Interpreting a Liberal Conservative programme
April 13th, 2010 | This post was written by AdministratorWhat an exciting prospect to be a British liberal Conservative in 2010!
Or so it seems for a Tory living in Nova Scotia. I doubt events will prove me wrong: for not only does the impending general election in May offer change and the chance to see a Conservative ministry regain office, but developments within the Conservative party present challenging new opportunities for ‘liberals’, too, whether they be ‘wet’ or ‘dry’.
Traditionally, the classical liberals were seen as adversaries to the Tory philosophy, advocating individual freedoms in the social and economic spheres in contrast to paternalism and protectionism.
When, over the course of time, these principles were incorporated into the conservative philosophy, ‘liberal’ then acquired the connotation within the party of standing apart from the status quo; while it did not necessitate a return to paternalistic and protectionist policies, it did mean a focussed advocacy for social welfare and economic opportunity.
To-day both strands of liberal thought are active within the Conservative big tent: whether in addressing the ‘broken politics’ of centralisation and community disempowerment, or the ‘broken society’ of endemic unemployment, family breakdown, and poverty.
One may ask: what holds such apparently incongruous liberal motives together? One answer lies in the Conservative emphasis on responsibility and obligation. While everyone has personal responsibilities as individuals, we also have obligations to each other, whether interacting one-on-one or in our communal relations in society.
When these informal associations are insufficient to the tasks in hand, then these responsibilities are undertaken by the State, which must always remember that it is in our service, representing our objectives.
These responsibilities transcend time and place, and recall Edmund Burke’s admonition that ‘society … becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.’
This is why the Conservative party is so often considered the guardian of the constitution, of the monarchy, and of the parliamentary institutions that have contributed to the rise and well-being of the British nation.
It is why the Conservative party has argued for the proper alignment of responsibilities between the citizen and the State—not only to sustain and defend individual freedoms against State encroachment and disempowerment, but also because of the éstatist burdens that present entitlements impose upon future generations.
Meanwhile, Conservatives stand up for the State as a legitimate bulwark of the common good: as a proper vehicle for the realisation of our mutual obligations, the State is far from the coercive instrument of oppression and redistribution feared by libertarians, but nor is the State to become a mere purveyor of welfare entitlements favoured by social democrats.
In honouring the rights of individuals and society—and in reconciling the State to both—the liberal Conservative attitude exemplifies best the aims of its sometime synonym, ‘progressive conservatism’: to preserve our liberties while progressing toward justice for all.
Posted by Administrator on behalf of the “Disrael-MacDonald Institute”
Related posts
Tags: Accountability, Change, General Politics, Living in Britain, Making a Difference, New Politics, Progressive Conservatism, Responsibility
Posts
April 13th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
This seems to be why the Liberal Democrats seem to be doomed never to progress further than the largest party of opposition: the founding principles of Liberalism have migrated into the Conservative Party while libertarianism fights for the soul of the LDs.