I was recently discussing politics in general terms over tea with someone who was, thoughtful articulate and eloquent, but with whom I had little in common in terms of political leanings. At one point he observed that he found it difficult to understand how Christians could be Conservative, and moreover this was in part because of the meanness of spirit of Conservatives.
Ignoring for a moment the broad generalisation within which all Conservatives were so described, it’s worth reflecting on the perceptions of those with whom we disagree as they can help provide insights we may otherwise miss. And indeed it is possible to see how someone may form such a view, for it is true that there are those amongst those professing a Conservative allegiance, a good number whose attitudes and approaches to the poor, the weak, the marginalised and vulnerable can only be described as callous and uncaring.
However, I also believe that attitudes of indifference, unconcern and disinterest are not exclusive to parts of Conservatism, but indeed can be found across all society and political movements. But the purpose of this post isn’t simply to acknowledge a weakness observed amongst Conservatives and to deal with it by simply asserting that others can be just as bad – for such a defense is really no defense.
Rather it is firstly to take on board the criticism with a fair hearing and to be in acceptance that such an accusation is not wholly without justification, even if it is overstated. And also to add that in my understanding and view of Conservatism is that it is an approach to life which is in fact completely opposed to mean-spiritedness. Indeed, it is my firm view that Conservatism properly applied shows a generosity of spirit and care for others which is of the highest order.
But more significantly, it caused me to reflect what it was in Conservatism that led me to be more inclined to promote it and support it than other political approaches, and in particular the socialism which my interlocuter was commending to me.
As I worked through this thought process, an analogy came to mind which I found helpful. Let’s consider for a moment that we can measure our ability to contribute well to society – whether that be financially, practically, socially, or in any other way which is good and healthy. And let’s assume that irrespective of how we can contribute we can aggregate all of these into a unit of ‘helpful contribution’. Clearly it is the case that some are in a position to be able to contribute a large amount (say 100 ‘units’) and others less so (say 15 ‘units’), and others less still. Don’t read too much into the size of relativity, but rather simply acknowledge that there are differences of means and capability.
Further, now let us assume that a person with the means of contributing 100 units were to contribute 60 of those units and to retain the rest of their capability to their own ease and privilege – what are we to make of that? And how would we consider the person of 15 units contributing 10, and the person with 3 units contributing just 1.
Remember, we are here talking not about money, but rather the total capacity for contributing to the overall well being of society. It is clear that the person whose contribution of 10 of their maximum capacity of 15 is the most generous by virtue of doing 2/3 of what they are capable, albeit that the person contributing 60 is doing the most by a quantitative assessment.
It is fair to observe that the person providing 60 out of 100 could certainly do more, it may even be fair to conclude that they should do more; however, such a conclusion could also be reached of the more generous person giving 10 out 15 and certainly of the person who is only proffering 1/3 of their capacity. I am reminded of Jesus’s command to remove the log from our own eye before seeking to remove the speck from a brother’s. For none of these three imaginary characters can claim to be wholly righteous in terms of their generosity of spirit, and none is in the solid position of being able to upbraid the others.
What has all this to do with my reflections on Conservatism and Socialism? I would like to make two points:
1) That it would be an error to judge a person based on the absolute size of what they offer. For sure the person offering 60 units is giving the most, but that is from a position of great privilege, and indeed when we account for means and opportunity, we find that the person offering 10 units is being more generous in proportion to their means. Whilst this has shades of the story of the widow’s mite, my point is slightly broader in observing that we can never fully know or understand a person’s whole situation and are therefore in no position as to properly and correctly assess their generosity or motives. Only God can truly judge us all in that way, and indeed one day he will. And we will find his assessment to be perfectly accurate in every regard. Moreover, and as a slight digression we can also observe that God alone has been the one who has given 100% of his capacity for the benefit of others, and on any measure he has billions of units of capacity to our meagre handful and so exceeds us immeasurably in both quantity and proportion (see also reflections on Philippians 2)
2) That a true Conservative approach to this scenario would be to teach, encourage and support each person to properly assess their own capacity and to seek to do their utmost in good virtues; furthermore to then not judge one way or another on the outcome of others given the lack of all the information necessary to make a correct judgement. In contrast the Socialist approach to this scenario is to determine what they believe to be the right level of capacity (or ‘units’) each person should have and also what should then be distributed for the benefit of society.
I have little doubt that for the good, honest Socialist, their motives are based on fine principles and a desire for good. However, it is the difference in essence in approach between Socialism and Conservatism that leads me to favour the latter over the former. It is not because I believe those of a Conservative persuasion to be any better (or worse) in capacity for good or ill, for I think such things evenly distributed across the political spectrum; but rather that in Conservatism the desire is to promote that which is good and to permit choice and conscience to dictate, whereas in Socialism I find instead a desire for unhealthy manipulation, an unhealthy focus on what others should/shouldn’t be doing with their freedoms and both a belief in and desire for centralised power to dictate.