Social Justice and Conservative Politics
Joseph Loconte
Americans don't pay much attention to the domestic politics of other countries, but the tectonic shift of political fortunes in Great Britain deserves some reflection. In a recent cover story of The Weekly Standard, "First, Lose Three Straight Elections," executive editor Fred Barnes describes how the Conservative Party has emerged from a long and lonely trek in the wilderness. The youthful face and articulate voice of party leader David Cameron only partially explains their astonishingly strong support in public opinion polls. Once known as "the nasty party," Conservatives have redefined themselves—not only in style but in substance.
As Fred Barnes writes:
“Iain Duncan Smith, an MP and former Tory leader, has taken on the issue of poverty. [Michael] Gove has fashioned a bold school choice agenda to create hundreds of new schools run by parents, businessmen, or nearly anyone who could bring together a group of people committed to running a school. Conservatives now emphasize support for families and especially marriage. Cameron recently said traditional morality must be defended, not avoided out of fear of hurting someone’s feelings or appearing judgmental. Otherwise, Britain will become a ‘de-moralized society.’”
Barnes only hints at one of the most significant developments in British politics in a generation: how the Conservative Party—mobilized by Christian politicians, activists, and intellectuals—is reinventing the concept of social justice for ordinary Britons. After losing his post as party leader, for example, Iain Duncan Smith founded the Centre for Social Justice, which studies and promotes the efforts of faith-based and community groups in tackling poverty, crime, drug addiction, and other social ills. Led by the tireless and brilliant Philippa Stroud, the Centre has played a major role in shaping Cameron’s domestic agenda, particularly through his Social Justice Policy Group. The Centre’s insights into the deepest causes of Britain’s social pathologies—and their grass-roots solutions—are now part of the political DNA of the party. See also www.povertydebate.com.
There are major lessons here for U.S. presidential candidates as well, as both parties seek to redefine America’s cultural priorities.
2 Responses (comments are closed) • Fodder, Good and Evil, Religious Liberty, Joseph Loconte, Sun 10 Aug 2008
As such writers as F.A. Hayek,
M.J. Oakeshott and Antony Flew have long
pointed out, “social justice” is a very
different thing from the traditional
conception of justice as to each his own.
According to “social justice” income and
wealth should be “distributed” in line with
egalitarian or semi egalitarian doctrine.
The fact that some British Conservative
party members are using the term “social
justice” without (I hope) knowing what the
term means is irritating - to put it mildly.
As for the improvement in the Conservative
party poll position. This has nothing
whatever to do with some Conservative party
members talking about “social justice”
(my guess would be that fewer than one in a
hundred voters know anything about that)
and everything to do with the decline in
popularity of the Labour party government -
especially under Mr Brown.
By the way - Mr Brown has for decades talked
and written about “social justice”.
If American Conservatives want to restore
their standing they should forget about
“compassionate conservativism” (i.e. wild
government spending) for that is exactly
what has got them into this mess.
Voters who love subsidies and entitlement
progams will vote Democrat - and people
who hate them will stay home if Republicans
carry on supporting them. As with the
“earmarks” and the Farm Bill and the Housing
Bill….. and so on.
United Kingdom
on 2008 08 12
Before anyone says “that is not we mean by social
justice” - words have meanings, and part of being
a conservative is rejecting the disrespect for
truth that the left has.
As for the idea that family and traditional values
are a good thing - of course they are.
However, the idea that government can restore these values is utterly absurd. In fact it was government schools and government welfare programs that helped undermine traditional values in the first place.
As for government funding of “community groups” - has everyone forgotten that the government spends vast sums of money doing that already?
For example the tax money that goes to vote-fraud-r-us “ACORN” and to “Planned Parenthood” - does this support traditional values?
Nor do the groups that get tax money in Britain. And a Conservative party government would not change that - indeed tax money is the road to corruption for any such group.
Including churches - look which Church groups already get the lion’s share of the subsidy program money President Bush introduced. And it will (of course) get worse with time - as conservative minded religious groups either get forced out of the process or get corrupted by it.
Why does all the above have to be explained so many times?
It was proved decades ago - yet some people still go about how a benevolent government can suppport traditional values.
Some people seem incapable of understanding - no matter how much logical reasoning and empirical examples are used to try and help them understand.
After all there is nothing in the absurd “compassionate conservativism” (that, of course, led to the mass of corruption that cost the Republican party the Senate and House in 2006) that was not in the idea of a “New Conservatism” that some silly people came up with in the 1950’s.
Or indeed in the “me-to-ism” that some people went along with in the 1930’s.