In this morning's Times, Danny Finkelstein has an interesting piece about how, and crucially why the Conservative Party needs to change, and traces its roots back to moment that Blair shelved Clause IV and the Labour Party conceded the economic argument had been won by the Tories.
The idea of change within the Conservative Party being needed is of course by no means new. Historically - and philosophically - conservatism is all about change. When you have the power to change things you take a cautious approach which is driven by an inbuilt acceptance the status quo.
Make no mistake about it, those Tories that call for, amongst other things, a grammar school in every town, or the scrapping of a taxation funded NHS may be on the Right, but they're not conservatives. They are radicals, and there is a time and a place for radicalism, and this is not that time.
What the Conservative Party as a whole must realise is that we won the economic argument. The radicalism of the 1980s created an economic consensus around the idea of markets and the end of state control of the means of production. Labour has not rolled any of this back. They have conceded that the old school Keynesian model did not, and does not work.
True, the economy has, in the view of many on the Right, not been managed well. However, this isn't mismanagement brought about by fundamental ideological difference. It is simple, and frankly, straightforward technocratic failure. Just as in business, where every Chief Financial Officer is different, the same is true in Government. It is not the economic assumptions that are wrong with current Labour Government, but the implementation.
The questions that arise though are where and what is the battleground of ideas today? Where is the inspirational over the dull and uninspired argument of who is the best manager? The answer lies in the so-called Culture War, a phrase not uncommon to our American cousins.
The Culture War, coined by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, said to the Left that the first step for them in bringing about the proletarian revolution was to break the cultural hegemony of the Right and seize it for themselves. Only then could they have any serious hope of achieving their economic desires. They've been doing it ever since, and right now they're 2-nil up.
This is where the ideological battleground is for the Conservative Party today, and arguably for the Right in general. The dominance of the ideas of the Left on culture has become in Britain a virtual orthodoxy. We read about it daily in our newspaper, but rarely is it properly challenged.
Gramsci's analysis about cultural hegemony was fundamentally sound, but the Conservative Party and its activists have to become aware this. Crucially they must become aware of the power of the analysis and reverse its application.
By obsessing over the economy and the argument that is over, we actually miss the point of how the Culture War is the driving force. We moan about public spending from an economic point of view, but seem to miss the fact that the increase come as an indirect result of the cultural arguments we are losing.
Take the example of the Government's "phase 2" alcohol strategy as a reference point. A proposal where the few prescribe to the many about how they ought to live their lives. However, the proposals have been framed in terms of the economic cost to the NHS of individuals drinking at homes, whilst equally we do not hear that the "savings" that the policy will make will represent a cut in spending overall.
Instead, and we all know it to be true, the money will spent elsewhere, most likely in an area which is the next social evil in the minds of the Government. Yet we do not tackle this cultural argument at the root of the proposal, instead we find ourselves bogged down (right now as it happens by bloody grammar schools).
We also find ourselves in a situation where we criminalise "hate" through the use of inverse hate. Bigotry and ignorance is no longer tackled with argument but instead tackled through its criminalisation. At its very rawest, it is the introduction of thought crime and the result is an increase in spending on what are in effect, the thought police. The ends may be economic, but starting point is the cultural and we fail to tackle it there.
The Daily Mail, and for that matter the Sun, are often sneered upon by the cultural elite that help to perpetuate this hegemony. And yet, it is actually these papers - although often shrill - that tap into the instinctive feeling of the wider populace. The cultural elite on the Left call them populist as pejorative. Yet they actually represent the large number of voices of dissent that have been drowned out by the dominance over what is wrong and right to think.
It's a cliche to talk about "political correctness gone mad", but when you walk and talk to ordinary people most instinctively know there is something wrong. But at the same time they also know that they have no voice and that the hegemony (although they may not use that word) is such that they believe themselves to be pariahs. This is of course not helped by the Gramscian nature of that multimedia dominant giant called the BBC.
Yes, it is true, and Danny Finkelstein is right, the Conservative Party must change if it ever to achieve power again. The battle of ideology is not by any means over, but the battlefield as moved. It is time for the Conservative Party to turn the cultural analysis of the Left towards its creator, and end the cultural dominance of the few over the far greater many.
Please feel free to slate me for talking crap in the comments, and no, I was not stoned when I wrote this.
11 comments:
The Finkelstein article is a wake up call. I hope Iain Dale, Tim Montgomerie et al hear it.
Spot on. Privatising the BBC would be a good start followed by repeal of the HRA. The HRA has ensured that rule of law has been replaced by rule of lawyers, mostly of a statist, leftist stripe.
Err I think you've missed the point. I was arguing about a cultural ideological battle and very clearly said that the radicalism of the 1980s based upon economics is the wrong thing to do. Privatising the BBC is a brilliant example of the sort of thing that is still seeing the battle in raw economic terms.
There will be no radical economic changes whilst the majority are well off and comfortably employed.
Labour and the Tories will converge economically as long as that is the case. All that's left is the cultural battle you mention Dizzy, which is a bit of a sideshow really.
Our economy is still essentially Keynesian with unprecedented government interference, mostly thanks to their control of currency. Taxation through inflation is the most powerful weapon imaginable to an authoritarian government.
But so long as the economic boom continues then, yes, the Tories are going to move towards Labour on Education and the NHS and Labour will move towards the Tories on Security and Policing. The only remaining economic argument is whether the State should employ the unemployable, or pay them to stay at home.
The political fun and games will only recommence during a sustained economic downturn. But don't forget these have been abolished by Gordon.
The latest buzz word for what I call these psycho-bullies, is " carbon footprint ". It is a way to tag us all individually with an additional economic value for which we will be financially penalised. This is going to be a very, very big stick with which to bash the " little people ".
Culture - must be those two elephants in the room Immigration and the EU. perhaps the Tories should take a lesson from Enoch Powell. Watching Marr's programme last night Enoch got the Dockers on side. Perhaps Dave should take a trip to England sometime and find a solution for our multi-cultural problems.
I think Mr Cameron's 'social responisibility' theme is intended to tap into a cultural argument.
"...we need a government, a society and a country that trusts people, invigorates local democracy and hands out power and responsibility to those ready to exercise it for the public good. "
Mr Letwin's recent speech said the next Conservative gov't saw its role being:
"to establish a framework…of support and incentive which enables and induces individual citizens and organisations to act in ways that fulfil not merely their own self-interested ambitions but also their wider social responsibilities."
Dizzy - well done. Very well written (the typos were a little confusing at times though!). Very much contrasts with the "Cool Britannia" approach of NuLab which worships celebrity and leads to the nonsense of Big Brother or The Apprentice being a major topic of discussion amongst apparently intelligent people.
However, I am at odds with you that privatising the BBC is a key to changing the culture of the proletariat - they all watch Sky anyway!
I read your post, Dizzy, as:
"Yes we and Labour agree on the way a modern, open, productive economy works: it works through freedom. Freedom of choice.
"With the election approaching, forget about the economy. The argument is won, everyone is in agreement.
“Concentrate on Choice. Think about choice. Choice in the wider sense. In the widest sense.
“We believe your choice at this election is between that party that knows what it wants for you, knows how it wants you to live your life, knows how to put the controls in place so that, year after year, day by day, your are presented with an ever narrower range of choices, so that in the end, you are forced to live your life the way that they believe you should. By their own philosophy, set by their agenda, their ideals. Not yours. Your ideals and aspirations, your individualism, has no place in their world.
“Or you could choose the Conservatives. A party that has, as its core philosophy, freedom. Freedom to live your life according to your own standards or moral code. Freedom from having your thought processes questioned and modified to match someone else’s ideals. Freedom from those who seek power not just to govern the country and manage the economy, but who seek to govern your mind and manage your life. Because Labour’s ideals, based on socialist thinking, is not about protecting the worker. It is about the gaining of control. Control over you and your life. Over your family, your children, your children’s children. Socialism was invented as an alternative to democracy.
“Look at all the initiatives that have been introduced, eroding your freedom, narrowing your choices. [Insert list here, from HSE madness incl ladders, to identity cards, to collecting of children’s DNA, thought crime, raising school leaving ages, etc, etc].”
Your point, Dizzy, is about flavour. Conservatives need to ensure they get the message across that they are FREEDOM flavoured, whilst the other crowd are CONTROL flavoured. Then, of course, a good look at detailed policies to ensure that these are all consistent with that flavour. Then it will be quite easy to remain on-message. Roll the eyes when evr the economy is mentioned, smile and nod then emphasis freedom.
Emphasis that Labour don’t mind you prospering, but they do mind you thinking.
Hi Dave bartlett. Perhaps, but so many words
Browsing Civitas' website after reading the publicity around their Corruption of the Curriculum report, I came across a PDF of Civil Society: the Guiding Philosophy and Research Agenda of Civitas. The introduction to which contains the phrase:
"It has fallen to some generations to fight against freedom’s adversaries and, in our time, we face a struggle against an intellectual elite, which repudiates the ideal of a free people unified by a shared sense of membership and patriotism."
which reminded me of your post.
Post a Comment