Monday, December 13, 2010

Mainstream Conservatism

A few weeks ago, Tim Montgomerie began a debate on what he termed ‘Mainstream Conservatism’. It constituted, he said, some sort of fusion between ‘Popular Conservatism’ (‘…opposition to the EU superstate, lower taxation, a fair deal for English taxpayers and a tough approach to crime…’) and ‘Modern Conservatism’ (‘…the social justice of Iain Duncan Smith, the civil libertarianism of David Davis, the internationalism of Andrew Mitchell, the transparency revolution, respect for gay people and the green conservatism…’).

Into this debate waded Janet Daley, Iain Martin, Peter Hoskin, Alex Massie, Graeme Archer, Fraser Nelson, and finally Fiona Melville, who invokes the ‘Broad Church’ leitmotif.

Reading some of these articles, one might be persuaded that a battle rages for the soul of Conservatism itself, not simply for the heart of the Conservative Party. The tension emerges because of the apparent Boles/Maude hypothesis that the present Conservative/LibDem coalition can and ought to continue into and beyond the next general election, for the sake of both parties (and, of course, the nation). And so the narrative becomes one of ‘Liberal Conservatives’ outflanking the ‘Conservative Conservatives’ whom the media term ‘Right-wing’ and Tim Montgomerie has (shrewdly) termed ‘Mainstream’: it has been quite a while since the ‘swivel-eyed Right’ have managed to lay claim to a term of middle-ground moderation.

The problem with all of these perspectives is that they lack perspective. It would not be a betrayal of either conservative principles or of the Conservative Party for this coalition to continue, not least because the party has itself been a coalition since its inception: it has always combined both Whiggish libertarian radicals and Tory authoritarian conservatives, holding them ‘in tension’. It is home to free-marketeers and interventionists (‘before breakfast and before dinner’); philosophical ideologues and political pragmatists; and, lest it be ignored, church-going Christians and secularist atheists.

The Party's chronic schizophrenia is only controlled when remedial treatment is administered by a determined leader: then the Party compliantly morphs to the successful leader's mould (or not, to the protestations of the unsuccessful leader).

Considering the history of conservatism and the Conservative Party’s historic relationship with the Church of England, it is surprising that no commentator has mentioned the Christian faith in this debate, even as the majority of the nation (ie the ‘mainstream’) continue to express adherence to it.

Mainstream conservatism has always been much more about what British conservatives have done and thought than what commentators have written. Conservatives are not necessarily participators in partisan politics; indeed, conservatism is a stance that may be defined without identifying it with the policies of any party. While the core of the philosophy may be distilled from broad and general principles around various themes of liberty – defence of private property, the importance of the nation state, the rule of law, societal evolution rather than revolution – these are the abstract embodiment of a long historical tradition which has frequently adapted to meet the changing social contexts over the centuries.

While the term ‘Conservative Party’ is a nineteenth-century construct, the party itself is the progeny of the religious disputes of the seventeenth century. By 1794, the ‘eternal truths’ of what is today known as ‘conservatism’ were being articulated, this being the year when Burke joined with Pitt (the Younger), who identified himself more with the doctrine and beliefs of the Non-Conformists than with the Anglicans. Locke had also previously published The Reasonableness of Christianity – a political theory of basic human equality reasoned from Scripture. It was not that such principles had not already found political expression, but at the same time as Locke was concerned to examine the extent to which the state should coerce in order to pursue the moral good, Burke was observing that society is organic, and that change must be evolutionary, not revolutionary; consonant with social mores and sensitive to national traditions. The whole frame of political discussion in this era is saturated with Christian assumptions. At the moment when the doctrines of the French Revolution and ‘the Rights of Man’ arose to threaten Anglo-Saxon liberty, it was Burke who confronted the revolutionary constitution-framers, advocating instead a Protestant understanding of man’s ‘moral agency in a civil order’:
Now though civil society might be at first a voluntary act, its continuance is under a permanent, standing covenant, co-existing with the society; and it attaches upon every individual of that society, without any formal act of his own... We have obligations to mankind at large, which are not in consequence of any special voluntary pact. They arise from the relation of man to man, and the relation of man to God, which relations are not matters of choice...
For Burke, the godfather of mainstream conservatism, any notion of ‘the Rights of Man’ was inimical both to his Protestant Christian worldview and to the constitutional settlement, and had to be tempered by the duties of man to the community of which he is part.

Burke’s organic conception of the state was cognisant of the fact that the liberties of the individual, poor, illiterate Englishman, especially in regard to religion, had been obtained by sections of the English nation, each seeking the redress of specific grievances, but seeking it always through legal channels and by legal means. He spoke of ‘great multitudes act(ing) together’, and noted the ‘grand chorus of national harmony’ which constituted a ‘beautiful order’.

Appeals to this ‘grand chorus of national harmony’ have been a constant mainstream refrain in conservative history, from the unity imposed by the Protestant Settlement, through the age of Empire, the creation of the British Commonwealth and the assertion of Britain’s ‘continuing role on the world stage’, all of which have been shadowed by the Worldwide Anglican Communion – the universal theological expression of England’s ‘beautiful order’. The conservative order (which may be termed ‘mainstream’) manifests itself in patriotism, custom, respect for the law, loyalty to a leader or monarch, and in the willing acceptance of the privileges of those to whom privilege is granted.

The more liberal strand of conservatism is articulated by Mill: ‘The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it’. The emphasis is on personal development and the negative impact of conditioning and conformity which are seen to stifle individual development. The liberty that Mill proclaimed was one in which all individuals are equally free to develop innate talents and abilities: he assumed that individuals would naturally tend to be drawn towards what they are good at doing and this natural ability, freely allowed to develop, would enhance society. Mill places liberty close to individualism because ‘over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’. He dismisses corporatism and the social-collective, preferring individual expression in contradistinction to the state and its monolithic institutions. He would probably never have said that there is ‘no such thing as society’, but he was certainly concerned to note that ‘society has fairly got the better of individuality’.

The old Whig-Tory divisions persists in the Conservative Party still; indeed, ‘Liberal Conservatism’ as a mainstream faction can trace its origins in the Conservative Party back to 1822. The competing ‘wings’ of the Party are not now so much concerned with the status quo of King or Church over revolutionary reform, but with such philosophical concepts as the via media between Burke’s benign paternalism and Mill’s individual liberalism.

While the conservative is undoubtedly concerned with liberty, there is no support for complete autonomy or unrestrained individualism because attempts to articulate truths about the world are likely to be founded on observation, and the conservative sustains a disbelief in the instant changeability of human nature. The Conservative Party is in tension because conservatism itself seeks to articulate a middle way between institutional continuity and personal freedom: the individual’s identification with something greater – be it society, class, religion, state or nation – is deemed to possess an innate authority or to be of a value which transcends the value of individuality.

It is this Conservative ‘middle way’ which constitutes the ‘mainstream’, and (it is to be observed) this is not the same as the ‘centre ground’ to which politicians perpetually insist they must appeal. The Conservative via media is an enduring leitmotif: it emerges in Disraeli’s ‘One Nation Conservatism’, Macmillan’s 1938 book The Middle Way, and again (for example) in Butler’s 1946 pamphlet The Industrial Charter, which embraced Labour’s establishment of the NHS and nationalisation programme. Cameron's expressions of 'Social Justice' and 'Compassionate Conservatism' sit squarely in this historic mould.

Patriotism has been indispensible for the Party because it has the capacity to unite disparate groups and instil social cohesion: it is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that the Conservative Party – essentially the party of England – has traditionally identified with the objectives of the Church of England and the institution of Monarchy as a symbol of nationhood; as incarnations of the spiritual, political and historical entity of which the English are a part. As Margaret Thatcher observed:

The Tories began as a church party, concerned with the Church and State, in that order, before our concern extended to the economy, and many other fields which politics now touches. Religion gives us not only values – a scheme of things in which economic, social, penal policy have their place – but also our historical roots. For through the Old Testament our spiritual roots go back to the early days of civilisation and man’s search for God.
This is the mainstream spirituality embedded in the psyche of the nation. In past eras, the Conservative Party not only introduced income tax and welfare with appeals to Christian notions of justice; they legalised trade unions, opposed free trade and favoured legislation to govern the sale and conditions of labour through the Factory Acts. If these past policies heralded the ‘And’ theory of Conservatism, it is difficult to understand why its exponents are ideologically opposed to a continuing Conservative/LibDem coalition.

The party has always had a strong tradition of social concern and action which is rooted in Protestant Christianity and fused with the establishment of the Church of England. Some of the greatest movements for social reform have been led by Conservatives and their Whig and Tory forebears: Toryism has been as much a public theology as a political creed. ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ is the continuation of this tradition: it is based in part on the doctrine of original sin, which holds that Man is sinful and likely to want something for nothing; Man’s sinful nature leads to indolence. The modern expression is to do with ‘concern for the poor’ in a context of capitalism.

Is this overarching theme worth a little compromise? Are repayment of the national debt, resolution of the budget deficit and the revolutions in education and welfare worth the compromise of more ‘Right-wing’ policies on (say) upholding marriage or extricating ourselves from the European Union?

Certainly, liberalism is antithetical to conservatism because of the former’s emphasis on individual autonomy and the 'Rights of Man'. But it is increasingly difficult, in an age dominated by ‘rights’ and an obsession with individual liberty, for any party to assert the individual’s obligation to be ruled; to submit to a law-enforcing higher power. Modernity is concerned with individual freedom, but the obsession is to the detriment of a philosophy of human nature (political or moral) which articulates what that freedom is or why it matters. It is now pursued irrespective of the theological history and political culture which preceded it and helped to define it.

So modern politics takes on the meta-narrative of disjunctive micro-narratives: communitarianism transcends individualism as knowledge is created and accessed not by individuals but in community. David Cameron has been keen to exploit this development, conveniently providing him with an opportunity to address the frequently-misquoted adage that ‘there is no such thing as society’. The Conservative Party have been focusing on empowering communities because the sense of political community is intrinsic to people’s sense of the need for social community. This is part of his ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ agenda. And community is a fundamental human good because commitments and values are shared; the good life demands participation in a political community, and this requires communal participation in a political organisation of the widest scope, such as the nation state.

Just as society has moved beyond the nineteenth-century confines of the nation state, so the Conservative Party has loosened its formal association with the Church of England. It has been supplanted by informal links with such groups as the ecumenical Conservative Christian Fellowship, the Conservative Muslim Forum and the Conservative Humanist Association. There is, as yet, no Conservative association for Buddhists, Hindus or Sikhs, but that day will surely come.

To be a ‘mainstream’ Conservative is not to withdraw but to reach out: to be mainstream is to be mission focused with a straightforward message of social salvation and political redemption; and that Conservative creed must be orthodox, which can only come from an understanding of the history, appreciation of the traditions and agreement upon religio-politico-philosophical definitions.

But let us never forget that this message is foolishness to those who are being lost.

And that might include some of those who have been welcomed to take communion within our Broad Church.

Like the Church of England, the Conservative Party tends not to do excommunication very well.

Unless it be of its traditionally-minded, orthodox and loyal adherents.

51 Comments:

Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

I am somewhat surprised that Iain Duncan Smith has been classified under ‘Modern Conservatism’. He of course belongs to ‘Mainstream Conservatism’.

To be on the Right does not mean to be hostile to the notion of ‘compassion’. For example, we rail against the EU’s high tariffs imposed upon goods from the ‘Third World’ – ensuring that the ‘Third World’s’ future remains one of poverty: Europhiliac racism.

The debate attempts to frame a compromise on dubious grounds: ‘repayment of national debt, resolution of the budget deficit and the revolutions in education and welfare versus upholding marriage or [and] extricating ourselves from the European Union’.

Let there be no mistake and let us mark this well: extricating ourselves from the European Union and upholding marriage will accelerate and strengthen the pursuit of ‘repayment of national debt, resolution of the budget deficit and the revolutions in education and welfare’.

It is EU policies (Directives, Regulations, Decisions and Opinions) that shackle our Government’s attempts to pay the national debt and reform our welfare and education systems: ‘Rhenish Capitalism’ makes men and their families prisoners of the welfare State. What is required is the ‘gale of creative destruction’ that destroys failing institutions, systems and companies.

And one of the great foundation stones for rebuilding us into a prosperous nation-state is the family – the basic building block of society (hated by the socialist as so much bourgeois dross). That is the foundation upon which the welfare and education revolutions can be sustained and the national debt repaid. It is the family that feeds the neighbourhood, the community and a strong country – it is the family of nations that ensure democracy and not an imperial power such as the EU which only leads to tyranny.

The Victorians had it right: God, family and country.

13 December 2010 11:58  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Your Grace.
Which panto are the artists that you featured a photo of at the outset of todays discourse appearing in?
It looks like Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dee.

13 December 2010 12:33  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Your Grace.

An excellent observation of the things that beset our Nation and Conservatism in particular.

What other Nation declares in such Forthright terms who God is to us and His Name and our obedience to Him.
Even America does not declare these terms of reference of Our God but is merely implied in their constitution! ( I am not what could be termed a Protestant but I am an ex catholic but for all its failings as perceived by many, who could deny The Church of England's Love, Tolerance and Goodwill towards all people . It maybe in a mess but it is one of The Lord's church's and he will correct it, as it has gone astray from Him..Where are the J C Ryle's anymore??)

What is a 'Right'. Who and What defines that 'Right. How do we know that that 'Right' is Right (correct).
It is a fight for the very soul of our Nation as well because it is meant to establish tolerance and fairness for all, in our imperfect world, where we are called to 'Love one Another!

As with most things, at first glance, they appear acceptable to many and they see no dilution to our continued well being as a Nation, to challenge them is held as intolerant and based within a biased opinion rather than for the 'Good' of all.

Indeed your part that says

'At the moment when the doctrines of the French Revolution and ‘the Rights of Man’ arose to threaten Anglo-Saxon liberty, it was Burke who confronted the revolutionary constitution-framers, advocating instead a Protestant understanding of man’s ‘moral agency in a civil order’

verifies that we need to know who we are and the consequences in changing as not all change is good!:'

This Nation now reminds me of the predicaments of all the People during the times of the Judges in the Old Testament.

It has a final conclusion that was declared at the end of the Judge's time, which a lot of people fail to see the significance of, as a statement of how they lived with a limited understanding of why these things happened but is a damning indictment by God and through his Prophet's words.

They did what was 'Right' in THEIR eyes'

Judges 21: 25
'In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.'

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

13 December 2010 12:36  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

For those who may presume I believe WE are British Israel, they would be very much mistaken.

There is only ONE Chosen Nation called Israel who are racially descendent from Abraham. So Who Are We.

WE ARE A GENTILE NATION THAT ONCE LOVED OUR GOD.

Psalm 33:12
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; (We Once Loved Him)
and the people (Christians also) whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

13 December 2010 13:09  
Blogger Claire Khaw said...

What a lot of pretentious irrelevant claptrap His Grace has written. I am surprised that His Grace does not already know that Cameron is a Commie Pinko and therefore part of the Leftist conspiracy to destroy whatever that once made Britain great and good.

Compassionate Conservatism is Socialism, the Big Society is Big Government.

Only dumbed-down Tory loyalists cannot accept this simple and obvious fact.

Now, those who claim to be Conservatives only care about preserving the status quo, no matter how egregious it is.

Cameron is the cushion that has the imprint of the last person who sat on him - in this case Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Genuine Conservatism insofar as it still exists in this country is ailing and marginalised in the dying rooms of the BNP and UKIP.

British men are mostly emasculated, hypocritical and cowardly as well as stupid, scared and skint after decades of being brought up by their single mothers and the over-weening welfare state.

The BNP are quite right about the decline and extinction of the white race after it decided to abandon family values.

No foreigner in their right mind would want to marry British women (generally thought to be single mum sluts and slappers like Fiona McKeown and her daughter Scarlet Keeling) or British men (generally thought to be Dipso, Fatso, Bingo, Tesco, ASBO and Paedo).

Modern Mainstream Conservatism does not propose to do a single thing about this.

Roll on the Islamic Revolution of Britain!

13 December 2010 13:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

You make a chilling observation:

‘Modernity is concerned with individual freedom, but the obsession is to the detriment of a philosophy of human nature (political or moral) which articulates what that freedom is or why it matters. It is now pursued irrespective of the theological history and political culture which preceded it and helped to define it’.

Then we have arrived at a moment of great national danger. For if God is dead as Nietzsche pronounced – then we can do anything we like in this cess-pit: is our final story, before the crack-of-doom, to be from Nietzsche to the Nazi EU?

One more point, we on the Right are have been concerned about individual freedom since time immemorial. Individual freedom cannot exist without security. That is why we believe in ‘ordered liberty’ and not anarchy. That is why we have pushed though the centuries for checks and balances. For example, Magna Charta (1215); Cromwell foresaw the problem and produced his Statutory Instrument of Government, the 1688 Bill of Rights – and when we fled to the American colonies: the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The ‘Modern Conservatives’ are really the old Conservatives: they base their values on the humanism of the Enlightenment that led to World War II and Solzhenitsyn’s gulag archipelago – the irony of which is that – it took the expression of the Judaeo-Christian worldview through Reagan and Thatcher to bring down the Iron Curtain and dismantle the Berlin Wall.

Again, ‘Modern Conservatism’ has nothing to offer the religion of the Prophet of the Moon except appeasement, concession, smiles and congratulations all round.

13 December 2010 13:28  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Claire Khaw said.

Your comment is all emotional rant and stereotyping?

Is not the same things stated about You and your religion! How are you any better?

You state 'The BNP are quite right about the decline and extinction of the white race after it decided to abandon family values'.

And what are your 'Family Values' in Islam.

Complete obedience and subservience to Men, Girls are inferior to Boys', Honour Killing is a matter of HONOUR..However there is NO Honour is doing this, It is MURDER!. A Man can have many wives but a Woman may not have many husbands.. SOME FAMILY VALUES, Er Right!!!!

Our country may very well have lots of problems that urgently need addressing but Dear 'Dr Khaw', your Islamic revolution is not the CURE or the ANSWER for US!!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

13 December 2010 13:47  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Claire Khaw said.

By the way, I am not a Right Wing Tory as you have stated about myself and others on this blog but somewhere between Labour and Conservative..
I could never be Liberal Democrat and thought it foolish for them (Tories) to go in coalition with them but I understand the reasons why it was done.

My own personal definition of myself politically is by Frank Field. MP Birkenhead.

Not all people who speak on here are Right Wing Tories but I do understand some of their concerns, as some are mine also.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

13 December 2010 13:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem is the progressive leftists have perverted the term social justice, but then again this is a typical tactic of the far left. They take a word like social justice to attract people to their cause, afterall who isn't for justice and who doesn't want to see people suffer? It is a great thing, right? Only wrong in this case, because to the progressive left it really means stealing from one person and giving to another in the name of fairness and of course "Social justice" or simply the redistribution of wealth. It really wants to equal things out. It really is communism. Only the sheeple don't understand that. They continue to fight what they think is the good fight....justice, tolerance and fairness for all. If only that was what "social justice" truly meant.

13 December 2010 14:16  
Blogger Crusader said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 December 2010 14:20  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

An excellent and erudite paper brother Cranmer that has helped me understand your political party today. However, if I may say so, some of your historical analysis is somewhat narrow in scope.

Religion was a contentious issue in Elizabeth's time. Many held very different opinions. Hers was a political attempt to satisfy the extremes of religious society.

Many Protestants returning from Europe expected a state where Protestantism was the only religion. Catholics remained because of Elizabeth’s perceived moderation towards them.

Elizabeth had to keep an eye on Europe too. Germany expected Elizabeth to take up the Protestant cause. Catholic states were watching England with interest. Spain was Catholic yet still an ally. Elizabeth needed to keep Catholic France on side too.

The 1559 Religious Settlement was a compromise. The Act of Supremacy made Elizabeth Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Communion in both kinds was accepted as the 1549 Prayer Book allowed a wide interpretation about the ‘real presence’.

The roots of ‘Catholic’ and 'Protestant' Anglicanism were planted in dubious political soil. As was a paranoia about Englan's role in Europe - a balance of power indeed!

“By their fruit you will know them."

The Church and the Tory party are surely trying to pick grapes from thorn bushes and figs from thistles. A future King, an adulterer and divorcee, wanting to be the defender of 'faiths' in a Christian country!
#
Reminds me of dear Henry's troubles when so many deceivers whispered in his immature ears.

13 December 2010 14:25  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Anonymous said 13 December 2010 14:16

You State 'The problem is the progressive leftists have perverted the term social justice, but then again this is a typical tactic of the far left'.
Very True and for some Christians and Secularists they call it The Social Gospel?

'"Social justice" or simply the redistribution of wealth. It really wants to equal things out.' I agree! However as George Orwell said in Animal Farm..'Some pigs are more equal than others'( Blair and his Ideology)!

'Only the sheeple don't understand that. They continue to fight what they think is the good fight....justice, tolerance and fairness for all. If only that was what "social justice" truly meant'

WE DO!!!! But we cannot go against Christ's commandments as if they are irrelevant.

Christians are called to be as 'Subtle as the Serpent' (Diligent as concerning all around them they see) and as innocent as Lambs (No Guile or Hatred within them, or desire to hurt any man/woman).

I just refuse to vote for People who would destroy our Nation and its Heritage, whoever that Party is!.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

13 December 2010 14:36  
Blogger Manfarang said...

A very Broad Church!
The party of the south and rural England.

13 December 2010 14:40  
Blogger Recusant said...

Does your telling of the seeds of Conservatism mean that I, as a Catholic, cannot be a Conservative? I don't think so.

To describe Burke's views to his "Protestant Christian" sensibilities is pushing it a bit: He was the least protestant of protestants. He was baptised a Catholic; had his initial education in a 'Hedge School' from a Catholic priest; spent the greater part of his life trying to remove the penalties imposed on Catholics - and not just Irish ones; was married to a Catholic, and probably died one as well. His, and his father's, professed Protestantism was due solely to the fact that entry to university and the professions was barred from Catholics. Apart from all that, he was very protestant.

13 December 2010 14:45  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Thomas More said 3 December 2010 14:25

'The Church and the Tory party are surely trying to pick grapes from thorn bushes and figs from thistles. A future King, an adulterer and divorcee, wanting to be the defender of 'faiths' in a Christian country!

You seem to forget the Vile, Infallible Popes, even the 2 confirmed as The Holy See at the same time, calling Anathema on each other, that had no place to be associated with Christ in any manner whatsoever.

I am no admirer of Charles in the slightest and he is not worthy to be compared to our Sovereign and his mother Queen Elizabeth (God help us when she is gone!), but how can you state this when I confirm the above to you as an ex catholic who loved the church but knows the truth and states it to you.

'“By their fruit you will know them." VERILY VERILY.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

13 December 2010 14:47  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

Leaving aside any Christian argument (which to my mind is out of place here), the real dichotomy within the Conservative Party is not that between 'progressive' liberal and 'die-hard' conservative wings; it is between the values of rank-and-file members in the constituencies (whose views and values have been steadfastly ignored for years) and those of the Parliamentary Conservative party - named by Dr Sean Gabb as the 'Quisling Right.' They are the ones who have hijacked conservatism and pushed its policies in a direction best described as Fabian. Edward Heath was an example of one such; he deceived the country into the European Project. Why else does the Conservative Party now kowtow to so-called 'diversity' agendas, environmental bandwagons and other such socialistic rubbish? Why does it not champion the cause of free speech and freedom of association? I rest my case.

13 December 2010 15:14  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Recusant Said

'Does your telling of the seeds of Conservatism mean that I, as a Catholic, cannot be a Conservative? I don't think so.'

Any more than saying a Protestant cannot be a Labour voter.

You miss the whole point of Catholicism in England based within Church and State in our Nation!

This gives Catholics freedom under Law of Worship but within our Nation's Declaration (This Was/Is a Protestant Nation defined by Statute Law) but laid against Compulsion within Catholic Europe at that time as defined by Roman Catholicism. What about the Hussites,Huguenots, etc ...Compulsion????
(I am of Italian Heritage and know it's (Roman Catholicism's) history within Europe).

It was only right that Burke fought to remove penalties from Catholics, which were unjust, but he probably viewed protestant Britain as more balanced than Catholic Europe...We shall never Know?

For all Protestant Failings, I would rather it be as it is, rather than how it could have been, under Papal Jurisdiction!!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

13 December 2010 15:16  
Blogger Alcuin said...

Thank you, Your Grace, for an excellent primer in Conservatism. For more detail, I suggest the Heritage Organisation, Pajamas Media and PJTV - conservative thought has been developed more in recent times (IMHO) in the US than in Europe, polluted as it is by thinkers such as Rousseau, Marx, Gramsci and Alinsky and the tribal politics of Atlee, Benn, Foot and the Broon.

There should be significant synergy between Modern Conservatives and Liberals (in the Victorian sense) - indeed American thought treats these as synonymous, though the term "Liberal" is often also used as a term of abuse by Republicans.

13 December 2010 15:54  
Blogger Alcuin said...

I also meant to say that while we have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, exposure to other cultures have illuminated that Human Rights and the whole study of Ethics are not universal, and as you say, derive significantly from the New Testament. These are so ingrained in Western Culture that we have come to think of them as "universal" or some sort of emergent property of Human Nature. This is a mistake.

13 December 2010 15:59  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Caedmons cat said 13 December 2010 15:14

I always like what you state on previous comments or We agree to differ.

The argument IS Christian in basis, in the same way that Dr. Thomas John Barnardo started Barnardo's, based on his 'Christian Tenents'. Faith In Action...
This is the comparison to Mainstream Conservatism. (It includes All who will participate).
It was started on a Christian/Protestant principle but expanded to people of all faiths or walks of life, who can participate in how it contributes to society's needs. But its basic foundation is Christian/Protestant!

You ask 'Why does it not champion the cause of free speech and freedom of association?'

Because all political parties have Morphed into One on key issues such as these, leaving us nowhere to turn except extremeism!!!

I voted for a Referendum on EU, never got one!!
I am asked to allow politicians to reform Church and State, I never asked for or voted for this!!

The things I ask for, I never get. The things I do not ask for, THEY DO!!

Go Figure???

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

13 December 2010 16:11  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

British men (generally thought to be Dipso, Fatso, Bingo, Tesco, ASBO and Paedo)...

Titter, titter. Best laugh I've had all week! I definitely know one or two Mr Tescos.

13 December 2010 16:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

KingofHighCS, from the anon you quoted:

You quote Animal farm with "Some pigs are more equal than others." This is especially true with "social justice". When the government steals from one to give to another they are practicing the concept of "some pigs are more equal than others". In order to redistribute you have to apply laws unfairly and allow laws to benefit certain groups of people. Here are some examples:

Subsidies: The governemnt picks the winners and losers. Only SOME people or groups of people will receieve subsidies at tax payer expense.
Bailouts: The government will choose who receives a bailout and who will fail.
Obamacare: The government has issued and chosen 212 companies that will be allowed to opt out of Obamacare. Some companies were denied the waiver.

This is all in the name of "social justice." What we need is equal justice. We need the laws to apply to EVERYONE equally, regardless of social and economic status. The wealthy should go to jail when they break a law just as common folk do. The politicans should go to jail if they do not pay their taxes just like commoners.

Yes, some people are born more wealthy than others. People can argue that it isn't fair. When laws are applied equally and we have our freedoms than everyone has the opportunity to better themselves. I guess I could complain that I will never make millions singing or playing sports because the good Lord did not bless me with that talent. I do not have as good of a voice of Ceine Dion or will ever be able to play basketball like the Shaq. I guess I should complain to God on why he didn't level the playing field. Are we ever all going to be completely equal in that sense? We are born with the gifts and talents God gave us and sometimes other people fare better, do people really think we can rectify that? We need equal justice and economic and personal freedom to make the most of what the good Lord gave us.

13 December 2010 16:14  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Does anyone remember Waldorf and Statler?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14njUwJUg1I

13 December 2010 16:17  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Anonymous said 13 December 2010 16:14

Unfortunately, you are preaching to the converted.

Especially, 'We need equal justice and economic and personal freedom to make the most of what the good Lord gave us.'

AMEN.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

13 December 2010 16:23  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

KINGOFHIGHCS

In the most part I heartily agree with your responses to Cranmer's posting. However, I deliberately distance myself from any association between political and Christian doctrine; there are elements of biblically-derived values in conservatism, liberalism and - horribile dictu - socialism. But none has the rightful claim to the monopoly of Christian truth.
As an anarchist I also see biblical reasons for my political views. I won't dogmatise them, though..

13 December 2010 16:47  
Anonymous Michael said...

@recusant - my thoughts exactly; but as with much that appears here, one must pick out the tribalist bones and the highly tendentious history before proceeding.

Still, a decent read.

13 December 2010 17:01  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Caedmons Cat said. 13 December 2010 16:47

'However, I deliberately distance myself from any association between political and Christian doctrine; there are elements of biblically-derived values in conservatism, liberalism and - horribile dictu - socialism. '

My point EXACTLY. There is no such thing as a wholely Christian Political Party, only principals of how it started and why..If they continue in them is a different matter?

'But none has the rightful claim to the monopoly of Christian truth.'

All is imperfect and all we can do is the best we can, with the light we have. I am no anarchist but understand your sentiment!

Luke 20:25
'And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.'

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

13 December 2010 17:07  
Blogger English Viking said...

It appears to me that the modern-day 'Conservatives' are nothing of the sort, conserving nothing but their own privileged place in the God-forsaken society they and the other two mobs have inflicted on the nation.

13 December 2010 17:17  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Another tour de force Cranmer

13 December 2010 17:17  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

'So modern politics takes on the meta-narrative of disjunctive micro-narratives: communitarianism transcends individualism as knowledge is created and accessed not by individuals but in community.'

Eh?

I am sure there will be a few who understand this, straight of the bat. There will be a great many more who will pretend to have understood it (but only after much net-trawling). I confess, I haven't got a clue what you mean.

In a common man's lingo, if you don't mind.

PS. WV norseutd

13 December 2010 17:22  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

Unless you are being purposely obtuse (or, along with Michael, contentious or 'tribal' for the sake of it), it is not remotely possible to see how you have inferred such a thing from this article. The Church/King disputes concerned divine right, and the Tory Party was disposed towards that very theo-political construct. Ergo, Tories can be Catholic because they all originally were. There are paragraphs dedicated to the discussion of Conservatism as a 'natural disposition'. Ergo, Catholics can be Conservatives.

Mr English Viking,

In 'common man's lingo', orthodox political ideology has been replaced with jamming sessions and mood music.

13 December 2010 17:39  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

Thank you.

In line with your answer on the matter of whether or not it is possible to be a Catholic and a Conservative,
perhaps a more pertinent question would be whether it is possible to be both a Catholic and a Christian?

13 December 2010 18:05  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace puts across many aspects very well and I thankyou for that.
It is troublesome , whilst I do agree that a coalition was perhaps the best agreement , i hadnt anticipated that it would be so difficult to see some positions lost into the long grass .
There may well be some lingering labour strongholds in minds and perhaps the right hasnt quite got itself into shape yet .
Labour appear more guerilla than opposition almost baiting the right into rebellion , however it is all positioning for next years locals .
The soul and heart of the conservative party has had a number of changes to undergo to bring it to govern , and we musnt forget that had 20000 votes gone blue things would have been very different , and one lab mp I heard on radio freely admitted they had been defeated on a large scale .
I dont mind the steady captaincy of Mr Cameron in these trecherous economic waters , but I am aware that some patterns of thought are not as determined as would be liked and a little entrenchment has taken place , not complacency exactly , but a struggle for message .
I am dissapointed with Labour , they still carry on as though they hadnt created the difficulties of the next 4 years and John Major launched a very accurate attack on the near arrogance on Andrew Marr of there current sniping .
In many ways reducing the defiect will mean a certain sort of politics . It is unclear how the coalition will work , as my encounters with libdems left me in near always in a poor mood , I always felt as though I had just been ambushed by a huge pink candyflosse , pure spun sugar.
If a point does come when it is missing its Britannic heart then will be the time to think about a new stance .

13 December 2010 18:09  
OpenID hightory.com said...

The fact is that the party's left is now in charge and running things in an incredibly authoritarian manner.

Dissenting backbenchers are being told that if they rebel their political careers are over, as David Davis pointed out yesterday.

This is creating great tensions from the right of the party who, if the leadership don't start listening, will be provoked into open rebellion.

Read more in my blog post: http://hightory.com/2010/12/13/tory-free-thinkers/

13 December 2010 18:32  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Hightory I had noticed somthing was a not quite right a while ago , I put it down to accomodating the new lib realtionship , which has been surprisingly been more open than I thought .
The fabian alchemy is unfortunate , I cannot think of remedy for it at the moment , but it will clearly take casualties if that is the course , and it will be as dishonest as labours time in office in the end .
If the conservatives are being sold dud package based on what is new political theory rather than principal , and its absorbing and adapting then it will not get done the things it should .
As for mps being told there careers will be over , I am unsure what realtionships of power are enabling this , the fabian riech ? or the inexperienced and devout theorists? either way an early mistake to be making and not organic and reasoned.

13 December 2010 19:11  
Blogger Gnostic said...

The Conservative party is rotten to the core and has been for at least 20 years, probably much more than that. The same can be said for the two other main parties. When it comes to shafting this country with BS policies you can't insert a Rizla between them.

Until such times as the Tory sceptics grow some stones, stand up for their principles and get rid of the insane halfwits currently running the show I'll be voting UKIP, the only party running on a truly conservative ticket.

Out of the EU.

No energy poverty caused by wilful and criminal stupidity!

13 December 2010 19:37  
Anonymous Petronius said...

There's a lot to be digested within this thoughtful article. The main point I came away with is that the Conservative Party is a broad church (a bit like the Anglican Community) and that the differing factions and opinions within it can and should complement each other, rather than lead to dissent and division (again, a bit like the situation the Anglican Church sometimes finds itself in).

But in order for this unity to be maintained, now and again someone (preferably the leader) needs to go 'back to basics' and re-affirm the essentials upon which all the factions agree (or are supposed to agree). Sometimes, it feels as though Mr Cameron emphasises only the things which his brand of conservatism agrees with, leaving the traditionalists feeling disenfranchised. Similarly, I guess that many Anglicans of a traditional mindset often feel that +Dr R.W. dwells too keenly on...(how to put it?)... the more 'modernist' aspects of Anglican theology.

To be a leader of such great institutions, requires one to be a Unifier, and not simply a voice for one's own particular mode of thought. Perhaps both of these leaders would do well to proclaim the basic tenets of their organisations a little louder and a little more often?

(To be fair, I recognise that +Dr W does strive to do so. I think it's just that he speaks in such an eloquent, educated way that the broad thrust of what he means can get a little buried in the finer details!).

13 December 2010 21:28  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Gnostic said 13 December 2010 19:37

You have brought a wry smile to my face with 'No energy poverty caused by wilful and criminal stupidity!' Why, because I am the ONLY whistleblower in the Energy Industry and it cost me nearly EVERYTHING.

As a Manager (over 20 years in the Energy Industry) I reported internally we were failing to meet legal obligations, fraud, billing chaos, abuse of direct debits, knowingly messing up the MRA (master registration agreement), hiding the failure to remove outdated metering by stealth within its life cycle (10 years digital, 15 years mechanical), systemic failures and incompetence. Dismissed in January 2008 and I have been unable to get even a humble job such as van driver, shelf stacker, bus driver, admin clerk as I am told I am TOO SENIOR and EXPERIENCED!!
OH THE MISERIES OF A WHISTLEBLOWER, PEOPLE STATE THEY ADMIRE SO MUCH
Nobody Cares!

I reported this to OFGEM (Energy Regulator) March 2008, he refused to respond in writing to evidence and named other witnesses.
Nobody Cares!

I reported this to SFO (Serious Fraud Office) March 2008, who admitted it was in the Public Interest but did nothing.
Nobody Cares!

I reported this to all MP's June 2008 before Bosses of Industry appeared in front of them, who sat on the Business Select Committee by email..Lib\Lab\Con\SNP, etc..No response.
Nobody Cares!

Stood outside Brighton Centre at TUC Conference Sept 2008 in the pouring down rain, challenging Simpson and others to speak to me. Not One would even look at my placards detailing the problems.
Nobody Cares!

Walked streets of London Sept 2008 with a damaged leg from falling over in Croydon that morning, stood outside 10 Downing St, Dept of Business with Protest placards, even had Customers stop me outside DoB and ask my advice about problems with their BILLS, I kid you not!
Nobody Cares!

Stood outside my Ex French Owned company In London that same day, challenging them as to why they lied about how they purchase energy to Parliament and to Media as I was linked to energy purchasing as part of my Job Role. All Energy Companies buy Energy up to 3 years in advance, it's called Hedge. They only buy 10% on the Wholesale Market, 90% is Hedge..Why do you think they panicked when the Market collapsed and the prices plummeted. The truth will out..or in part anyway.
Nobody Cares!

I asked People who responded to Newspaper Comment sections to do a Freedom of Information request and not to just take my word for it.
Nobody Cares.

I think you get my general point, Gnostic. Nobody Cares, My Friend, Nobody Cares!!!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS.

13 December 2010 21:42  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

King of High Cs, I was in a position where people of some position had abused their offices to a great extent. No-one would listen and I thought no-one cared. Seven years later a grave injustice was corrected because finally someone did listen and did care.
Be patient and trust. It might not happen when you want it to i.e. right now, but it will happen eventually because you will find someone that cares.

13 December 2010 21:56  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Leucipottomyspoon82 13 December 2010 21:56

Thanks for that.

However the ultimate irony is that if the Energy Companies were inspected and found as operating as a Cartel against the law, they could be fined 10% of their net global income..I reckon about £60 Billion.

What Tuition Fee Problem? Eh.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

13 December 2010 22:06  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Claire's Khawings @ 13.18

''Roll on the Islamic Revolution of Britain!''

Over your dead body!

13 December 2010 22:49  
Blogger Owl said...

YG, with all due respect, your article seems to have lost sight of the main problem.

We Brits are losing our national identities.

We do not want to be ruled from Brussels and we don't want to pay out billions of what we can't afford for a climate/carbon scam.

We would like people who come to our shores to adjust to our way of life (and laws) and not be expected to adjust to their's.

In previous decades/centuries this might have been called common sense.

DC and NC are not showing any leadership (or common sense) on the important issues and I am disgusted with them both.

I suspect both Burke and Mill would agree with me.

When will Dave and/or Nick stand up and be counted?

13 December 2010 23:13  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

YG

Just come across this on ;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8200044/Stockholm-bomber-family-blame-Britain-for-radicalisation.html#dsq-content.

Unbelieveable, we are now to blame as a nation for making an Islamic terrorist commit atrocities in another country.

Where is it a fact of life in Britain that the British believe in strapping explosives to their bodies and taking the lives of innocent people.

A comment from a blogger called Marcus.
'I blame Islam for it - seems more likely than "Britain".

Nothing in our culture suggests that blowing up innocent people in acts of terrorism could be called "British".

Enoch Powell is proven more correct with each passing day.

"We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen."

Pertinent?
So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

14 December 2010 01:19  
Anonymous bluedog said...

A masterly dissection and dissertation of the elements of conservatism and Conservatism, Your Grace. When your communicant was a pup these matters were neatly defined by the terms Wet and Dry. It seems little has changed other than that the descriptive words and the names have got longer and more confusing. One thing is certain, the Wets currently have the upper hand. Accordingly your communicant is dismayed to see Your Grace trimming by declaring 'it is difficult to understand why its exponents are ideologically opposed to a continuing Conservative/LibDem coalition'. It had always been your communicant's view that Your Grace was bracingly Dry. In this regard the comment by HighTory @ 18.32 seems apposite.

Taking a step back, the last Conservative Government to project Victorian values in the UK was that of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who was defeated in 1963. The Wilson inter-regnum applied the blow-torch of its 'white-heat of the technological revolution' to British society in a way that has never been recovered. The old British way of life was simply blown away by cultural Marxism. Not even Margaret Thatcher was able to be anything but a brief check to the deluge, nor was she able to reverse the Traitor Heath's embrace of the EU supra-national entity.

The problem today is that the only Cabinet ministers who can remember Britain pre-1963 are Wets and Europhiles like Ken Clarke. Their advice cannot be trusted. Dave and Co are children of the era and know no better. They are therefore ill-equipped to rebuild the social capital of Britain, now almost fully depleted.

You will know that this analysis is roughly right when Dave steps out to hug are rioting hoodie on a street in Westminster.

14 December 2010 07:30  
Blogger Claire Khaw said...

"KINGOFHIGHCS said:

Claire Khaw said.

Your comment is all emotional rant and stereotyping?

Is not the same things stated about You and your religion! How are you any better?

You state 'The BNP are quite right about the decline and extinction of the white race after it decided to abandon family values'.

And what are your 'Family Values' in Islam.

Complete obedience and subservience to Men, Girls are inferior to Boys', Honour Killing is a matter of HONOUR..However there is NO Honour is doing this, It is MURDER!. A Man can have many wives but a Woman may not have many husbands.. SOME FAMILY VALUES, Er Right!!!!

Our country may very well have lots of problems that urgently need addressing but Dear 'Dr Khaw', your Islamic revolution is not the CURE or the ANSWER for US!!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS"

Secular Koranism - ie Anglican Islam - would be my solution. Please note it is not the kind of Islam you see practised by Orthodox Muslims but an entirely new thing.

It is therefore a new religion I propose to create that will incorporate the elements of Anglicanism but with all references to the divinity of Christ excised. There is therefore no reason why it cannot include hymns, carols and the Book of Common Prayer.

14 December 2010 10:00  
Blogger William said...

Claire Khaw

"I propose to create (a new religion) that will incorporate the elements of Anglicanism but with all references to the divinity of Christ excised"

That is so twisted it actually made me laugh. The sad thing is that I think that some Anglicans (and I speak as one) won't see anything wrong with it.

If you think that the answer to our problems is religion then you are seriously deluded. However, my hunch is that you do not believe in God and see religion purely as a political tool. No wonder your solution incorporates Islam.

14 December 2010 11:05  
Blogger Sally Roberts said...

"Now though civil society might be at first a voluntary act, its continuance is under a permanent, standing covenant, co-existing with the society; and it attaches upon every individual of that society, without any formal act of his own... We have obligations to mankind at large, which are not in consequence of any special voluntary pact. They arise from the relation of man to man, and the relation of man to God, which relations are not matters of choice..."

Sounds remarkably like The Big Society to me!

14 December 2010 11:16  
Blogger Gnostic said...

KINGOFHIGHCS - I hear and heed what you say. The problem is you were lobbying the wrong people because, as you say, they don't care. They don't care because they keep right on trousering their annual 30 pieces of silver (plus inflation). They don't care because they are fraudulent, tyranical traitors and vested interests.

However, we outnumber them greatly and it's about time people realised that instead of sitting around moaning about how bad things are. Maybe the traitors and vested interests will suddenly start caring when the blackouts arrive and we start building tumbrels and measuring out lengths of piano wire...

14 December 2010 12:42  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Clair Khaw
"It is therefore a new religion I propose to create that will incorporate the elements of Anglicanism but with all references to the divinity of Christ excised. There is therefore no reason why it cannot include hymns, carols and the Book of Common Prayer."
Already created- it's called Unitarianism.

15 December 2010 03:45  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

KingofHighCS
English Viking

Your evident hatred towards the Church of Christ is lamentable. So to your confused and muddled political doctrines.

Sometimes silence is the better path.

May God Bless you both.

19 December 2010 10:31  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Chancellor More said 19 December 2010 10:31

Never a defined rebuttal, is there?? BECAUSE THERE IS NOT ONE??

Your evident hatred towards the Church of Christ is lamentable.

IT HAS PERSECUTED/MURDERED JEWS IN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS AND CHRISTIANS IN THE MILLIONS...HOW IS IT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST (THE BLASPHEMY)???

I LOVE CATHOLICS BUT ABHORR THE DOGMA OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. IT IS AN ABOMINATION BEFORE THE THRONE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AND HAS DISHONOURED HIS NAME BEFORE THE WORLD AND PROMOTED HERESY FROM ITS INCEPTION. (WHERE DID JESUS TELL HIS FOLLOWERS 'CONVERT THEM IN MY NAME OR PUT THEM TO DEATH')OR ARE YOU UNAWARE OF 'OUR' CHURCH HISTORY.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

22 December 2010 01:44  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older