Ep. 226 Conservatism: Paternalism & Libertarianism

Good morning, it's 22nd of April, 2026, and at the time of recording, with about four weeks to go until paper one, I'm starting to think about which topics would be good to focus on. You've got to center your revision, partly anyway, on the core ideology section of paper one, and you can't ignore any single one in case the examiner only asked you two questions on the ideology you didn't revise for. Imagine how you'd feel if you only revise socialism and liberalism, and then you've got two questions on conservatism. You'd feel pretty rubbish, I'm guessing. So cover all your bases, revise all of them, and definitely revise conservatism. Let's pinch to zoom on this topic. There are lots of questions the examiner still has to ask. They've never had a question on human nature or on the economy with this topic. So check out episodes 183 and 221, respectively, for info on those. I've recorded earlier pods on society and also on the state, so the four key areas we've got you covered. They could also, of course, ask you about the core ideas associated with the topic like pragmatism, episode 154, has you're back here, or whether they fear change, which is linked to the concept of tradition, have a listen to pod number 170 for the skinny on all of that. The other core ideas of notes are the ideas of paternalism and libertarianism, two deeply contrasting philosophies within conservatism. These concepts will be the focus on pod number 226, so stay tuned and I'll meet you after the jingles. (upbeat music) Let's take a visit first to Key Terms Corner. What is paternalism? It is an idea rooted in a society where people know their place and have obligations to one another, including the idea that the rich have responsibility to the poor. It is a state which tends to favor top-down approaches or authoritarianism and an economy which acknowledges the fallibility of human nature and thus favors government regulation. So what is libertarianism? It's the opposite really. On society, it prioritizes maximal individual freedom from the state owing to its positive view of human nature. It believes in laissez-faire economics with limited state intervention when it comes to the state, it is deeply cynical of an authoritarian form of government safe, or perhaps a law and order presence to prevent unrest. If you get a question on one of these, then you have to bring in the strands that emphasize the other to tease out the differences while not forgetting the similarities either. The best arts has acknowledged that the new right is divided into neoliberals who favor libertarianism and neo-conservatives who largely favor paternalism. It is the links you make between these two substrants and the remaining groups traditional and one nation conservatives that will get you up to level five. So what is my question today? It is this, to what extent do conservatives unite around the concept of paternalism? Now, unite is a strong word. I will argue that conservatives do not mostly unite around paternalism owing to the strong presence of the neoliberal faction within the new right, which favors libertarianism. To answer this question, I think it is useful to define the two concepts, mention them in your introduction first, before moving on to your direction at the end of said intro. Then write two, or if you have time, three chunky paragraphs dividing up your paragraphs into paternalism in the state, perhaps paternalism and society and paternalism and the economy. Before writing your conclusion. Okay, with my intro out the way, let's move on to my main body and focus first on paternalism and the state. (upbeat music) Granted, traditional and the conservatives agree about paternalism due to their belief that a father figure is needed to guide individuals and their imperfect human nature, Hobbes feels that humans must feel in awe of this figure of authority. Without a state, without a central authority, life for Hobbes would be short, nasty and brutish. Similarly, neo-conservatives believe that those at the top of a fixed hierarchy must present a singular moral code for imperfect humans to follow, so that order will be maintained. For them, permissiveness and doing one's own thing leads to a breakdown in civil tranquility. This kind of paternalism directs humans in such a way that would require strong police presence and an authoritarian form of government. The father must be followed. Yet these fixed views of state authority are often opposed by neo-liberals who have a much more positive view of human nature. Due to their view that humans can be trusted with their own affairs, they take issue with traditional conservative approaches towards an authoritarian state. Singular moral codes are an enatomer to those who wish to be free from state constraints. For no-zic, humans are freedom-loving pack animals, which no state should get in the way of. State paternalism must therefore be replaced by what he calls a mini-archist state, a government that interferes very little in people's lives, a state with no guiding father figure. Indeed, even one nation conservatives take issue with the traditional and neo-conservative approaches to state-sponsored paternalism. For this strand, one nation conservatives, paternalism is about compassion. The awful depiction of humans painted by neo-conservatives is rejected and is neatly summed up by Oakshot who believe that humans are simply noisy, foolish and flawed. Hence, one nation conservative views that state paternalism must be centred more on care than on whipping children into line. And that brings us on to paternalism and society. (upbeat music) For one nation conservatives and traditional conservatives, paternalism does not just come from above, but also comes from below via the organic society, the idea that society is like the human body or a tree natural and developed over hundreds of years through local networks of institutions like the church, the local school, libraries, and other places where communities gather. For traditional and one nation conservatives, paternalism is promoted through the guidance that these institutions bestow and through interdependent relationships and the necessary obligations of individuals to the community. State paternalistic policies for these strands could assist with developing such a society through such measures as funding local libraries and such like. They would also support paternalistic notions of nobless obliged, the belief in the duty and the responsibility to one another, especially the idea that the richest in the community must look after the poorest. Building on this point, traditional and one nation conservatives believe that a move away from paternalism would result in a breakdown in order, so feared by Burke who saw the chaos of the French Revolution since it would result in an enemy or what we know as human isolation. For Burke, paternalism through little platoons or volunteers, let's say scout leaders, church wardens, PTA members and the like, help shape an organic society and avoid this enemy, this isolation. Yet herein lies the fundamental difference within conservatism about paternalism. For neoliberals, paternalism is not needed because humans can be self-reliant. They can embrace an enemy that a libertarian society affords them. Individuals are atomistic and we should be less concerned but the lack of social bonds or enemy since individuals are capable and clever. Rans objectivism theory rejected altruism or charity of the one nation conservatives, which was based in her view on a sense that individuals weren't capable of looking after themselves and needed fatherly or paternalistic handouts in favor of a society that favors laissez-faire free markets and allows selfish individuals to use their reason instead for neoliberals and libertarian society ought to be meritocratic rather than based on institutions that preserve the status quo. Thus, there is a rejection of Burke's emphasis on pragmatism towards a more radical ideological push like an assault on welfare and social provision according to NOSIC paternalistic approaches to looking after people feed to dependency culture in society. The Republicans in the US have repeatedly attempted to reduce food stamps for the poor. NOSIC would argue and neoliberals would argue that this program hinders self-reliance. On the other hand, one nation conservatives might worry that it would break the societal bonds between the haves and the have-nots and therefore threaten social cohesion. For one, nation conservatives such a change in the form of removing societal paternalism or state-sponsored paternalistic policies could undermine social order. Oak shot emphasizes the importance of routines to people's daily lives and how those traditions and routines in a paternalistic society create order, create surety. For traditional conservatives, state-sponsored paternalism was needed to ensure that the societal gap did not induce revolution. Any reform of paternalism needed to be taken slowly in Burke's view, any such reform needed to be a change to preserve. This cautious approach to a preserving paternalism is at odds fundamentally at odds with the dogmatic neoliberal view that all such approaches must be quickly cast aside to usher in a libertarian individualistic society. A Jason to this debate on society is the debate about paternalism and the economy. Let's look at that last. Now I find that a lot of students struggle to get to a third chunky paragraph in an ideology's question because you only have 30 minutes. So what I try to encourage in my students is to if they have time to write a paragraph that is a little bit smaller and so this segment will be a little bit shorter to reflect that. Let's focus on the economy in some ways neo-conservatives and traditional conservatives may take a similar view when it comes to paternalism in the economy. Their distrust of humans having too much freedom may well imply that they distrust them with their own money hence the state might assume regulatory power over taxes. In a similar vein but maybe for different motivations one nation conservatives support economic paternalism out of their concern for what an unbridled libertarian market would do to communities and to individuals caught up in selfish market capitalism they favor kindian economics to ensure full employment that would require a much more active role for the state in the economy. They favor high taxation to pay for paternalistic welfare policies mentioned earlier. They do so out of a fear of revolution and chaos brought about by rapid industrial change. If there was no safety net as advocated by lit Neo-liberals society would begin to break down and create conditions for revolution something one nation conservatives want to prevent. Yet again these views are at odds with the very influential neo-liberal substrand of the new right which believes that individuals can be trusted to keep their own wealth. The very essence of libertarianism, nosic described taxation as forced labour, thus a paternalistic state that 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 for neo-liberals by a libertarian one. Therefore conservatives are fundamentally divided over paternalism. We see these divides in the kinds of state that they advocate for with traditional conservatives promoting a father figure to lead the nation while new right neo-liberals see a state-based moral meritocracy and they are skeptical of singular moral codes advocated by neo-conservatives. On society traditional conservatives support paternalism through their belief in local institutions acting as the glue to keep society together which is at odds with the neo-liberal push for self-reliance and libertarian approaches towards welfare. On the economy state-sponsored paternalism is advocated by one nation conservatives via support for higher taxes and keens in economics yet such approaches are rejected by neo-liberals who favor market solutions less tax and limited regulation in short a libertarian utopia. Okay, I hope you got something out of this pod. Feel free to let me know what you think in the comments and if you want more of the same then why not subscribe to last plus plus for just £1.99 a month you can access all A level politics shows the complete back catalog that's all 226 episodes at the time of recording cancel anytime deets in the show notes. Oh and while you read these why not take part in our after pod polls vote on whether you think conservatives are indeed united over paternalism for example. So then see you next time peeps. Look out yourselves. Bye.