The Left has captured the language of political debate.
If ‘rights’ are thought of as ‘entitlements’, then there is little hope for Tories who argue for a smaller state
While the Conservative Party may soon settle on a new leader, the crucial task that follows will be winning back the consensus over the nation’s core political values – and, in particular, the balance between the individual and the state. That, in turn, will mean reclaiming the language of political debate, which has moved relentlessly to embrace a big state view of the world.
Perhaps the most damaging shift in the language has been the changed meaning of individual rights. The essence of Conservatism is to emphasise the opportunities for individuals to progress through initiative and hard work, alongside their responsibility for themselves, their families and communities. Since Magna Carta the word “rights” has referred to the individual freedoms that support this – freedom under the law to live your life without discrimination or unfair persecution. Gradually, however, the concept of rights has shifted to now imply “entitlements” granted and funded by a benevolent state.
|
All parties in the UK agree about the need for a welfare state that provides support for those in genuine need. The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights defined as a legal “right” the entitlement to social security benefits and social services, as well as the right to social and housing assistance “so as to ensure a decent existence for all”. Few could argue with the principle but, while the UK is no longer bound by the charter, there is a continual political push from the Left to extend the scope of entitlements individuals have a right to expect.
Does a decent existence include a TV subscription? How much choice should individuals have over what work they are willing to take? It must be open to question what level of entitlements are guaranteed by unbounded rights – and how far they extend against the balancing concept of obligations and responsibilities, as well as budgetary considerations of who will pay the bill.
This implicit acceptance of big government in the language of political discussion is reflected in the frequent demand that “they” – meaning government – should do something to respond to every issue, leading to a flurry of knee-jerk legislation and short-sighted initiatives. Conservatives need to challenge the concept of “they” always being the state, asking whether responsibility lies first with families and communities. Sadly, the last government’s adoption of the phrase “levelling up” was a reinforcement of language that gave the impression it was up to the state to redistribute wealth, rather than seeing its role as fostering wealth-creating enterprise
Another shift in meaning is the way equality is now often interpreted as meaning equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunities. Conservative values respect the achievement of high performers with appropriate reward for enterprise and merit, recognising individual success as a prime motivator of social progress. The new concept of equality too often decries such unequal outcomes as unfair and undeserved, justifying state intervention and the politics of envy to replace the old class warfare.
Similarly, the word “elite” has now become a term of criticism – suggesting some privileged group or culture that excludes ordinary people. Yet without those pushing at the leading edge of academia, business, music or art, standards for everyone will ultimately begin to fall. To be elite is still a source of pride when applied to the Armed Forces – or football – but deemed unacceptable when applied to schools or universities. We need to restore pride in the achievements and contribution of elites in every walk of life. DT.
