Was Thatcher a (small-c) conservative?

There are a number of problems with what you have written in terms of its factual content and logical flow.

i) Disraeli was most certainly not the first 'conservative' to advocate paternalistic approaches. Edmund Burke is an earlier reference.

ii) You just stated that paternalism is a part of conservatism and then went on to suggest that they should believe in the free market because of scepticism in humanity... these two do not logically follow.

iii) While Thatcher may have been conservative in valuing authority and holding some traditional values, the question is one of balance. It is possible for an all-out socialist to hold some conservative views, that does not make them a conservative.

This PDF will provide a starting point for you. Read as much as you can, and chase up the references within this document: http://www.boyung.net/docs/Ideology_and_policy_development_c3_Conservative%20ideology.pdf

Conservatism isn't resistant to change. It just puts emphasis on gradualism and respect for tradition when making such: let's give the example of Burke who supported the American Revolution. Hardly 'conservative' in the sense that most people imply is it? Not exactly stable either! I agree with you on the whole, her economic views have always struck me as compatible with her social views (which were certainly conservative).

I never said it's resistant to change. I said: "it's the desire to conserve rather than reform (unless you "change in order to conserve")".

On the whole, traditional conservatism preaches scepticism towards change, accepting reform when necessary. It's very pragmatic. That's all I meant.

I never claimed he was the first, but as far as I know he was the origin of, or the spark that set off, the "one nation conservative" paternalistic tradition. If not then last year's politics lessons and the textbooks I've read have been lying to me (not saying that's not true, it could be). E.g. in the current book I'm using as revision for my exam (Andrew Heywood's "Political Ideologies: An Introduction") the first sentence under "one nation conservatism" is: "The Anglo-American paternalistic tradition is often traced back to Benjamin Disraeli." In fact, the majority of those two-three pages on one nation conservatism is about him. The other section of "paternalistic conservatism" is that of Christian Democracy, so not too relevant.

Paternalism doesn't just mean state intervention, there can be (according to conservatives) paternalism in a free market.

I'm socially libertarian but I don't call myself a libertarian. The social conservative thing I added on as a small extra sentence; the bulk of my question is regarding economic issues..

I never said he was not the creator of one nation conservatism nor did I suggest he was not the main force behind it.

What I said was: Disraeli was most certainly not the first 'conservative' to advocate paternalistic approaches. Edmund Burke is an earlier reference.

If you are purely regarding economics, then to suggest that Margaret Thatcher is a conservative is hilariously absurd.

Fair enough. From what I've read, though, the conservative tradition of paternalism largely takes its origins from Disraeli (even if paternalism in conservatism has been around for longer). Is that incorrect? (I'm not being rhetorical; any information that I could use for my exams would be beneficial).

Well, that's what I used to believe, but the more I've started to look into conservatism, the more I've realised that it's more than can be defined in one small definition (such as opposing rationalism and radical change, and supporting a pragmatic approach to change, for example).

Burke believed that the free market is natural and necessary, as the desire for wealth fits in with the human desire for "power after power" (as Hobbes said).

5) Is this view consistent with the belief in a natural hierarchy (perhaps even a "natural aristocracy"), and in authority?
— Yes. Traditional conservatives believed in the need for class divisions and the need for "knowing one's place",and the functionalist interpretation of groups, classes and institutions renders such divisions as useful.

Your exam will accept Disraeli as an answer even if it is wrong. Something you learn when you get to University is that your A Level knowledge is borderline useless.

The implementation of neo-liberal economics was a very radical proposal, no 'conservative' would have done it. In order to tolerate the social equilibrium, the Conservatives throughout the 1940s-1970s accepted the Keynesian consensus. Traditionally, the conservatives have always opposed free trade. Hence why free trade advocates such as Friedman have often attacked conservatives. The free market operates on the basis of the rational human actor, or Homo economicus. How does this rational choice theory square with your suggestion that adopting the free market was 'opposing rationalism'?

Not entirely sure where you got this idea from. Firstly, we should remember that while we associate conservatism with some of Burke's ideas, he was NOT a Tory. He was a Whig. In terms of the free market, if memory serves me well, he advocated the repeal of the corn laws - nothing more.

I am also not entirely sure you have understood the notion of the organic state. The free market operates on the level of individuals. Much with New Right philosophy, it is defined by individualism. The organic society holds that society is more important than individuals, something which some would argue is incompatible with free market philosophy.

Be very clear, traditional conservatives believed in knowing one's place. That extends to the upper classes maintaining power, and the working classes staying where they are. The free market allowed the working classes and the middle classes to become powerful. Why do you think conservatives opposed industrialisation? Because it made middle class industrialists who could challenge the power of the aristocracy.

Thanks for the replies. I'm starting to realise that I maybe shouldn't just accept what I read in a textbook :')


This is kind of annoying, because I'm interested in learning about this stuff in general, as well as outside of my exams, and so any books that I've got (or articles that I've read etc.) were for more than just my exam.


Bolded: I genuinely didn't know that. I'm getting most of my information on conservatism from this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Political-Ideologies-Introduction-Andrew-Heywood/dp/0230367259/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397144958&sr=1-1&keywords=political+ideologies
(which has, by the way, been recommended by many on TSR).
In that book it says that libertarian conservatism (and economic liberalism in conservatism) isn't new to the tradition, rather it dates back to the late 18th century, and is a rival tradition to the paternalistic conservative tradition (albeit maybe with paternalistic conservatism having more weight behind it).

As for your question at the end: "How does this rational choice theory square with your suggestion that adopting the free market was 'opposing rationalism'?"
— I guess that's a point for debate: individualistic rationalism vs. statist rationalism. In Kieron O'Hara's book, he starts off forming a "knowledge principle" which is a basis for conservative scepticism, based on a collaboration of various key traditional conservative thinkers and theories. This principle is: Because society and its mediating institutions are highly complex and dynamic with natures that are constantly evolving as they are co-constituted with the individuals who are their members, both data and theories about society are highly uncertain. How would the free market fit in with this principle? Well, it would suggest that we should be sceptical of any top-down running of the economy (as the economy is "highly complex and dynamic with a nature that is constantly evolving"). If an individual forms a decision as to what to buy and trade etc., then that is a lesser form of rationalism than a top-down statist enforcement of an entire theory or system (not to mention the consequences are more limited).



Well, again, from that book on political ideologies. Here's a couple of pictures of what it says (highlighted text):
http://oi59.tinypic.com/w220ip.jpg
http://oi60.tinypic.com/24pmlqo.jpg
I'm kind of annoyed if it is just flat-out false, because like I said it was recommended, and it's also not a book aimed at those taking their A levels (though it is good for that, too).


Yes, I can understand this view. But I can also see it from this perspective: the free market developed entirely naturally, and organically, during and after industrialisation; it was only when tampered with by governmental bodies that it became less of a free market; this tampering goes against what conservatives believe that you should do with an organic society (on the whole). An organism may have many individual parts that all do their own thing, and then come together for the good of the whole organism (operating under the illusion of individualism), so I don't really think that individualism in the economy is of any threat to the notion of an organic society.


Good point. But now that we are in a post-industrial society, where the market is largely capitalist, surely it is better for hierarchy for there to be more of a free market than less of a free market; yes, the free market allows for climbing the class ladder and stronger lower classes, but so does Keynesianism, and in the former case the boundaries become more defined.

Thanks for the replies. I'm starting to realise that I maybe shouldn't just accept what I read in a textbook :')

This is kind of annoying, because I'm interested in learning about this stuff in general, as well as outside of my exams, and so any books that I've got (or articles that I've read etc.) were for more than just my exam.

Bolded: I genuinely didn't know that. I'm getting most of my information on conservatism from this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Political-Ideologies-Introduction-Andrew-Heywood/dp/0230367259/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397144958&sr=1-1&keywords=political+ideologies

In that book it says that libertarian conservatism (and economic liberalism in conservatism) isn't new to the tradition, rather it dates back to the late 18th century, and is a rival tradition to the paternalistic conservative tradition (albeit maybe with paternalistic conservatism having more weight behind it).

Well, again, from that book on political ideologies. Here's a couple of pictures of what it says (highlighted text):
http://oi59.tinypic.com/w220ip.jpg
http://oi60.tinypic.com/24pmlqo.jpg
I'm kind of annoyed if it is just flat-out false, because like I said it was recommended, and it's also not a book aimed at those taking their A levels (though it is good for that, too).

Yes, I can understand this view. But I can also see it from this perspective: the free market developed entirely naturally, and organically, during and after industrialisation; it was only when tampered with by governmental bodies that it became less of a free market;

Good point. But now that we are in a post-industrial society, where the market is largely capitalist, surely it is better for hierarchy for there to be more of a free market than less of a free market; yes, the free market allows for climbing the class ladder and stronger lower classes, but so does Keynesianism, and in the former case the boundaries become more defined