Conservatism

I’ve never liked people who say they’re small-c conservative. What does that even mean? To me, it’s an act of moral cowardice. It’s pretty obvious that Labour and the Lib Dems are not conservative in any way – in fact they’d like to describe themselves as “progressives.” Of course, what we are progressing towards (and why this is a good thing!) is never answered, but that is another matter. Perhaps David Cameron does not quite resemble William F. Buckley, “standing athwart history yelling Stop,” but he’s the nearest thing we’ve got. And so was Michael Howard. And so was William Hague. And so was John Major. And so was Margaret Thatcher. And so on. Whatever bones you may have to pick with the Conservative party’s policies at any moment in time, if you are a small-c conservative you are a big-C Conservative as night follows day follows night. There is nowhere else for you (or me) to go.

That said, there is a conservatism distinct from Conservatism, a richer range of views than merely the election manifesto. And it concerns me that, within conservatism, I may be falling distinctly into the reactionary tent. Maybe this is just a matter of personal vanity – I’m young! I should be hip with the libertarian wing not the old fogies! – but nevertheless it’s been gnawing at me. So indulge me.

In the Human Fertilisation and Embrology Bill, there was a great deal of discussion about the term limits for abortion. And it has been suggested that we may one day have the technology to keep babies alive from a very early age – e.g. the first trimester – which would negate the need for abortions. Women wanting an abortion would have a surgical procedure to have the baby removed, then it would be placed in an artificial womb and brought to term, then given up for adoption, foster parenting, etc. And the mother would presumably be required to pay child support. Hooray, the thorny moral issue of abortion has disappeared – we can respect the right to life and the right to choose!

But hang on!

If it’s legitimate to require the woman to carry the baby to the 13th week (say) and then pay for its subsequent medical care and upkeep, surely it’s legitimate to require the woman to carry the baby to the 26th week and then pay for its subsequent medical care and upkeep – at this stage, a baby is viable on an incubator given existing technology. And if it’s legitimate to require a woman to carry to 26 weeks then it’s legitimate to require her to carry to 38 weeks and give birth. So this thought experiment seems to draw me irresistibly to the view that the law should, at the least, drastically limit abortions.

But hang on!

I just posted my views against gay “marriage” and I’m even more strongly opposed to gay adoption. I’m not hugely serious about global warming – I mean, I think something should be done, but I’m petrified that the cure will be worse than the disease. I’m fairly pro-death penalty. I’m waaaaaay too pro-Israel for my brother’s liking. I’m against European integration. If you throw in anti-abortion too… I mean, it’s not looking good! What socially liberal positions will be left to me? Yeah drug liberalisation but everyone with a brain recognises that the current situation is broken. So am I turning into the most fossilied of paleoliths? Will I have to buy a tweed jacket and join the Monday Club?

Paleocons, rebrand thyselves. Otherwise, for the sake of my self-image, I’m going to have to start jettisonning conservative views willy-nilly. Be warned, unless things change my next post will be in favour of affirmative action for lesbian midgets.