I’ve probably mentioned equivocation on the term “conservative” that can make radical, revolutionary conservatism seem an oxymoron, but someone reminded me of it again the other day, so maybe I can take another shot at that this week? Word games relating to “conservatism?”
One definition of “conservatism” is basically value free except for the one value of supporting the status quo, never mind what it is, just a sort of generalized resistance to change. Under that definition, the idea of a radical or revolutionary conservatism is contradictory and indeed an oxymoron.
Another definition of “conservatism” involves particular values conventionally pertaining to economics involving things like the mechanisms for distributing economic power, property, property rights, markets, how to resolve interpersonal conflicts of preferences, allocation of resources, etc. This is the sense of “conservative” that appears in my formulation “anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style.” These “conservative values” are not constrained to be economic in nature and may sometimes involve various other matters such as religion, racism, nativism, misogyny, a hatred for sexual and gender minorities, anti-intellectualism and so on, but it’s not really relevant here. Under this sense of “conservative,” it’s perfectly sensible to talk about radical or revolutionary conservatives who perceive the status quo as unacceptably lacking in the relevant conservative values and want sudden, drastic correction.
Now when conservatives of the conservative values camp think the status quo properly exhibits conservative values, they may appear conservative in the other sense of opposing change, supporting the status quo, but that’s a matter of coincidence. It needn’t be the case. Currently, in the USA, we have a curious hybrid “conservative” movement: One branch supports the status quo, some possibly because they perceive it consistent with “conservative values,” supports the existing establishment elite and opposes democracy because voters might change that status quo. The other branch opposes the status quo because they suppose it does not reflect conservative values and they blame voters and “activist” democratic government for that unfortunate result, and thus want either inactive, ineffective democratic government or non-democratic government. The conservative movement is in no hurry to resolve the issue of the relationship of status quo economic outcomes, as the establishment elite, to conservative values, because both branches want to end democracy, albeit for different reasons, so they work well together just now. One supposes eventually the faction favoring the status quo establishment elite, economic power, will prevail, given their resources, and indeed that is what we’re seeing, as Lord Dampnut regularly ignores traditional conservative economics, although his rhetoric is inconsistent on that point. It’s why some “conservatives” seem a bit confused and may be seen asking themselves whether Lord Dampnut is a “true” conservative. Yes, and no. Surely, he’s one type of conservative, albeit possibly not the other, but as long as one supports his efforts to end democracy, maybe that’s enough?
One saw the same pattern in fascism in Europe in the early to mid 20th century. Some fascists supposed voters, democracy might change the status quo and were concerned to prevent it. Others supposed the status quo already flawed and were concerned to change it. This fundamental disagreement within original fascism about the status quo establishment elite was resolved in Nazi Germany through violence, of course, when the status quo, establishment elite friendly wing led by Mr. Hitler turned against what they saw as the rather overly radical elements of the SA.
I don’t think it too important given the shared goal of ending democracy to fret much about the meaning of “conservatism” writ large. Both are unfortunate. Conservative values are fairly well-defined if a bit variable. Traditional conservative economics is well defined. Liberals oppose “conservatism” in both senses. They reject the notion we should blindly support the status quo, resist change, that change is inherently bad. They support democracy with its potential for change. They reject traditional “conservative values” including bad economics.
What’s my point? I suppose just don’t get distracted by verbal equivocation or conflation of issues, rhetorical techniques conservatives use to sow confusion and conflict, manipulate others. Yes, “conservatism” can mean different things. Disambiguate as necessary. Otherwise, carry on.
