Now that L'Affair Neville has died down and gay marriage is plainly going to pass into law, it's time to work seriously to heal the wounds felt by both of UKIP's libertarian and conservative wings. We 'Kippers are opinionated and passionate lot, and sometimes it can feel that we are actually two parties in one, with an older deeply Conservative wing and a younger profoundly Libertarian one, both staring at each other in mutual incomprehension.
So do young firebrand libertarian's have a home in what would seem such a socially conservative party? Or, to put it another way, will social conservatives, apparently all long in the tooth and on the "wrong side of history" still have a home in UKIP in the future?
The answer is, in my opinion, is that the Libertarian and Conservative philosophies can, at their best, be politically symbiotic rather than antagonistic. You plainly can't meld the two as they start from completely different stand points, but both philosophies have great strengths and also great weaknesses, and whether you cancel the strengths or cancel the weaknesses depends on how they are applied in practical politics.
Take Libertarianism. Amongst it's many strengths as a philosophy are it's belief in the nobility of the individual and individual endeavour, intellectual courage and a definite, if at times rather blinkered, vision. It's central weakness - and one common to most ideologies - is it's lack of empiricism, leading it to ignore the realities of the human condition. To hear many of the more fanatical libertarians go on, you would think that society consisted entirely of people with Oxbridge level intellects in perfect physical health, with boundless opportunities at their disposal. It's no accident that almost all libertarian's are well to the right of the IQ bell curve and highly educated, though often somewhat egotistical and lacking in emotional empathy towards those less fortunate. Crucially, what libertarians often tend to forget is that those with talent and ability tend to control change, whereas those less able tend to have change imposed upon them.
Now take Conservatism. It great strength is a love of existing institutions and traditions and a more empirical understanding of the human condition. The best of conservatives are not automatically against reform when necessary, but will always wish reform to be organic and if possible within the framework of existing institutions. In Edmund Burke's great phrase, they see society as "a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born".
But amongst the great weakness of the Conservative approach is it's inherent myopia: time and time again, conservatives fail to see opportunity or threat until too late, leading to a squandering of chances or the prolonging of unnecessary misery. It's no accident, to take one example, that the exploitation of shale gas, which has already lead to such a bonanza in the more Libertarian United States, is only just getting off the ground in Conservative Britain. At it's very worst, of course, the Conservative tradition is a proxy for sheer cowardice in the face of change or for the cynical guarding of vested interests.
The best approach forward to UKIP is to recognise that we very much need both traditions, and in fact would be lost without either of them: a party that was wholly Libertarian would have nothing at all to say to those less fortunate in society, and therefore without any hope of acquiring political power. However, a wholly Conservative party would find itself constantly outflanked and outmanoeuvred by those with more vision and intellectual courage.
What I believe we should work towards is a party that takes the libertarian's love of liberty and new ideas, but accepts the need for that constant conservative voice whispering in their ear "ah yes, very good, but have you considered...", no matter how irritating that voice may sometimes be.
What I would serious propose is that we construct a debating forum where the Libertarian and Conservative wings of the party get together, make peace and thrash out ideas on how we progress.
Perhaps we could set up a fringe meeting at the next conference where we choose a panel of speakers, say two each from each wing of the party, or perhaps guest speakers from elsewhere, and debate one or more contentious issues of the day. (Thankfully, though, gay marriage will no longer be an issue, so the chances of both wings of the party murdering each other are much reduced.) Or we could adopt a question time format where UKIP members get to throw questions at our panel on any subject they wish.
Who knows, in the process we may even get to like each other!
Anyone who would like to help set something like this up please get in touch with me on twitter (@andrew_cadman). All ideas welcome.
*PS - anyone who wants to talk this idea forward in their own way is very welcome to do so.
Thursday, 7 February 2013
Libertarians and Conservatives, Conservatives and Libertarians
Libertarians and Conservatives, Conservatives and Libertarians
2013-02-07T16:57:00Z
Andrew Cadman

Comments (3)
About the author:
Andrew Cadman is UKIP member and self-confessed "middle-aged geek".
Andrew tweets as @andrew_cadman.

Andrew tweets as @andrew_cadman.
Comments (3)

Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
Loading comments...
Post a new comment
Comment as a Guest, or login:
Go back
Connected as (Logout)
Not displayed publicly.
Connected as (Logout)
Not displayed publicly.
Posting anonymously.
Your comments may be moderated until Intense Debate decides your "reputation" is high enough to allow them through without needing approval. It won't take long to be approved, just be patient.
Comments by IntenseDebate
Reply as a Guest, or login:
Go back
Connected as (Logout)
Not displayed publicly.
Connected as (Logout)
Not displayed publicly.
Posting anonymously.
Libertarians and Conservatives, Conservatives and Libertarians
2013-02-07T16:57:00Z
Andrew Cadman
Robert · 632 weeks ago
Drop these labels of CONservative and Libertarian altogether. They are millstones around UKIP's neck rather as Socialism was a millstone around Labours neck. We do not need a Clause 4.
We need to concentrate on our strengths of plain speaking. So drop the buzzwords, the cliches, the fancy labels. They are meaningless. Start fighting for our country instead.
@chrstinadarling · 632 weeks ago
This is not the case in the slightest. Libertarianism works precisely because people are self-interested, not because people are all intellectual geniuses. The concept of a libertarian society isn't based on the fact that everyone understands the philosophical consequences of the non-aggression principle; it's based on the fact that coercion is always far less profitable than mutual co-operation. It's self-interest that makes this work, not intellectual courage or nobility.
"lacking in emotional empathy towards those less fortunate."
Absolute nonsense. Just because libertarians don't think that forcing people to give up their money by the threat of physical violence is the best way to provide welfare to those who are less fortunate, it doesn't mean they don't care about them. In fact I'd wager the opposite.
@andrew_cadman · 632 weeks ago
On your second point, I am afraid that being in the company of Libertarian's and Randian Objectivists, as well as reading a fair amount of their discourse, I do find them to be on the whole totally uninterested on the question of how one looks after the needs of the disadvantaged in society. For example, Libertarians often talk of liberalisation of drug laws, gambling laws and unrestricted immigration with no serious analysis of how would impact on those most vunerable. They also have a strong tendency to talk in the first person singular when arguing a point - a classic sign of an egotistical mindset. To the outsider, it really does seem that their philosophy doesn't really go much beyond "Me, myself and I". Libertarian's may complain that is a caricature but if so, you have only yourselves to blame.