From the Archives: June 6th, 1931

Liberalism has fused its identity with Socialism in British politics. Is there a danger that the Conservative Party also may forget its origins and its raison d'etre? To-day it pays lip-service to the old order, but seems to acquiesce tacitly in the establishment of the new. In the June number of the English Review Mr Douglas Jerrold discusses the question, "What is Conservatism?" His article is valuable because, unlike the vague discussion which is general in these days, it returns to first principles. The civilised social order, says Mr Jerrold, rests on three indefeasible principles – the integrity of the family, the secular authority of government and the primacy of the spiritual in the world order.

British civilisation is drifting away from these principles, and the rate of drift has increased rapidly during recent years. Society is organised to-day in the line of its selfish interest. The integrity of the family has been undermined. The modern State, says Mr Jerrold, “has no use for parents”. The lessons of history are forgotten, and legislation assumes that man’s natural tendency is to travel in the right direction.

To the argument that the standard of living has risen during this century Mr Jerrold replies that any society can increase its standard of living by the treatment of its capital as revenue. There is a steady decline in conceptions of decency and taste and an increasing concentration of energy on the essentially frivolous.

Conservatism, if it still means what it meant in a former age, must take a stand against these tendencies. Socialism is breeding a race of drones; it must be Conservatism’s task to breed men. Herein true Conservatism differs also from Liberalism; for its root principle is to breed good men, not rich men. Liberalism, on the grounds of cheapness, desires to get all the country’s food from overseas. True Conservatism will keep a fixed eye on the life of the countryside, which fosters virtues that are all important to the State.

In like manner, while Liberalism and Socialism seek to relieve poverty by indiscriminate doles, Conservatism, looking not to men’s means, but to their character, will insist that they shall be allowed to discharge their responsibilities. In Mr Jerrold’s view, which we share, there is no ground for pessimism. Britain can maintain her standard of living if she intensifies her effort and restores the just rewards of effort. Conservatism must stand for justice on world affairs, and must act upon moral principles at home, thus pursuing the first end of a Christian State. It must criticise all legislative proposals by reference to their effect on the character of the individual. [ . . .]

We venture to supplement Mr Jerrold’s grave and thoroughly sound arguments with an object-lesson. To-day the social and economic conditions of Great Britain and of the Irish Free State furnish a sharp contrast. The Free State’s social life still is centred in the family. All public parties and all creeds recognise the value of religious education. We can claim for the Free State, though she is not unaffected by the surging materialism which surrounds her, that she continues to accept the primacy of the spiritual in the world order. Economically she is, by present standards of prosperity, one of the most prosperous States in Europe. This welfare can be explained in part, but not wholly, by the Free State’s escape from the burden of War debts and by the proximity and security of her English markets. A measure of her wealth is derived from the natural conservatism of her people. In effect, the Government which has ruled the Free State’s fortunes for nine years is a Conservative Government. Often we have criticised its actions, but we found no fault with its principles. They encourage thrift; they provoke and reward disinterested service; they inculcate prudence as a national virtue. It is our jealousy of the Free State’s honour that causes us to regard the enormous success of the hospital sweepstakes as a national misfortune. Since they involve no effort and create nothing, they are out of touch with the nation’s new character. They obscure her real achievement and belittle her more worthy ambitions. Last year the world saw the Irish Free State as a pioneer of political and economic thought. To-day it is beginning to see her as a northern Monte Carlo.

Read the original at http://bit.ly/1FTvnki Compiled by Joe Joyce; email fromthearchives@irishtimes.com