According to the Dutch philosopher of law, Andreas Kinneging, the left-central wing way of dealing with the problems of multi-cultural society – crime, drugs, lost of moral – has failed. Left wing, or ‘new left’ doesn’t see the problems of individualisation and egocentrism, the lost of community feeling. It lacks money and manpower to tackle the problems. According to Kinetin the real cause of the contemporary problems, where faced with, is the lack of morality. Not enough accountability, not enough wisdom and the stress on the right of self-determination are causing troubles in society. The latter right got much attention in the sixties, and Kinningin opposes the cultural revolution. The liberation of the individual at expense of group-identities, such as family, church, is the cause of moral decline. This is, since the right of self determination, implies that the will of the individual is sovereign, that is, people being able to decide and agree upon any matter, as long as the will is free. It means that, in case such contract is agreed upon to in voluntary way, it is good per definition, no matter its content. Prostitution, free fight, big brother, its all good because people choose for it. Kinetin opposes this notion of sovereignty for the people “what we want, is not what we ‘really’ want, therefore, we should not let us guide by our own will, but obey the moral guidelines of our strong moral leaders. Behind this vision there are two fundamental thoughts that are related to each other. The first one is an answer to the pressure on Enlightment thinking, and thus the sixties, in which human being are perceived as rational thinking beings. Conservatives see the human being as not rational. Naturally he is inclined to evil as he is condemned to be a sinner. Men needs self-refrain and for that, he only can trust his mind. His mind serves as an ‘inner check. ’A good mind is the fundament for a well shaped society. And this well functioning mind can only be created by the institutions that are founded for this function: family, school, church, the neighbourhood, -- all these small institutions Edmund Burke calls ‘society’s little platoons. This inner check is not enough to guarantee order. Society also needs external mechanism of control. These can be found in action by the State and social control. Kinneging prefers the latter because incentives such as reputation, statues work better than punishment, which merely appeals to the human at the level of an animal. Man is more than an animal of pleasure and pain; he lives within a group and needs acceptation. The State has a minimum function. This conservatism stands in the tradition of aversion against the State. Sovereignty in one’s own group (corporatism|). Society exists out of small autonomous groups, that know best how to deal with their own problems, its not upto government to intermingle. The individual derives his function from these groups, such as organs do in a body. The individual is submissive to the interest of the entire group. The second thought of this conservatism is an answer to the idea of ‘make ability.’ Society has gone way too far in its development. The result is disorder, social disintegration and moral decline. The cultural revolution of the sixties is the cause of this chaos. The sixties have made a breach too rapid with all that was old and tradition. Against such a way of acting Edmund Burke has warned two centuries ago. Men can’t make in a rapid breach – radically – a change to develop a new sort of society. Society is not a tabula rasa which afterwards can be designed by new rulers. Society, according to Burke, is a historical grown entity, a complex coalition of powers, as well, one need to respect traditions. Societies are relations between the past ones, the living and the unborn. Therefore one should build upon the insights of the forefathers. They have left a reservoir of knowledge, a permanent source of wisdom. Only together, as the human species, we have the knowledge to come to a blueprint for a new society. The individual is foolish, the species is wise’ However, a blueprint it won’t be. It will be a slow process in which adoptions are to be made step by step. The revolutionaries of the sixties – or those in 1789 – were wrong to think to change society so quickly. It only leads to chaos according to Conservatives. One overestimates the goodwill of the human being, who is and stays a to sin condemned creature. Evil by nature. Old fashioned moral will lead men. Traditions that have proved to be useful in the past. Of course the tradition is best safeguarded by the Church in eyes of the conservatives. The Dutch conservatives can be found in the CDA (christen Democrats). One can imagine conservatism had its function in the nineteenth century, as it was a contra-revolutionary movement against the Enlightment, still dreaming of turning back the time to the middle ages of Kings, Popes, Bishops and farmers. The city as swamp of Evil and whatever the priest preached. But how come it still can become the largest party in congress in the new millennium? Of course, a lot of the program has changed during the century, as the socialists and liberals have done too. This middle party in its new form makes a flirt with both directions either it being left or right wing, possible. A turn to the right and CDA stands for “gespreide verantwoordelijkheid” (a modern version of: market in stead of State, or corporatism) and “gerechtvaardigheid (Justice, a populist subject in days of crime and problem youth of ethnic groups), a turn to the left it is suddenly “solidarity” and “rentmeesterschap (environment). What is the party's own face? The answer is “moral and values.” As if the right and left don’t know anything about these. More over, the moral and values find their source in the bible since the CDA is Christian, so we have no division of State and Church anymore. Millions of people who fear that by a majority of Muslims in parliament Muslim laws will be introduced; no one minds that with CDA majority God’s laws can be imposed upon a majority that is secular these days. But the interesting thing is that it isn’t about religion at all. What we see is clientalism and paternalism. The latter precisely in the trend of moral leaders. As if the fifties have not passed by. Church and Believe as well as the interests of the farmer industry will make that this party will stay popular. It is however interesting to take a closer look at the ideology of conservatism on which the CDA is based. We can return to Kinetin then and see that not only from the perspect of content as well from the perspect of strategy his conservatism to the problems of multicultural society is not tenable. His conservatism has three weak points. Kinnging says virtue forms the new political principle. The by Evil driven man should listen to the moral leaders. This is a contradiction in terminis. Are the moral leaders themselves not driven by Evil? The danger that these rulers themselves won’t obey the rules set by them is bigger. John Major did it as we remember with his family values, as he got trapped by affairs outside marriage. More over, is ‘virtue’ an ideal on which only conservatives have a monopoly and does moral really get ruined by revolutions. The by Kinneging critizised blueprint, designed after the French Revolution, called ‘virtue’ as the leading principle of good citizenship. It is a myth that moral and values are only safe in Church tradition. Enough principle and values – what in a name – have been “discovered” under the flag of liberal democracy or socialism. For instance, the Euthanasia law in Netherlands was not a one day decision. All politicians let them guide by moral and virtues, and, the other way round, even the soldiers of moral suddenly seem to be able to set their principles aside when opportunity reasons call for it. (The placement of Rockets in the eighties in Holland fee.). Secondly Knifings anti-revolution fixation is overdone. According to him, after each revolution chaos and moral decline appears. But, there was as much chaos and moral decline before as after the 1789 revolution in France. In this feudal territorial of combating knights there was anarchy in stead of order. Prostitution and violence were present before the revolution. These phenomenons are also not typical for after the revolution of 1968 or 1789. They have always existed. And ad if the “family values” have a traditional base. Polygamy, having several maítraises happened before as well after revolutions. For centuries marriage has been a sort of business contract to safeguard family and financial interests. Having several mattresses was normal and children were normally raised outside the family, in private school or monasteries. Thirdly, Kinneging implies that traditions are valuable per definition. It is unnecarily to remind us that discrimination against women, negroes or gays were during the old days no valuable traditions. Traditionalism poses the conservatives themselves also in front of a dilemma. The Netherlands have developed a social welfare state during the last hundred years. She is an example of a historic grown tradition, born out of a collective wisdom of the nation. Conservatives should therefore want to adapt to this system. This however would be against their principle of particular initiative within small communities. The problem for which conservatives have no answer is what has to count as the norm, the status quo or the ideal past? If they choose for the idealized past as a norm they have again a new problem. Burke has written that each form of revolution is bad per definition, since it means a radical breach with a founded tradition. If change can only be very slow, how can conservatives then now demand, that we have to brake with the grown tradition of individualism, designing a corporatist society out of nothing? That would be the same as Burkes much despised way of acting in the French Revolution. Conservatism in the new millennium, as defended by Kinneging also lacks strategic power. The relations he is talking about have changed. Family, neighbourhood and church have become an expression factor. They have become to a lifestyle one can select or reject, take part in or ignore. There are no social sanctions on divorce or unmarried mums. No one cares. No one is waiting to return to the thirties. “Family” is no longer the tradional family. Gay marriage is possible and adaption is normal. “Work” as a social bound has lost its function since many people prefer to spend their quality time outside the circle of work, leisure time becomes more and more important. Neighbourhood work gets less important because of the forces of internationalisation, Europeanization and globalisation. People don’t necessarily feel the need to relate with small communities, but relate to larger communities, made possible by the new media such as internet. It is not a good strategy to tell people to have the intention to turn back these developments of internationalisation and such, which is also impossible. Secondly, conservatives say that people should not come to rules by free will agreement – sovereignty of the people -- but let these rules being ‘dictated’ by the conscience. This implies that people have a piori knowledge of the good life. This means, knowledge of rules that are not neceraily based in the objective observable social reality. The result of this way of coming to rules, is that each person can call himself ‘moral leader’ being the mouth of the conscience, without having the duty to prove objectively the truth of the rules. This opens the doors for moral leaders of the type of German and Russian dictators, Roussean leaders who knew best what the people need. They pretended to speak in the name of the people and held the people not wise enough to decide for themselves. Civilians will not feel much for loyalty for such an elite. A system of such a type presupposes a fundamental inequality between the ‘elite’ and the common man. An undemocratic system, with a technocracy perhaps, will never be possible to introduce. From the perspective of content as well as a strategy Kinneging’s conservative is a weak answer to the problems of multiculturalism. But there is another problem with this ideology. It is per definition a way of opposing change. Making people afraid of change. In the old days even sending people to prison if they were provoking change (gays, atheists). Opposing change as an ideology implies standing for assimilation. “Strangers” have to adapt to the small communities. As the communitarism describes society as a large body in which all organs have their place and function, all organs have to adapt according to their function. Groups that think differently, who don’t adapt to society are looked upon as dangerous. In the name of conservatism outstanding groups and people were cursed upon from the preach chair. Of course this happened in the beginning of the twentieth century in backward villages but it still happened in the typical small-town. How will ‘strangers’ feel at home in the new times of mass immigration? People with other traditions and believes are forced to adapt to conservative traditions. The eyes will be closed for everything that is new, and which, could destroy that what people are used to (housewife in the kitchen, anti-gay, no nudity on the beach etc). Short mindedness is the result. Thos who don’t assimilate are not ‘normal’ and excluded out from society. Conservatism here goes against the philosophy of multiculturalism, -- Parekh – who rightly see mutual respect and the preservation of different cultures within society as the right answer to the problems of multicultural society. Closing the eyes for differences, listening to moral rulers that demand assimilation is dangerous, at least backwards. It turns back the time.
