4 Conservatism

Wallace G. Mills Hist. 203 4 Conservatism

Conservatism

- we shall rely a great deal upon Count Metternich’s views (see Metternich’s “Confession of Faith”). Metternich was a long time member of the government of the Hapsburg Empire of Austria—foreign minister from 1809 and chancellor (chief minister) from 1821-1848. He helped to set up the ‘continental system’ after 1815 and the period 1815-48 has sometimes been called the Metternich era. Therefore his views were very influential over much of Europe for over 30 years. Also, his statement sent to Tsar Alexander I provides a very succinct statement of the basic principles and viewpoint of a great many conservatives in Europe in the 19th C.

- it is true that conservatism in Britain differed in a number of significant ways (we shall not examine it). Metternich’s conservatism is more extreme, but more representative of thinking and outlooks in Europe.

- it is unlikely that any of you will be very sympathetic to the views and beliefs of conservatism. We have been raised in an era when what were liberal and radical views are now taken as the norm; conservative views, on the other hand, are very much out of fashion and most survive only in very limited places and contexts.

- most conservative views are dismissed automatically and without much thought; moreover, there is a too hasty tendency to impute evil motives to anyone who espouses ideas which are different from our own. We assume that our own views (or those we have inherited) are the ‘truth’ and that every thinking, ‘right-minded’ person will reach the same conclusion and views. Therefore, anyone who espouses different views must be ignorant and stupid or have some ulterior motive (probably something in it for them).

- it is true that we humans have a great tendency to rationalise our own self-interest. It often comes out in labour disputes where strikers are trying to get higher wages and benefits but will argue that justice and truth are the real issues in the dispute.

- conservatives, especially if wealthy landowners, are highly vulnerable to the charge that their philosophies and ideologies of conservatism are merely attempts to rationalise their self-interest & to justify their privileges and disproportionate share of wealth. The charge probably has a good deal of truth in it, but nearly everyone does the same thing to some degree at least; conservatives are not unique in this regard.

- however, many of the proponents of conservative views were sincere in their beliefs; they may have been mistaken, but that is something to consider & to examine carefully.

- also, whether they were mistaken or not, it was their beliefs which determined their behaviour and you cannot begin to understand why they did what they did until you have some understanding of how they thought.

- I do not require you to agree with conservatives (or indeed with liberals or socialists either); what I do require is that you try to understand what they believed and how they viewed the world (i.e., their cosmology). When you are examined, you will not be examined on your agreement with or your opinions about conservatism (having opinions about something you don’t understand merely makes you opinionated, not knowledgeable or wise). Rather, I shall be trying to determine how well you understand their views, how well you got inside their heads.

- before turning to Metternich’s statement, we shall discuss a number of features of conservatism. First we shall look at their assessment of human nature. As we shall see, such an assessment is a basic starting point for all ideologies about how society should be structured and order maintained. Humans are the building blocks of society; conforming to and working with human nature seems a prerequisite for creating an ideal, smoothly functioning society. Many of the differences in our 3 ideologies are rooted in their markedly different assessments of human nature.

Human nature

- in general, conservatives have a pessimistic view of human nature and of human capabilities, at least of the majority, the masses. Partly, this is rooted in the traditional Christian concept of original sin which means that all humans are born sinful. Also, in the 18th & 19th Cs, the majority of people had little education and illiteracy was very high. This was usually attributed to innate lack of capability rather than to lack of opportunity.

- moreover, rich and poor tended to live in almost completely different worlds. The wealthy knew very little about the majority of the ‘lower classes’; mostly, the ones they knew were servants (although they might know a bit about some of the workers on their estates).

- servants were seen as either good or bad: the good ones worked hard, were trustworthy and were subservient; the bad were lazy, were liable to steal, were impudent, etc. However, life in domestic service was not an accurate representation of the lives of working people and little was known of servants’ lives outside the big houses.

- the rest of the ‘lower classes’ (especially rural labourers) were generally seen only at a distance and little was known of how they lived. They appeared unkempt, dirty & brutish. Also, for reasons which often escaped the rich, the masses engaged from time to time in outbursts of rioting, looting and even killing.

- the naive ignorance of the rich has long been represented by the story of Marie Antoinette. Shortly before the start of the French Revolution, there was a famous bread march by women & children from Paris to the Palace of Versailles where the royal court lived. When she asked what the people at the gate were complaining about, she was told, “They say they have no bread.” Her reply was, “Well, let them eat cake.”

- this story is usually considered apocryphal (i.e., probably it never actually happened); however, it is a myth as it does illustrate a truth: the wealthy, aristocratic classes knew very little about how the poor actually lived—the want, the poverty, the malnutrition, even starvation that were all too common among the ‘common people’. Usually, when an upper class person spoke to a peasant or person off the street, the latter, becoming tongue-tied and awkward, appeared completely foolish and dim-witted. (That has happened to me when I’ve been introduced to a VIP.)

- altogether then, the masses appeared in 2 main guises:

on the one hand, they were regarded as stupid or sullen animals prone to occasional violence and barbarism;
alternately, they might appear subservient and even obsequious or perhaps viewed patronisingly as simple and child-like. As children, they needed to told what to do and guided with a firm hand.

[When I lived for 15 months in South Africa in the 1970s doing research, almost identical views were held by most whites regarding Africans, especially African servants. These characterisations were then used as a justification for white domination—South Africa would revert to barbarism and chaos without white control.]

- one of the conclusions draw from this premise about the nature and capabilities of the mass of the population was that the masses should not have any say in governing. There were other conclusions as well.

Order

- for many conservatives, their conception of order was not too different from the earlier mediaeval Christian view of order stemming from God in the Great Chain of Being. According to this view, everything had been created and ordered in a great hierarchy starting from God and descending downwards: heavenly beings—archangels, seraphims, angels, etc.; humans—kings, aristocrats, middle classes, workers & peasants (in fact, people then usually used the term ‘orders’ rather than ‘classes’ to refer to these distinctions); animals; birds; fish; insects; plants; etc. Everything had been created in its place and should remain in its place. Of course this perfect order had been disrupted by sin. Satan had tried to overthrow the divine order by attempting to displace God.

- according to this view, the social order and hierarchy in human societies was decreed and ordained by God. However, because of sin etc. order in human societies was imperfect. Nevertheless, conservatives in the 18th & 19th Cs still believed that an hierarchical social structure was ‘natural’; they often added that the contemporary order had evolved over a long period of time and therefore was based upon experience. They believed that a separation process similar to milk and cream (before homogenisation) took place; i.e., the talented and more able people had risen in society to places of leadership and their talents had been passed down to their children generation after generation to the present. Thus, the upper classes represented the ‘cream’ of society (that expression is still used).

Civilisation and culture

- conservatives believed that civilisation and culture had been achieved only slowly and painfully. Furthermore, they believed that these things had been brought about by a small minority (the cream), as these achievements were beyond the capabilities of the majority. It was this elite minority who maintained and perpetuated them.

- the capabilities of the elite had been built up over time, to a large degree as result of heredity (‘blue bloods’); they did recognise that upbringing and environment played a significant role in the transmission of culture and the development of higher abilities, but still regarded heredity as the most important aspect.

- this high level culture and civilisation were fragile; many conservatives tended to see themselves as tiny bastions struggling to maintain them while surrounded by a sea of barbarism and facing the threat of reverting to chaos. It was a continuing struggle requiring constant vigilance and effort to prevent chaos and disorder from overwhelming and destroying society. It was the small minority with higher capabilities who provided guidance and direction in this struggle to maintain order & stability.

- the rule and domination of the political and social system by this elite minority was justified because of the vital services and leadership they provided. The mass (or lower orders) of the population should not have a say in political decision-making as they were almost completely lacking in ability and knowledge. Even the middle classes, who might have a good deal of property and wealth and/or education, should not have a significant say in politics because they lacked the experience (i.e., collective experience as passed down by inheritance and tradition). Everyone benefited from the rule by the minority because this system provided the best government; even the poor were better off with stability and order than they would be with turmoil and disruption (these were the options perceived by conservatives—conservatism or chaos!).

- furthermore, they felt that their privileges and wealth were justified because these advantages were necessary. Without them, the minority would not be able to produce the hereditary elite capable of governing and guiding society.

In view of human nature and the range of human abilities in the population, what was necessary to maintain ordered society and civilisation?

Authority

- in this context and to solve this need, conservatives identified ‘authority’ as the correct and right principle for structuring and governing society. This was ‘authority’ in all senses:

Authority as a mandate from God;
Authority as legitimacy conferred by centuries of tradition and the right to rule passed down from generation to generation;
Authority as the power to impose one’s will on society and to command compliance with one’s rule.

- authority involves not only the right and ability to make laws, but also the power and mechanisms to enforce compliance and to punish those who do not obey. Authority includes elements of moral authority (stemming from legitimacy) as well as physical power and coercion (courts, police, even military, etc.).

- on earth, this authority centred in the monarch (king, emperor, elector, etc.) who then delegated it downwards through the hierarchies in society. Three hierarchies were especially important: the state (gov’t & bureaucracy), the social hierarchy and the church (see the diagram below). In general, conservatives tended to visualise society as a pyramid. All authority and legitimacy flowed from the top downwards. One argument against democracy (and the social contract) was that under democracy, authority flowed from the people and that was inverting the pyramid. They argued that a pyramid could not stand on its point, nor could society be stable or strong if political authority and structure were turned upside down.

Legitimacy

- legitimacy, as you can see, is often linked with authority, but it has additional connotations as well.

- literally, the term means ‘legal’ or ‘lawful’; therefore, legitimate authority is someone who is empowered according to the laws of society; e.g., the king shall be the eldest male offspring of the preceding king and a woman to whom he is legally married.

- however, legitimacy often goes beyond this to include the notion of right and proper in a moral sense, especially in the eyes of those who are affected; thus, it often includes the idea that many of the people being governed must accept the rightness and appropriateness of the authority for it to be ‘legitimate’.

- it may also include the idea that the rule of the ‘legitimate authority’ has been divinely vetted and approved (‘the Lord’s anointed’).

- there are a number of key issues in determining whether a government is right and proper:

Is it legitimate in its origins and structure?
Is it legitimate in its personnel?
Is it legitimate in its use of power and in the way it performs?

- to see how these concepts relate in conservative thinking, we can look at an example that Metternich refers to. As we noted, for conservatives the ‘natural’ order was an hierarchical one with power and authority flowing from the top downwards. In the French Revolution, the king and many of the aristocracy (the legitimate authorities) were gotten rid of by guillotining and sending into exile. However, very soon a new autocratic leadership (Napoleon and his generals) established a new empire and reestablished the pattern of an autocratic hierarchy with power flowing from the top downwards. Democracy soon led to a new despotism and autocracy.

- however, while the new elite (especially Napoleon) reestablished the ‘natural order’, these new authorities were not ‘legitimate’. The monarchs and aristocrats of Europe had been legitimised by time and by tradition; some conservatives even argued that God had placed them in a position of power.

- because of this lack of legitimacy, Napoleon and his generals had to rely on force and military might (i.e., he lacked moral authority); while he might have done some good things, it was at the cost of continual wars, turmoil etc.

Role of the state (government)

- the state includes all the apparatus and institutions to protect society both internally and externally (conducting diplomacy as well as military and naval forces). Internal aspects include the means to make laws as well as the means to enforce those laws (courts and police).It includes the bureaucracy to raise the needed revenues to pay for all these things. In the view of conservatives, it should be very literally the monarch’s government.

[Contrast this with the British constitutional monarchy where the government is called Her Majesty’s Government and is nominally appointed by the monarch; in practice, the monarch must appoint as prime minister the leader of the party which controls parliament and must appoint whoever the prime minister selects to head the various ministries. Moreover, it is the government who tells the monarch what to do, not vice versa. The monarch cannot even make a speech without it first being approved by the prime minister and we saw an example of a prime minister ordering the royal family around in the wake of Diana’s death in 1997.]

- the government is the means by which the monarch rules. The government makes and enforces laws to ensure that the monarch’s rule is maintained, to ensure that order and stability are maintained, to preserve society as it exists, and to deal with troublemakers who seek to change things (Metternich enumerates several functions).

- the church and the aristocracy are also seen as being important in maintaining the hierarchical structure of society and the flow of power from the top down. The conservatives see these hierarchies as reinforcing each other. The monarch and government should help the church and the aristocracy to maintain their influence and power and vice versa. Metternich places special emphasis upon the role of religion. God willed and ordained the hierarchical structure of society; it was the duty and obligation of everyone in society to obey those placed in divinely appointed authority. According to conservative ideology, political decision-making was to be done only by the elite; what was required of everyone else was that they obey. The church was supposed to teach this duty and obligation to obey.

- it should be noted here that this conservatism tends to be agrarian based in its conception of society—both the church and the aristocracy have their greatest influence and power in rural, agricultural areas. This kind of conservatism often did not accommodate the social hierarchies of cities very well. In fact, it was usually very critical & disparaging of industrialisation and urbanisation. As industrialisation took place, Metternich’s system was undermined. The revolutions which destroyed Metternich’s system in 1848 were all urban based.

Metternich’s statement

- he sets out to diagnose what is wrong with Europe in 1820 and what brought it to its sorry condition. Then, he wants to see what remedies are available to combat the malady and disease. Finally, he proposes a number of specific measures to be taken to cure the situation and to prevent a relapse.

Metternich’s prescription

- several of Metternich’s proposals were implemented and there were several interventions to stem revolution. However, the system failed to prevent or undo the moderate revolution of 1830 in France. Nevertheless, the settlements and arrangements made at the Congress of Vienna (i.e., the attempt to undo as much as possible of the effects of the French Revolution and of Napoleon’s conquests) remained in place until the Revolutions of 1848. Thus, the conservative reaction spearheaded by Metternich was able to prevent most political change in Europe for almost 30 years.

Revolutions of 1848

- the explosion of revolutions in most of the large cities of Europe came after 3 years of cold, wet, poor harvests in Europe including the potato famine in Ireland, which started in 1846. There was great distress—high food prices, high unemployment, and low wages.

- revolution broke out 1st in Paris, but quickly as news spread, revolutions broke out in cities in Germany and along the Rhine. The fire of revolution continued to move southwards to Vienna and Budapest on the Danube and then into Italy where Rome especially was affected. Metternich himself, after several days of rioting in Vienna, fled across Europe to get refuge in Britain.

- in broad terms, the revolutions were brought about by coalitions:

many in the middle classes who wanted economic and political reforms that we associate with liberalism;
urban working classes who wanted cheaper food, more jobs and higher wages. However, within a short time, more radical demands began to be made, many of them based upon socialism which emerged as a political force for the 1st time since a brief appearance in the French Revolution. It was in Paris during the early days of the 1848 revolution that Karl Marx and Engels 1st issued their Communist Manifesto.

- initially, there was a good deal of superficial success as gov’ts collapsed or were intimidated. Constitutions were demanded and in many cases were conceded.

- eventually, however, the revolutions were all put down. Partly, this was because of splits which emerged within the coalitions which initiated the revolutions; middle class liberals were appalled and terrified by the more radical demands that began to be expressed. In a number of cases, they switched sides and began to support the monarchs and their governments.

France
- in France, Louis Napoleon (a nephew of Napoleon) got elected as president (in some ways this was a preview of fascist dictators in the 1920s & 30s) and then got himself proclaimed as emperor. His regime represented the conservative, Catholic, monarchist tradition in France; this tradition opposed democracy and wanted an autocratic, Catholic society.

Prussia
- in Prussia, the army, after being quiet for several months, reasserted itself as most of the middle classes deserted the revolution coalition. The newly granted constitution was revoked and autocratic government restored. The Prussian army went up the Rhine suppressing the revolutions in cities there and in southern Germany, even dispersing the parliament at Weimar which had been trying to create a united Germany.

Italy
- Louis Napoleon sent French troops to restore the pope in Rome and repress the Roman Republic; Russian armies helped to suppress the revolutions in Vienna and Budapest.

The end of Metternich’s ‘continental system’

- what the revolutions had demonstrated was that Metternich’s conservatism couldn’t work, especially as industrialisation and urbanisation were taking place.

- it was clear that conservative gov’ts would need means to build popular support if they were going to remain in power.

Nationalism

- something else which emerged clearly in 1848 was nationalism—in Germany, in Hungary and in Italy especially. In Hungary (which was part of the multi-ethnic Hapsburg empire of Austria), Magyars demanded independence or at least equality with the Germans. In Germany and Italy, nationalism showed itself in attempts to bring about unification. The main focus of the Weimar constitutional conference had been the creation of a unified Germany; despite a widespread desire for unification, the delegates had not been able over many months to reach agreement on key issues: Should it be a small Germany or a large Germany? What kind of gov’t should it have?

- most of the delegates at Weimar were liberals who were also nationalists, but one of the conservative delegates was Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck recognised that for most of the liberal nationalists, it was nationalism which was most important to them, not liberalism.

- Bismarck realised that nationalism was a means for conservative gov’ts to build popular support for themselves and their continuation in power. It was Bismarck who engineered the unification of Germany, but he brought about unification under the domination of conservative Prussia. In doing so, he won over many middle class liberals to support conservative gov’t both in Prussia and then in the German Reich (Empire).

- similarly, it was conservatives who achieved Italian unification.

- the point to note here is that after 1848, conservatives realised that it was necessary to build popular support if they were going to be able to resist the trends to more liberalism and representative democracy. Metternich’s approach of using force to prevent change had failed. Thus, conservatives began to make some compromises (as noted earlier, Germany had representative gov’t but not responsible gov’t), but also they began to take up causes which they thought would be popular—nationalism, later imperialism, social darwinism, militarism, etc.

- however, these movements and ideologies are very powerful and dangerous; it requires a real balancing act to try to use them, but still control them. It is kind of like a circus act where the performer tries to ride 2 or 3 horses simultaneously. If the forces get out of control, events could lead to disaster, as happened in 1914 and after. Thus, conservatives in the 2nd half of the 19th C increasingly emphasised remaining in control of government and power, but they had to make compromises and compete for popularity.

- conservatives could not stop change; they had to go along for the ride hoping that if they remained in charge of political and social power, they would be able to preserve as much as possible, not only of their position and wealth, but also of the basic outline and structure of society.

- much of what remained of Metternich’s political conservatism was destroyed in World War I; all the autocratic monarchies ended—the Hapsburgs in Austria-Hungary, the Hohenzollerns in Prussia and Germany, and the Romanov dynasty in Russia (murdered by the Bolsheviks).

- however, conservative ideas, conservative yearnings, still lingered. After the disasters of World War I and then the economic turbulence of the 1920s and the Great Depression, people were often nostalgic about the pre-1914 era; the monarchs were gone, but what about replacements? What about Mussolini and this guy Hitler?

- these leaders were certainly not ‘legitimate’ in the conservative sense, but:

they believed in hierarchies (fascist and Nazi ones);
they didn’t believe in democracy; in fact they hated it with a vengeance. ‘The people don’t tell us what to do; we tell the people what they shall do.’
their watch word was ‘Don’t think; just do what we say. Obey!’

- fascism and Nazism involved a number of elements; features of conservatism made up only one set of elements. Extreme nationalism, militarism, and social darwinism were other elements. Moreover, fascists and Nazis were usually contemptuous of the old hierarchy and aristocrats, even contemptuous of religion. Thus, it is simplistic to say that fascism was simply another form of conservatism. But fascists often played up the elements that were similar to conservatism and a great many conservatives were sucked in; this falling into the arms of the fascists was facilitated by the conservative horror of socialists. Anyone was preferable to socialists. As a result, conservatives supported and sometimes helped to bring the fascists to power. Only when it was too late did many conservatives realise that the fascists too were inimical to the kind of society that conservatives wanted.

Religious conservatism

- it is in some churches that conservatism has survived longer and stronger than elsewhere in society. This is especially true of the Roman Catholic Church, although it has sometimes been true of Protestant churches too, especially in the 19th C. [In the movie, “The Emigrants” starring Liv Ullman (about Swedish emigrants who ended up in Minnesota), the repression of religious beliefs by the Lutheran state church was given as the major reason for these emigrants to leave.]

- Metternich had not been alone in concern about Protestant and Catholic sectarianism which tried to make individual religious experience and interpretation of the bible the pathway to truth in place of church authority. Liberalism stressed freedom of conscience and individualism and was bad enough; some socialists (although by no means all) were avowed atheists. Thus, there was a good deal of conservative reactionism.

- conservatism became especially ingrained in the Roman Catholic Church after 1850 while it diminished elsewhere.

- Pius IX was elected as a ‘liberal’ pope in 1846, but he was both frightened and outraged by the revolution in Rome in 1848. It is said that he had to escape from the city via the sewers. The pope was the temporal ruler of the Papal States so the revolution was really a revolt against papal rule and the pope! The pope remained in exile from Rome until French troops finally suppressed the Republic of Rome in 1850 or so. Whatever ‘liberalism’ he had entertained before disappeared entirely. This showed up in the new stances taken up by the pope and 2 papal bulls in particular.

Syllabus of Errors 1864

- this was a syllabus or catalogue of ideas and beliefs which were declared to be incompatible with being a good Catholic. These ideas were declared to be ‘anathema’—i.e., out of bounds and to hold such views was a sin and/or heresy. Most of the ideas of liberalism and socialism were listed in the Syllabus. Anyone guilty of holding any of these ideas was declared to be guilty of mortal sin and was supposed to be excommunicated—i.e., denied the sacraments of the Church. This was a very serious sanction for Catholics.

Declaration of Papal Infallibility 1870

- this bull stated that in official declarations of faith and dogma, the pope spoke as the voice of God and could not be in error; i.e., he was infallible. Many Catholics have said that this applies only to matters of Christian faith and dogma, but, as the Syllabus of Errors shows, papal bulls have often dealt with a broad range of issues, including political ideas, and have not always been restricted to narrowly defined theological issues and dogma.

- in practice, the Church was never able to enforce such decrees entirely. Some Catholics held liberal views, went to church and often were not denied the sacraments even though priests continued to denounce the ideas. Moreover, even where people were excommunicated and denied the sacraments, they would usually get back into the good graces of the Church by recanting and being given absolution (especially when they got sick or got old and might die).

[However, there is an amusing story from Quebec where the Liberals were called ‘rouges’ —reds. Many clergy vigorously excommunicated ‘rouges’; I saw a statement a while ago that Jean Chrétien’s grandfather had been so excommunicated as a ‘rouge’. In spite of this opposition from the Church, the Liberals built their party into the dominant one in Quebec by the 1890s.

There was a Rouge who died without being absolved by the local priest and the priest refused to allow the man to be buried in the family plot saying that he was excommunicated and the graveyard was consecrated ground. The family sued in court and the court ruled in their favour, ordering that the man must be buried in the family plot as the priest had no right to forbid this. The priest responded by deconsecrating the grave before the man was interred!]

Ultramontane tradition

- there were some Catholics who supported the conservative reaction and approach. [The ‘montane’— mountain— being referred to was Rome and its conservative approach. ‘Ultra’ means very high or extreme. Thus, it was an ultra-conservative approach.]

- ultramontanes wanted a much more ‘Christian’ and ‘Catholic’ society; they disliked and fought against the growing secularism in society.

- in France, this Catholic ultramontane tradition disliked both republicanism (preferred monarchy) and democracy (preferred more authoritarian system). They resisted all attempts to reduce the influence of the Church in society; republicans wanted to reduce Church involvement in education, in care for the sick and social welfare; they also wanted to tax church property (not churches, but the estates, farms, and income generating property). This ultramontanism was very strong in Quebec in the 19th C. In fact Laurier and the Liberals had to get the Vatican to intervene because the Quebec clergy (priests and hierarchy) were so hostile to Liberals. Some priests had even preached that it was a mortal sin to vote for a Liberal!

- later, in the 1880s and 90s, subsequent popes began to back away from some of the more extreme positions of this ultra conservatism; ultramontanes opposed any softening and thus were said to be ‘more Catholic than the pope’!

[This is similar to the recent phenomenon of resistance to use of vernacular languages instead of Latin in the mass and other aspects of relaxed worship (e.g., use of folk music or rock). Some have even broken away and are operating outside the Catholic Church; Archbishop Lefevre in France is a leader of this movement. It taps into what remains of the ultramontane tradition.]

- it should be emphasised that lots of Catholics (perhaps the majority) never accepted these extreme conservative views. In fact, many people remained Catholics even when they became anticlerical; anticlericals were opposed to the Church’s involvement and interference in secular and political affairs. They argued that priests and the higher clergy should devote themselves to the spiritual needs of their people and should avoid involvement in secular and political affairs.

- by the 1890s, the Vatican had backed away from the more extreme position of the Syllabus of Errors and a worker-priest movement began. The latter arose from the dismay about urban slums and conditions. As we noted, the conservative view arose out of a rural and agrarian view of society and was out of touch with the new realities of urban, industrial societies.

- eventually, in the early 20th C, the Church tried to respond; one way was to give Catholics alternatives to secular organisations by creating Catholic trade unions and Catholic political parties (this is the origins of many Christian Democratic parties). However, these were attempts to guide Catholics into more conservative approaches and outlooks than the secular organisations. For example, Catholic trade unions discouraged strikes and conflicts; they were supposed to use moral persuasion with employers. The employers, as good Catholics, were supposed to show concern for the welfare of their employees. In this way, differences would be worked out more amicably.

- thus, it was an approach that tried to build on paternalism and thus reinforce a conservative view of the world. Workers are subordinate and God intended them to be obedient and hard-working; they should accept the subordinate role that God intended. That is, society, including areas of employment, was and should be hierarchical. On the other hand (as Metternich had argued with the tsar), employers were answerable to God for the well-being of their employees.

- in spite of some softening, the Catholic Church continued to be characterised by disapproval of much liberalism and completely rejected and condemned socialism. Until after World War I, the Vatican refused to recognise the legitimacy of the Italian state and forbade any participation (even voting) to Catholics. Large numbers of Catholics ignored this, but to the very devout, this prohibition of the Church was a strong barrier and a source of weakness of the Italian state. It is very interesting and significant to note that when the Vatican finally made its peace with the Italian state in 1929 (the Lateran Accord), it was not with the liberal format but rather with Mussolini’s fascist state.

- as already noted, conservative Catholics were often easily duped by fascists and Nazis in the 1920s & 30s. It was also people in this ultramontane and monarchist tradition which formed the backbone of the Vichy gov’t which took over France in 1940 with the defeat by Germany. Not only did they make peace with and cooperate (in some cases, ‘collaborate’) with the Nazis, but they also tried to establish a conservative, agrarian Catholic society. Vichy also took up persecution of the Jews and helped to send thousands to the Nazi death camps in eastern Europe. It was for this that church leaders in France issued the apology in September 1997 for not opposing and taking action against the Vichy Government’s persecution of Jews.

- my reading of recent history in the Catholic Church is that Pope John XXIII tried to take the Catholic Church away from the conservative authoritarianism; his system of using councils to inquire into issues of faith and dogma, while not democratic (ordinary Catholics did not choose the bishops, cardinals etc. who formed the council), did attempt to broaden decision-making instead of everything being decided by the pope and his immediate advisors in the Vatican. Popes since then, and especially the current pope, John Paul, have been trying as much as possible to restore papal authority and demanding unquestioning obedience. This seems a forlorn hope; e.g., the indications are that in western nations in Europe and North America, 80-90% of Catholics ignore the Church’s prohibitions and practice birth control.

- the point is that conservatives and conservatism were important in a number of areas and countries of Europe at the beginning of the 20th C. Although their hold on political power mostly ended by 1918, elements of conservatism certainly remained to help fascists to gain support and power in some areas in the interwar era. Although little remained of conservatism as a political force after 1945, it still retains a good deal of influence in the Catholic Church down to the present. Even there it is under attack as more and more Catholics are prepared to dispute authoritarian decisions by the pope—on birth control, on the demand for celibacy by clergy, on excluding women from the priesthood, etc.

HOME

History 203 list

Top of the page