In too many ways, the Conservative label has been polarised to suit the unfolding narrative of political unrest in the Trump era. A combination of Politics 106 lectures and a video article by the former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper provided an Enlightening explanation of Modern Conservatism’s corresponding values with some left-wing perspectives. The mass-produced narrative of racist red necks and pushy middle-aged white women eclipses the genuine concerns of hard-working people that struggle to make ends meet.
Modern Conservatism scrutinises the limitations of the neoliberal establishment and the progressive perception of globalisation. Pro-free-trade and immigration positions largely rest on unquestioning faith in the international system without considering its impact on the domestic populace. Liberal institutionalism arguably undermines the state actor’s significance by persuading states that redundant international mediations and cooperation solve domestic instability. The emerging reality is the internationalism subordinates workers by serving the needs of bureaucrats and large business owners that thrive in the interconnected economic system. Their wealth is portable and thus are not bound to state decision making in the same way as the working class.
Arguably, conservatism is founded by a realist position because it seeks to reassert domestic obligations to globally-minded politicians. Stephen Harper observes that domestic workers rarely reap the direct benefit of free trade because it remains an idealized aggregate concept, not a concrete domestic reality. Increased immigration drains citizens from income from the domestic market by outsourcing crucial jobs to developing countries where cheap labour can be exploited. Modern conservatism mirrors international Marxism as it seeks to protect domestic livelihood against the exploitative international capitalist system.
Their similarities are explainable by Andre Gunder Franker’s wealth systems theory, as internationalism disadvantages work with different political standings in the same fashion. Capitalists receive income by utilising trans-national wealth generation and third world labour standards. Domestic workers cannot sell their labour, and Western nations normalise their poverty with pre-dominantly tertiary sector economies. The pursuit of adding value ironically devalues the domestic market contributing to the creation of widespread poverty.
It is not the fault of migrant workers, but the capitalist system’s failure has added a multi-lateral dimension to the labour dilemma. The liberal self-improvement narrative fails to address that labor mobility is not universal and varies between occupation. A butcher does not possess the same value in the international system as a consultant as their skill set, and costs are not bound to the domestic economy. Thus, conservatism can be interpreted as a method of protecting domestic economies against an exploitative capitalist system that remains critical for small countries and rural areas. Conservatism is not universally perfect in its social aspects; however, I agree with Stephen Harper that these concerns should be taken seriously and not dismissed by mass-produced media.
Stephen Harper: “Why Trump Won”, ( January 28, 2019, Prager University, URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFWE2jl5mwA).
Thomas Gregory, “Global Politics”: Introduction to Critical Theories (28 August, University of Auckland, URL: https://canvas.auckland.ac.nz/courses/47609/files/5341895?module_item_id=958340)
This is a great post. I know conservatism comes under some harsh scrutiny these days, and while I may not completely agree with it, it does have redeeming qualities that need to be brought out.
Kia ora, couple of things to say about this post:
I’ve got to say, this wasn’t the definition of conservatism that I was familiar with. To me, conservatism has always seemed to be about the preservation of tradition and the status quo, or alternatively a political philosophy that encourages minimal government interference and maximum practice of individual rights; the other goals that Modern Conservatism, as you call it, strives for (including keeping production domestic rather than relying on international trade) would be subordinate to these overarching goals. For example, limiting free trade and immigration reflect common conservative values of maintaining a cohesive, self-reliant social order with a static, traditionalist identity. The comparison of conservatism with Marxism was interesting, but not one I totally understood. I can agree that conservatism seeks to “protect domestic livelihood against the exploitative international capitalist system” (in this case through protectionism), but Marxism concerns itself with the liberation of the working class as a whole, often discarding the capitalist system entirely through revolution. On the surface level, they both ‘protect’ something – but the how and why are different enough that the comparison seems difficult to justify.
I’m more concerned about your choice of source, though – you should know that PragerU regularly practices climate denialism, is funded by literal oil billionaires (the Koch brothers, who presumably belong to the ‘Anywheres’ that Harper talks about) and platform Victor Davis Hanson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t44SbOyjEUM), that quack historian we talked about earlier this semester. I’m not saying that they’re biased, but they definitely do be biased. In the video you link, they cite no sources for the concepts that they discuss, are incredibly vague (what are “conservative values”? What, really, is the difference between a Somewhere and an Anywhere? Is this a useful concept to consider when discussing inequality?) and indulge in scare-mongering about illegal immigration. They aren’t really a credible source, even for Art Scholars articles (for a more detailed argument, I’d suggest Big Joel’s ‘The Nonsense Politics of PragerU’ at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uRG4RB_Nvo&t=1351s).
That aside, I think there are some oversimplifications in the economic framework you suggest. Firstly, I think it is disingenuous to say that “domestic workers rarely reap the direct benefits of free trade” because free trade is largely responsible for society as we know it. For example, our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with China, our largest trading partner, means that Chinese exports are incredibly cheap for NZ consumers and our own export industries make a significant portion of their revenue from the multi-billion dollar Chinese market, translating into wages for NZ ‘somewheres’. Whether this is ultimately a good or bad thing for the world is less clear cut, but there are definitely benefits for domestic workers. Secondly, the issue of labour mobility seems like a red herring – why discuss inequality in terms of mobility? Why not discuss the root cause of inequality in a capitalist society, the exploitation of workers by the capitalist class (which you do touch on)? Under a Marxist analysis, the exploitation of domestic workers is just as inevitable as that of overseas workers under a capitalist society, because in each case capitalists seek to maximize profit at the expense of their employees. The only reason it currently effects international workers more severely is because it is much harder for domestic workers to understand oppression if it mostly occurs far away, thereby inhibiting the formation of class consciousness and worker solidarity. Being part of the elite isn’t about mobility – it is about access to power and the means of production which are used to exploit the working class.
In short, when discussing capitalism’s failings it can be useful to look outside the framework of modern capitalism to its potential alternatives. I think your article is a good start on a discussion of the problems of late-stage capitalism, but I’m not sure that it gets to the heart of the issues it discusses. Consider looking up some leftist media (Philosophy Tube, hbomberguy, Contrapoints, Big Joel etc.) for a more in-depth discussion than I can get into in comments, because this is way too long already.
Angus