Conservatism In Frankenstein Buck's 'On Being Conservative'

Conservatism is greatly associated with the need to preserve traditions, beliefs, way of life and customs. Conservatism is also contrasted with fast-paced changes. It is now formally defined as believing in values that have been long established and the traditional practices in politics and society, as according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The realm of conservative ideology is broad and it covers everything from the most fundamental and basic belief to the values and practices in everyday life. As for Michael Oakeshott, in his work “On Being Conservative” in the book How Conservatives Think, edited and introduced by Phillip Wallenstein Buck, his writing speaks on the physical practices and the nature of conservatism while arguing that
conservatism is a specific nature instead of a belief or an ideology. The physical practices, or activities, mentioned are regarding government ruling, political theories, reasoning and so on. Michael Oakeshott starts off by asking a very direct question, notably to imply that he will be answering it, which is “how are we supposed to interpret and explain conservative nature in politics?”. In explaining so, the author emphasizes a few points that he sees are fundamental elements to a disposition of conservatism, especially in politics. I agree that the elements Michael Oakeshott writes as being conservative in nature is the preference of a limited government and familiarity, but I argue that conservatism is an ideology instead of a disposition.

Michael Oakeshott argues that a limited government is of conservative nature and I believe it to be true. He construes it as a form of government which does not interfere with individual's freedom to choose, does not impose nor direct individuals to the government's desired direction and does not guard individuals strictly (Oakeshott, 1975, pp. 156-157). Government ruling that is "a rule which imposes orderlines, without directing enterprise, a rule which concentrates duty so that room is left for delight" should be the purpose and advantage of having limited government (Oakeshott, 1975, pp.159-160). So why is the preference of a limited government conservative in nature? I believe he values liberty- the right to carry out activities we enjoy the most without restrictions, the natural rights to one’s property and that the current diversity in activities is preserved. Meaning, the hands-on government approach would be deteriorating what Oakeshott and the conservatives view as an already good way of living life with inclusion of personal liberty. Furthermore, if there is no ceiling to limit government power, unfair ruling and injustice might be a result, especially when government affairs is entailed with other activities (Oakeshott, 1975, pp. 159-160). “Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants”, it’s a form of management fit to please the citizens without tearing down the basic essence of freedom which makes life meaningful (Burke, 1956, pp. 110-113). John Locke writes that limited government hinders the possibility of government being an arbitrary power (Arneson), and this in turn will hurt the positive welfare of the citizens. While there is argument that the promotion of welfare is interdependent with the need of strict rules and security, it goes against the belief that people are the product of their own doings and therefore should have the right to protect themselves, which is a principle of conservatism (Humboldt, 1969, pp. 22-41). Also, centralization of government would pave a path for intervention of activities such as trade, which defies the purpose of a free-market. It’s said that high standards of living is attainable with reduced regulations in competitive capitalism (Critchlow, 2009, pp. 3-4). In conclusion, limitation of government correlates positively with natural freedom and liberty, and with that, conservative nature in politics. The famous conservatives, such as John Locke and Edmund Burke, from my previous point, appreciate limitation in governance. They also value familiarity, as did Michael Oakeshott. Familiarity is a virtue for those of conservative disposition in politics, as the author views change, if not to reflect the change in circumstance, as a threat to the system of governance. Preserving a tradition is admittedly an obvious trait of a conservative and when Michael Oakeshott writes "… he will think it appropriate to delay a modification of the rules until it is… to reflect has come to stay for awhile;.." (Oakeshott, 1975, p.158), it’s clear that he views it the same as I do. There is not much to analyse for why he think’s preferring the familiar and known to be of conservative nature, as the root word of “conservatism” is conserve. However, change is not opposed by a conservative natured individual, it’s least preferred compared to accepting and finding comfort in the current conditions (Oakeshott, 1975, pp.157-158). Would it imply that the said individual fears the unknown and fears risks? It would be yes. People who identify themselves as conservatives is found to have a more negative bias, where negative or threatening events are more dominant in causing stimuli or effecting the individual. The individuals more attuned to threats shows to be more responsive to negative sensory input compared to a proclaimed liberal with a positive bias, thus reacting more strongly to negative elements. Because of that, they cope with the negative bias by reducing all possibilities of having to face those threats, mainly by sticking to what they know to be familiar, secure and safe to them (Hibbing, Smith, & Alford, 2014, pp. 302-303). Why else would change be least preferred by individuals of conservative disposition then? It would because that traditions have passed the tests of time and therefore why would anyone want to fix what is not broken? Tradition is “the accumulated wisdom of the past”, and will bring generations to come and abundance of advantages (Heywood, 2012, p. 69). But change is inevitable and to stop it is futile in my opinion. However, it is the essence of a conservative to prefer the familiar, the known, since a central belief of conservatism is that human nature is flawed and our knowledge and capabilities are finite. Humans are also creatures of reason, as according to Burke (Garnett, 2010, p. 283) but our rationality is not always to be counted on (Heywood, 2012, p. 71). This is merely to say that we should just go with what we know works instead of taking risks that might result to failure. However, I believe that innovation is accepted by the individual of conservative disposition if it is to cope with growth, and this is agreed by Russell Kirk. Kirk writes that conservatives prefer change to be gradual and it should not “unfix all old interests at once” (Kirk). Like the Oakeshott’s idea, change can happen, but not to the extend where the well-functioning system (according to them) is jeopardized. This persistent but slow-paced change, I believe, will allow for the consequences to be monitored, thus why it is a fundamental principle of human beings of conservative disposition. In conclusion, preference of less changes is of conservative nature since the core idea behind less change is to have the long standing traditions remain.

One the note of deciding what is and what is not conservative in nature, I would like to argue, that conservatism is an ideology instead of a natural disposition, as Michael Oakeshott would construe it.
Oakeshott describes conservatism as an observation to enjoy our current ways to living life, be that of his time. He mentions how conservative disposition in politics is not necessarily connected with any beliefs about religion, theory nor the universe (Oakeshott, 1975, pp.153-154). But how is conservatism an ideology? For starters, an unbiased analysis would be hard to attain since it’s mostly conservatives themselves who write about conservatism (Muller, 2006, p. 359). However, I believe it is an ideology and the first reason being that is because many writers describe, analyse and explain “conservatism” as an ideology. Let’s look at the sociological point of view, where conservatism is described as an ideology or political principles of a specific social group, trying to prolong and conserve their prerogatives (Muller, 2006, p. 361). When compared to theories of conservatism section in “Conservatism as an Ideology” by Samuel P. Huntington, he writes “Aristocratic theory defines conservatism as the ideology of a single unique and specific historical movement…” (Huntington, 1957). This implies that the origin behind conservatism is based from certain principle and ideas that a specific group of people hold to, making it an
ideology.