"Rethinking Conservatism in a Time of Transition"

• When Conservatives Themselves Don’t See Eye to Eye

The term “conservative” is often used as the opposite of “liberal” (or progressive), yet in public discourse, it is not uncommon for people to discuss it without even a basic shared understanding of what the term actually means. There are many cases where people assume they are both “conservatives,” but end up talking past each other—only to later realize they were using the term in quite different ways. Some include “traditionalism”—the blanket affirmation of all customs simply because they have existed for a long time—within the concept of conservatism. Others, however, see “conservatism” as recognizing that even traditions contain both good and bad elements depending on the times, and advocate for careful, orderly, and incremental change.

• Edmund Burke as a Root of Conservative Thought

If we take conservatism in its truer, original sense, the latter understanding is more accurate. Looking to the West for the origins of conservative philosophy, one key figure is the British thinker Edmund Burke (1729–1797). Born in Ireland, Burke entered politics at the age of 36 and served as a member of the House of Commons. He was a man of substance—criticizing the king’s backroom politics, defending the American colonies’ protests against British rule on the basis of “liberty,” and also pointing out flaws in the British system itself (though he did not unconditionally support American independence—rather, he considered what should be done within the framework of the British system). When the French Revolution later broke out, many around him expected Burke to support it—but he strongly opposed it.

• Conservatism Requires the Means to Change

Within a year of the Revolution, Burke hurriedly published his work Reflections on the Revolution in France. In it, he forcefully criticized the radical revolution driven by abstract theories and ideologies with no grounding in historical continuity. Burke argued that traditions and institutions cultivated by history should indeed be “conserved,” but that maintaining freedom also requires a readiness to pursue prudent and orderly reforms when needed. For Burke, conservatism was not the same as traditionalism—keeping everything the same simply because it is old. In Reflections, he wrote:

“A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”

In short, his argument was that in order to conserve, one must be willing to continue changing.

• The Turning Point for Conservatism in Japan

Now, it seems that Japan is approaching a major turning point in its own approach to conservatism. Personally, I prefer the kind of conservatism that Burke advocated—and in that sense, how we interpret history becomes a crucial issue. However, working in the field of strategy and military history, I’ve often found that due to differing historical perspectives, meaningful discussion is sometimes impossible. Of course, everyone is free to believe what they choose, and that should be respected. Still, I find it troubling when people take one particular historical period, sever it from the past, and fully embrace only the ideologies that emerged from that rupture. We may not be able to say definitively which historical interpretation is “correct,” but at the very least, we should allow for multiple interpretations.

The Analects includes a passage that says:

“To fight with an untrained populace is tantamount to abandoning them.”

This comes from a very different era and social context than our own, but perhaps the strength of true conservatism lies in being able to flexibly interpret and apply such insights even today. Soon, Japan will mark 80 years since the end of World War II. I can only hope that framing all debate solely within the lens of the “postwar” period doesn’t unintentionally drift into a kind of derivative “traditionalism.”

ーーー

Author: Yoichi Nishida

Born in Hokkaido in 1976.

President and CEO of Yoyu Inc., strategy consultant, and author.

Essays and the Analects

“Reading the Analects Without Understanding Them” – No. 107