Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
-8% $22.99$22.99
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: LC HAWAII LLC
Save with Used - Good
$18.04$18.04
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: A-Team Books
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition Hardcover – June 19, 2018
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Purchase options and add-ons
“…one of the most eloquent and even moving evocations of the conservative tradition in Western politics, philosophy and culture I have ever read…the ideal primer for those who are new to conservative ideas…” ―Richard Aldous, Wall Street Journal
A brief magisterial introduction to the conservative tradition by one of Britain’s leading intellectuals.
In Conservatism, Roger Scruton offers the reader an invitation into the world of political philosophy by explaining the history and evolution of the conservative movement over the centuries. With the clarity and authority of a gifted teacher, he discusses the ideology's perspective on civil society, the rule of law, freedom, morality, property, rights, and the role of the state. In a time when many claim that conservatives lack a unified intellectual belief system, this book makes a very strong case to the contrary, one that politically-minded readers will find compelling and refreshing.
Scruton analyzes the origins and development of conservatism through the philosophies and thoughts of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, among others. He shows how conservative ideas have influenced the political sector through the careers of a diverse cast of politicians, such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Disraeli, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. He also takes a close look at the changing relationship between conservative politics, capitalism, and free markets in both the UK and the US. This clear, incisive guide is essential reading for anyone wishing to understand Western politics and policies, now and over the last three centuries.
- Print length176 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherAll Points Books
- Publication dateJune 19, 2018
- Dimensions5.64 x 0.76 x 8.63 inches
- ISBN-101250170567
- ISBN-13978-1250170569
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together

Similar items that ship from close to you
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Conservatism, as Roger Scruton reminds us, was founded during the 18th-century Enlightenment…Society is best seen as a social contract, these Enlightenment thinkers said. Free individuals get together and contract with one another to create order. Conservatives said we agree with the general effort but think you’ve got human nature wrong.” ―David Brooks, New York Times
"[Conservatism] buoyed my spirits, and helped me regain my bearings. Reading it, for me, was like feeling an unexpectedly cool, dry breeze on a stiflingly humid day." ―Andrew Sullivan, New York Magazine
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Conservatism
An Invitation to the Great Tradition
By Roger ScrutonSt. Martin's Press
Copyright © 2017 Horsell's Morsels Ltd.All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-250-17056-9
Contents
Title Page,Copyright Notice,
PREFACE,
1 PRE-HISTORY,
2 THE BIRTH OF PHILOSOPHICAL CONSERVATISM,
3 CONSERVATISM IN GERMANY AND FRANCE,
4 CULTURAL CONSERVATISM,
5 THE IMPACT OF SOCIALISM,
6 CONSERVATISM NOW,
Further reading and bibliography,
Notes,
Also by Roger Scruton,
About the Author,
Copyright,
CHAPTER 1
PRE-HISTORY
Modern conservatism is a product of the Enlightenment. But it calls upon aspects of the human condition that can be witnessed in every civilisation and at every period of history. Moreover, it is heir to a philosophical legacy at least as old as the Greeks. Aristotle, in the Politics, defended constitutional government in terms that are as influential among conservative thinkers today as they were in the ancient world. Indeed, most of the ideas purveyed by modern conservatives are foreshadowed in Aristotle's great work. But they have been adapted to a situation that Aristotle himself could not have foreseen, which is the emergence of the nation state, the loss of a unifying religion, and the growth of the 'great society', composed of millions of cooperating strangers under a single rule of law.
It is a repeated error among intellectual historians to assume that ideas have a self-contained history of their own, and that one idea gives rise to another in something like the way one weather system gives rise to the next. Marxists, who regard ideas as by-products of economic forces, commit the opposite error, dismissing the intellectual life as entirely subservient to material causes. The vast and destructive influence of Marxist theory is a clear disproof of what it says. As the American conservative Richard Weaver put it, in the title of a famous and influential book, Ideas Have Consequences (1948), and this is as true of conservative ideas as it is of ideas propagated on the left. To understand the pre-history of conservatism, therefore, one should accept that ideas have a far-reaching influence over human affairs; but one should recognise also that they do not arise only from other ideas, and often have roots in biological, social and political conditions that lie deeper than rational argument.
We human beings live naturally in communities, bound together by mutual trust. We have a need for a shared home, a place of safety where our claim to occupancy is undisputed and where we can call on others to assist us in times of threat. We need peace with our neighbours and the procedures for securing it. And we need the love and protection afforded by family life. To revise the human condition in any of those respects is to violate imperatives rooted in biology and in the needs of social reproduction. But to conduct political argument as though these factors are too far from the realm of ideas to deserve a mention is to ignore all the limits that must be borne in mind, if our political philosophy is to be remotely believable. It is precisely the character of modern utopias to ignore these limits – to imagine societies without law (Marx and Engels), without families (Laing), without borders or defences (Sartre). And much conservative ink has been wasted (by me among others) in rebutting such views, which can be believed only by people who are unable to perceive realities, and who therefore will never be persuaded by argument.
Let us begin, therefore, by listing some of the features of the human condition that define the limits of political thinking and that, most conservatives will claim, are given due prominence in their philosophy. First among these features is social membership. Human beings live in communities, and depend on communities for their safety and happiness. In a tribal society people relate to each other through kinship (which may be partly mythical); in a religious society membership is determined by ritual and faith; in a political society relations are governed by law, and in the modern secular state law is made by the citizens, usually through their elected representatives, and imposed by a sovereign authority. All three forms of society – tribal, religious and political – can be witnessed in the world today, though it was the emergence of political order that was the original inspiration for modern conservatism. On one reading of events, indeed, conservatism arose as an attempt to hold on to the values of kinship and religion in communities that were being reorganised by a purely political law.
Social membership goes hand in hand with individual attachment. Human beings begin life in a state of attachment to the mother and to the household that shields and nurtures her. As they grow to adulthood the bond of attachment loosens and widens. The young adult needs the mother and the family less, but friends and cooperation more. In the course of a lifetime customs, places, networks, institutions, shared ways of being all amplify our attachments, and create the sense that we are at home in the world, among familiar and trustworthy things. That sense of the familiar and the trustworthy is precious to us, and its loss is an occasion of anxiety and mourning. The most important input into conservative thinking is the desire to sustain the networks of familiarity and trust on which a community depends for its longevity. Conservatism is what its name says it is: the attempt to conserve the community that we have – not in every particular since, as Edmund Burke put it, 'we must reform in order to conserve', but in all matters that ensure our community's long-term survival.
But human beings do not only cooperate. They also compete, and it is a primary need, therefore, to ensure that competition is peaceful, and that conflicts can be resolved. Almost all the utopias that have been devised by modern writers are based on the assumption that human beings can exist in arrangements where cooperation alone binds people to their neighbours, and from which the element of competition has been refined away. And this is why utopias are unbelievable – being either purely abstract arrangements of noumenal beings, like the 'full communism' foretold by Marx and Engels in The German Ideology (1845), or sentimental fairylands, like the neo-Gothic England of William Morris's News from Nowhere (1890). Competition is fundamental to our nature, being both our way of solving problems, and the most important human cause of them. Kinship moderates competition, replacing 'I' by 'we' in all disputes that might spill over into violence. But it also creates rivalry between families, like the Montagues and Capulets, and between tribes, like those brought to order by Muhammad, with the discovery of a religion that demanded 'submission', and therefore 'peace'. That religious 'peace' in turn meant war against the heretics and infidels.
In the modern world of the Enlightenment the old forms of social membership had run their course in a series of religious wars. People were searching for new ways of implanting reconciliation in the heart of the social order, and secular government under a rule of law seemed to be the best hope for the future, since it promised to put reason rather than passion in charge. The Enlightenment inspired the collect-ive recognition that human beings had been fighting over fictions, and that it was time to agree about realities instead.
In the pre-history of conservative thinking, when Aristotle was the supreme master, it was usual to follow him in emphasising reason as distinctive of the human condition. By exercising our reason we have a unique means of resolving conflict and overcoming obstacles. But it was already apparent to Aristotle, and has been made explicit by modern studies in collective decision-making, that when a group of people all apply their reason to a shared problem, a reasonable solution may nevertheless not emerge – in other words, that the rational and the reasonable may diverge. This is shown clearly by the Prisoners' Dilemma, in which two prisoners, each choosing rationally, will act in a way that is counter to the best interests of both. And it was a crucial observation of Burke's, in his polemic against the French Revolution, that rational plans in the brains of ardent believers may lead of their own accord to disaster.
Conservatives tend to share Aristotle's conception of human rationality and, like him, recognise that one aim of political life is to refine the use of reason, and to implant in the citizen the virtues that are necessary for its collective exercise. But the point has been made differently at different times that we rational beings need customs and institutions that are founded in something other than reason, if we are to use our reason to good effect. This insight, indeed, is probably the principal contribution that conservatism has made to the self-understanding of the human species. In the following chapters I will spell it out in more detail.
That said, however, we should recognise the countervailing tendency in conservative thought. As well as emphasising the need for custom and community, conservative philosophy has advocated the freedom of the individual, conceiving community not as an organic network bound by habit and submission, but as a free association of rational beings, all of whom have, and cherish, an identity of their own. Conservatism as we know it today is a distinctively modern outlook, shaped by the Enlightenment and by the emergence of societies in which the 'we' of social membership is balanced at every point against the 'I' of individual ambition.
The idea of society as a collection of individuals, each with a sphere of autonomous choice and all pursuing personal fulfilment along a path of their own, is not a recent one. In a famous study, the Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt attributed the emergence of the individual to the intellectual and political awakening of the Renaissance, while in a recent book, Sir Larry Siedentop has traced the idea further back, to the religion of Jesus and St Paul, which places the salvation of the individual soul at the heart of God's concern for us. Whatever the truth of those views, it is surely evident that individualism took on a new character at the Enlightenment, with the emphasis on the connection between legitimacy and consent. The modern conception of political society, as an assembly of citizens who cooperate in establishing the laws under which they live, is to be distinguished from older ideas of monarchical sovereignty, qualified, in whatever way, by the need for the monarch to consult and conciliate the powerful groups within the kingdom.
But it should not be thought that the transition from that older idea to modern forms of parliamentary democracy is clear-cut and absolute. On the contrary, in the British case it has been established at least since the reign of Edward III (r. 1327–77) that the king cannot tax his subjects without consent of the House of Commons, and the subsequent history of the English Crown has revolved around the increasingly successful attempts of Parliament to gain control over important decisions. By the time of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, with the deposition of James II, the last Stuart king, in favour of William of Orange, and with the adoption by Parliament in 1689 of a Bill of Rights, it was clear that England had become a constitutional monarchy, in which the power of the monarch was limited by customs and conventions that transferred the main business of government to the two houses of Parliament.
It was at this time that the principal ideas behind the modern conservative movement began to emerge in both Britain and France, and some of these ideas were shared at first with the liberal individualists who were to provide the intellectual fuel for the French Revolution. The first and most far-reaching idea was that the legitimacy of a government depends on the consent of those who are subject to it. Authority is conferred on the government by the people, who are the ultimate source of sovereign power. This – to us obvious – idea involves a reversal of the medieval view of government, according to which the monarch, appointed by historical (which usually meant divine) right, is the source of all authority in the state. In the medieval view, the freedom of the individual is a privilege, conferred by the monarch in return for military or courtly services. Even if individualism was on the rise throughout the medieval period, it had yet to find expression in a philosophy, and theories of government saw legitimacy as flowing down to individuals from their sovereigns, and not, as was later accepted, flowing up to the sovereigns from those who consented to their rule.
At the same time, medieval discussions contain fruitful explorations of two issues that were to emerge as pivotal at the Enlightenment: the relation between ecclesiastical and secular government, and the limits to government contained in the law of nature. The Greek Stoics had argued that laws are of two kinds, man-made and 'natural'. The natural law owes its authority to our innate reasoning powers, and the existence of such a law was defended by the great scholastic philosopher St Thomas Aquinas (1226–1274), who saw it as providing a standard against which the justice of all merely human arrangements could be measured. Discussions of this went hand in hand with attempts both to circumscribe and to define the power of the church, and to reconcile the competing needs for an inclusive secular order and for sacred institutions devoted to the spiritual well-being of the community. The growing conflict between church and state at the Reformation, and the increasing emphasis on natural law as setting limits to the sovereign power, were powerful factors in displacing the medieval idea, that legitimacy flows downwards from the sovereign to the subject, and replacing it with the liberal view, that legitimacy flows upwards from the people to the sovereign power.
In one of the first works of political philosophy to be marked by the recognisable tone of voice of British conservatism, Richard Hooker (1554–1600), in Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (from 1594), attempted to justify a compromise between church and state. Each, Hooker believed, should limit the scope of the other, in the interests of the natural law that would guarantee the liberties of the individual and ensure peace between the spiritual and temporal powers.
That work, esteemed though it is by many conservatives today, belongs to the pre-modern period of political debate. The modern vision of legitimacy was first fully expressed in the English-speaking world by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), whose celebrated Leviathan (1651) attempts to derive an account of good government from the assumption that the 'commonwealth' is composed of freely choosing individuals, motivated by their beliefs and desires. In a state of nature, Hobbes argued, these appetite-driven individuals will be in competition for the resources needed to survive and prosper, and the result will be the war of all against all. In that condition, life will be, in his famous words, 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. But individuals have the means to rise above the state of nature, since they make rational choices and agree with each other to act for their mutual benefit. Hence they will contract among themselves to establish a government, which will have sovereignty over them all and provide protection to each. The sovereign created by the social contract will not be party to the contract, but will enjoy the absolute power to enforce the contract against those who strive to bypass or renege on it.
The detail of Hobbes's theory need not concern us. What is important is the concept of sovereignty that he justified. It might be thought that a philosopher who sees the source of political authority as lying in the consent of the individual subject would end with a mild, flexible and negotiable idea of legitimate order. But not so. Hobbes had lived through the civil war and witnessed (from the safe distance of Paris) the profound disorder and cruelty that followed from the collapse of government. Anything was better than the chaos that he had observed, and if the absolute power of a sovereign is the only thing that can prevent it, then that is how things must be. Moreover, rational beings, understanding this, would sign up to the contract whereby the absolute sovereign is brought into being.
Immediately in the wake of Hobbes came The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656) by James Harrington (1611–77), which presented the picture of an ideal secular state. Harrington was an admirer of Machiavelli, whose cynical advice to secular rulers, The Prince (1532), had shocked the world with its realistic portrayal of political power. Harrington attempted to show that republican government in an essentially capitalist society – a 'commonwealth for increase' – would be the most stable political system. In the course of this he argued for a written constitution, bicameral government, secret ballots, the indirect election of a president and many other features of the ideal state, which was to be, in his famous words, 'an empire of laws, not of men'. Harrington's work, which was to exert a powerful influence upon many of the Founding Fathers of the US Constitution, followed Hobbes in decisively rejecting any suggestion that religious obedience, rather than popular consent, has a part to play in conferring legitimacy on a government.
(Continues...)Excerpted from Conservatism by Roger Scruton. Copyright © 2017 Horsell's Morsels Ltd.. Excerpted by permission of St. Martin's Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Product details
- Publisher : All Points Books (June 19, 2018)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 176 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1250170567
- ISBN-13 : 978-1250170569
- Item Weight : 2.31 pounds
- Dimensions : 5.64 x 0.76 x 8.63 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #89,595 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #229 in Political Philosophy (Books)
- #291 in History & Theory of Politics
- #299 in Political Conservatism & Liberalism
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Roger Vernon Scruton, FBA, FRSL (/ˈskruːtən/; born 27 February 1944) is an English philosopher who specialises in aesthetics. He has written over thirty books, including Art and Imagination (1974), The Meaning of Conservatism (1980), Sexual Desire (1986), The Philosopher on Dover Beach (1990), The Aesthetics of Music (1997), Beauty (2009), How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism (2012), Our Church (2012), and How to be a Conservative (2014). Scruton has also written several novels and a number of general textbooks on philosophy and culture, and he has composed two operas.
Scruton was a lecturer and professor of aesthetics at Birkbeck College, London, from 1971 to 1992. Since 1992, he has held part-time positions at Boston University, the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and the University of St Andrews. In 1982 he helped found The Salisbury Review, a conservative political journal, which he edited for 18 years, and he founded the Claridge Press in 1987. Scruton sits on the editorial board of the British Journal of Aesthetics, and is a Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Scruton has been called "the man who, more than any other, has defined what conservatism is" by British MEP Daniel Hannan and "England’s most accomplished conservative since Edmund Burke" by The Weekly Standard.
Outside his career as a philosopher and writer, Scruton was involved in the establishment of underground universities and academic networks in Soviet-controlled Central Europe during the Cold War, and he has received a number of awards for his work in this area.
Bio from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Photo by Pete Helme (http://www.rogerscruton.com) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonCustomers say
Customers find the book very intellectual and readable. They also say it's accessible, well-written, and helpful.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Customers find the book very intellectual and require a lot of brain power to analyze. They also appreciate the well-written presentation of a factual history and the wide range of sources and influences.
"...Roger Scruton's introduction to conservative thought is packed with information and ideas...." Read more
"This is a useful book in that it provides a fair minded account of the conservative tradition...." Read more
"...introduction ti the notion of conservatism: it cover a wide range of sources and influences, both geographically and historically, with good..." Read more
"...It holds so many great insights, so clearly expressed...." Read more
Customers find the book very readable, intellectual, and engaging. They also say the examples and mini-treatments are spot on. Readers also mention that the book is helpful, accessible, and well-written.
"...The writing is lucid, the argument engaging, the examples and mini-treatments spot on...." Read more
"...as it progresses and the 2nd half of the book presents a particularly succinct and cogent portrayal of the forces arrayed against Conservatism in..." Read more
"...Scruton just has a beautiful ability to comprehend and convey the best in the ideas of the thinkers that have shaped conservative philosophy." Read more
"The beginning and the end of the book were most helpful, accessible and well-written...." Read more
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Burke, appropriately, is central to the history. I was also pleased to see him treat the thought of both David Hume and Samuel Johnson (who is often left out, inappropriately, of such discussions).
With the strong support of the academy, the media and the managerial elite modern progressivism has done its best to marginalize conservatism (even if it has not marginalized its candidates) and RS describes conservatism's plight as one of being surrounded on all sides and beset by the continual burden of "defending a position that is rich in demands, but poor in promises" (p. 53).
The writing is lucid, the argument engaging, the examples and mini-treatments spot on. If one wished to suggest to a friend an excellent introduction to conservative thought one could do no better than choosing this brief study.
As always, the reading behind the writing is extensive. He characteristically goes beyond basic, classic texts when treating such pivotal figures as Hayek and he gives Adam Smith's THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS the degree of attention which Smith himself would have afforded it.
If the reader is anxious to read more of RS's work I would heartily recommend his 2015 book, FOOLS, FRAUDS AND FIREBRANDS: THINKERS OF THE NEW LEFT. The title suggests that the book is a screed; it is not. It is an indispensable guide to the writings of mid-late 20thc thinkers on the left.
The concept of the individual is a modern Western European innovation. Our culture's concept of the individual did not exist in the ancient world and is a recent innovation outside of Western European culture. The individual was invented by the medieval church to bypass the feudal nobility, adopted by kings to form the nation state and has taken on the form we now assume from The Enlightenment. Since the industrial revolution the individual has become the source of authority. This is the end point of a 2000 year process. [Siedentop, Larry (2014-10-20). Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism. Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition. ISBN: 978-0-674-41753-3] I would question whether the individual has more liberty as an untethered entity than when tethered to clan or polis. Scruton seems to imply this with several references to Burke’s “little platoon” which means family and personal associations that provide identity to a person. Isolating an individual from their little platoon has been used by totalitarians to more easily control people. This is the implication I got from Siedentop’s book where first the Church and then Kings used direct access to individuals to enhance their power at the expense of the individual.
Scruton quotes Samuel Johnson, creator of the “Dictionary of the English Language,” 1755, as saying that freedom is not an escape from obligations, but a call to obey them, whether or not they have been consciously chosen.
There is a useful definition of freedom in Romans chapter 6. Freedom is defined as a transaction. We are freed from one thing unto another. This is applicable to any definition of freedom. In Romans chapter 6 freedom is defined as being freed from sin unto righteousness. Sin in the Bible is defined as rebellion against God. Righteousness is defined as obedience to God. For those who are not Bible believers, the takeaway here is that true freedom is obedience to authority rather than personal autonomy. This is not what most people think of when they hear the term freedom. We all want control and do not want to be controlled. We all want to be in charge of our own salvation. This is original sin. The framers of our Constitution, whether believers or not, were Biblically literate and understood this concept. [Meacham, Jon (2015), American Gospel: God, The Founding Fathers, and The Making of a Nation. Random House. ISBN: 978-1-58836-577-4]. This view of individual liberty is certainly in line with the conservative rather than the liberal view. But not necessarily in line with the common culture including many who call themselves conservative.
Joseph, Comte de Maistre’s view of our relationship to the state is one that I can agree with. The Bible teaches that king or government, is the minister of God for the restraint of evil. The Bible also teaches that we cannot attain perfection on our own nickel. We need God and we need government to restrain our worst impulses. The Enlightenment view of man’s perfectibility is not supported by any empirical evidence. It is wishful thinking.
Michael Oakeshott is noted as being opposed to “ideology, … belief systems – collections of ideas, goals and theories designed to justify the believer in taking charge of the future.” Maurice Cowling as noted by Scruton would agree since he considered any ism other than the Christian faith as a self-serving expedient. I find myself in agreement with both these men. So, does that make me a conservative?
I say that Franklin Roosevelt is an archetype of a conservative. He had a society in chaos from economic dysfunction. He vigorously addressed that dysfunction to save the political and economic system he had inherited. This is the adaptation that Burke advocated and the “intimations” advocated by Oakeshott. The Libertarian idea advocated by Hayek and von Mises is just another ideology with a cure-all prescription for all that ails us. Westminster refused relief to starving Irish in the potato famine because that would make them dependent on government handouts. A million Irish died and two million emigrated. In 1916 the Irish returned the favor by refusing to join Britain in their war with Germany. President James Buchanan refused to address the issues of slavery and state’s rights and the Civil War ensued. Herbert Hoover with the same arguments refused to forcefully intervene in America’s economic crisis and the nation came near to revolution. FDR saved us with forceful government intervention. These are good examples of what John Maynard Keynes meant when he said that in the long run we are all dead.
I do not argue that the free market is a bad thing. Far from it. Adam Smith was not wrong in his assessment of the free market’s ability to allocate limited resources without coercive oversight. Adam Smith also called for regulation of the financial industry and for government taxation to provide public benefits including infrastructure and education. Isaiah chapter 44 includes a passage that condemns His people for taking the good things He has given them and making gods of those things and worshiping the things rather than the God who gave them. This is the vision we should use to judge a free market. We should not worship Free Market.
Adam Smith in the conclusion to Book One of “Wealth of Nations” said that those in the commercial class should be kept as far from public policy as possible as they are keenly aware of their own self-interest but ignorant of the public interest. Yet today we have as President the most grotesque caricature of this class as our President. A man who does not know how to read and certainly does not know how to write or reason. How is this conservative?
At the core of that commercial class self-interest is a Libertarian philosophy that equates freedom with a denigration of any personal or corporate accountability. This philosophy has resulted in the concentration of wealth and power in a small class that is accountable to no one. Chris Hayes in “Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy” [Crown (June 12, 2012)] makes the case that a self-perpetuating meritocracy is not based on any other merit than possession of wealth. My Libertarian friends ask me if I am advocating equal outcomes. Of course not. I advocate equal opportunity. Scruton points out that Tocqueville questioned reconciling equality with liberty. I don’t believe Chris Hayes or any of the people advocating free education and government paid medical care for everyone is looking for equality of outcome.
The problem of a self-perpetuating meritocracy or elite is shown in Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson’s book “Why Nations Fail: The origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty” [Crown Publishers, New York 2012]. Such elites stifle initiative and enterprise to maintain their hold on power creating what the authors call an extractive economy. The free market of Hayek and von Mises is expressly suppressed. We can see examples of extractive economics in the opioid crisis where the Sackler family with false claims of safety has extracted vast wealth impoverishing many people.
Debt is a method used by the powerful to control those indebted to them. The current equivalent of the company store is student debt. Once businesses would provide housing and the only store for their employees. By providing nearly unlimited credit the company extracted back what they paid the employees and kept them under tight control. Payday loans at high interest are legal loan sharking. Retirement savings wiped out by a financial meltdown suck wealth out of the middle class into the one percent. Adam Smith recommended government regulation to counter the financial industry abuses of his day. Nothing has changed.
The Libertarian Philosophy that so fits with the self-interest of the one percent purports to effortlessly provide for personal liberty and prosperity. It does none of this. Herbert Spencer had a different name for this philosophy, Social Darwinism. The Libertarian idea makes of the free market a god that left to work its wondrous ways will always provide the best of results. Dr. Pangloss would approve. Those who rise to the top certainly approve.
How is conservatism going to deal with the economic tsunami caused by robotics and artificial intelligence? There are already people who have given up looking for work. The politicians blame China and poor brown people, but the real cause is automation. Less and less human labor is required and that which is required needs a high level of education. The driverless vehicle is not just an upgrade in an owner’s driveway. Uber and Lyft technology will permit these cars to be summoned at will. These cars will not be owned by individuals. They will be much too expensive to sit in someone’s driveway or work place parking lot. They will be owned by large corporations and operated in fleets. Ford Motor will make far fewer automobiles. Ford will make money operating autonomous fleets. Ford will sell occupancy and not sell cars. This means the entire economy surrounding the individual ownership of cars will disappear. This includes gas stations, auto repair, auto insurance, auto retail sales, legal support, parking lots, fast food restaurants, etc. Real estate devoted to the automobile will become available for other purposes. Parking lots can be repurposed. Millions of jobs devoted to the automobile will become redundant. Is anyone talking about this? Is anyone, other than Ford and GM, planning for this economic tsunami? The Luddites will look quaint compared to the anger of all the people put out of their jobs by robotics and artificial intelligence.
Unless we deal with the economic dislocation and dysfunction in the manner of FDR, we will not be able to keep our liberal democracy and free market economy. This world has become too complex to hold to an economic philosophy geared to a 19th century agrarian economy.
Scruton is at his best in explaining the rise of conservatism as a qualification of liberalism after the French Revolution. He then notes the rise of Reactionary thought, but does not do enough to show that this illiberal element cancels out the original liberalism of the tradition. Subsequent conservatism simply moves between these liberal and illiberal poles.
One cannot fail to see the vast deterioration of conservative thinking in the late twentieth century. To put Ayn Rand in the same sentence as Edmund Burke tells the story.
Top reviews from other countries
But if you haven't read the earlier publication, this is truly worth the read. Scruton is second to none in this field of political philosophy, and this books gives a fairly detailed yet easy to digest view of Conservatism.
Rip RS








