Friday, October 01, 2004 AD
Don't cry no tears around me
I haven't forgotten my follow-up posts on Authority and Confession or politics, but I always forget how long it takes to generate these "thinker" (as opposed to "linker") posts. On the latter subject, last night's shockingly poor by-election result for the Conservatives in Hartlepool (pushed into fourth place by UKIP) provides a reminder that the biggest disincentive for being politically conservative (whether in the "whig" or "tory" sense) in the UK is ... the Conservative Party.
This is one subject (please, let it be the only one!) on which I find myself identifying with Rod Liddle, who wrote recently:
In conclusion:
But otherwise, I agree that what Liddle paints in that final paragraph is an attractive picture. Whether that's enough incentive to throw my lot in with the shambles that is the Conservative Party is another matter entirely, and for another post.
There's also the question of whether such a vision is tenable in a post-Christian, indeed anti-Christian, society which lacks a shared worldview or mediating institutions (family, church, community) which can bind individuals together without the need for state regulation. That's also for another day, but any initial feedback on that issue is welcome.
This is one subject (please, let it be the only one!) on which I find myself identifying with Rod Liddle, who wrote recently:
I have been in a politically confused state for some years now. When it comes to voting, I am unable to know which of the two bewildering plans to 'offer parents real choice' in education is the more fantastically stupid and irrelevant, the Tory or the Labour. Neither plan seems to be conservative or socialist in outlook, so far as I understand them. The two policies over Iraq bewilder me even more, to tell you the truth. And the minuscule difference in spending and taxation between Oliver Letwin and Gordon Brown scarcely justifies the energy expended on a trip to the polling booth. As a result, I am lost, not knowing where I stand or to which party I owe even instinctive allegiance.But in his article, "Big Girls Don't Cry - nor do Conservatives" (originally in the Spectator, but now only to be found on the website for some very odd-looking libertarian Conservative splinter group), Liddle points to a high-profile issue on which "there is at last clear blue water": crying in public. Liddle refers in particular to the Olympics, and the winner's tears of Matthew Pinsent and loser's tears of Paula Radcliffe. Quite simply, "New Labour approves of the crying, the Conservatives think it absolutely ghastly":
...you can all too easily imagine Tony Blair crying. It wouldn't surprise me if he cried every time he watched the Little House on the Prairie - but you couldn't say the same thing about Michael Howard, could you? If Michael Howard won an Olympic gold medal, he'd stand on the podium looking vaguely satisfied ["vaguely satisfied"? Are we talking about the same Michael Howard here? Don't you mean, "obscenely smug", Rod?] and a little puzzled at the fuss.Liddle then moves on to other tell-tale signs of being an instinctive Conservative. Conservatives do not get RSI, or any other illness "that was not recognised and documented in parish death records at least 300 years ago. Ague, black bowel, canker, plague - that sort of thing." Conservatives ignore government-sponsored health advice. Conservatives do nothing in public: "they do not eat in public, urinate in public or perform sexual acts in public - and of course they do not cry in public."
In conclusion:
What we're beginning to build up here is nothing more than the picture of an individual - and that's the crucial term - who is mistrustful of government interference in his or her life, who behaves with moderation and even reserve in front of his fellow men and is loath to describe himself as a victim of, well, anything. There may also be a caution or a suspicion about the notion of society - i.e., other people - in general; certainly a degree of sangfroid. It is the description of a person who would not, I think, embrace the title of 'compassionate' or 'caring' Conservatism, believing such things to be a matter for the individual rather than the state. It is quite an attractive picture, I think - and a rather better reason for voting Conservative than anything which might appear in the party's manifesto at the next general election.I'm not sure about his equation of that notion of society about which Conservatives are "cautious or suspicious" simply with "other people" - what I'm suspicious of is that narrow and strange notion which sees "society" as being primarily upheld by (or even subsisting in) state-run and state-funded institutions. And I think he overplays the individualistic aspect: even when Margaret Thatcher made her controversial remark about there being "no such thing as 'society'", her alternative vision consisted not only of "individual men and women", but also "families". Becoming a father has probably been the number one influence on my changing political views.
But otherwise, I agree that what Liddle paints in that final paragraph is an attractive picture. Whether that's enough incentive to throw my lot in with the shambles that is the Conservative Party is another matter entirely, and for another post.
There's also the question of whether such a vision is tenable in a post-Christian, indeed anti-Christian, society which lacks a shared worldview or mediating institutions (family, church, community) which can bind individuals together without the need for state regulation. That's also for another day, but any initial feedback on that issue is welcome.
