Ideological and Intellectual Traditions
- we are going to examine in some detail 3 ideological traditions which have had great influence in the 20th C—conservatism, liberalism and socialism. These have been around for the past 150-200 years and have undergone some changes. What we shall try to do is identify the core, enduring features of each tradition and try to distinguish them from each other. However, there are some difficulties in doing this.
Terminology
- one of the major difficulties is terminological because the content of ideas to which the terms ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’ and ‘radical’ have been attached have changed meaning over time. Thus, ideas that were labelled as ‘conservative’ in the early 19th C are very different from those that are labelled as ‘conservative’ at the end of the 20th C.
Laisser-faire
- the ideas of laisser-faire provide an example. We shall discuss this ideology in greater detail under liberalism. Laisser-faire grew out of the writings of Adam Smith; laisser-faire deified the ‘free market’. The ideas of laisser-faire were especially appropriate for the urban, commercial and industrial middle class as they stress the maximum independence and freedom of individuals to carry on economic activities and to make money. Proponents of laisser-faire wanted an end to government regulation and interference in the economy. There has been a big resurgence of these ideas in the last 25 years or so and such ideas should be familiar to you.
- in the late 18th and early 19th Cs, these ideas were regarded as radical, revolutionary, and even ‘democratic’. Again, please recall that ‘revolution’ was a horrifying notion—the ultimate abomination; ‘democracy’ too was frightening. ‘Democrat’ was a smear word, much like calling someone a ‘communist’ in the 1950s during McCarthyism.
- by the middle of the 19th C in Britain and elsewhere, laisser-faire ideas began to be accepted; they became ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’. They were seen as legitimate, acceptable and even desirable ideas and policies. In fact, by 1850, Britain became committed to laisser-faire and free trade and remained so until the 1st World War.
- in the 20th C, there was a great tendency for governments to become more involved in controlling and regulating economic and social life. This was especially true during wartime when the necessities of war took over; Usually, after the war, there were attempts to go back to peacetime and the prewar situation, but in fact, this was never done completely.
- also, there was a tendency to argue that the sacrifices and dangers required of citizens of all classes in society rendered the inequalities and inequities of laisser-faire systems intolerable. Thus, government had a responsibility to even things out more. Thus, the growth of the ‘safety net’ and emphasis upon equitable distribution of wealth have had a profound influence in the creation of the welfare state. This is certainly more important than socialism and its ideas. Laisser-faire was often regarded as outmoded and inadequate.
- in any case, there were fairly large shifts away from laisser-faire after 1914; during the Great Depression, free markets seemed to fail entirely and caused people to look even further for alternatives.
- in the last 20-25 years, there have been growing demands to eliminate gov’t interference and control, to deregulate and to end the ‘socialistic’ welfare programmes. That is, these were calls to return to laisser-faire and to ‘free markets’.
What do we call people who make such demands? Conservatives! These laisser-faire ideas are now commonly labelled ‘conservatism’.
- all these so-called ‘conservatives’—Ronald Regan, Margaret Thatcher, Milton Friedman, Michael Walker and the Fraser Institute—are proponents of laisser-faire. Thus, laisser-faire ideas have run the entire gamut of terminology!
- of course, things get even more bizarre in the way the terminology gets used. Old line communists in Russia and some other areas of the former Soviet Union are often called ‘conservatives’. Also, people like Ayatollah Khomeini and other fundamentalist Islamists are also frequently labelled ‘conservatives’ by journalists and others.
- we shall not be constantly changing our definitions in this course. We shall define the terms in the 19th C and continue to use the same meanings throughout the course. For this course, you will have to be consistent in the same way, regardless of what capricious definitions are being put forward in the media.
- also, beware books which define terms such as ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ in terms of political parties. Political party platforms change. In fact, after the 1840s, both the Conservative and Liberal Parties in Britain were committed to laisser-faire; there were only slight differences in the degree and specifics, not in the basics.
- moreover, the United States is, and has long been, pretty much a one ideology political system. The differences between the so-called ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ is largely the differences between the laisser-faire and reform versions of liberalism.
- another way of looking at the problem is to say that the terms, liberal, conservative, radical etc., are used to express a relationship to a prevailing orthodoxy:
- if the prevailing orthodoxy emphasises aristocracy and monarchy including provisions for special privileges and/or a lot of regulation and control of business, then laisser-faire demands produce conflict and confrontation. The attempts to change and loosen up the system cause the defenders of the status quo to label these ideas as radical, revolutionary.
- as laisser-faire ideas come to be accepted and regarded as legitimate, then they are no longer given the derogatory labels; as they become implemented, they may even become the new orthodoxy. Then, as with laisser-faire in the 20th C, it may be challenged in its turn and as a result, come to be regarded as ‘conservative’.
- however, this changing of the content of the ideological labels is not the only difficulty.
- ‘radical’ is a label which has tended to confuse people. From the time of the French Revolution, there has been a strong tendency to think of radicals as extremists of the left. However, another component has been the application of the term to people who have great feelings of opposition and antagonism to the status quo (whatever that might be). Such people are more ready to seek fundamental and thorough-going change and transformation of society, even to destroy existing society in order to rebuild & create their version of what society should be; they are also more ready to resort to violence as the only or the quickest means of achieving their goals.
- the problem is that such criteria result in grouping very strange bed-fellows together as ‘radicals’. As a result, for a time in the 1920s & 30s, it was difficult for some people to distinguish between fascists and communists; this was especially true when the Nazis called themselves ‘National Socialists’.
- in fact, this entire characterisation as a straight line from right to left probably needs to be abandoned as not very useful. Certainly, the success of many fascist movements in the interwar period was possible at least partly because of a century of horrified opposition by church ad other leaders to ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. They thought anything was better than ‘communism’ and the fascists were the opposite end of the spectrum.
- as we shall see, there was not as much difference between some of these groups as might be imagined. In fact some people shifted back and forth between leftist and rightist groups. It seems that some were attracted by the violence each preached rather than the ideology; choice made was more influenced by the prospects of success offered rather than the goals being espoused. Groups on both extremes did have something very important in common; they were bitterly and even pathologically opposed to the existing situation—the status quo. Thus, it might be more useful to visualise ‘left’ and ‘right’ as almost coming together in a circle rather than forming a straight line.
- instead of simplistically using the ambiguous labels of left and right, we shall use the analytical scheme with 3 sets of questions as set out below:
- the relationship between 1 & 2 (i.e., society as it should be as compared to society as they perceive it to be) has a great impact on 3—the Programme of action (the chart below tries to summarise the effects):
- if people feel that society is pretty much as it should be, then they will not want change and will oppose attempts to introduce or promote change. They will be defenders of the status quo.
- if people feel that the gap between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’ is not too big and if they feel that society is moving towards the ideal (i.e., ‘progressing’), they will be concerned about and support moderate reform and gradual change.
- if they feel that the gap between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’ is large, then they will be more likely to advocate radical alterations and be more likely to turn to violence. In fact, their dissatisfaction with existing society may be so great that they feel it must be completely destroyed before their existing society can be created. Thus, they show a pathological attitude towards existing society and a rage to destroy.
- however, this does not complete the analysis. It is necessary to determine where the ideal society (society as it should be) lies—past, present or future. The differences between radicals of the left (e.g., communists) and radicals of the right (e.g., fascists) usually correlates with whether they see their ideal society (their utopia) being in the future or in the past. Of course, the term ‘utopia’ is often regarded as an imagined society, as all utopias of the future must be. However, utopias of the past may be just as imaginary as utopias of the future; i.e., the past which they imagine may not have existed, at least in the form that they imagine. The Nazis hearkened back to a mythical and mystical past that was mostly fantasy. Both the backward-looking and the forward-looking despise existing society and may be equally prone to violence and destructiveness.
- finally, please keep in mind that these terms—conservatism, liberalism and socialism—each include variations.
- another issue that can be significant is the fact that the terms ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ are used frequently as they are widely believed to refer to good things; in most ideologies, the conditions of freedom and liberty are usually included as a goal and a demand. The problem is that the terms can mean very different things so that one has to look very carefully at what definition is being used.
Definitions of ‘Liberty’ or ‘Freedom’
1. Economic ‘Liberty’ or ‘Freedom’
- when the terms are used by laisser faire proponents, the emphasis is on the individual’s right and ability to pursue his/her economic interests with the least amount of interference or restraints by gov’t. In other words the maximum amount of freedom to become rich.
2. Political & Civil ‘Liberty’ or ‘Freedom’
- individual rights, the franchise;
- freedom of the press, religion, assembly;
- equality before the law, etc.
3. National or Group ‘Liberty’ or ‘Freedom’
- national or linguistic groups want independence and the ending of domination by other groups (e.g., Slavic peoples in the 19th C rejected German or Magyar domination); usually, they go on to demand self-determination.
- i.e., group freedom but not necessarily individual freedom; in fact, as we shall see, there can be fundamental conflicts between the demands for group freedom and individual freedom.
4. Untrammelled ability of governments to deal with and suppress dissidents and troublemakers.
- we shall see this when we examine Count Metternich’s conservatism; this ‘freedom’ conflicts directly with demands for individual freedom. Civil and political rights for individuals requires that governments not interfere with many activities of the individual and are restraints on the actions of the government. Metternich explicitly rejected any such restraints in arguing that governments must be ‘free’ to act in any manner necessary.