To what extent do conservatives agree on the role of the state?

Conservatism is often known as the politics of pragmatism, whereby the views of conservatives are not so much a coherent ideology as they are a set of beliefs as to how fast society should progress, therefore when considering the role of the state in conservatism there are a range of ideas and opinions held by key thinkers that are not completely uniform with one another. For example, conservative thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, and Edmund Burke saw the state as a necessary body of authority that had to oversee every aspect of our lives in order to ensure order and stability, whilst more contemporary conservatives like Ayn Rand and Richard Nozick rejected this notion and believed that the state should be as small as possible and only act to ensure order and stability when necessary, with no attempts to promote positive liberty. These differences are in line with how the former two thinkers see human nature as cynically immoral, while the latter two believe humans are rational, selfish beings. In practice, however, one nation conservatives and the new right have disagreements primarily on the economic side rather than on social issues. Therefore whilst conservatives thinkers generally disagree about the role of the state, it is based on their differing views about human nature and how they embrace it, rather than specific views on the state.

One reason conservatives disagree about the role of the state is because they have contrasting views on human nature, Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke believed that human nature was immoral by design, this stemmed from the belief in the original sin in Christianity, a religion that is often associated with conservatism. Due to this understanding of humanity, Hobbes could not imagine society existing in harmony without the state, he famously said that without the state enforcing law and order, life would be ‘tough, brutish and short’, this was because he believed that if we were allowed to act as we wished, the very worst of human nature would manifest itself as people did everything to protect their own personal liberty and security. Therefore he believed that a state was not only ideal but necessary to ensure order and security. Furthermore, as evidenced in his book leviathan, he believed that the state should be all-powerful in order to fulfil its duty to the people, as he believed that if power were to be dispersed mini conflicts would arise and therefore the state should hold all the power.

This view of an authoritarian state is in direct contrast to the views of Ayn Rand and Richard Nozick, they argued that human nature, while not perfect was egotistical and objectivist, they did not see selfishness as immoral, but instead a road to self-fulfilment which was inherently good. Therefore they believed that as rational beings, individuals in society should be allowed to live how they wanted to without any interference from the state, except if order and security were jeopardised. However, Nozick wanted a minarchist ‘night watchman’ state so if order was put at risk then the state would mitigate the problem then return to the ‘sidelines’ rather than being permanently powerful like that under Burke or Hobbes philosophy. Rand and Nozick believed that negative liberty should be afforded to all in society and any attempts from the state to promote positive liberty; whereby they intervene to ‘help’ people, should be resisted as the state has no business in interfering with the daily lives of autonomous citizens. Therefore, it is clear that there is disagreement on the role of the state that is primarily caused by the differing views on how human nature manifests itself in a society without the intervention of the state.

There is more agreement however between conservatives on the role of the state in the economy, generally they agreed that there should be a free market where the government takes a laissez-faire approach rather than implementing too many regulations, however, there is still some disagreement. On the one hand, in line with their beliefs in objectivism, Rand and Nozick believe that the market should be almost entirely free from government intervention as the market is a means to which individuals can pursue happiness in the form of profits, as humans are selfish and egotistical a free market essentially the perfect expression of human greed which to the aforementioned thinkers is good rather than bad. Furthermore, they believed that allowing people to trade freely unlocks the potential for people to make significant advancements in society, this view was the main basis of Rand’s novel Atlas shrugged where the state had taken such overriding control of the free market that there was no innovation as all of the capitalists and inventors had gone on strike, further emphasising her views on the states limited involvement in the economy. Burke also generally understood trade to arise organically between people and therefore did not need to be regulated by the state to a great extent and also promoted laissez-faire capitalism, however, these conservatives all generally agreed that the state was often necessary to enforce contracts between different parties in a market.

On the other hand, Michael Oakeshott; who was more optimistic about human nature than Burke and Hobbes but still had doubts, and Hobbes believed that a truly free market was impossible to achieve as people couldn’t be trusted to operate in such a manner without abusing their freedom, this view is even held by current ‘conservatives’, they believe that the free market is too volatile and unpredictable without the state moderating it and guaranteeing security, even if it takes the form of regulation which is extremely antithetical to the beliefs of Rand and the other conservatives who disagreed with state intervention. Moreover, they believe that the free market cannot be trusted for the same reason that Rand and Nozick believe that is should, to Hobbes and Oakeshott, humans are too greedy and allowing them to trade freely could lead to people being taken advantage of by larger entities, what we know as monopolies, therefore to prevent this they see the state as necessary in regulating the market, which is a further disagreement between the conservative thinkers.

In terms of the conservative political party and how the different iterations of the party have approached the role of the state, it has taken two main forms; the ‘one nation conservative’ and the ‘new right’, the former believes that government should be proactive in helping people and encouraging social welfare while the latter would argue that limited government allows for innovation and better conditions for all under a privatised system. On the one hand, One nation conservatives such as Benjamin Disraeli would argue that we the elite in society have a duty to help those below them who are not as well off, known as noblesse oblige, and therefore it is morally right to for the state to pursue social reforms that lift people out of poverty and positive liberty that targets harmful practices like smoking or drug addiction. This view is similar to conservative thinkers such as Burke who believed in the accumulated wealth and knowledge of the aristocracy which gave them the right to rule over others in society as well as the duty to ensure that everyone received what was needed. The same could be said for Hobbes, however, he said the state as arising through a social contract with the people in which the state's power was derived from its citizens rather than through inheritance, this is best exemplified by his book leviathan in which the cover shows a king made up of numerous individuals who represent society and leadership by consent.

However, on the other hand, the New Right thinkers; whose ideas became legitimate after the rise of Thatcher as prime minister where she adopted this approach, believe that the state should not interfere with the economic activities of the citizens and promoted a more unregulated market although not completely free, this is in stark contrast to the one nation conservatives as the new right instead encouraged privatisation and limited the welfare of the workers by quelling trade unions, instead focusing on the rights of companies in the free market system. These views are more in line with those of Ayn Rand and Nozick however not completely as the new right still played an active role in the market and did not completely strip back regulations and publicly-funded welfare systems like the NHS remained. Furthermore socially they still had much in common with one nation conservatives as they did not believe in a permissive society as demonstrated by Thatcher’s section 28 which banned the teaching of homosexuality in schools which is in contrast with Rand's beliefs that the state should not interfere with individuals liberty in such matters. Therefore in practice politically there are still overall disagreements on the role of the state, however not to the degree to which individual conservative thinkers disagreed.

In conclusion, there is little uniform agreement between conservative thinkers as they do not agree on the fundamental state of human nature which dictates the role of the state. However, in regards to the conservatives parties influenced by the opposing views, there is less disagreement on what it means to be a social conservative, with most of the differences arising on economic policy. However, they all generally agree that the state has a duty to ensure order and security, as without either of those things then it is impossible to have liberty.

Jonathan Semugooma, Holyport College