2023-01-08
Political conservatism has many analogies with the natural world, although its pursuit very much endangers that world
By Chris Johansen, Green Issue Co-editor
In my journey through life I have come across people who could best be described as politically conservative – actually >50% of those I’ve ever met. Although some have turned me off from the get-go, many are quite affable, generous of spirit, seemingly humanitarian and expressive of some thoughts with which I would wholeheartedly agree. However, at the same time, some of their espoused beliefs seem an antithesis of these aforementioned characteristics. I have for long struggled to understand how such otherwise nice humans could embrace the conservative views that rancour me.
So let us start by looking at how political conservatism is actually defined. Here is a description from Encyclopedia Britannica (Britain being a major historical source of conservative philosophy: thank you Edmund Burke et al.): “Conservatism is a political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. … Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability.”
I further did due diligence in exploring Google Scholar for academic, peer reviewed articles around this topic. This literature was heavily populated by words/phrases such as “ideological asymmetries”, “motivated social cognition”, “attributional analysis”, “neurocognitive”, “distrust sensitivity”, etc., all of which didn’t resonate with me nor improve my understanding of political conservatism. However, one article did appeal to my biological perspective, an article on “behavioural immune system (BIS)”. This puts the case that conservative philosophy is analogous to biological immune systems, that it is a psychological defence mechanism – to protect against unfamiliar ideas and threats to traditional behaviour.
Although BIS gives some insight, my biological background suggested that I might gain further insight in this area. Actually, it has been under my nose from a long time, since the 1960s, but has only recently clicked. My basic academic background is as a plant physiologist, all about how plants and plant communities function.
“Life” on Earth is really all about competition and survival of the fittest. Although forests and other natural plant communities appeal to us who are enthralled by the natural environment, they are a hotbed of competition for resources. In a plant community, individual plants ruthlessly compete with their neighbours for light, water and nutrients, and the ability to ward off predators and pathogens. This creates a hierarchy of survivors, who ultimately flourish on the available, usually scarce, resources. Similarly, in the animal, and indeed microbial, kingdoms it is indeed the most competitive that prevail, to enjoy the fruits of the available resources and reproduce the next generation.
Although those of conservative political persuasion usually don’t take too kindly to those trying to protect the environment (like Bob Brown and Violet Coco for example), their philosophy seems to have taken a leaf right out of the book of the evolution and functioning of life on this planet. Following are some of the conservative political philosophies, and how they mesh with “nature”.
Distrust of egalitarianism
Egalitarianism is the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Conservatism accepts that in society, like in nature, there will be winners and losers. Thus division into classes is inevitable, with those at the top deserving to be there due to their aspiration, enterprise, industriousness, cleverness and combativeness, even if only inherited from their forebears. Those at the bottom are considered as deserving of being there due to lack of these characteristics and inability to adapt to the environment (of competition).
Hence, conservatives favour the retention of institutions like monarchies and even inheritable aristocracies. They provide continuity of links to past glories but tend to overlook the atrocities committed in the name of such institutions, like colonialism. Even in parts of the natural world that have seemingly adopted a socialist system, with individuals committed to the wellbeing of the community, like in bees and ants, there is a queen and class system (workers, drones, etc.).
Conservative philosophy thus supports the idea that patriarchy, racial superiority/inferiority, the existence of rich and poor nations and within-society class differences are a natural consequence of life. Therefore little can, or should, be done to alter that status quo. For example, direct foreign development aid is discouraged, in favour of “investment” in poorer countries to take advantage of cheap labour and natural resources.
With the rise of democratic governance however, a huge middle class has emerged, with which conservatives must engage to solicit their votes. They do this, quite successfully, by appealing to aspirational motivations, dangling the carrot that everyone has a chance to become rich and powerful. Of course they are fully aware that only a few can. At the same time they warn of the dangers of socialism, that would upset the naturally evolved class divide.
Small government
Conservatives believe that human well-being is best determined by market forces, in a parallel way to which species competition for natural resources determines which plants, animals, microbes come out on top in nature. They thus want minimal government interference in market activity, even if most human markets are far from “free”, being monopolies or oligopolies or tending in that direction in the absence of government regulation.
A particular bugbear of conservatives is taxation. They strongly argue that anything beyond token taxation to business and industry will adversely affect national wealth, investment and employment opportunities. However, it is recognized that some taxation is necessary, e.g. for defence, but that this should come mainly from the wages of employees.
To lessen the need for tax collection conservatives advocate that government services should be pared to a minimum. Services like health care, old age care and utilities should be outsourced to the private sector, where it is argued that they can be provided more efficiently. They are absolutely riled by proposals, like from The Greens for example, that billionaires should be taxed to pay for improved social welfare. (An aside: the consequences of this argument are now coming home to roost in Australia where much of this outsourcing has occurred during the neoliberal era, from the 1980s).
Social welfare
For those who have fallen by the wayside in a market-led system, conservatives believe that any support offered to them should be from charity, rather than government funds. Actually, most conservatives seem to hold some degree of religious views, and most religions preach that adherents should practice charity. This reinforces the view that social welfare should be based on charity rather than taxpayer funds.
However, conservatives understand that having a large proportion of the population in need of charity is a threat to their rule: a basis for revolution, e,g. French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, etc. So they do acknowledge the need to keep a majority of the population above absolute poverty.
Wars are inevitable
As pointed out above, competition/violence/wars are all characteristics of natural systems, whether they be predator vs prey conflicts, a within-species fight for mating rights or simply shading out of a neighbouring plant. Conservatives certainly take a leaf out of this natural phenomenon by believing that wars are inevitable, and that we must always be in preparation for the next one. They are thus sympathetic to strongmen who warn of a potential enemy and who proclaim that they are best able to protect from that enemy (a human phenomenon since caveman days!). Thus ever increasing defence expenditure is sanctioned without a blink, although this necessarily involves increased taxpayer funding: this is despite increasing taxation being an anathema to conservatives.
The environment is for exploitation
Conservatives worship the idol of GDP, that increasing economic growth justifies the market economy. However, this inevitably means ever increasing exploitation of the environment, to the point where its ability to sustain the 8 billion humans on the planet must come into question. But conservative thought promotes the belief that natural resources are infinite. Several centuries of scientific investigation have shown that this is not the case – a spanner in the works of conservative philosophy.
Looking to the natural world, a plague of locusts comes after good rains and vigorous growth of crops and the natural vegetation. They feed on it and multiply prolifically, and then promptly die out en masse. Maybe conservatives should take a closer look at the population dynamics of locusts.
Conservatives carry the banner of natural forest logging, not only in Australia but in many countries, arguing that these are natural resources to be exploited for the benefit of humanity. They also argue that such forests can regrow but a changing climate, and other ecological realities, renders this dubious. The irony here though, is that the existence of a natural forest, being a hotbed of competition and survival of the fittest, underlies conservative philosophy.
And about climate change and biodiversity, the ongoing conservative argument is that “the climate has always been changing and biodiversity loss is an ongoing phenomenon” (true), but unwillingness to accept that humans have anything to do with it is promoted. Although tackling climate change, like with the promotion of renewable energy, can be consistent with market economics, most conservatives do not see it that way. It is too radical in relation to our established way of life, reliant on exploitation of natural resources.
Distrust of arts and sciences
A characteristic of conservative governments is that they cut government funding to arts, sciences and education in general, or try to privatize it. This is because flourishing of arts and sciences inevitably results in novel, if not radical, concepts, upsetting traditional thought and practise so much desired by conservatives. However, application of science to fabricating more potent weaponry is perhaps an exception.
Basis ‒ Retaining the mindset embedded in childhood
In a previous article I came to the realization of how conservatism is adopted and passed on to future generations. “From birth to early childhood the mind is an open book full of blank pages. Whatever information is fed into it then is embedded there, with no immediate means for its evaluation or critique.” Through life’s journey I have noted that those who remain content with what was initially embedded in their minds end up as politically conservative. Those who are actually prepared to edit whatever was imprinted into the childhood mind end up as somewhat more progressive.
Oh boy, so far, it sounds like I am justifying political conservatism, pointing out that it is very much aligned with the natural world. Actually, I’m not, as the world has changed from the dog-eat-dog world of natural ecosystems. Lesser privileged classes have questioned social structure for centuries. The age of the Anthropocene, the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment (at least from 1900 A.D.), has fundamentally and irreversibly changed the planet’s natural resource base. We need to adapt to that in order to change the course we are now on ‒ towards extinction of the human race and many other species along with it. Natural resources previously assumed to be infinite are indeed turning out to be finite.
Therefore, to continue the world as we know it needs humans to adopt a more cooperative, dare I say socialist, attitude to their interactions. Survival of the fittest approach no longer cuts the mustard ‒ unless short term profits take precedence over the future of our offspring.
Actually, over the last two centuries there has been a long term trend towards socialistic behaviour, with the rise of democratic systems based on the wishes of a majority of an increasingly educated population. Despite conservative protestations there is increasing public realization that natural resources are finite. There is also growing realization that we have accumulated sufficient weaponry to pretty well destroy life on this planet (except for a few microbes that would adapt to high radiation levels and the changed biosphere).
It is therefore concluded that political conservatism is a doomed philosophy in the Anthropocene. If, however, this conclusion is incorrect then much of life on this planet as we now know it seems doomed. But not too many people realize this, neither conservatives nor progressives. Thus considerable education is needed to inform people of the current reality of life on this planet. This is hindered by the clever capture by conservative forces of much of the media accessed by ordinary people (congrats Rupert Murdoch et al.). A big challenge before us is how to counter this influence.
Header photo: Inside a jungle in Sierra Madre del Sur, Mexico, a hotbed of plant competition. Credit: Perojevic, 2005 CC
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]