phillip blond on red toryism

A while back, Phillip Blond, British exponent of what he calls “Red Toryism” did something of an American tour.  The American Conservative this month reprints the substance of an address he delivered at Georgetown University titled “Shattered Society.”  Although he has direct reference to the current political and social situation in the UK, much of the diagnosis is directly relevant to the contemporary American context.  The answer to the main problems, he suggests, is neither statist liberalism nor “conservatism” (a code word these days, in Britain and the United States, for an intellectually and morally bankrupt libertarianism).

While we’re on the topic of conservatism, the Clarion Review contains an excellent interview with Roger Scruton that I just happened upon.  A couple of excerpts:

What distinguishes conservatism from classical liberalism?

The problem with classical liberalism is that it never pauses to examine what is involved in ‘not harming others’. Do I leave others unharmed when I destroy my capacity for personal relationships, through drug-taking, promiscuity, or porn addiction? Do I leave them unharmed when I stupefy myself with pop music? I have nothing against individualism, so long as it is recognized that the individual is created by a community and by the moral constraints that prevail in it. The individual is not the foundation of society but its most important by-product.


What deleterious consequences does the free market have? And in what ways should the market be limited?

The market, left to itself, puts everything on sale; hence the problem of pornography. We don’t allow children to be sold – not yet: but we do allow them to be treated as market commodities when they are in the womb. It is very obvious, when you look at these facts, that the market is a good only when controlled by moral sentiment – as Adam Smith recognized. The market should be limited by laws reflecting the needs of the moral life. Certain things should be withdrawn from the market, in the way that religion has always tried to withdraw the aspects of human life on which the reproduction of society depends.

Feel free to comment and/or critique in the comment thread.  To the degree that I see cultural and social issues as relevant to what I usually discuss on this blog, I think these are worthwhile and, therefore, I bring them to your attention.  That said, I’m done with politics as such in this space for a while.


One response to “phillip blond on red toryism

  1. The conservative demands the libertarian define what “causing harm” is, knowing no two libertarians will ever agree on every possible scenario.

    The libertarian demands the conservative define “right and wrong,” knowing no two conservatives will ever agree on every possible scenario.

    Given the current state of both the country and the world, I wish both sides would work more on the 95% of issues they agree on before hissing at each other over the 5% they disagree on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.