One of the areas where conservatism suffers internal conflict is in collectivism. Because conservatism cannot describe human progress with breaking its own internal logic it turns to economic liberalism while trying to maintain conservative collectivism in culture, society, politics and nationalism. Consequently it breaks the liberty of collectivism in the economy but tries to promote or enforce it everywhere else.
Republicanism accepts collectivism as a liberty as long as it is not predicated in violence, and not protected by the state through involuntary inclusion. For instance, Unions are fine, as long as they are not compulsory or violent. Same with political parties, they are fine, again as long as inclusion is not compulsory or their actions violent. It is the same with other forms of collective organisation such as special interest groups.
James Madison best described this in Federalist No.10. Madison believed that factions, ie political parties and special interest groups, were detrimental to political liberty. However denying them from politics would mean the liberty of political organisation would have to be curtailed; The cure would be worse than the disease.
Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.For this reason, Madison accepts political parties as long as they don't cause or foster violence. It is the same with Workchoices. As long as the liberty to collective bargain does not cause violence, then there is no liberal or republican reason to ban or prohibit such a process through legislation. It becomes a legislative intrusion on liberty of organisation. The republican response to collective bargaining is; if a republican must accept that there is liberty for political collectivism in political parties, then a republican must accept that there is the liberty for economic collectivism. This is with the caveats that there is no compulsion for an individual to belong to such a collective organisation and that the organisations are free from violence. Parties are an inefficiency in the political system. As Adam has said in the past, they exist to 'game' the electoral system. James Carville, the US Democrat strategist stated during the 2004 elections that the purpose of a party is to gain government. The structure of the representative system is specifically to put distance between the representative and the electorate so that the representative can make unpopular decisions which are in the 'common weal' or public good. There is intended to be a barrier between the representative and the fear of mob tyranny. The problem with a representative system is that, while it denies the individual direct access, it gives political parties permanent access to government; and instead of mob tyranny, we get party political tyranny. This is what a state of emergency effectively is - executive political tyranny. A fast path to executive tyranny is party discipline in the executive and legislative. This is a particular problem for parliamentary systems which have poor separation of powers anyway due to the Legislative and Executive being in the same body and the Executive making laws through parliament. Consequently collectivism is not always the most efficient form of organisation for certain outcomes, including political and economic ones. However, the Australian republican, who favours a liberty first approach, has to accept these inefficiencies - as prohibition of the liberties for individuals to organise in their interests is far worse. Conservatism lacks this internal consistency of republicanism. Because conservatism actively restricts access to the collective structures it sees as being a positive; such as nationalism, citizenship, family, culture etc; while selectively prohibiting the collectivism it dislikes; such as unions, collective bargaining, and even the rule of law when it suits a political purpose; conservatism becomes internally conflicted and hypocritical on the issue of liberty. To achieve its political ends and to remain consistent conservatism has to use coercion and despotism. It has no other choice. I am sure they do not want to, but the political ideology and the political goals cannot be achieved without delving into a spate of despotism. This is why marxism is an illiberal ideology. The Communist Manifesto advocates an initial state of emergency or short period of despotism which was excused during the Stalin era with the saying, 'breaking some eggs to make an omellette";
Of course, in the beginning, this [proletariat revolution] cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.This is nothing more than a state of emergency or state of exception. This has been the same method that governments in liberal democracy use to enact their despotic policies. Chavez in Venezuala received the power from the legislature - not the constitution - to make and execute laws for the next six months. This is the process that Marx and Engel advocated in the Communist Manifesto. Chavez's view of socialism is in conflict with economic liberty, and consequently, requires a despotic hand to be brought to fruition and coercion to be maintained. Anglo nations such as Australia and America are not immune from the state of emergency either. Claiming that the executive can both make and execute laws without oversight for reasons of crisis in national emergency. This excuse for despotism has found sympathetic voices in the mass media. This is the inconsistency in conservatism and why the area where it does believe human progress stems from - economic liberty - brings its collective beliefs into tension. For instance economic rationalism/liberalism allows companies to market as they see fit to potential consumers. Sex is an extremely effective form or marketing and advertising, but this comes into conflict with conservative family values. Economic liberalism also values the idea for the sake of it, which can often be a disruptive technology, and radically change the way that collective organisations including the nation, culture and society, interact. Conservativism's reliance on the economy as the only liberal component of its ideology means that the collective and static components of its politics are constantly under threat from progress. The end result of conservatism is a crisis of its ideology and a consequent state of exception to try and reconcile that crisis politically. Nationalism is another area that conservatism cannot reconcile progress with its ideology. Economic liberalism and the flows of capital, goods and labor mean that the nation-state is unable to handle the political, economic, cultural and social requirements of globalisation. Worse it is often not able to provide the absence of violence in such a system. The big-state nationalist policies of conservatism are another issue as they are introducing inefficiencies into the economic globalisation by interfering with capital and labor flows in the name of nationalism. Again, economic liberty is bringing conservatism into tension with itself, and forcing conservatism to fall into crisis; of which the easy way out is a Marx/Engel type of despotic emergency; though in the name of collective (national) security rather than marxist materialism. It is interesting to note that when conservatives recognise the internal inconsistencies of conservatism as a political ideology and the inevitable end result of this philosophy, their 'conservatism' becomes liberal republicanism. Andrew Sullivan is a good example of a conservative who has come to this insight even though he refuses to call it liberal republicanism. Ultimately this means that conservatism is unable to provide a coherent form of governance in a liberal democracy without dipping into despotism to resolve its lack of internal logic. In liberal democracy we see this as a state of exception. This form of governance is not unique to conservatism, other state-first ideologies such as socialism and nationalism also suffer under this incoherence and must inevitably end in authoritarian emergency. Ultimately, this form of governance and political ideology is incompatible with liberal democracy and republican government. It must be recognised as such. cam
