved
beyond Thatcherism, while American conservatives pine for another
Reagan. The British Conservative Party enjoyed a series of stunning
victories in local elections last week, while polls show American
voters thoroughly rejecting the Republican brand.

The flow of ideas has changed direction. It used to be that American
conservatives shaped British political thinking. Now the influence is
going the other way.

The British conservative renovation begins with this insight: The
central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of
government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left
stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of
the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is
necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political
leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the
whole way we live our lives.”

That means, first, moving beyond the Thatcherite tendency to put
economics first. As Oliver Letwin, one of the leading Tory strategists
put it: “Politics, once econo-centric, must now become socio-centric.”
David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, makes it clear that his
primary focus is sociological. Last year he declared: “The great
challenge of the 1970s and 1980s was economic revival. The great
challenge in this decade and the next is social revival.” In another
speech, he argued: “We used to stand for the individual. We still do.
But individual freedoms count for little if society is disintegrating.
Now we stand for the family, for the neighborhood — in a word, for
society.”

This has led to a lot of talk about community, relationships, civic
engagement and social responsibility. Danny Kruger, a special adviser
to Cameron, wrote a much-discussed pamphlet, “On Fraternity.” These
conservatives are not trying to improve the souls of citizens. They’re
trying to use government to foster dense social bonds.

They want voters to think of the Tories as the party of society while
Labor is the party of the state. They want the country to see the
Tories as the party of decentralized organic networks and the
Laborites as the party of top-down mechanistic control.

As such, the Conservative Party has spent a lot of time thinking about
how government should connect with citizens. Basically, everything
should be smaller, decentralized and interactive. They want a greater
variety of schools, with local and parental control. They want to
reverse the trend toward big central hospitals. Health care, Cameron
says, is as much about regular long-term care as major surgery, and
patients should have the power to construct relationships with
caretakers, pharmacists and local facilities.

Cameron also believes government should help social entrepreneurs
scale up their activities without burdening them with excessive
oversight.

This focus means that Conservatives talk not only about war and
G.D.P., but also the softer stuff. There’s been more emphasis on
environmental issues, civility, assimilation and the moral climate.
Cameron has spent an enormous amount of time talking about marriage,
families and children.

Some of his ideas would not sit well with American conservatives. He
wants to create 4,200 more health visitors, who would come into the
homes of new parents and help them manage day-to-day stress. But he
also talks about rewriting the tax code to make it more family
friendly, making child care more accessible, and making the streets
safer.

Some of this is famously gauzy, and Cameron is often disdained as a
mere charmer. But politically it works. The Tory modernization project
has produced stunning support in London, the southern suburbs, the
Welsh heartlands and the ailing north. It’s not only that voters are
tired of Labor. The Conservatives have successfully “decontaminated”
their brand. They’re offering something in tune with the times.

Cameron describes a new global movement, with rising center-right
parties in Sweden, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, the Czech
Republic, California and New York (he admires Schwarzenegger and
Bloomberg). American conservatives won’t simply import this model. But
there’s a lot to learn from it. The only question is whether
Republicans will learn those lessons sooner, or whether they will
learn them later, after a decade or so in the wilderness.

Lance wrote:
>
>
> For years, American and British politics were in sync. Reagan came in
> roughly the same time as Thatcher, and Clinton�s Third Way approach
> mirrored Blair�s. But the British conservatives never had a Gingrich
> revolution in the 1990s or the Bush victories thereafter. They got
> their losing in early, and, in the wilderness, they rethought modern
> conservatism while their American counterparts were clinging to
> power.
>
What I find odd about these comparisons is the misunderstanding of
'conservativism'. I can't imagine any possible universe in which
George Bush (the senile or the juvenile) being considered
conservative. They are both extremists.

Yanks consider right-wing extremism to be conservative. In the sense
that Yankland has been extreme in its interventionist thuggism for
over half a century, there is some merit in saying their consistency
is 'conservative'. That's not what conservatism is about though.

A conservative isn't necessarily right or left wing. A conservative is
one who prefers the status quo and moderate improvement to the life of
human beings to any sort of extremist ideological action.

The entire bedrock of conservatism is that it is better to conserve
what is good and improve it than to change anything for changes sake.

English Conservatism (note the capital 'C') is, or was, a political
expression of this ideal.

Conservatism has, historically, understood that we live our lives as
individuals and that the imposition of idealism upon us almost always
has a malign effect.

No conservative, or Conservative, would have attacked Iraq. It
protected nobody from anything - it only provided some apparent
legitimacy to an ideological extremism.

It's probably better to drop words that make no universal sense.

On 9 May, 17:35, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> Lance wrote:
>
> > For years, American and British politics were in sync. Reagan came in
> > roughly the same time as Thatcher, and Clinton�s Third Way approach
> > mirrored Blair�s. But the British conservatives never had a Gingrich
> > revolution in the 1990s or the Bush victories thereafter. They got
> > their losing in early, and, in the wilderness, they rethought modern
> > conservatism while their American counterparts were clinging to
> > power.
>
> What I find odd about these comparisons is the misunderstanding of
> 'conservativism'. I can't imagine any possible universe in which
> George Bush (the senile or the juvenile) being considered
> conservative. They are both extremists.
>
> Yanks consider right-wing extremism to be conservative. In the sense
> that Yankland has been extreme in its interventionist thuggism for
> over half a century, there is some merit in saying their consistency
> is 'conservative'. That's not what conservatism is about though.
>
> A conservative isn't necessarily right or left wing. A conservative is
> one who prefers the status quo and moderate improvement to the life of
> human beings to any sort of extremist ideological action.
>
> The entire bedrock of conservatism is that it is better to conserve
> what is good and improve it than to change anything for changes sake.
>
> English Conservatism (note the capital 'C') is, or was, a political
> expression of this ideal.
>
> Conservatism has, historically, understood that we live our lives as
> individuals and that the imposition of idealism upon us almost always
> has a malign effect.
>
> No conservative, or Conservative, would have attacked Iraq. It
> protected nobody from anything - it only provided some apparent
> legitimacy to an ideological extremism.
>
> It's probably better to drop words that make no universal sense.


Aren't you something of an anarchist as well as a conservative?   How
do you integrate the two positions?

Parties have to have titles,  but the title can mean very little.  The
desirability of conservatism depends, of course, on what is being
conserved.   I would like to conserve the environment and climate, the
lawful society, kindness and tolerance, and so forth,  but have no
wish to maintain religion, the class system,  etc.

I think the popularity of our political parties depends as much on
their image as on their policies.  Gordon Brown started out as PM
looking resolute and sincere, and now a few months later seems
indecisive and even incompetent.  David Cameron is a more polished
performer,  but I suspect his party's policies are little understood
by the general public.

For a view from an idealistic left-winger see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/10/labour.conservatives

On May 10, 12:06 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 9 May, 17:35, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lance wrote:
>
> > > For years, American and British politics were in sync. Reagan came in
> > > roughly the same time as Thatcher, and Clinton�s Third Way approach
> > > mirrored Blair�s. But the British conservatives never had a Gingrich
> > > revolution in the 1990s or the Bush victories thereafter. They got
> > > their losing in early, and, in the wilderness, they rethought modern
> > > conservatism while their American counterparts were clinging to
> > > power.
>
> > What I find odd about these comparisons is the misunderstanding of
> > 'conservativism'. I can't imagine any possible universe in which
> > George Bush (the senile or the juvenile) being considered
> > conservative. They are both extremists.
>
> > Yanks consider right-wing extremism to be conservative. In the sense
> > that Yankland has been extreme in its interventionist thuggism for
> > over half a century, there is some merit in saying their consistency
> > is 'conservative'. That's not what conservatism is about though.
>
> > A conservative isn't necessarily right or left wing. A conservative is
> > one who prefers the status quo and moderate improvement to the life of
> > human beings to any sort of extremist ideological action.
>
> > The entire bedrock of conservatism is that it is better to conserve
> > what is good and improve it than to change anything for changes sake.
>
> > English Conservatism (note the capital 'C') is, or was, a political
> > expression of this ideal.
>
> > Conservatism has, historically, understood that we live our lives as
> > individuals and that the imposition of idealism upon us almost always
> > has a malign effect.
>
> > No conservative, or Conservative, would have attacked Iraq. It
> > protected nobody from anything - it only provided some apparent
> > legitimacy to an ideological extremism.
>
> > It's probably better to drop words that make no universal sense.
>
> Aren't you something of an anarchist as well as a conservative?   How> do you integrate the two positions?
>
Easily!
>
> Parties have to have titles,  but the title can mean very little.  The
> desirability of conservatism depends, of course, on what is being
> conserved.   I would like to conserve the environment and climate, the
> lawful society, kindness and tolerance, and so forth,  but have no
> wish to maintain religion, the class system,  etc.
>
I think that the class system is pretty important for mate selection,
so I don't think anybody would manage to abolish it. They did manage
to suppress castes in India for a few decades but they're back in
fashion again, as one would expect.

I'm all for conserving beautiful churches, mosques and so forth and
having a place for good church music and nice carpets, but I agree
that the god-bothering part of it could be lost without any regrets.
>
> I think the popularity of our political parties depends as much on
> their image as on their policies.  Gordon Brown started out as PM
> looking resolute and sincere, and now a few months later seems
> indecisive and even incompetent.  David Cameron is a more polished
> performer,  but I suspect his party's policies are little understood
> by the general public.
>
I've always thought Brown an idiot. It is very peculiar that people
have had any other view. For a man to have managed to flog other
people's gold and make such an incredible loss was an act only a
supreme fool could carry out - and presist all the way to the end.

He's also got that unpleasant calvinistic streak that infects quite a
few people North of the Border. We watched Oliver Twist last night (a
BBC adaptation on DVD) and I was much reminded of Gordon Brown's view
of 'caring'.

On May 10, 12:06 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
>
> For a view from an idealistic left-winger see:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/10/labour.conservatives
>
Thank you for that amusing bit of tosh - 'fraternity is not about
brothers' - I must remember that...

On 10 May, 15:07, Peter Brooks  wrote:

> I think that the class system is pretty important for mate selection,
> so I don't think anybody would manage to abolish it. They did manage
> to suppress castes in India for a few decades but they're back in
> fashion again, as one would expect.

Doesn't it depend on what is meant by the class system?  People are
always going to have status and power hierarchies of some kind,  but
surely these need not be based on accidents of birth?

Dave

On May 11, 10:59 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 10 May, 15:07, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> > I think that the class system is pretty important for mate selection,
> > so I don't think anybody would manage to abolish it. They did manage
> > to suppress castes in India for a few decades but they're back in
> > fashion again, as one would expect.
>
> Doesn't it depend on what is meant by the class system?  People are
> always going to have status and power hierarchies of some kind,  but
> surely these need not be based on accidents of birth?
>
No, indeed, they need not, but nepotism, a pretty fundamental human
vice, tends to ensure that they do.

On 11 May, 10:21, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On May 11, 10:59 am, Dave Smith  wrote:> On 10 May, 15:07, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> > > I think that the class system is pretty important for mate selection,
> > > so I don't think anybody would manage to abolish it. They did manage
> > > to suppress castes in India for a few decades but they're back in
> > > fashion again, as one would expect.
>
> > Doesn't it depend on what is meant by the class system?  People are
> > always going to have status and power hierarchies of some kind,  but
> > surely these need not be based on accidents of birth?
>
> No, indeed, they need not, but nepotism, a pretty fundamental human
> vice, tends to ensure that they do.


Obviously, there's some truth in this.  Boris, the new London mayor,
is currently providing jobs for one or two relatives,  and many MPs
have done likewise.  However, nepotism can be constrained and exposed,
rather than passively accepted.

Dave

On 2008-05-11, Dave Smith  wrote:
> Doesn't it depend on what is meant by the class system?  People are
> always going to have status and power hierarchies of some kind,  but
> surely these need not be based on accidents of birth?

It is said that caste use to be decided at about the age of 8, by a
priest judging which category your temperament fitted in to.

Still, class here is very much an accident of birth whether we like it
or not. While theoretically possible for someone to escape that and
some people do, it seems that more commonly people don't. Similarly
castes, even in the more rigid system, have been escaped by some, even
if many don't.

There are nasty things done in the name of caste, nasty ideas about
people being untouchable which go completely against what the religion
supposedly teaches about kindness and everyone being of value. Still,
caste does allow it to be talked about and faced where class seems to
be known about but little discussed. Talking about class or caste does
raise interesting questions.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

On May 9, 6:35 pm, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> Lance wrote:
>
> > For years, American and British politics were in sync. Reagan came in
> > roughly the same time as Thatcher, and Clinton�s Third Way approach
> > mirrored Blair�s. But the British conservatives never had a Gingrich
> > revolution in the 1990s or the Bush victories thereafter. They got
> > their losing in early, and, in the wilderness, they rethought modern
> > conservatism while their American counterparts were clinging to
> > power.
>
> What I find odd about these comparisons is the misunderstanding of
> 'conservativism'. I can't imagine any possible universe in which
> George Bush (the senile or the juvenile) being considered
> conservative. They are both extremists.
>
> Yanks consider right-wing extremism to be conservative. In the sense
> that Yankland has been extreme in its interventionist thuggism for
> over half a century, there is some merit in saying their consistency
> is 'conservative'. That's not what conservatism is about though.
>
> A conservative isn't necessarily right or left wing. A conservative is
> one who prefers the status quo and moderate improvement to the life of
> human beings to any sort of extremist ideological action.
>
> The entire bedrock of conservatism is that it is better to conserve
> what is good and improve it than to change anything for changes sake.
>
> English Conservatism (note the capital 'C') is, or was, a political
> expression of this ideal.
>
> Conservatism has, historically, understood that we live our lives as
> individuals and that the imposition of idealism upon us almost always
> has a malign effect.
>
> No conservative, or Conservative, would have attacked Iraq. It
> protected nobody from anything - it only provided some apparent
> legitimacy to an ideological extremism.
>
> It's probably better to drop words that make no universal sense.

I was interested in the account of british conservative party policy
more than in the use of the word "conservative".

I agree that American policy has been extremist rather than
conservative over the last decade.

Lance

On 13 May, 15:31, Lance  wrote:

> I was interested in the account of british conservative party policy
> more than in the use of the word "conservative".

As far as I know, the Conservative party's policies are not clearly
stated.....

Dave

On May 13, 8:23 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 13 May, 15:31, Lance  wrote:
>
> > I was interested in the account of british conservative party policy
> > more than in the use of the word "conservative".
>
> As far as I know, the Conservative party's policies are not clearly
> stated.....
>
This is part of the essence of both conservativism and anarchy. Both
understand that simplistic, popularist, middle-class, adolescent
'solutions' to the world's problems (aka ideology) are not just
useless, but positively dangerous. It is better to have a general
approach to solving problems than only one. If all you have is a
hammer, then everything looks like a nail.

So, insofar as the Conservative Party is truly conservative, it will
have vaguely stated objectives. Certainly compared to the Islamic,
Christian, Pinko, or other ideological grouping who know that they
have all the answers.

Insofar as the Conservative Party has fixed ideologies, it is not
conservative.

On 13 May, 19:49, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On May 13, 8:23 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:> On 13 May, 15:31, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > I was interested in the account of british conservative party policy
> > > more than in the use of the word "conservative".
>
> > As far as I know, the Conservative party's policies are not clearly
> > stated.....
>
> This is part of the essence of both conservativism and anarchy. Both
> understand that simplistic, popularist, middle-class, adolescent
> 'solutions' to the world's problems (aka ideology) are not just
> useless, but positively dangerous. It is better to have a general
> approach to solving problems than only one. If all you have is a
> hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
>
> So, insofar as the Conservative Party is truly conservative, it will
> have vaguely stated objectives. Certainly compared to the Islamic,
> Christian, Pinko, or other ideological grouping who know that they
> have all the answers.
>
> Insofar as the Conservative Party has fixed ideologies, it is not
> conservative.

It seems to me that it is possible for a pragmatist to have clear
objectives.  However, what are the Conservative party's vaguely-stated
objectives?

Dave

On May 14, 8:47 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 13 May, 19:49, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 8:23 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:> On 13 May, 15:31, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > > I was interested in the account of british conservative party policy> > > > more than in the use of the word "conservative".
>
> > > As far as I know, the Conservative party's policies are not clearly
> > > stated.....
>
> > This is part of the essence of both conservativism and anarchy. Both
> > understand that simplistic, popularist, middle-class, adolescent
> > 'solutions' to the world's problems (aka ideology) are not just
> > useless, but positively dangerous. It is better to have a general
> > approach to solving problems than only one. If all you have is a
> > hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
>
> > So, insofar as the Conservative Party is truly conservative, it will
> > have vaguely stated objectives. Certainly compared to the Islamic,
> > Christian, Pinko, or other ideological grouping who know that they
> > have all the answers.
>
> > Insofar as the Conservative Party has fixed ideologies, it is not
> > conservative.
>
> It seems to me that it is possible for a pragmatist to have clear
> objectives.  However, what are the Conservative party's vaguely-stated
> objectives?
>
I don't know - I'm not a member of, nor an apologist for, the
Conservative Party (nor any other party for that matter).

In the history of the party, though, it has had objectives that have
included the reduction of the reach of the state, and the protection
of the individual. Those are pretty vague, but have been their
objectives. Imperfectly carried out, of course, the huge increase in
taxation and the reach of the state under Maggie Thatcher being a case
in point.

On 14 May, 20:54, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On May 14, 8:47 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 May, 19:49, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 8:23 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:> On 13 May, 15:31, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > > > I was interested in the account of british conservative party policy
> > > > > more than in the use of the word "conservative".
>
> > > > As far as I know, the Conservative party's policies are not clearly
> > > > stated.....
>
> > > This is part of the essence of both conservativism and anarchy. Both
> > > understand that simplistic, popularist, middle-class, adolescent
> > > 'solutions' to the world's problems (aka ideology) are not just
> > > useless, but positively dangerous. It is better to have a general
> > > approach to solving problems than only one. If all you have is a
> > > hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
>
> > > So, insofar as the Conservative Party is truly conservative, it will
> > > have vaguely stated objectives. Certainly compared to the Islamic,
> > > Christian, Pinko, or other ideological grouping who know that they
> > > have all the answers.
>
> > > Insofar as the Conservative Party has fixed ideologies, it is not
> > > conservative.
>
> > It seems to me that it is possible for a pragmatist to have clear
> > objectives.  However, what are the Conservative party's vaguely-stated> > objectives?
>
> I don't know - I'm not a member of, nor an apologist for, the
> Conservative Party (nor any other party for that matter).
>
> In the history of the party, though, it has had objectives that have
> included the reduction of the reach of the state, and the protection
> of the individual. Those are pretty vague, but have been their
> objectives. Imperfectly carried out, of course, the huge increase in
> taxation and the reach of the state under Maggie Thatcher being a case
> in point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm not sure about 'protection of the individual'  -- it's more a
matter of a belief in individualism.  It seems to me that there are
other strands in the Conservative party's history that you don't
mention, such as resistance to electoral reform and trade union
action, strengthening the police and army, cultivating an empire, and
so on.

On May 15, 9:35 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure about 'protection of the individual'  -- it's more a
> matter of a belief in individualism.  It seems to me that there are
> other strands in the Conservative party's history that you don't
> mention, such as resistance to electoral reform and trade union
> action, strengthening the police and army, cultivating an empire, and
> so on.
>
Yes, these are all true, and some are not conservative - building an
Empire, for example.

It is a great pity that the conservatives lost power in the first
quarter or so of last century so that the horribly unconservative
measure of pulling out of the Empire in indecent haste caused, and in
some places constinues to cause, such misery.

I'd see a belief in individualism (though I don't see that this is a
doctrinal -ism or an ideology) is much the same as the protection of
the individual.

Electoral reform is a loaded term - 'reform' often being used to imply
a good thing. The UK is in urgent need of electoral reform just now
but New 'error of judgement' Labour certainly isn't about to act like
a turkey voting for Christmas.

Trades Unions are an interesting case. To protect individual workers
from oppressive employees they are an entirely good thing, as militant
political entities determined to screw the economy they are quite
another. I disliked that woman immensely, but she certainly dealt with
that prize idiot Scargill effectively. That ability to see that
something can be both good and bad is one of the characteristics, by
the way, of conservativism - ideologues see the world in black and
white.