Monarchy is decidedly a small-c conservative poltical system. That is not to say that it has any more affiliation with a right-wing party over a left-wing party (although that is often the case), but rather that monarchy largely concerns itself with preserving and building on what have been known as “pillars of society.” These pillars consist of what has been handed down from previous generations—the Church, the State, the Laws of the State, and other traditions which form the basis of society.
Unfortunately, the modern conservative movement is more libertarian than anything else. Not that small government is necessarily a bad thing, but essentially libertarianism boils down to one single point: government is bad, because the Individual is ultimate arbiter of his own Fate, but as one individual does not carry a club big enough to survive, we must tolerate a government in order to defend society. Libertarianism, is essentially a product of the Classical Liberalism of the Enlightenment. It isn’t unlike most of the liberal ideologies, same beliefs, different applications.
The Enlightenment witnessed the creation of the Individual. Not that a person didn’t exist before, but the Enlightenment created the philosophical “individual” in a vacuum of sorts. Each individual was essentially his governor, capable of making his own decisions through rational thought processes. The thinking at the time was that this individual would be allowed to make any decision he (women weren’t people…yet) wanted unless it harmed or infringed on the rights of another person. Of course, the definition of “person” or “individual” under the Law was necessarily limited. If you were a woman or not white enough or didn’t ascribe to right set of beliefs—political or religiously—then the rules did not really apply to you.
All in all, not really a bad idea. However, there is one key error here which carried itself into Classical Liberalism and foundations of modern democracy. Namely, the Individual as such was awarded the potential for limitless freedom. Freedom to progress, to believe, to disbelieve, to invent, to interact etc. This position, when carried to its full extent, will result in anarchy. That aside, traditional conservatism defines the Individual in a different way. The Individual is not to be held in conflict with society or the state, but rather its membership in society is integral to aspiring to and achieving its own freedom. Freedom, not in the sense that one can do whatever one wisehes, but rather, freedom in the sense that to paraphrase Joseph de Maistre, we are bound by a flexible chain which restrains us but does not make us into slaves. In other words, we are bound to the traditions we observe and to society, which limits our freedom to the extent we are able to discover ourselves as a unique person in the most constructive way.
This is true freedom, the ability to become what we are called to be, while at the same time honouring what has gone before us.
