Am I a Tory?

Am I a Tory, or is Jesse Norman a socialist? I'm prompted to ask because the other day he reminded me of his superb lecture (pdf) on Burke and Oakeshott.

What I mean is that, as Jesse says, both men, in their different ways, supported tradition against rationalism. This anti-rationalism, says Jesse, is "one of the central intellectual roots of conservatism through the ages."

That small c in "conservatism" is well chosen. Take three examples:

 - You can read Harry Braverman's account of deskilling - which is as relevant today as ever - as being in this tradition. He's defending traditional craft skills against rationalist scientific management. Except that he's a Marxist.

 - In the miners' strike, it was leftists who supported traditional communities against "sophisters, economists and calculators” who wanted to close the pits. (The fact that the sophisters' sums were wrong merely reminds us that rationalism and rationality are two different, and opposed, things.)

- Oakeshott's complaint in Rationalism in Politics (pdf) that rationalists elevate their "reason" over traditions and institutions can easily be read as supporting resistance to the managerialist assault upon universities. Such resistance is, I suspect, found more among leftists than Tories.

Jesse continues:

Rationalism can be seen in totalitarian societies, which seek to capture and organize the staggeringly diverse potential of human beings, and frame  it on some Procrustean bed".

It certainly can. But for me, managerialist rationalism is also totalitarian, in the sense both that it wants to extend to places such as universities where it is unwarranted, and that it seeks to suppress diversity in favour of conformist careerism.

So, it seems that me, Jesse, Burke and Oakehott have much in common. And, indeed, Jesse is well aware (pdf) that crony capitalism and excessive CEO pay are inconsistent with conservative tradition he praises.

Where, then, do we differ? On at least two points.

First, I'm not so sure that Westminster politics can restrain crony capitalism whilst supporting free markets or what Jesse calls real capitalism. There are very powerful forces which mean that a free market economy tends to degenerate into cronyism.

Secondly, I don't regard rationalism merely as an intellectual defect. Instead, it serves an ideological function; it tries to justify the power of elites. As Alasdair MacIntyre wrote:

Do we now possess that set of lawlike generalizations governing social behaviour of which Diderot and Condorcet dreamed? Are our bureaucratic rulers thereby justified or not? It has not been sufficiently remarked that how we ought to answer the question of the moral and political legitimacy of the characteristically dominant institutions of modernity turns on how we decide an issue in the philosophy of the social sciences...
The realm of managerialist expertise is one in which what purport to be objectively-grounded claims function in fact as expressions of arbitrary, but disguised, will and preference. (After Virtue, p87 & 107)

I don't, though, want to emphasise too much the differences between me and Jesse. I just want to note that antipathy towards managerialism is based upon a wide and powerful intellectual tradition.

Another thing: Jesse commends Burke's statement that “Circumstances  ...  give in  reality  to  every  political  principle  its distinguishing colour  and  discriminating  effect”:

The  practical  public reasoner — let’s  call  him  or  her  the  politician — must  determine  what  the  relevant circumstances  are  which make Avthe right policy to achieve  it. A similar set might  imply  policy  B,  or  a  further  set  policy  C. An obvious policy A may fail depending  on circumstances, while an unobvious policy B succeeds".

But this is what I am getting at when I urge people to think about mechanisms rather than models - because mechanisms are local and partial and vary according to circumstance. And this is no mere theoretical point. The reason why I (and Simon I suspect) are hostile to Osborne's fiscal austerity is that whilst austerity might be justifiable in some circumstances - if interest rates are high - those circumstances are not here and now.

Comments

[Stevenclarkesblog.wordpress.com]

The Oakeshott quotation that springs to mind is:

"To be conservative ... is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss."

However, are you not committing the mistake you complain of by thinking of political persuasion as a form of rationalism, rather than as being for certain institutions, interests and traditions?

I mean, you ask whether you're a Tory due to some philosophical principles. Which is a rationalist mindset.

You could never be a Tory because your beliefs would be unacceptable to too many Tory institutions, interests and traditions.

A citizens income would upset the Tory press and capitalists. Land value tax would threaten homeowners and the landed interest. Your anti-managerialism would be offensive to CEOs etc.

[chris]

You're right Steve - it was a QTWAIN.
One issue here is: how & when did the Tories become a managerialist party, when as Jesse points out there's a strong strand of anti-managerialism in conservatism?

[Stevenclarkesblog.wordpress.com]

I knew it was a QTWTAIN. You strike me as the sort who would rather slowly lower their dangling genitalia into a whirring food blender than vote Tory.

I don't think it would ever occur to a Burkean Tory to ask if they were a Tory. It's not a rational decision, they would be born one and never question it.

I don't know the answer to your question. There are different strands in all parties, and they become more or less prominent over time and circumstance.

[Brett]

Whenever I hear someone complain about "deskilling", it translates to "I am annoyed that something I liked because it was rare and 'elite' is now being produced en masse for poor people". There's nothing special about "artisan" creation or requiring extensive training for a job, except that the latter tends to be a convenient barrier and rationale for excluding competitors.

[Dave Timoney]

The Tories became a managerialist party when they became a party, having evolved from a faction via an interest. The precise moment was Robert Peel's Tamworth Manifesto of 1834.

The significance of Burke is that he crystallised the thinking of the interest (land, church and monarchy) before the 1832 Reform Act signalled the evolution of parties and thus managerialist politics.

Burke's continuing resonance is only partly explained by attempts to root his thinking in philosophy and ethics (Oakeshott and Norman, in their different ways). Equally important is nostalgia for a pre-democractic era and the honesty of "naked interest".

[Miguel Madeira]

And Burke was not a Tory... (this is not so irrelevant as to appears - to remeber that the prefered thinker among Tories was not even a Tory could be a reminder to not try much to find some deep philosphy - enven if it as an anti-philosophy philosophy - in political parties, and perhaps specially in tories and conservatives)

[El]

@ Steve Clarke - would Capitalist be upset by a citizens income? Weren't Hayek and Friedman advocates of citizens income? Perhaps not all capitalists would be too upset.

[Gareth Mawer]

@chris The Conservatives were a protectionist party for most of its history (in particular the 19th century). It was the Liberals who were in favour of free trade. Even up to World War Two, the Tories were protectionist.

Disraeli One Nation Conservatism was a very paternalistic world view in which the rich aristocrats would look after the poor in society.

Unless I've misunderstood what you mean by mangerialism, I would say it always been there in conservative thought.