The Splits in Anglo-Saxon Conservatism

Emre Kazim and Matt McManus discuss the differences between the British and American brands of conservatism and how they come to bear on current political debates, including “Brexit.”

Introduction

Much of our recent work has been focused on understanding the roots and dimensions of contemporary shifts in political—and especially right-wing—discourse. Whether it is examining the way that technological shifts have transformed our relationships with the nation state, or accounting for the emergence of what McManus calls postmodern conservatism, we think it is indisputable that we live in interesting and often volatile times. Much of this has been driven by the agitation of right-wing populists across the globe—from Donald Trump in the United States, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom, Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Victor Orban in continental Europe.

In this article, we wanted to look more closely at some of the deeper ideological tensions and dynamics which might have produced these developments. In particular, we want to examine why American conservatism was conducive to the exceptionally virulent emergence of Trumpist nationalism, while the United Kingdom, despite making a strong nationalist statement through Brexit, has nevertheless avoided a slide into full blown right-wing populist government. Our argument is that British conservatism is characterized by a greater degree of moderation than its American counterpart—and that this has a basis in the ideological foundations of the two respective branches Anglo-Saxon conservatism.

The Twin Roots of American Conservatism

Summarized very briefly, American conservatism has long been defined by two often intersecting ideological commitments. The first is Lockean style individualism and free market capitalism.  The second, as noted by Weber, Taylor, and others, is a commitment to Christian traditionalism and mores. We will discuss both, in turn, before describing how they have evolved contemporaneously.