In Defense of (Scruton’s) Conservatism

The title of this article is rather presumptuous, considering that Sir Roger Scruton’s explanation of conservatism does not need vindication or further clarification. In his book How to Be a Conservative, he presents a clear, simple, and intellectually compelling case for embracing conservatism, predicated on the truism that good things are hard to come by and easily destroyed.

Consequently, we must make a concerted effort to preserve those things we consider as being “good” for our communities for posterity. That, in a nutshell, is Scruton’s conception of what conservatism is all about.

There isn’t anything particularly radical in what he considers “good” for the community, either. Democratic norms, civil liberties, and the freedom of association are but a few of the ideas he invokes as being worthy of preservation. I would venture to say that any person of reasonable mind would be inclined to agree with him.

Naturally, this begs the question: why, then, does conservatism get such a bad rap in contemporary political discourse, especially amongst many of my generation?

In a conversation with Douglas Murray, hosted by The Spectator, Scruton observes that part of what ails the conservative political cause today is the fact that it doesn’t always sound very appealing. It is harder to mobilize young people around a call to “hesitation” than one to “defund the police.”

Then again, as Scruton notes, “it is not unusual to be conservative,” only to be an intellectual conservative. Perhaps, then, the problem is not one of the lexicon of conservatism being inherently unappealing but rather a paucity of individuals with the wherewithal to deliver its message effectively.

The caricaturing of conservatism as a regressive set of shibboleths and the homogenization of its various strands are also problematic. When one thinks of the word “conservative,” the image conjured is that of a decrepit uncle, reminiscing in poor taste about the “good old days,” when people stayed where they came from, and women confined themselves to the home.

With rhetorical flair and sharpness, Scruton also breaks down many of the misconceptions around the various “isms” that have come to dominate our political discourse. For instance, he evinces the zero-sum fallacy that often undergirds socialist rhetoric and the divisiveness embedded within it.

Particularly compelling was his chapter on multiculturalism, in which he articulates the classical conservative perspective on questions pertaining to immigration and integration. The argument he puts forward—which I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing in my own words—is simply that it is a sense of membership in a particular community, brought about by common customs, traditions, and values, that engenders a meaningful and productive life, and serves as the strongest guarantor of social harmony.

To the extent that the import of other cultures serves to strengthen this foundation, they should be accommodated. However, when these same cultures threaten to undermine it, it is not only the legal right of the host country to curtail their presence but also their moral obligation to do so.

Of course, to many readers, Scruton’s views are not a revelation and present an intuitively even-handed perspective on an otherwise profoundly contentious subject. But in our current political climate, where, as Bari Weiss writes, the notion of truth has shifted from being the outcome of a process of collective discovery to “an orthodoxy already known by an enlightened few,” even axioms bear repeating.

I should also add that I am not trying to insinuate that cultural preservation has not been used as a cover for xenophobia, only that a certain circumspection is warranted and that multiculturalism, for the sake of multiculturalism, can be a dangerous idea to trifle with.

It is a pity that I stumbled upon Sir Roger Scruton and his work serendipitously (or rather through the YouTube search algorithm). A pity because I wish he had been introduced to me intentionally over the course of my liberal arts education. A pity because I know many who would fiercely debate against conservatism without first understanding the actual sentiments upon which it is based. A pity because I can’t imagine many students at my own school taking well to him coming to give a lecture were he still around.

Perhaps this will change over time as flag-bearers of conservatism and Scruton’s intellectual descendants find a way to revitalize its appeal or as we move towards a more tolerant environment for political conversation. The latter would indeed be a fitting tribute to the man himself.