There is a tendency amongst
the usual suspects in the Conservative Party which is coalescing around a new political
philosophy imported from the US called National Conservatism. The name is
unfortunate, to say the least – my first reaction was that it sounds like it might
be an attempt to place themselves to the right of National Socialism. My second
reaction after reading a little more was that my first reaction may not be
entirely unfair. The organisation is holding a conference
in London shortly, to be graced by the presence of a whole host of prominent
Tories, including Lord Frost, Jake Rees-Mogg, Michael Gove and Suella
Braverman.
At the heart of their
philosophy (outlined here
by the Edmund Burke Foundation) is the idea that the nation-state is the best
and natural unit of organisation for human societies. In an article
penned jointly by Jake and Frosty for the Telegraph, the pair describe the
ideology as a “belief in the nation state and the principle of national
independence”. It’s hard for an independentista to disagree with
that as a principle. Indeed, at first sight, it would seem obvious that anyone
holding that view would necessarily be a firm supporter of independence for Wales
and Scotland. That isn’t, of course, what they believe; in fact they are both
in favour of winding back devolution rather than turning it into independence. It
all hinges on the definition of a ‘nation’. Some would see nation-states as being
created by nations, but for national conservatives, it's actually the reverse: nations are created by
states. From that perspective, the existence of the UK state in itself
determines that the people living within it form a single nation. It’s
axiomatic and inarguable, by definition. In another reminder of the past, Ein Reich
necessarily translates as Ein Volk.
It follows, for them, that a
single nation has to be based on a single ideology and set of values, and the Foundation
happily spells
them out. They include the idea that “public life should be rooted in
Christianity and its moral vision”, and demand that the norm should be “the
traditional family, built around a lifelong bond between a man and a woman”.
They also want “the revival of the unique national traditions that alone
have the power to bind a people together and bring about their flourishing”.
It is a recipe for enforcing their own view of what a nation, and particularly
the ‘British’ nation is, and for rolling back the diversity and freedoms to
which we have become accustomed, whether directly through law or indirectly by
establishing expected norms. It is about imposing a set of values and behaviours
on all of us.
We are currently seeing an
outbreak of red, white and blue (to say nothing of the expectation that we will all
joyously swear our allegiance to the latest unelected head of state), associated
with next weekend’s clowning of the king; but that will be as nothing compared
to the agenda of these people. And they are increasingly the mainstream of the
governing party of these nations, which holds that position based on the votes
of only one of those nations and then reserves to itself the right to determine,
or terminate, the rights and wishes of the others. Anyone who doesn’t want to
become fully assimilated into the ‘one people’ needs to understand that the
only way of preventing it is to opt out of the ‘one realm’ first. And sooner rather
than later.
2 comments:
" ... rooted in Christianity and its moral vision".
You don't suppose by any chance that they're referring to the Sermon on the Mount, do you?
No, me neither.
Gav,
Ah, but they haven't got to the New Testament God of Love yet; they're still stuck on the Old Testament God - the wrathful and vengeful one, full of smiting and prohibitions. It's a sort of Pre-Christ Christianity that they're hankering after.
Post a Comment