What We Learned from the National Conservatism Conference in London
It is actually anti-liberal but not nationalist
Today's theme is 'National Conservatism', a relatively new movement within the right that is holding regular meetings in several Western countries, which is promoting a very authoritarian version of 'conservatism'. (I've put conservatism in quotes here because I believe that real conservatism must uphold limited government, which means I don't agree that NatCon is truly conservative.) It's not the first time I've talked about NatCon, but I think we have learned a few more things from its most recent conference in London.
Much of this week’s already notorious National Conservatism conference in London – seen by some on the left as a gathering of immensely powerful and sinister forces – was actually very gloomy....
“Transgenderism”, “climate catastrophism”, “the liberal establishment”, “neo-Marxism”, “wokeism”, “the professoriat”, “globalists”, “big corporates”, “big tech”, “the reign of terror by cancel culture”, “collectivist” politicians and civil servants, “elites”, “quangos” and “progressivism – the dominant ideology of our times”: all these forces were said to be creating what was variously described as “an age of unreason”, a “new dark age” and even “the end of our way of life”. The bleaker the speaker, the louder the applause generally was.
The first thing we learn about NatCon is that is it pessimistic, gloomy, frustrated, even angry. While I have often talked about the problems associated with 'wokeism', better described as cultural systemism, this movement appears to be in alignment with a lot of the anti-woke media establishment in that it likes to over-exaggerate the extent of these problems, and work its audiences into an existential panic. As I like to say, creating moral panics has historically been a favorite way for wannabe authoritarians to get their authoritarian agenda enacted, so we must always be wary of this happening. We can certainly critique and oppose wokeism without creating an irrational moral panic. The problem is that the NatCons, like much of the anti-woke media establishment these days, clearly prefer moral panic. I think NatCon is already off to a bad start here.
National conservatism has also been the Tory answer to the problem of change ever since Disraeli. “The great question is not whether you should resist change,” he argued, “but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws, and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles.” Disraeli described these options as being between a national system and a philosophical system, with the Conservative Party as the party of the former
-Do national conservatives trust the people? by Tom McTague in Unherd
The Disreali quote above describes my preferred approach to politics very well. This is why I insist that the West should stick with the classical liberal consensus that has served us well for more than two centuries, and reject the 'woke' cultural systemism that is ultimately rooted in academic philosophy. However, the clear fact is that 'National Conservatism' is nothing like what is described here.
In fact, I would even say that the 'national' part is false advertising. There is nothing 'national' about NatCon. The fact that it is mostly an American movement but holds meetings in London, where the speakers mostly push American right talking points that often feel alien to British politics, demonstrates this very well. Apparently, American NatCons don't feel the need to respect the actual views of the British people and the actual status quo in Britain at all. Their attempt to force an American version of right-wing politics on Britain is the very definition of internationalism indeed.
So if the NatCons are not 'national', what are they? As far as I can see, they are a front for the 'postliberal' right, a new faction on the right that wants to divorce their more libertarian partners (from 20th century Buckley-Reagan style fusionism), and embrace a more authoritarian, big government style of reactionary politics, powered by pseudo-populist reactionary sentiment. They are also deeply inspired by Hungarian President Viktor Orban, who once championed 'illiberal democracy'. Therefore, what differentiates the NatCons from other people on the right is their rejection of classical liberalism. They should probably be called 'illiberal conservatism' to be honest.
National conservatism is not going away. But if the Tory Party is to remain a potent force, it will have to evolve into something more than what is on display this week in London. It will, to put it simply, have to answer a centuries-old question: does it trust the people or not?
-Do national conservatives trust the people? by Tom McTague in Unherd
It is clear to me that the 'NatCons', or more accurately the illiberal conservatives, do not trust the people at all. If they did, they wouldn't have to whip up moral panics around issues that ordinary people don't even care much about. If they did, they wouldn't have to resort to authoritarian legislation. They clearly have the same distrust of the marketplace of ideas as the 'woke' cultural systemists.
In the classical liberal model, conservative ideas have the same opportunity as any other idea to demonstrate their validity and compete for popular support in the marketplace of ideas. The fact that conservative ideas have been tried and true actually gives them an advantage over new, untried ideas. This is why true liberalism actually comes with a healthy, moderate conservative bias, and I think that is a very good thing. (It is also why Herbert Marcuse was famously skeptical of free speech, an attitude that is handed down to today's cultural systemist left.)
However, what illiberal 'conservatives' want to do is to use state power to turn back the clock, because they aren't happy that the people have already accepted things like gay marriage, legal abortion, no fault divorce and the pill. They think the people have made the wrong choice and it is they alone who will save the world. In other words, they have a dangerously anti-democratic outlook and must be stopped.
There are 3 million lone parent families in the UK currently, while millions more are the offspring of single mothers. And 1.5 million people in England and Wales are not heterosexual, while some lesbians and gay men are also parents. In valorising the traditional nuclear family, post-liberals need to avoid stigmatising those who aren’t in one — particularly if they want to avoid social division, as most say that they do....
For most, it is a short walk from “marriage is a public act for the sake of your children and wider society” to “society should think less of you for being an unmarried parent”. Anyone trying to motivate the masses into a comfortingly principled Fifties mindset also needs to remember what used to happen to single mothers and gay people in the Fifties.
This doesn’t mean that the solution is to helplessly accede to existing progressive cultural forces, which at times looks like they are unconsciously focused on converting everybody in the UK to lesbian single motherhood, including the blokes. Rather, it means reconciling the desire to radically reshape the social fabric with recognising the value and dignity of those groups caught in cultural crossfire.
-Can the NatCon revolution escape the past? by Kathleen Stock in Unherd
I'm sorry to say that I can't agree at all. I think we should just say no to the authoritarian desire to 'radically reshape the social fabric', period. True Burkean conservatives would be horrified by any such talk indeed!
It's not that I don't want to see more stable families, fewer divorces, a stronger social fabric and so on. As described above, liberalism already provides a good platform for traditional ideas to win popular support. True liberalism actually has a healthy, moderate conservative bias, and I think it's a good thing. The influence of New Left critical theory thinking since the 1960s has distorted the playing field against conservative ideas, and true liberals need to counter and remove that so traditional values get their fair hearing too.
However, beyond that, we really don't want to go back to a full 1950s society where single parents and LGBT people were second class citizens. There's a good reason why the majority of people have rejected that kind of society. We especially don't want a version of the 1950s that is enforced by state power (rather than the prejudices of the people like it actually was back then). A 1950s style society enforced by state power would basically look like the Handmaid's Tale.
Note: The articles quoted above do not necessarily reflect my views, and I do not endorse their arguments outside of what I have specifically agreed with.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).
Thanks for the article. Very good points as regarding older ideas and authoritarianism. I am wondering about your conclusion about natcons not being nationalist. How is that possible since national conservatism is about merging nationalism with conservatism? One can say also that natcons are conservative nationalists