The Unmaking of Compassionate Conservatism: A Closer Look
In 2007, the leader of the Conservative party, David Cameron, presented a memorable speech concerning social justice. This well-known speech, colloquially known as ‘Hug a Hoodie’, laid the groundwork for what would later emerge as the ‘big society’ scheme. The speech emphasized a greater understanding for the youth and was penned by Danny Kruger, a political advisor who recently joined Nigel Farage’s Reform party. Known for their intellectual influence on the compassionate conservatism movement were Kruger, Philip Blond, and Steve Hilton.
From the present vantage point, the ‘big society’ project was born of a more dreary perception of society than the one suggested by the ‘Hug a Hoodie’ speech. The initiative was rooted in the contention that moral deprivation caused by the ruling governments, irrespective of their political leaning since the 1960s, had left a void in the nation. The narrative painted by the Conservatives wasn’t optimistic and forward-looking, but rather, it revolved around a theme of decline and crisis.
Kruger, in particular, embodied this viewpoint. His essay, ‘On Fraternity’, published in the same year as Cameron’s speech, highlighted the dichotomy between rampant individualism and an overly controlling state, arguing that this relationship is suffocating society. Kruger mainly blames the political left for this predicament. Blond condemned every post-war government for establishing a bureaucratic welfare state which undermined the mutual connections amongst the working class in Britain, simultaneously encouraging social leniency.
He believed that this environment catalyzed the objectification of sex and produced hedonic automatons dependent on the state for problems solutions. In today’s terms, the right-wing defines this phenomenon as being an NPC, or a non-player character. Because of his connection with Cameron, Blond gained recognition and founded a think-tank to propagate his ideas. Kruger, on the other hand, devoted his career to the third sector before venturing into politics and was appointed as an MP in 2019.
Analyzing Cameron’s speech and Kruger’s essay today, demonstrates a refined traditional conservative ideology veiled as a cohesive political doctrine for public acceptance. What surfaces isn’t bona fide conservative empathy, but a dressing of social conservatism in the robe of progressive language. In Kruger’s writing, he frequently refers to classical thinkers and discusses the philosophical construct of the brotherly bond within society. Like Cameron, he perceives British nationalism as primarily civic, not ethnic. Nonetheless, cultural shifts, including the impacts of immigration on social unity, are a recurring undercurrent in his discussion.
Kruger flags ‘the existence of large communities of different nationalities’ as one of the main challenges faced by Britain, comparing the present multicultural society with an ostensibly more homogeneous past. Throughout his analysis of societal fragmentation, he subtly refers to his apprehensions about the rapid demographic changes. Using the ‘hoodie’ as a generic symbol for estranged youth, Cameron’s speech on the other hand, tactfully sidesteps any suggestion that cultural diversity might disrupt social unity.
Cameron also steers clear of referencing a golden era, instead keeping his discussion centred on the present and future. These two pieces exemplify that the substantial question of who should set the societal norms that supposedly hold communities together remains unresolved. Kruger discusses ‘social authority’ in detail but leaves a void in distinguishing benign societal pressure from stifling uniformity. His call that acts of public liberty should align with the interests and values of the greater British society seems benign, but ambiguity arises when questioning the identity of the people defining this alignment.
Cameron entirely avoids this issue by focusing on common values and appealing to expertise. He neglects to address the fact that contentious issues such as family structure, sexual morality, work ethic, and cultural integration frequently contribute to significant social problems. The compassionate conservatism agenda lacked a systematic approach to resolve these conflicts, instead it seemed to rely on voluntary organizations to yield a resolution.
This ambiguity was not incidental, it was necessary for the compassionate conservative strategy. Proposing specific policies forces tough decisions between conflicting values. It was more feasible to use broad terms such as ‘love’ and ‘relationships’, thus avoiding complex discussions on resources, priorities, and trade-offs.
To grasp why compassionate conservatism eventually fell apart, it’s essential to understand its primary role as a tool for developing electoral alliances. This strategy allowed conservatives to resonate with socially liberal voters without alienating their traditional base. However, the coalition was prone to instability as it aimed to cover up profound philosophical disagreements rather than finding a resolution.
Kruger’s recent party switch signifies this synthesis’ downfall. When issues such as migration became heightened, cultural conflicts became more pronounced and traditional conservative parties failed to tackle these deep-rooted issues effectively. As a result, the masterminds behind compassionate conservatism abandoned their project and chose more overtly populist options.
Hilton left British politics in the 2010s, appearing on Fox News, and later aligning himself with Trump and the MAGA movement. He is now running for the governorship of California against progressive incumbent Gavin Newsom. Whereas Blond continues to comment on UK politics, backing several socially conservative positions on topics like abortion, assisted dying, and trans rights from his platform. Currently, he believes that ‘white working-class males’ are the most marginalized groups in the UK, though he still terms this a progressive viewpoint.
Cameron’s speech succeeds as political rhetoric; it speaks to both conservatives and progressives by advocating for personal responsibility and voluntary organizations, while also demonstrating an understanding of structural causes and empathy. But when faced with the task of real governance, these tensions became harder to ignore.
Compassionate conservatism wasn’t a genuine endeavour to blend liberty and social justice. It served as a marketing ploy that assured voters they could enjoy both conservative economics and progressive social policy. The ideological inconsistency was intentional, enabling politicians to sidestep complex choices by pretending they were non-existent. This resulted in a politically correct politics of good intent; it continually failed to effect tangible change, resulting in unmet conservative and progressive objectives. Now that this approach’s political benefits are on the decline, its creators seem to have shifted toward more transparent (or profitable) articulations of their actual beliefs.