Editing One-nation conservatism (section)

== Political philosophy ==
One-nation conservatism was conceived by the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]] [[Benjamin Disraeli]],{{sfn|Dorey|1995|pp= 16–17}} who outlines his political philosophy in two of his novels: ''[[Coningsby (novel)|Coningsby]]'' (1844), and ''[[Sybil (novel)|Sybil]]'' (1845).{{sfn |Heywood|2007|pp=82–83}}{{sfn|Arnold|2004|p=96}} Disraeli's conservatism proposed a paternalistic society with the social classes intact, but with the working class receiving support from the establishment. He emphasised the importance of social obligation rather than individualism.{{sfn|Dorey|1995|pp= 16–17}} The phrase was coined because Disraeli feared a Britain divided into two nations, one of the rich and one of the poor, as a result of increased industrialisation and inequality.{{sfn|Heywood|2007|pp=82–83}} One-nation conservatism was his solution to this division, namely a system of measures to improve the lives of the people, provide social support and protect the working classes.{{Sfn |Dorey|1995|pp=16–17}}

Disraeli justified his ideas by his belief in an [[organicism|organic society]] in which the different classes have natural obligations to one another.{{sfn|Dorey|1995|pp=16–17}} He saw society as naturally hierarchical and emphasised the obligations of those at the top to those below. This was a continuation of the feudal concept of ''[[noblesse oblige]]'', which asserted that the aristocracy had an obligation to be generous and honourable. To Disraeli, this implied that government should be paternalistic.{{Sfn |Heywood|2007|pp= 82–83}} Unlike the [[New Right]] of the late 20th century, one-nation conservatism identifies its approach as pragmatic and non-ideological. Its proponents would say that it accepts the need for flexible policies and as such one-nation conservatives have often sought compromise with their ideological opponents for the sake of social stability.{{sfn|Bloor|2012|pp= 41–42}} Disraeli justified his views pragmatically by arguing that should the ruling class become indifferent to the suffering of the people, society would become unstable and social revolution would become a possibility.{{sfn|Dorey|1995|pp= 16–17}}