The Conservative Ship of Theseus
What is the Conservative Party without its principles?
The myth and paradox of the Ship of Theseus should already be familiar to readers, if only vaguely. Briefly, it asks if a ship remains the same in terms of identity once all its pieces have been replaced. This has a noteworthy political application in the shapeshifting nature of parties over time, and in just as paradoxical a fashion. Out of all the parties of government in British political history, the Conservatives stand out as having changed the most during their nearly two centuries of existence.
It is quite plain to see the Conservative Party of today barely resembles itself in 1980, that its state then is not particularly comparable to the party of 1950, and so on to 1920, 1890, 1860 and its founding in 1834. Yet, for the most part, there has been more than a nominal continuity; there was a core of principles, deep-seated components which seldom needed replacing. They remained largely intact through the absorption of the Whigs and the classical liberals because common beliefs such as liberty, property rights and respect for established institutions made relative unity with the Conservatives possible. Indeed, there is a compelling case that diversifying the intellectual coalition on a unified basis of principles was beneficial in combatting the rise of socialism in the twentieth century and strengthened the party overall. Although the personnel, organisation and presentation have clearly changed several times, it was difficult to argue whether the Conservatives at their core had become a completely new entity from its original incarnation. The first quarter of this century, however, has visibly broken the paradox to such an extent that the current leadership candidates are struggling to find, let alone articulate, principles that were self-evident with the Conservative label for most of its history. Of course, they remain readily available in the works of past conservative thinkers, but the extent to which they are personally held and expressed by prominent Conservatives is another question.
If there is anything still conservative at the centre of the contemporary Conservative Party, it is an unthinking sort of conservatism which built itself up as the philosophy was progressively cast out. This belief simply preserves the status quo it inherits, no matter its qualities; for the recently defeated government, this was obviously Blairism. Almost any attempt to deviate from this norm was so bumbling as to invite quite deserved ridicule from political commentators of all stripes. That Brexit, as the most significant piece of legislation to break this mould in the past fourteen years, survived despite three years of such floundering is an achievement in itself, but one that has been barely capitalised upon since. However, a serious reading of conservative thinkers or historic statesmen shows conservatism is not an approach to government which precludes any meaningful change. To the contrary, it has always possessed an openness to necessary change, whilst ensuring such alterations are not needlessly radical or rapid for the society in question. Conservatism is also supposed to possess a distinct vision of change or progress, instead of ceding all control over those terms to their opponents, which respects longstanding institutions and customs in line with principles that the Conservative Party long shared.
This all begs the question of whether this situation is reversible. The short answer is it cannot be done perfectly and certainly not in any idealistic sense. To return to the Ship of Theseus, one could not rebuild the original ship with its broken or decayed planks and expect it to float again, nor could one construct a replica with unchangeable components and expect longevity. Whatever happens, the Conservative Party’s twenty-year experiment with ‘modernisation’ will leave an indelible mark on its history and character going forward. That said, the party may still retain its capacity for reinvention, of rediscovering and reapplying the tradition of its governing philosophy to different situations. Robert Peel did just this with the final iteration of the Tories to create and build up the Conservative Party in the 1830s. Benjamin Disraeli reinvented both party and philosophy through his conception of one-nation conservatism to break the Liberals’ dominance over politics in the 1860s and 1870s. Keith Joseph’s famous revelation about his conservatism led to the inception of Thatcherism in the late 1970s. This history, indeed history more broadly, will be an invaluable asset. Even though the starting point for a reimagining of conservatism today is unenviable, given the extent of the Conservatives’ parliamentary disadvantage, there should be nothing in the way of a determined leader to orchestrate an intellectual transformation should they so choose.
If conservatism and the Conservative Party are to survive, a reasonably predictable characteristic of both will be an idea of restoration, given how unclear it has been that conservative principles have been applied to policy-making and political problems. Yet this notion, far from yearning for a time machine, will be inextricably linked with envisioning a new direction for prudent change within a system worth conserving that might address the many, often competing, challenges of the present. As indicated in the previous paragraph, restoring at least the party has been an innovative and dynamic endeavour on each occasion it was required. The surrounding ideas too retain a great imagination whilst working with the grain and collective wisdom of their tradition. The main stumbling block within the party to renewed hopes of office is clearly their disunity, but this also could be rectified with strong and respectable leadership. If there is no revival of conservative ideas within the party, it will ultimately wither away from an inability to attract new support, whilst the sentimental conservatism discussed in a previous piece would likely prevail for a while longer beyond. This might not seem an awful outcome for some of the many detractors the Conservatives gained through the last election, but it will ensure that future political battles are all but hopeless endeavours.
Postscript: since being written at the start of August, except for minor edits shortly before publication, an article by Lee David Evans was published on CapX. This is recommended for its approach to similar themes discussed in this piece, as well as its case for a revived Conservative Policy Centre to politically educate and enrich a new generation of Conservatives. The next party leader would be tremendously wise to embrace his suggestions.