Why National Conservatism is important for all of us.

National Conservatism: the start of a new political movement?

In Spring 2023 a conference was held in England about a political phenomenon – an apparent resurgence of nationally-focussed political parties. A movement called ‘National Conservatism’ is an offshoot of the Edmund Burke Foundation which is based in the USA.

An English political scientist called Matthew Goodwin has been writing about National Conservatism for a while now. It refers to political parties or movements ranging from some Republicans in the USA to others in several European countries. What they have in common is their restatement of the beliefs and values underlying independent nation-states in the western world.

At the risk of too many sweeping generalisations, here is a potted history of nation-states. We cannot ignore the role played by human nature.

Origins of nation-states in Europe

Before the Romans conquered England it was not a single political unit. Like the rest of Europe it consisted of tribal groups occupying vaguely defined territories. After the Romans left it was not until Athelstan won control in 927 A.D. that England became a single unit again. Scotland did not fall under complete Roman dominion and became united in 843.

Other states of Europe took varying periods of time to emerge from the Western part of the Roman Empire. National states existed elsewhere – in Egypt for example, and city-states too in classical Greece. However, the national states of Western Europe were essentially a medieval development. It was effective leaders and followers who built them, with a greater or lesser resort to violence against rivals.

Much as was the case with earlier tribal conflict, ethnic bonds between people helped drive the process of state-building. The outcome was the nation-state: governmental institutions with effective control over a defined territory, dominated by a particular people. In the longer term, access to material as well as ‘human resources’ remains critically important. The track record of religious faith (or other belief systems) in the history of national states is mixed. They can either foster social cohesion or make it impossible. Much depends on particular circumstances.

As the Middle Ages faded, new cultural trends emerged in Europe. Referred to as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment they owed much to the rediscovery of classical Greek and Roman thought. From the viewpoint of state-building they aimed at the re-ordering of state and society in a more humane, peaceful way – with greater freedom of expression and political representation. There was no real challenge to the concept of the nation as a feature of the social order. Indeed the justification for the existence of the state was seen as to foster improvement in the wealth of the nation. National Conservatism upholds this perspective.

Supra-national institutions

For the past thousand years the history of Europe includes a good deal of inter-state warfare. Several centuries have also passed since the commencement of the Modern era with its reforms of earlier forms of state organisation.

The horrors of the twentieth century gave rise to political initiatives to create supra-national political institutions. At best these institutions have have had some success in promoting the rule of law and peaceful resolution of conflict. The financial institutions have also assisted countries in severe economic difficulties. At worst they have bound their supporting countries to legal principles which increasingly inhibit effective governance. The large majority of the world’s population however live in countries which ignore those principles. Tragically, these idealistic measures may eventually put the countries which promoted them at the mercy of those which reject them. European states may have fought each other to a standstill but the rest of the world hasn’t.

The creation of supra-national institutions is in many ways an extension of the Early Modern ideas about states. The big difference is a belief that they can be implemented without the social bonds which define a nation. This belief is idealistic and not founded in practical politics. Like it or not, human identities are a feature of what economic thinkers have called ‘social capital’, the basis of trust so vital to business. In spite of inter-state conflicts, nation states must be the building blocks of a humane and civilised world. National Conservatism thus defends them against replacement by supra-national entities.

The human factor

Humanity remains as vulnerable now as it was when state formation in Europe began. The reason is that the history of states reflects human nature itself: a conflicted combination of vice and virtue. We are at once selfish and altruistic, idealistic and pragmatic, clannish and welcoming, passive and aggressive, intelligent and foolish. As Aristotle put it, we are ‘political animals’. We compete, often violently, for power, status and wealth as individuals and as larger social groups.

Many of the ideas of the Modern era recognised the great value of individual human thought and practice in the development of society. These thoughts emerged from the minds of human beings so it is hardly surprising that other human beings thought otherwise. Thinkers who desired a revolutionary overhaul of society have in fact treated human nature itself as an obstacle to be reconstructed. The most brutal examples are the regimes of Stalin and Mao Zedong, but the tradition of enforcing belief in political notions lives on in ‘critical theory’.

The hallmarks of Totalitarianism are the rigorous control of thought and the exchange of ideas, backed by brutal enforcement. It is but a short distance from ‘political correctness’ to the National Conservatism opposes such treatment of individuals not only as morally wrong but also as counterproductive to the aim of social progress.

Ashwood. July 2023