Bundestag. Courtesy of Susanne Nilsson via Flickr.com
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Sometimes, it seems that the left would just like conservatives to disappear. Traditional inter-party rivalries have turned into toxic ideological struggles, with many partisans believing that the other side will impose their cultural values on an unwilling population with uncompromising zeal. In the view of much of the electorate, people espousing opposing views shouldn’t just be defeated in the arena of public debate, but utterly crushed, removed from the halls of power and publicly shamed into the margins of acceptable public discourse.
This attitude is gravely mistaken. Not only is it ethically questionable, but this vengeful approach is also incompatible with the fundamental tenets of liberal democracy. Successful governance requires political leaders to represent the interests of the majority, but it also requires an effective opposition. Without an opposing party to point out the overreach of the majority, ruling parties can engage in their worst impulses, becoming successively more extreme in their politics while radicalizing the minority opposition.
As Bret Stephens mentioned in his recent talk at Princeton, which was co-sponsored by the Tory, “every country has a conservative party – like it or not.” The reasons for this are manifold: people may believe in limited government, the importance of traditional values, or simply dislike the policies of leftist parties. These justifications may differ between different countries, and even within the same center-right party. However, the essence of conservatism is not the topic of discussion today. Instead, we will examine how conservative parties of any sort are essential to the functioning of every democratic nation.
In order to understand why a strong center-right is necessary, let us imagine a country where conservative ideas – and the people who hold them – were shamed into cultural irrelevance by a predominantly center-left government and mainstream media. What would happen? In normal circumstances, people whose preferences are not represented in government are compelled to advocate for them, working with candidates and causes that advance their viewpoints with the goal of persuading others to join them.
But in this twisted universe, the pedantic tone of the left – and in particular, the oft-implied sentiment that the problem is not so much center-right views but the people who hold them – changes the calculus of the situation. Human psychology suggests that people who are backed into a corner will lash out; when the dominant side deems that certain viewpoints are not acceptable in the public sphere, what else should we expect? The suppressive tactics of the left do not make radical ideologies justified, but they do provide credence to the resentment and humiliation of those who hold non-conforming views.
To many of you, this description may sound oddly familiar, because this is the world in which we now live. Be it the “deplorables” in the U.S., the “backwards Brexiteers” in Britain, or the plethora of subtler insults and insinuations made by leftist or center-left parties elsewhere, it has become socially acceptable in liberal democracies to publicly shame and scold those who do not share the views of those in charge. Ad hominem attacks are nothing new in the messy world of politics, but the extent to which modern leftist political movements are based upon hatred of the other rather than a propositional ideology is unprecedented. This phenomenon is called negative partisanship, and has been a growing force on both sides of the political spectrum over the past several decades. However, until recently, its outward expression has been more visible on the left, mostly due to the overwhelmingly left-leaning cultural and media institutions that shape public discourse in most western countries.
In the U.K., Germany, and even the United States, we are now beginning to see the political effects of years of disdain and humiliation, with both traditional conservative parties and right-wing fringe elements becoming consumed by the politics of resentment. By being unable to separate people from their ideas, the left has created a class of permanently aggrieved individuals who have little recourse but to channel their anger through political movements designed for vengeance.
Academic research bears this out. Daniel Ziblatt, a Harvard professor of government, provides persuasive evidence that possessing a strong center-right party is the best indicator of a country’s success in adopting and maintaining democracy. He argues that the so-called traditional (conservative) forces in a society – which include the religious and aristocratic elite, as well as their middle-class subordinates vested in the status quo – were needed to create strong institutions (such as political parties) when democracies began to take hold and flourish in 19th and 20th century Europe. In Ziblatt’s view, conservative parties serve two essential functions: to provide for true democratic competition by facilitating a broadly popular alternative to progressive forces, but more importantly to serve as a spoiler to radical right parties that seek to usurp democracy and individual liberty.
Two historical examples can help us illustrate his argument. Contrary to popular belief, Britain’s parliament was not a fully democratic entity in the early 19th century, with landed aristocrats and other members of the bourgeoisie controlling the great plurality of votes. It was not preordained that Britain would adopt an American-style democratic system, where every “free man” was permitted a vote. When the electoral franchise was gradually expanded in the late 19th century, it was the Conservative Party which was best able to link the interests of the elite with those of the general population. Unlike every other major European country which experimented with a popularly-elected parliament, Britain did not collapse into revolution or counter-revolution, ensuring that its democratic system of government remained stable through a century of rapid technological change. You can compare the British example with any number of other nations like Germany, whose weak right-leaning parties in the Weimar parliament failed to disarm the radical right. Ziblatt argues that strong center-right parties have acted as “the hinge of history,” with their existence being the key factor for the survival of democracy.
This is just as true today as it was last century. Across the Western world, once-venerable conservative parties such as Germany’s Christian Democrats (CDU) are in danger of losing their core voter base to radical parties on the far right. As with center-right parties in other countries, the CDU has moved towards the left on many issues in order to maintain their popular legitimacy and win elections. From a political competition perspective, appealing to the median voter is not necessarily a bad strategy, but it has left a large portion of the population – one that is more “nationalist” but not necessarily neo-fascist – politically homeless. At the same time, the party is being squeezed by parties on the left, many of whom appeal to a younger cohort by portraying CDU-supporters (and not just the party) as “backwards” and “out of touch.” This is not an enviable position to be in, and is representative of the struggles conservative parties face across the Western world.
As Ziblatt notes, a conservative party’s ability to have “broad tent” appeal to both the center and the right is crucial to the success of democracy. The countries with the most stable democratic systems have conservative parties which do not co-opt the far right’s ideology as much as tempt into moderation people who would otherwise vote for more radical parties. It is in this way that voters with authoritarian tendencies come to accept an unfavorable democratic result, when they may have otherwise taken aggressive action.
Unfortunately, the left of today has upset this equilibrium. By marginalizing the belief systems of even moderate center-right individuals, the left has created a permanently aggrieved class of voters who have become radicalized against its excesses and extremely critical of democratic institutions. One Pew Research poll suggests that right-leaning Americans are 13 points more likely to support a political system in which “a strong leader can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts.” Another YouGov poll shows that 45% of right-leaning Americans are in favor of “giving the government power to shut down ‘biased or inaccurate’ media outlets” – a clear violation of the press freedom provisions of the 1st Amendment. This “skepticism gap” between the right and left has been growing for a number of years, indicating that distrust for democracy is primarily rooted in those who have been left behind in mainstream cultural discourse. As the left-wing institutions continue to exclude center-right views from acceptable political thought, we can only expect our democracy to suffer further.
But not all hope is lost. There is time to invite right-leaning voters back into the mainstream before it is too late. Even if left-leaning parties give up on attracting right-leaning voters to the polls, they can at least tone down the polarizing rhetoric and treat center-right people as normal human beings. Though it may not be easy, it can be done. Our future as citizens of democratic nations depends on it.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.