Philosophy & Ideas

True Conservatism and the Future of the Right

“The stupid party.” John Stuart Mill delivered this droll critique of the British Tories in 1861. It was without question ad hominem and uttered in a very different context from the one we inhabit in 2022. It is also not without prescience. The inheritors of the Anglophone Tory tradition across the Western democratic world are floundering and in danger of becoming precisely what Mill described.

It is hard to find green shoots on the conservative Right. The Johnson government in the United Kingdom wallows in hypocrisy. The Trump revival show could continue beyond 2024, but how “conservative” is this revival, really? The Morrison Coalition in Australia, recently routed by a resurgent Labor Party, was the third of a succession of Centre-Right federal governments. This looked like a solid outcome on paper. But the true nature of this success is more liberal than conservative in ideology.

Indeed, Australia’s former Prime Minister John Howard once called the Liberal Party a “broad church”, an utterance which reflects the heart of the crisis on the political Right. If one was to ask what the future of conservatism is, many would readily advocate a concoction of the liberal political philosophy of John Stuart Mill and the neoclassical political economy of Adam Smith. Apparently, conservatism is the philosophy of small, unobtrusive and morally-disinterested government.

This Millian framing of “conservatism” in a post-Covid, post-Obergefell, post-Trump age is naive and shallow. It demonstrates no substantial understanding of classical conservative thought. And it leaves us with an emaciated version of Cold War fusionism, which was in its best moments a pragmatic coalition of true conservatives and right-leaning liberals who combined to combat the tyranny of Soviet communism.

Venerable institutions like National Review in the US and Quadrant in Australia were birthed in this heady environment, and we can look back with gratitude on certain aspects of that coalition’s legacy. But we (and I count myself in this number) are no longer fighting the reds under the bed. Further, the fruits of Mill and Smith have been revealed as flaccid and sometimes rotten. Our purportedly free society is also an increasingly miserable one, crumbling under the weight of low birth rates, moral libertinism, materialistic dependency and a crumbling culture.

So much for liberty. Fusionism ultimately bore very little conservative fruit and was found to be liberal, even libertarian. This libertarianism always has and always will compromise conservatism by prioritizing individual rights and freedoms. Jonathan Cole puts it well: “conservatives, unlike libertarians, can never regard individual rights as isolated ends unto themselves”. The same could be said for liberalism more broadly, of which libertarianism is an extreme, and rather excitable, offshoot. Free markets and a secularist liberal individualism are dogmas that find little support beyond their own assertion.

Sure, living standards have risen dramatically since the neo-liberal economic hegemony emerged. However, we are now finding out what propped this growth up. It was cheap, largely Chinese, labour. This fact is doubly troubling, given the recent exposure of our dependency on Chinese manufacturing, along with the moral and political dubiousness of “off-shoring”.

Conservatives can no longer be taken seriously as liberal-conservative fusionists, because our historical moment demands something more robust than the mere defence of individual rights and free markets. Token appearances from Russell Kirk and Roger Scruton in the footnotes will not save us from the liberal vacuum that right-wing Millian thought has created.

The Right needs more than liberalism with the handbrake on. Our societies need more than platitudes about the primacy of the individual. No matter how messy the government response to the pandemic was, it was not socialism in new garb. The pinko-commos did not get a stranglehold on us during lockdowns. Rather, it was banal, big-government liberalism playing itself out in an unusual and extreme scenario.

Therefore, the answer cannot be more fusionism. It must be something else. It must be something beyond 1990s liberalism on repeat. Conservatism must be rearticulated, and not merely so we can get sharper talking points on cable news. A reframing is necessary to move on from the Millian quagmire that many seem determined to remain in. Free-speech and free-trade dogmas provide an effective basis for right-wing polemics but are a poor basis for rebuilding society.

A new book which seeks to chart a way beyond Millian and Smithian liberalism is Yoram Hazony’s Conservatism: A Rediscovery. Hazony leads the Edmund Burke Foundation and is the intellectual leader of the National Conservatism movement. The latter has become a powerful voice for conservative principles on both sides of the Atlantic, and reflects Hazony’s twin emphases. The importance of the nation-state is expounded in his 2018 book The Virtues of Nationalism, while we find conservative philosophical principles articulated and defended in the volume under consideration here.

Early in Conservatism, Hazony bats away the kinds of claims I have been critiquing. So-called “conservatives” are only interested in ideas “that can be used to justify free trade and lower taxes”, and to advance the claim that “what is always needed is a greater measure of personal liberty”. He aims to “give conservatives a clear sense of what their responsibilities are.” Our aim as conservatives is not simply to conserve a calcified iteration of Mill’s philosophy in On Liberty. We have bigger goals. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis’s Aslan, there is a deeper magic in conservative philosophy and the conservative life.

This deeper magic is what Hazony wants to draw out. He won’t let the conservative Right rest. Not until we have found a way to sustain our attachment to what T.S. Eliot and Russell Kirk dubbed “the permanent things” will conservatives have found their purpose. These permanent things make us human; that is, not mere beasts. They also make life bearable, and often joyful. To paraphrase Burke from his Reflections on the Revolution in France, a reverting to liberal abstract rights would be a perversion of true liberty, and would result in a “humanity” that is “savage and brutal”. Some kinds of liberty are inhumane because they undermine the permanent things.

That is why Hazony doesn’t spend a great deal of time on typical right-wing talking points like the free market, individual liberty or freedom of speech. It is not that these don’t matter; they do. But they are subordinate goods to the primary goods that Hazony wants conservatives to recapture. Indeed, the goods which conservatives typically trumpet on Fox and Sky News are fruits of the most foundational goods of the social and political order.

After guiding the reader through a history of Anglo-American conservative thought, a journey which traverses early luminaries like John Fortescue and Richard Hooker through to American statesmen like James Madison and his fellow Federalists, Hazony moves into normative mode.

This is the kind of contribution that contemporary Anglophone conservatism needs. Hazony’s capacity as a theorist and philosopher is impressive. He provides a normative foundation for conservative thought, one that is reasonable and persuasive. It is persuasive in large part because of the clarity with which Hazony thinks and writes. The matters he deals with could be confusing and, therefore, expressed in a complex way, but Hazony never falls into the trap of writing in a jargonistic fashion, and the reader is easily carried along with the argument.

Hazony admits that one of the great strengths of liberalism is its dogmatism. It can be reduced to a “small number of clearly articulated premises”. Conservatives are understandably more reluctant to make such a move, as it “invites rigidity and dogmatism, even as important matters go unmentioned”. Nevertheless, part of liberalism’s success as a philosophy is due to this reductive, summative approach, and Hazony replicates this for his own conservative philosophy.

This move brings with it two virtues. One is that conservatism, as Hazony articulates it, is reduced to simple, memorable premises. The other is that conservatism is found to be clearly juxtaposed to liberalism. After reading Hazony, any conservative who continues to argue that their job is to conserve classical liberalism has to admit that they may not be a conservative in any real sense of the term.

Hazony’s summary of liberalism is fair and representative: all men are naturally free and equal, political obligation is founded upon the consent of individuals, civil government exists primarily to enable and enhance individual freedom, and all of these truths are “universally valid truths, which every individual can derive on his own … by reasoning about these matters”.

In contrast, conservatism understands that men are “born into families, tribes, and nations”, which binds all people into involuntary bonds “of mutual loyalty”. This first premise establishes that hierarchy is natural and multi-layered: “The individual is born into a structure that involves certain constraints and unequal relations from the start.” Hazony argues that honour is a vital part of common life, with societal divisions created by competition for it. Natural and artificial hierarchy is, according to Hazony, determined by the “importance and influence” impacting the level of honour each unit enjoys.

Families, tribes and nations must order their life together in terms of “material prosperity, internal integrity, and cultural inheritance”. This ordering is characterised by the institutions of “language, religion, law, and the forms of government and economic activity”, that is, “any social structure or form of speech or behaviour that is passed down from one generation to the next”. These forms of order are passed through the generations by means of hierarchy; the honour of those in authority, such as parents and teachers, promises the propagation of order. In other words, a society’s way of life together is conserved by hierarchy.

A further fundamental of Hazony’s conservative philosophy is that political obligation comes not from individual consent, but rather is a consequence of the individual’s membership of their family, tribe or nation. In other words, “obligation arises wherever a relation of mutual loyalty exists”. These relations of mutual loyalty might sometimes be established by consent (as in marriage), but the obligations that come with these relations are grounded on the nature of the relations, not on individual free choice.

The final premise of Hazony’s conservative philosophy relates to epistemology. This question has divided conservatives from their liberal counterparts since Burke published his Reflections in response to the ructions of the French Revolution. Thomas Paine argued in his Rights of Man, which was a direct response to Burke, that the French revolt was a “burnt-offering to Reason”. This is the liberal position—true political principles are universal and can be determined by the right use of human reason.

Hazony rejects this, and argues, with Burke and David Hume and numerous other conservative luminaries, that political truths are “based on experience, and may be challenged and improved upon in light of experience”. In a piercing critique of liberal political axioms concerning the primacy of reason, Hazony suggests that the grounds of liberal theory are not “empirically true” and that there is “no historical context in which these premises can be said to have been true”. Liberalism is founded on not merely a house of cards, but on an imaginary one.

Rather than flail around grabbing onto imaginary ladders with the liberals, Hazony urges conservatives to make theoretical judgments in the light of historical and empirical experience. Burke’s statement remains prescient and consistent with Hazony: “The pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes; and in proportion, as they are metaphysically true, they are morally and politically false.” Reason is, according to Kirk, “a tool weak at best, frequently treacherous”, so much so that “even the shrewdest men are puffed up with vanity if they try to set the product of their reason against the consensus of the centuries”.

The god of Reason, a deity first worshipped by the revolting French in the late eighteenth century, is a cruel and deceptive god. She affirms the a priori over and against the reality that is in front of us. Hazony argues that this false religion resulted ultimately in the decaying and unstable contemporary culture of the Anglophone West. “The compulsion to judge all existing political institutions” against the abstract principles of Enlightenment liberalism “has drawn America and the West nations into a perpetual cultural revolution”. Liberal philosophical principles are fundamentally utopian and therefore provide an insurmountable standard, meaning that “revolution must continue its work of uprooting and overthrowing”.

There has been an apocalypse, literally an unveiling, of this perpetual liberal revolution in recent years. Many liberals will quietly and reluctantly admit that they are not supporters of the cultural revolt that is under way in the West. The question that plagues them, as much as it does conservatives, is how to arrest this revolution and reverse the decline.

Hazony has an answer. Those who call themselves conservative need to confront this question: Is it the right one? One way of responding is by answering a different query: Does Hazony’s conservative philosophy protect and cultivate the permanent things? Can Hazony’s rediscovered conservatism provide a foundation for the recovery of what Russell Kirk described as “those enduring truths and ways of life and standards of order” which make us human and make life worth living?

Over the past 100 years, the evidence suggests that the typical fusionist conservative foci of small government, free markets and social liberties have contributed to the destruction of the things which are precious to our common life, both public and private. It is a tragedy that we have done so much damage to our own cause through the over-emphasis of these things. But we cannot just bemoan our mistakes. We must refocus and regroup around a philosophy that cultivates rather than destroys the things that matter.

Hazony guides his readers in the direction of themes which are typically separated (by liberals) from political thought. These are the sacred and the family. Hazony insists that the things shaping us as individuals and as members of our society are “God, Scripture, Family, and the Congregation”. These matters have become unsavoury for conservative political thinking and political discourse because of what Hazony calls the “fusion of public liberalism with private conservatism”. According to liberal thought and practice, religion and family are private matters that affect private lives, and should be cordoned off from political life.

But Hazony won’t allow this separation, because religion and the family are the very things upon which a sustainable political order is built. The fear of God and deference to sacred scripture were traditionally central to the Anglo-conservative tradition, and Hazony makes a strong normative case for returning to this tradition. “A political theory in the conservative tradition cannot be made to work without the God of Scripture”, because this God and his revelation anchor all relative moral and political claims within the higher standard of a divine order. This order is partly inaccessible to limited human beings, but submission to divine order forms an important check on human hubris whilst framing human reasoning.

The family forms the second pillar of conservative social theory and, according to Hazony, it plays a vital role in a healthy society. Hazony’s conception of the family is not that of the Western suburban household of the 1950s, which was a “much-diminished version of the traditional family, one that is lacking most of the resources needed effectively to pursue the purposes of the traditional family”. Rather, the traditional family, as Hazony understands it, is a man and woman in covenant with one another, together with their children and sometimes extended generations of relations.

This family was not just involved with each other at a private level, sharing the same house for sleeping, as many families today seem to amount to. The traditional family also conducts productive activity together in the form of business enterprises and is also inherently connected to other households through the life of their religious congregation. This latter institution “plays a decisive role in handing down inherited ideas and institutions” to the next generation. Hazony argues, in a compelling fashion, that the family and congregation provide people with a stable environment where they can flourish, find meaningful social and spiritual connections with others, and build a social and political legacy that can extend beyond the current generation.

The alternative is harrowing, and one that we increasingly see in our own time. Without deep connections to family and congregation, people are liable to drown “in an ocean of lawlessness” and suffer “even greater hardship as the surrounding society becomes more arbitrary and deranged in its judgments”. In the stable environs of the traditional family and congregation the individual can encounter the permanent things, things which Hazony suggests are accessible by participating “in the daily transmission and elaboration of the things that have been inherited from our forefathers, which are often being conserved nowhere else”.

Hazony is not completely fixated on matters related to religion and the family. The latter parts of the book traverse material more familiar to political theorists, including a substantial discussion of a conservative view of the purposes of civil government. This discussion (in Chapter Five) is rich and provides a helpful riposte to the hubris of liberal political theory, which has done so much to, or is reflective of practices which, undermine the health of society.

The liberal understands the state and society as being in “causal relation”, with the state being “brought into force by universal human reason” and operating in such a way that “the state … [imposes] law and order on society by force”. This is completely unacceptable for a conservative, according to Hazony, who holds that “state government is, like the state itself, a traditional institution, and thus entirely dependent for its existence on the character and condition of the society it governs”.

Therefore, it would be a mistake to assume that fixing the procedural problems with our parliamentary democracies will bring about long-lasting, substantial improvements to political life. Rather, the rot is found in a misconception of what matters for a healthy society. The liberal response to that problem is that the rights and freedoms of the individual are the bedrock of the common life of society.The conservative would respond that the nation is “composed of real loyalty groups” (families, tribes, congregations) and that fixating on the individual is “a distraction from the actual business of national politics”.

Hazony says the actual business of politics is “to do the practical political work of cultivating ties of mutual loyalty”. He argues that civil government should, therefore, focus on the matters that Burke and Gouverneur Morris articulated back in the late eighteenth century: “(i) a more perfect union, (ii) justice, (iii) domestic peace, (iv) the common defense against foreign enemies, (v) the general welfare, (vi) individual liberty, (vii) national liberty, and (viii) permanence and stability through the ages”.

This section of Conservatism demonstrates the virtue of Hazony’s project. Conservatives are often reluctant to embrace the theoretical and normative, preferring ideas that direct our thinking towards the organic nature of society. Friedrich Hayek’s theory of spontaneous order would be a salutary example. However, Hazony recognises the need for conservative thinkers to articulate a genuine normative alternative to liberalism, rather than just relying on history to work itself out in the right direction. We are in a culture war, and inhabit a time of crisis, whether we like it or not. Hazony recognises this in his method.

Hazony also sees that just arguing with political theorists on their own turf is not adequate. A substantial societal shift is necessary, which requires both philosophical and practical underpinnings. Hence why Hazony is so focused on the cultivation of what are often described as pre-political institutions. The family and religious communities have within them the seeds of slow but effective reform (dare I say revolution?).

Hazony recognises this and spends what might seem to some like an inordinate amount of time on theoretical and practical questions about family and religious life. But this focus is admirable, even necessary, because a society that no longer believes in anything other than heightening the positive experiences of the individual person has nothing left to sustain itself. We all need to cling to something beyond ourselves to order our own existence.

One might argue that this human need is precisely why there has been a radicalisation of racial and sexual discourse, which Hazony argues at length is extremely dangerous for Western societies. As Roger Scruton once said, “there is nothing more dangerous to the state than the transfer of frustrated religious feeling to petty secular causes”. This transfer is what has taken place, and the emergence of what many call “cultural Marxism” is a symptom of this. It is a symptom of misplaced pietas.

This latter concept is central to Hazony’s project. His focus on pre-political bonds of loyalty in the family and religious community calls each reader to consider how they are cultivating piety in their own lives. Hazony never theorises this idea of piety.  The philosopher who has best articulated the idea in relation to the political is Roger Scruton. Until his death at the beginning of 2020, Scruton was the leading mind of Anglophone conservatism, so it curious that he is mentioned in a mere solitary footnote in Conservatism

While it is not necessary for Hazony to have included Scruton in what is regardless a remarkable and profound book, the British philosopher provided much philosophical grounding for Hazony’s conservatism with this concept of pietas, or piety. In his 2018 book On Human Nature (a work as short as it is profound), Scruton defines piety as “a posture of submission and obedience toward authorities that you have never chosen”. It springs out of the “ontological predicament of the individual”, by which Scruton means the problem that we all feel of being alone in the world yet simultaneously connected to everything. Piety is, as he argues elsewhere, “the respect for sacred things”, a “deep down recognition of a frailty and dependence” on things beyond ourselves, things that are given and are “not our invention”.

Out of this respect for the sacred spring obligations. Each of these obligations is involuntary. This definition of pietas, grounded in ancient Roman thought and practice, reroutes the liberal mind away from consent and contract concerning moral and political obligations in the same way that Hazony does. And it is not merely a question of religion. It is a concept that includes duties we owe to parents, family, community, the state, and God. As Scruton argued, “the bond of allegiance that ties us to the state is … a bond of piety”, a statement in complete agreement with Burke’s conception of society as an eternal contract between those in the past, those alive, and those to come. 

Piety is, therefore, the grounds of conservative political philosophy. To again quote Scruton, it is “the main task of political conservatism … to put obligations of piety back where they belong, at the centre of the picture”. This is precisely what Hazony achieves in this remarkable book. So often of late, conservatives have seen their duty as defending the now indefensible. Liberalism may have served us well in some respects, but, arguably, this was only because the society it grew up in was a conservative one.

Instead, conservatives should take what Hazony puts before us and rethink our strategy, both in theory and in practice. Recapturing true conservatism through an appropriation of the centrality of the life of piety, humble empiricism, and a clear theoretical case for restrained but active civil government; this is a summary of what Hazony puts forward. Continuing to rely on Mill and Smith will ensure we remain “the stupid party”. Hazony charts a way out of that dead-end, towards a conservatism that has a future.

Conservatism: A Rediscovery
by Yoram Hazony

Regnery Gateway, 2022, 445 pages, US$29.99


Simon P. Kennedy is a Research Fellow at the University of Queensland and teaches history, politics, philosophy and religion at a variety of institutions. His first book, Reforming the Law of Nature: The Secularisation of Political Thought, 1532–1689, was published by Edinburgh University Press earlier this year

14 thoughts on “True Conservatism and the Future of the Right

  • pmad3127 says:

    I avidly read Hazony’s book right through on a flight to London recently and I can say that I found its message transformative. Simon Kennedy’s excellent review is on point. Like Kennedy I am and remain grateful to Roger Scruton’s excellent arguments for conservatism. However, Hazony went a step further that was extremely helpful to me by outlining specifically the way in which liberalism leads to ‘perpetual revolution’ and opens the door to Marxist critiquess and takeovers of institutions. He also offered a detailed approach about how honour toward our family, nation and tradition can be implemented so that we can stop acting as though liberalism is true in our lives and commitments and thereby resist its corrosive logic. Hazony’s book is not officially launched here yet. I hope it is soon and that he does some promotional work to support it and get his ideas out in a country that badly needs to hear them.

  • Peter Marriott says:

    Thanks Simon, good article for mine.
    I also have read the book and agree that Hazony is on to something with it, a something that I can easily identify with, and I also agree very much with Roger Scruton’s comment on the danger of frustrated religious feeling being applied to secular causes, particularly when the euphemistic ‘frustrated’ is seen for what it so often really is….hatred, driven possibly by inner fear.
    I have a sneaking suspicion that Yoram may have used his book to get a few personal things off his chest, which possibly could have been saved for an autobiography, but it doesn’t detract much from the main thrust of it all, and may even add to it.
    I’ve also read his earlier book ‘The Virtue of Nationalism’ which I similarly identify with, and find his style and vernacular clear. What can be deep issues are easily expressed, something that many intellectuals don’t, or can’t do, preferring almost it seems to want to impress, with complicated words, style and language. Hazony’s writing should be able to reach a much broader public, which must be one of his strengths….I would hope anyway.

  • Occidental says:

    Not having read the book, and relying entirely upon this article, I know I am firmly in the camp of Mill. Obviously there are a lot of strands of thought in this article and probably much more in the book. But here are just a few issues faced by the conservatives of the ilk of Hazony. Is there in existence any exemplar societies which would fit the description of conservative as described. Well surely there are, the first must be most of the middle east. Here you have societies strictly layered with fealty to family, tribe, and thence to nation. Moreover these societies are built around the “twin pillars” of religion and family. The islamic culture likewise plays homage to its religious scripture. The individual lives life in a much more ordered environment in which there is true permanence, only ever questioned by invading western liberal thought.

    So how have those societies being going over the last 1300 years? For true Hazony conservatives they must be nirvana. But they are productive of NOTHING. When a disease or calamity strikes, like most of the third world, they look to those liberal societies in the west for the drugs, the technology and the solutions. Likewise Europe was productive of very little save warfare and religious monument until the 17th century when classical liberal thought found its genesis.

    Secondly the problem for Hazony is all advancement and ideas come from the individual, not the family or the nation. Everything which makes our lives comfortable can be traced back to a single individual. Families and nations provide SECURITY. Hence true conservatives (of the ilk propounded in this article) are frightened. Frightened of change for sure, but also of “the other“ that is why they talk of the nation state, which surely has only one purpose, the coalescing of power. There is nothing wrong with being a realist in a world of dangerous people but to pine for a society that in the past has failed to advance our individual lives is just foolish. It appears to me that Hazony is talking to a lot of lost people, people who have been lost since the enlightenment. The trouble with thought and rationality is that in the end you come back to the individual, and the individual must make sense of his own existence. If that is too difficult, go live in a society such as Saudi Arabia where the imam will tell you exactly what to do and how to behave.

  • cbattle1 says:

    The problem I see is that conservatives have been “asleep at the wheel”, meaning that the LNP leaders have been too busy with being politicians and self-complacent within a “Menzian” world view……….. not having any idea of the Leftist cultural change happening in Australia. Hasn’t Dutton recently said he regretted walking-out on Kevin Rudd’s “Apology”?

  • brandee says:

    Comment by Occidental appeals to me.
    I doubt if the Hazony exemplar conservative society is found in the orient. Saudi Arabia doesn’t appeal and even Israel has stability problems and a fractured polity that shows some similarity to that at present in Australia.

  • Watchman Williams says:

    The social constructs underpinning the conservative emphasis on “family, tribe and nations” have long been abandoned and destroyed. The advent of feminism saw the introduction of identity politics, with loyalty to one’s identity replacing the loyalty that was once given to the family. Likewise, the self-destruction of the Church through vain attempts to be “relevant” to the world, has severed the tribal loyalty that was once felt towards one’s religious family. And finally, of course, the embrace of “multiculturalism” has seen loyalty to the nation state wither away.
    The family, the Church and the nation state were the traditional vehicles of cultural transmission from one generation to another. For that reason, they became the targets of change agents, whether Marxists of Fabians. If the culture had to be changed then the vehicles transmitting that culture had to be taken captive.
    This notion of replacing a hegemony through cultural change rather than war, was formulated into a political philosophy and programme by Antonio Gramsci almost one hundred years ago. As we look around us, we see the triumph of Fabianism, the outcome of which appears to be fascism.

  • Stephen Due says:

    Loved “the revolting French”. Brings back memories of the Wizard of Id cartoon: “Sire, the peasants are revolting”.
    On a serious note, I think the political malaise we are engulfed in today is primarily the result of the destruction of traditional ‘piety’ (rather than ‘values’) due to the devastating social impact of the two World Wars. It is difficult to see in the West today the advanced civilization that Progressives imagine are emerging in the evolution of modern societies. Multiculturalism and globalism are flimsy structures built on false promises and vain hopes. Disconnected from empirical reality, these post-modern ideologies have let us down badly.
    But how to restore the foundations? It seems to me that both the family and the church need much stronger protection in law and should also be privileged in government policy – regardless of the howling of the banshees. However we are now facing the threat of powerful supranational globalists (WEF) who are unanswerable to any electorate and are able to intervene effectively in the affairs of nation states. This unwelcome development must be addressed and will require strong political coalitions. It cannot be tackled by conservatives alone.

  • rachaelkohn says:

    The biblical covenant is a set of responsibilities to God, to family and to community upheld by personal conduct that emphasises moral virtues and loyalty above all.It was the building block of western civilisation pure and simple.
    A society that can’t abide the Bible has little hope of discovering and living out the mandate of conservatism. It is even more obfuscated by a so-called Conservative party that calls itself the Liberal Party. How confusing is that?

  • Daffy says:

    “crumbling under the weight of low birth rates, moral libertinism, materialistic dependency and a crumbling culture” I would think it is ‘consumerist’ dependency rather than ‘materialistic’. Materialism suggests metaphysical materialism, rather than the crass and self-consuming consumerism that is perhaps in mind in the text.

  • Paul W says:

    It shouldn’t be controversial to accept that we have responsibilities to our families and to the nation as the large family. I think Japan is a good example. Conservative yet innovative. Without strong connections to family and nation (history and culture) then people feel rootless, causing despair.
    The individual innovators in Western history were usually supported by their family and broader network.
    The Arabian countries provide an extreme example of being locked in; our own provide examples of being forever lost. Surely there must be a happy middle.
    But I doubt that things can change from the bottom up as critical mass has effectively been reached already. No politician would ever promote family and religion: we all have different ones. There is simply no unity except consumerism.

  • Claude James says:

    Conservatives, and all who place great value on proper human flourishing, would do well to attend to this problem:
    All Australian institutions are now dominated by ignorant and/or malignant people who are in essence anti-Westernist.
    And all Australian institutions are also now deeply penetrated by agents of the CCP, Islam, and a couple other anti-Westernist parasitic forces.
    Lest we notice.

  • Mark Erjavec says:

    Quadrant has some good articles (i.e. Frank Salter) and even now the Spectator has picked up on it, but the real fight for the conservative world is demographics. Ultimately unless we acknowledge that demographics = destiny, the right/conservatism literally won’t exist in 25 years in any Western country. Ironically it was John Howard who introduced mass immigration under the “broad church” of conservatism that will ultimately seal it’s fate. Woke Abbie Chatfield (ex Bachalor “star” and now radio presenter) gloated that the demographics of conservatism – old, white males are figurately and literally dying off and within 25 years, we will have a two party system…but it will be the Greens and Labor….regrettably, she may be right…

  • whitelaughter says:

    excellent article, agree with most comments.

    But Mark Erjavec – the demographics are simple: youngsters vote leftwing, then rightwing as they get older.
    *But* no one on the Right is aiming to welcome the converts as grow up. much less to speed the rate at which maturity happens.
    The Left is deliberately infantilizing society by keeping youngsters at school as long as possible, discouraging families and businesses. A return to maturity will mean a shift to getting kids into apprenticeships while they are in their *early* teens, reminding girls that their bodies are most suited for pregnancy at ages 19-21, and exterminating the bureaucracies that kill businesses.

  • Mark Dawson says:

    Unquestionably, a beautifully written review. I haven’t read Hazony’s Conservatism: A Rediscovery but I suspect Simon’s review is a more than accurate account. The main problem with Hazony’s account of Conservatism in an Australian context is that it simply ignores mathematics (or more specifically, the mathematics of demographics).

    In Australia, you need to win 76 (or more) seats in the upper house to form a conservative government. There is simply no amount of spin you can throw at this side of the ledger … the changing face of Australia’s demographics (and their political beliefs) simply will not buy this Anglo-Christian manifesto from 1846. It doesn’t matter how tantalising it is to reach back into the past, Hazony’s simplistic remedy for Australian (read western) conservative politics has the same chances of success as Mein Kampf did for conservative German politics of 1925. It would be fatal.

    For conservative politics to reassert itself in Australia, it must be grounded in policies that provide, SECURITY of:

    1. Energy (which includes a logical narrative in neutralising climate change activism)
    2. Supply chains for commerce
    3. Food and our eco-system
    4. Economic prosperity
    5. The Realm

    The reasons why conservatives (particularly, Abbott and Morrison) failed politically was that they could not articulate a clear strategy in respect attaining security of any of these key requirements. Security can only be achieved from a position of economic and geo-political strength. Looking inwards (backwards, in Hazony’s view) is to take our eyes of the real threats to our way of life and to conservatism in general. That’s uncomfortable, but it is a reality. Hazony’s view maybe wishful, but equally it is fanciful.

Leave a Reply