Tuesday, 10 September 2013
Are Conservatives just people who don't know they are Fascist?
The Left are always accusing Conservatives of being "Fascist". Should we Conservatives just embrace the term the way gay people have embraced the term "queer"?
If you asked people what is the essential difference is between being a Conservative and a Fascist, many would say that one the first is a moderate and believes in democracy, while the latter is an extremist and would abolish democracy.
What exactly is so good about democracy?
Surely democracy is not an end in itself, only good government is.
If democracy, which is said to lead to good government, does not in fact lead to good government, then why not abandon it and replace it with something better?
What is the difference between a small c Conservative and a Big C Conservative?
If you are a small c conservative, this idea would horrify you.
If you are a Big C Conservative, then this idea would thrill you.
Only a one-party state would preserve and promote social conservatism.
In a multiparty state all that is needed to subvert Conservatism is to offer an alternative to it, in a political environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage where the voter only votes in response to which party offers him the most attractive bribe.
Voters don't tend to vote for the long term national interest, but then they do not have the option of voting for this, do they?
How can they vote when our political parties never give it a moment's though, much less formulate policies that might serve it?
Some might think that a one-party state would mean the abolition of elections but not so: China holds elections all the time, though in practice competing candidates would belong to the same party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
The most important thing to remember about being a one-party state is that as long as the rights of party members eg to criticise party policy or leaders, are protected from abuse by the leader and his cronies, things should be OK.
The constitution of the Conservative Party allows the party to expel any member without warning or explanation, at its absolute discretion, which cannot be conducive to the free expression of legitimate views, can it?
A one-party state may not be sufficient to maintain the morals of the people, as China is currently discovering amongst its mainly atheist populace.
It was George Washington who said "We must with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." His warning was not without foundation, in my opinion.
While it is in theory possible for a state ideology such as Nazism, Fascism and Communism to maintain the morals of the people, the fall of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Communism etc, means that the baby of morality will be thrown out with the bathwater of the fallen regime or the dead dictator who has no worthy successor.
It is therefore prudent to have a state ideology that is bigger than the state itself, and which invokes the protection of a just and omnipotent deity. The Chinese idea of a mandate of heaven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven serves just this purpose. Just rulers will be protected by God, and bad rulers deposed after they have their mandate withdrawn.
My idea of fusing Conservatism with Nationalism should be useful too, for I propose that the national interest is the thing that Conservatives ought to conserve, and the national interest would include such things as solvency, social cohesion as well as standards of morality and education amongst other things.
It would appear that I am advocating a one-party theocracy backed by the military, which does make what I am proposing very frightening indeed to the little people.
But all that is necessary for this idea to take hold is for the political establishment as a whole to realise that it would improve their working conditions, make them more popular and make their jobs a whole lot easier.
I have already anticipated their objections anyway, so a few interesting questions would be nice.