PLEASANTVILLE:

Conservatism is not evil, stupid nor ignorant - it's just misunderstood. (Stephen Barton, 30/1/03, Opinion Opinion)

One of Margaret Thatcher's ministers once complained: "The word conservative is now used by the BBC as a portmanteau word of abuse for anyone whose political views differ from the insufferable, smug and sanctimonious, na•ve, guilt ridden, wet, pink orthodoxy of that sunset home of that third-rate decade, the 1960s." The problem is that it's not just the BBC.

The word 'conservative' is one of the most misused in the English language. If the word 'conservative' were a person, they'd sue. Insert 'conservative' in a description of a person and the chances are that it carries negative connotations. Being 'conservative' is never a compliment; it is a defect and a blemish on someone's character. It means they are quite possibly stupid, if they are clever then they are almost certainly a little evil, at best they are misguided and dim.

Contrast this with the word 'Left' or 'progressive'. Insert this anywhere in a description of a person and, providing it's not in the IPA Review, the chances are it brings with it a positive, warm and fuzzy glow. Clearly the person is an individual of great character and compassion, they have a social conscience and a hearty desire to build Jerusalem in England's pleasant pastures green and that light on the hill. Conservatives, or so it goes, would rather privatise the light on the hill, introduce a user-pays system and build a car park on those pleasant pastures. Pointing out that such a perception is a confused hodgepodge of misconception and misunderstanding is not welcomed.

Being a conservative can be an uncomfortable political persuasion for someone in their mid-20s, indeed for anyone under the age of 73. Maintaining that Gough Whitlam is arguably one of our most overrated and incompetent Prime Ministers, can get one burned at the stake for heresy. Of less danger, but still potentially fatal, is arguing that Paul Keating's 'big picture' was a symptom of his poor knowledge of history and the fact that some believed him is a terrible indictment on the country's education system. There is that terrible feeling of loneliness at a party when mildly pointing out that George Bush is unlikely to be an idiot, provokes looks of patronising dismay. Meekly demurring that possible war with Iraq has more to it than
oil is even worse. Arguing that such views are dangerously simplistic is the height of chutzpah for a conservative; after all we're supposed to be the simple ones.

While some conservatives may be simple, conservatism is anything but.

Our peers in the West (let's pretend we have some) are fond of portraying America as an immature society, sort of the unruly teenager in the family. But as you read this essay from Australia or look at what pass for "conservative" parties in Europe--even, or especially, in England (Why I daren’t admit to being a Tory)--you realize that in political terms these nations are stuck at about the point where the United States was in the late '40s, early '50s, when the Eastern Establishment dominated the GOP and had turned it into a party of New Deal Lite, so that there effectively no public debate over core political issues.

Thus, in 1950, Lionel Trilling could notoriously write:

[I]n the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition.... It is the plain fact [that] there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation...[only]...irritable mental gestures which seem to resemble ideas.

Though that accurately reflected the feeling of the intellectual elites, Trilling was wrong, of course. Even as he wrote those words, folks like Russell Kirk were mining the rich, but largely ignored, heritage of conservative ideas and preparing to inject them back into the public dialogue. There may be a Kirk in Australia, Britain, or Europe, but if so, they're keeping an awfully low profile so far.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 3, 2003 10:46 AM