The think-tank Demos recently held a fascinating event in Whitehall to herald the launch of its ‘progressive conservatism’ project.
In conversation with the philosopher Phillip Blond, the Tory leader David Cameron spoke glowingly of the need for conservatism to align itself with progressive goals by strengthening non-state institutions and supporting localism to usher in a new age of civic responsibility.
Although the term ‘progressive conservatism’ will strike many as oxymoronic, it is an example of the reshaping of the political landscape that has been underway in the
An example of this, closely allied to the development of ‘progressive conservatism’, is the emerging idea of liberal paternalism, a sort of 'Third-Way' for the right. Liberal paternalism attempts to combine the two big ideas that (arguably) divide modern conservatism: social conservatism (in which social responsibility is fundamental, and family, community and nation are highly valued) and libertarian conservatism (in which individual liberty is sacrosanct, and social and economic freedom and choice is maximised).
The idea of liberal paternalism is developed in last year’s political 'bestseller' Nudge. Nudge looks at how to improve decisions about health, wealth and happiness through the new science of ‘choice architecture’. This means using government to 'nudge' people into making the right decisions for themselves on a range of issues that have broad social implications. On the basis that people are generally quite fickle and remiss, it proposes that the state should encourage them to make more socially responsible choices by providing strong incentives and setting the best possible defaults.
For example, the present choice to opt into an employer's pension scheme would be replaced by the choice to opt out: the objective being to simplify and direct what people choose for the benefit of all. In a context in which the state can no longer afford to support a burgeoning retired population, this is surely a sensible application.
Good 'nudges' include motor cycle helmets, seat belts, public smoking bans, recycling, energy conservation – all little legal changes in which individual desire is put aside for the good of all. But not, it appears, marriage.
The chapter entitled 'Privatizing Marriage' argues that the 'one-size-fits-all' (i.e. a man and a women over a prescribed age) is not best suited for the 'needs and desires' of some minority groups, and proposes that the state should refrain from endorsing marriage.
The authors assert that there is a democratic basis to challenge the present choice architecture whereby the state creates a monopoly on the legal form of marriage, imposes sharp limitations on who may enter and how, and confers legal and material benefits. Instead, they say that the state should withdraw influence and allow private definitions to develop. It should stop providing licenses, tax breaks, etc. and leave it to individuals to decide what constitutes their 'civil union'.
This appears to fly directly in the face of the idea of nudging citizens in the right direction, ignoring the proven personal, social and economic benefits that marriage brings to individuals, families, communities and society. If the idea of nudging people to make the right choices is in any way coherent, society should privilege marriage over other forms of commitment.
The fact that it does not points to serious flaws within the emerging ideas of 'liberal paternalism' and perhaps also 'progressive conservatism'. Such inconsistencies are not insurmountable but they do show how far both these ideas are from being coherent political philosophies. They also show how the state can be used to shove rather than nudge its citizens.
Dr David Landrum is Senior Parliamentary Officer for Bible Society.
