From its origin around the French Revolution, through the revolutions of the 19th century and the cultural transformations of the 20th century, we can see a progressive decline of the conservative ideals. This broad historical trend requires an explanation.
First of all, we must characterize what is meant by conservatism. Here are two definitions: The first, more historical and epistemological, views conservatism not as a defense of the traditional social order but as a movement directly connected to the Enlightenment, yet skeptical of the human capacity to implement a rationally planned social order, ignoring human behaviors difficult to understand. According to this view, the traditional order must not be taken with an unquestionable authority, but neither should it be ignored, for, having evolved over centuries, it presents empirically tested manners and institutions that reflect a wisdom to deal with the human beings not easily understood by the social sciences. Conservatism is not opposed to the Enlightenment, it is only more cautious in its proposals for social reform, advocating gradual, not radical, changes.
The second definition, which will be the central point of the argument of this article, is more scientific and social, and focused on the vision that this movement has, implicitly or explicitly, of human nature itself, as well as of a social system that is in tune with it.
Although many point out the importance of the individual in the conservative approach, this is a very social movement. This predisposition is a key factor in understanding why this movement decline over time.
Although conservatism is hostile to state intervention over individuals, this does not mean that conservatives have anything to do with libertarians. On the contrary, they understand that individuals have several negative impulses, and only with the imposition of a strict order can these impulses be constrained. The central point refers to the agents who must be in charge of the imposition of the social order. For conservatives, this agent is not the state, but the community, with its manners and institutions. Religion, in particular, plays a fundamental role in maintaining social order, but even something spontaneous and informal like gossip is important. These customs and institutions promote a moral order that inhibits certain negative individual impulses, increasing the cohesion of the group and its proper functioning.
It is this community bias that condemns conservatism as a historically decadent movement. Three factors at least contribute to this: The first is that communities, with their broad moral webs, are only possible in small groups. The great cities, with their anonymous crowds and their cultural and genetic diversity, prevent any possibility of a communitarian moral order to consolidate. In a situation like this, only the state can impose control on the individuals, ensuring the good coexistence in the urban centers.
The second is that in a market society, economic relations replace moral relations. Professionals replace grandparents and aunts as mothers' assistants in childcare, and asylums replace younger relatives in the care of the elderly. The money earned by women, homosexuals and racial minorities is equal to that of any other, as well as the product of their jobs. When the interaction between individuals occurs only at the economic level, moral relations are shaken contributing to individual freedom.
The third factor is the technologies, which offer us liberties never dreamed before, and no tradition has had time to digest its effects. The television allows individuals to obtain fulfilment by staring at a screen instead of engaging in social relations, the freezer and the microwave oven weaken group meals by allowing individuals to prepare their dishes at any time, and contraceptives free women from the risk of pregnancy, contributing to casual sex and the consequent weakening of the family institution.
My final point, which explains why conservatism is doomed to failure, is that the factors cited above are growing more and more. A growing proportion of individuals live in large cities, the market economy is becoming more and more widespread, and technologies are increasingly sophisticated. As these three factors erode the social fabric of the community and foster individualism, we can understand why conservatism is a defensive movement that has become weaker over the years.
