Ep. 221 Conservatism and the economy

Yeah, welcome peeps to the A-Level Proletics Show episode 220 and today we will make a quick visit to ideologies land for our latest fix off conservatism. Now I'm going to focus today on conservatism and the economy, even though I recorded a pod on this, about 100 episodes back. There are two reasons for the do over one. I have changed the format of how I get my beloved Rygate policy students to write ideologies essays and for the skinny on that go listen to episode 145 and two. A question on conservatism hasn't made an appearance on the public exam as of March 2026. And by the way neither has conservatism and human nature, mm, check out episode 1834 the latter. Now there are a few things to consider when it comes to conservatism and that topic more broadly. There are three main strands, traditional one nation and new right conservatives. For level five you need to weave in the two new right conservative substrants, neo conservatism and neo liberalism. Neo liberals are the real outlier. They have a completely different view on the economy since they do not share the same ideas of imperfect human nature, organic society and the role of the state. Yet I would argue that this neo liberal substrand is pretty vocal and that's my direction is that despite some superficial agreements, there are fundamental differences between conservatives on the economy. One last tip and this applies to any essay on ideologies ensure that your paragraphs have cleared the stink themes that guarantee they read very differently from each other. For my first paragraph, my theme will focus on conservative attitudes to the economy stemming from their views on imperfect human nature while my second paragraph will examine conservative attitudes emanating from their belief on society and the pace of change. Let's start with the first theme then. Do conservatives agree on the economy as a result of their view that humans are imperfect? Traditional and new right neo conservatives find a degree of agreement on the economy due to their share belief that humans are imperfect. For Hobbes, a strong central authority which would inevitably need to be funded through taxation would produce the kind of certainty that humans need. For Hobbes life without a state without order would be short, nasty and brutish. For neo conservatives too much economic independence could lead to individuals doing their own thing and this kind of situation does not fit with the kind of anti-permissive society that they want. Consequently both traditional and neo conservatives would be wary of low taxation since humans could not necessarily be trusted to run their own affairs. An economy that is regulated by strong central authority is thus preferable or at the very least implied to a shared belief that humans cannot be trusted to handle their own finances. Yet these agreements are superficial neo liberals in contrast to say one nation conservatives do not believe that the state should play a significant role in the economy and in large part because of their view that humans are rational, capable and clever. Rans objectivism sees humans as atomistic ie they can operate on their own without constraint. Perhaps this is why for neo liberals tax is seen as coercive. Indeed, no zig described taxation as forced labor. Consequently, neo liberals do not see a role for the state in interfering with the money people make. While one nation conservatives take a more paternalistic approach instead, much different from the libertarian approach to the economy taken by new right neo liberals. One nation conservatives have over the years favored keenly in economics to ensure full employment, which would require a much more active role for the state in the economy than neo liberals prefer. They do so, one nation conservatives, out of fear of revolution and chaos brought about by rapid industrial change that neo liberals are comfortable with. But one nation conservatives feel that this would leave humans overwhelmed and in search of simplistic harmful solutions to their plight. If there was no safety net, say one nation conservatives, society would begin to break down and create conditions for revolution, something that one nation conservatives want to prevent, but which neo liberals are not too concerned about. In contrast, neo liberals believe that a state which interferes too much in economic freedom, i.e. one that taxes too much, is not one that has a justification to exist and should indeed be removed and replaced with a libertarian one. For neo liberals, humans are not dependent on one another. According to NOSIQ, humans only become dependent because of one nation paternalistic economic approaches to welfare and the economic tax burdens needed to fund it, which inhibit the natural urge of humans to stand on their own two feet. For him and the neo liberals, humans can cope and indeed thrive in a libertarian economy. They want to brush aside the caution of other conservatives and have a freely operating market economy instead. Thus conservatives do not agree on the levels of state intervention in the economy because of fundamental differences about the level of support and control that the different strands think humans require. After the jingle jangles, let's consider whether conservative views on social structures affect their attitudes towards the economy. Admittedly, one nation conservatives and neo conservatives can find common ground on the economy due to them both supporting the existence of a natural hierarchy, which has a knock-on effect for their attitudes to wealth and to the structure of the economy. Both one nation conservatives and neo conservatives believe that people seek interdependence with one another and that a hierarchy can only exist when all in society recognize their responsibilities to one another. It is why Hobbes accepted, like the liberal John Locke, a social contract. It is why one nation conservative support no less oblige the idea that a rich have responsibility to the poor. These positions lead to both strands supporting a society of one natural economic inequality and two an economy with some safeguards for the poor owing to those responsibilities that they emphasize. Yet the traditional conservatives and the new rights strands of conservatism have fundamental differences with the pace of economic change for traditional conservatives and organic society is naturally occurring and ought to be carefully nurtured and it should be spared from the buffeting of too much economic change. Burke emphasized the importance of little platoons and focuses on local institutions and interdependent relationships. These arrangements, let's say the local church or the volunteers at a cake sale outside of local school, can help avoid enemy or what we know as isolation. Withdrawal of state support for these local services, perhaps the local library, for example, in order to reduce taxes could result in this enemy. Yet for the neoliberals of the new right and organic society and too much emphasis on caution interferes with people's natural urge to do what they want, especially when it comes to economic matters. For Rand, enemy is an acceptable and natural condition of human nature. Nozick support for a mini-archist state which envisages as small a state as possible talks about laissez-faire attitudes towards state intervention in the economy, in part because of Nozick's belief that humans were, and I quote, "freedom-loving pack animals". The neoliberal approach to societal bonds, i.e., they don't think that there should be any, leads to their support for rapid, radical economic change that frees the market from regulation and social obligation. Yet traditional conservatives fear the rapid change caused by this approach might distort the delicate balance that the organic society seeks to create by removing support for these little platoons so beloved by Burke. Traditional conservatives aren't against all change, but only if that change is changed to conserve and based on what works best, or what some call empiricism or pragmatism, which they just don't see in neoliberal attitudes to the economy. Oak shot instead emphasises the importance of routines the people's daily lives and how those traditions and routines in society create order and surety, too much unpredictability in the economy would run counter to that stability. Hence why there is certainly disagreement when it comes to the state's role in the economy with neoliberal's on the one hand advocating an ideologically driven fast-paced rapid change in the economy that removes state interference. And traditional conservatives on the other hand, accepting change only if it is gradual and proven to work, and only if it maintains rather than a road's social bonds, social bonds that the neoliberals don't actually exist. Thus conservatives have fundamental differences on the economy. While there is some degree of support for state regulation of the economy, owing to traditional and neo-conservative fears of humans doing their own thing, the neoliberal faction takes a fundamentally different approach. For them, humans are rational enough to be trusted to run their own affairs. Furthermore, while the cautious approach to economic change might be shared by traditional and one nation conservatives, neoliberals again show their major distaste for such approaches by allowing for an individualistic libertarian economy to be prioritised over paternalistic organic societies favoured by the other. strands. Have a go at practicing this question to what extent do conservatives have different views on the economy? Revise the content and then try writing it in 30 minutes. Always, peeps, always have a conclusion just like the one I provided. Until the next time then, see ya. Oh, before I go, have you thought about listening to other pods in this series? There are 221 of them, so be my guest. For just £1.99 you can subscribe to Plus Plus Plus, which gives you the complete backlog of A-level politics shows. Cancel anytime, Deeds in the show notes, maximise your chances of success. Okay, now I'm ready to say goodbye. See you next week for the question. Is the Prime Minister effectively a President? Bye!