Time for a Conservative fight-back against the socialists

Conservatism has two recurrent political weaknesses. First, Conservatives know that the human condition is imperfectible. Anyone seeking a heaven must look beyond the grave. In the recent past, attempts to reshape human nature in order to create a heaven on earth have condemned hundreds of millions to an early grave.

That point might seem so obvious as to be hardly worth restating. So how can it give rise to political weakness? Because it is true. Human nature is imperfectible. As a result, socialism can survive: an ineradicable virus which breaks out once a generation or so, especially among the young. Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to relive it. But many youngsters, with a bliss-was-it-in-that-dawn confidence in their ability to reshape everything, scorn teachings based on caution and an acceptance of limitations. To them, these are just emanations of cowardice among the elderly: the affluent elderly at that.

This brings us to the second weakness. Conservatism has a natural appeal to those who have something to lose. Again, this is just common sense. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history will realise that in an advanced country, almost everyone has something to lose and that societies which value personal freedom will only succeed if they rest on Hobbesian foundations. Equally, it is almost always the case, even among Lefties, that the more people know and love an institution, the more conservative they are about it. But when politics enters a children’s crusade phase, as at present, all that is dismissed as a mere cloak for greed and self-interest.

So how can Conservatives respond? First, by picking themselves up and dusting themselves down. Although “shock” is an over-used word in the media, it has earned its place in the last few weeks’ headlines. There is no other way of describing the – understandable – Conservative reaction to recent events. But enough is enough. It is time for the fight-back to begin: time for Conservatives to start winning some intellectual battles.

There was a long period when wise Conservatives were suspicious of the word “intellectual” and one can understand why. It came in beards, behind banners – and led to bloodshed. There was then an era of paradox, under Margaret Thatcher. By temperament, and unlike many of her predecessors, she was not an intellectual. Yet, also unlike them, she regarded it as a term of unalloyed approval. If so described, their response would have been ironic. She did not do irony. She would have taken it as a compliment. This brought unexpected political benefits.

Throughout most of the post-war era, it had often seemed as if almost all the cleverest people were on the Left. Suddenly, in the 1970s, that ceased to be the case. Partly in response to Harold Wilson’s moral and intellectual bankruptcy, a number of academics defected to the Tories. That not only boosted Margaret Thatcher’s own self-confidence. It made her party seem like an idee en marche. This made it easier to proclaim that “there was no alternative” – a thoroughly unintellectual proposition – and to steamroller those who dissented.

Post-Thatcher, there has been a lot less of the steam-roller. That was particularly true under David Cameron: another paradox. Without ever being a slave of the lamp, Mr Cameron won academic distinction. According to Vernon Bogdanor, his marks were good enough to justify a crack at All Souls’. They certainly helped to endow him with a serene intellectual self-confidence. But he does not have an intellectual temperament. After he drafted the 2005 manifesto, a clear and workman-like document, there were complaints that it lacked intellectual depth. Young Mr Cameron was dismissive: people who wanted that sort of thing should read Descartes (he had).

This lack of interest in ideas persisted. Intellectual energy was wasted on the Big Society: an idea in search of a meaning. In that, it resembles Nick Timothy’s already forgotten Great Meritocracy. But there is a difference. Mr Cameron knows a lot about society. Mr Timothy knows nothing about merit. In general, however, David Cameron had a comfortable faith in Anglo-Saxon pragmatism. In politics, that is not enough. It allowed left-wing notions to survive unrefuted, waiting for a chance to go on the offensive.

They now have, and must be thrown back. Conservatives need to take on the Left over public expenditure. As has been argued here before, this is partly a matter of disseminating information. If the average voter knew just how much the government was spending and borrowing, he would be much less ready to believe that the public sector was grossly underfunded: much readier to believe that some parts of it were grossly inefficient. Equally, Conservatives need to make the cases for a low-tax economy: the practical one, and the moral one. We know the practical argument: that low-tax rates can produce higher tax revenues and with them, the funding for high-quality public services. But Conservatives ought also to make the moral case for private property. The Left claims to believe in human rights, by which it appears to mean the right of a foreign criminal to stay in the UK. Conservatives should talk about real rights that bring benefits to proper people, such as the right to property.

They should also draw global contrasts, between countries which have implemented free-market policies and those which have refused. The point needs to be made that the dispute between free marketeers and socialists is not just a debate about theory. It is about freedom, prosperity and life expectancy. One system produces good outcomes. The other does not.

There is an overarching element to all this. Our opponents wish to make the case for socialism. Very well: let us make the counter-case. This should also help to clarify the leadership question. There are a number of intellectually ambitious Tories, all of whom ought to be in the Cabinet and several of whom could be leadership candidates. Five names come easily to mind: George Freeman, Jesse Norman, Dominic Raab, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Rory Stewart. They all share one attribute: intellectual fearlessness.
Could Jacob be a leadership candidate? I fear not, for the reason discussed above: the imperfectability of human nature. Would the British public ever be wise enough – grown-up enough – to appreciate the wonderful Rees-Moggy blend of incisiveness, irony, moral depth and love of cricket? At the risk of insulting my fellow-countrymen, I doubt it. But those fearless five, plus others, and reinforced by Ruth Davidson, would at the very least make the Tory party seem interesting again. They would also open the way for a new Tory leader with authority and grip.