Paternalism

(Taken from Pearson p91-92)

In conservative thought, paternalism is the idea of government by people who are best equipped to lead by virtue of their birth, inheritance and upbringing. Conservatives’ belief in paternalism is inextricably linked to their views on hierarchy, order and the organic society. Traditional conservatives, such as Burke, argued that the ‘natural aristocracy’ presided over society much like a father did over his family: the social elite provides leadership because of its innate or hereditary abilities, just as a father exercises authority, ensures protection and provides guidance. Its skills and talents cannot be obtained by hard work or self-improvement. Those at the top of society have a duty to care for the lower social ranks. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, some conservative aristocrats acted in a paternalistic fashion by improving material conditions for their tenants and employees, and by involving themselves in charitable and philanthropic works.

The wisdom and experience of paternalistic leaders confer natural authority, because they ‘know what is best’ for the rest of society. Traditionally, these leaders were drawn from the aristocratic elite that had been educated in the values of social obligation and public service, and had provided the senior political decision-makers for generations. The Cecil family (Marquesses of Salisbury) and the Stanley family (Earls of Derby) are good examples of high-born paternalistic Conservative political leaders. More recently, one-nation paternalistic conservatism has relied on government regulation of the economy and social welfare measures to improve conditions for the poorest in society. David Cameron, the UK Conservative Prime Minister (2010–16), also drew on paternalism when he called for ‘compassionate conservatism’.

Paternalism can take two forms:

• soft – in the sense that those who are the recipients give their consent
• hard – when paternalism is imposed, regardless of consent or opposition, in a more authoritarian manner.

The origins of one-nation paternalistic conservatism are usually traced back to the works of Benjamin Disraeli (1804–81), who served as Conservative Prime Minister from 1874 to 1880. In his novels Coningsby (1844) and Sybil (1845), Disraeli warned that Britain was dividing into two nations – the rich and the poor – and that this increased the likelihood of social revolution. For Disraeli, such a situation could be averted only by the privileged in society recognising their social obligation and duty to look after the less fortunate. The better-off would preserve their advantages, but they would also alleviate the hardships faced by the lower orders and strengthen the social cohesion and stability of the nation. In this way, Disraeli’s one-nation paternalism blended self-interest with principle. As Prime Minister, Disraeli translated this idea of paternalism into practice to a certain extent by passing a series of limited social reforms.

By the mid-20th century, ‘one-nation’ conservatism had added a ‘middle way’ economic approach to social reform in its pursuit of paternalistic policies. The moderate UK Conservative governments of the 1950s and 1960s steered a central course between free-market economics and state planning, on the grounds that the former led to social fragmentation and failed to protect the poorest, while the latter stifled individual initiative and entrepreneurial flair. Economic policy combined government regulation and market completion to produce, in the words of Harold Macmillan – Conservative prime minister in the UK between 1957 and 1963 – ‘private enterprise without selfishness’. This effectively meant that one-nation Conservatives fully accepted that the state had an obligation to intervene in the economy and maintain the welfare state to combat poverty and deprivation. Nevertheless, there were limits to paternalism, in the sense that improving conditions for poorer groups was principally motivated by a desire to strengthen the hierarchical nature of society by removing threats to the social order.

In contrast, the neoliberal wing of the New Right completely rejects the idea of paternalism. Based partly on free-market economics, neoliberalism aims to reduce the size of the state so that the unregulated market can generate a more dynamic and efficient economy leading to increased growth and prosperity. From this perspective, government intervention in the economy (a key element of the one-nation conservative paternalistic approach) or state control undermines human initiative and enterprise, resulting in economic stagnation. Similarly, the neoliberal faith in individualism also challenges conservative notions of paternalism. By stressing the importance of self-help, individual responsibility and personal initiative, neoliberals view welfare programmes and social reforms negatively. In their view, they promote a dependency culture among poorer people and undermine the free market.

YOUR TASK:

1. Read the extract.
2. Identify 10 key words that would help you explain the concept of pragmatism by underlining or highlighting them in the above passages.
3. Draw a timeline of the development of paternalism below, ensuring you include all of the key dates in the passage above.