Talk:Conservatism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Request to Revise and Expand Article and Discussions over semantics and "no true scotsman"

When it comes to this article, there has been a considerable lack of clarity on the topic. My main concern is the assertion that "conservatism" and the political right means very different things in different countries. While it may be true that conservatives in different countries in different period of time had a variety of ideas that are wide and conflicting, conservatism as a whole and in terns of principle around the world have little to no difference. People in this article have the tendency to focus on specific ideas or plank certain conservative groups have and determine rather or not that group is conservative or not. This is a folly since people can share the same idea or principle but can differ on how that principle can be realized. No one doubts the communism of Trotsky and Stalin despite being the vocal points of a major split in that ideology. No one doubts the liberalism of the politics of John Stuart Mill despite having quasi-socialist ideas in his later career. To assume that we should retain a conservatism based of the ideas of those in the late 18th century is a mistake since say for instance if conservatism was all just 'throne-and-alter', there will be no conservative parties today because republicanism and secularism are the norm. Where it come to the bare bones of the argument, the basics of conservatism and the parties of the political right changed little since its inception and current parties around the world today considered conservative and to the right share and awful lot in common. DemitreusFrontwest (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting, but you need a source, and you need to say what this unifying principle of conservatism is.Rick Norwood (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The main view of conservatism is that it arose as a reaction to liberalism and held a specific set of values. Re your comment "there will be no conservative parties today", that is largely correct. Conservative parties have largely died out. Where they have survived, such as in the U.K., throne and altar have often also survived, although in a much weakened state and the conservative ideology has managed to absorb a great degree of liberalism. The UK party today for example has the Cornerstone Group (Faith, Flag, and Family) and the Tory Reform Group which draws on the democratic Toryism of Disraeli, but the Thatcherite group was more likely to draw on 19th century liberals than actual conservatives.

TFD (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Then that would be contending that political ideologies are static and can never change and adapt. By that logic, social liberalism (the liberalism held by American liberals, Canadian liberals under and since Pierre Trudeau, Danish Social Liberal Party, modern Norwegian Liberals, Japan's JDP, British liberals since 1906) is not true liberalism since it deviates from classical liberal tenets in that expanded government is needed to help citizens and that the market economy should be regulated. By the same token, Lenin is not a true Marxist since he facilitated a revolution in a nation Marx did not consider 'modern' or 'developed'. Political ideologies adapt with the times and conservatism is unique in that it does that well. The notion that Conservative parties have 'largely died out' based on the original "throne and alter" is not true since liberals have largely moved on from parliamentarianism and disestablishment. Also is it worth noting about the overstating of differences in 19th century conservatives and liberals when it comes to certain political and economic issues. After all, the Peelites were conservatives that supported free trade and Gladstone started his political career as a Tory. The conservatives in Britain held disagreements with each other when it comes to specific things in politics and economics but then Thatcherites can draw liniage between them and previous conservatives that held their views. (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ideologies indeed evolve. For most Conservative parties however, they did not evolve fast enough and died out, e.g., in Germany, Chile and Quebec. The parties that you call conservative evolved too mostly out of classical liberalism and are still within the liberal tradition. While 19th century Tories indeed adopted liberal economics, they saw the entrepreneurial class as inferior to the aristocracy. Similarly, modern Communist governments also adopted liberal economics, yet we do not call them liberals or conservatives. TFD (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your indication that largely did not evolve and died out? An ideology adopting certain planks of other ideologies, even rival ones, does not mean that the former ideology is the later one. Conservatism developed and matured as a philosophy than just throne and alter to be involve in other issues. You're making the mistake that conservatism is a single issue ideology and it's not. (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I just provided three examples and there are more in the article. What is your definition and where did you get it? TFD (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There are conservative parties in Germany, Chile and Quebec. (talk) 4:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The German National People's Party (formerly the German Conservative Party), the National Party (Chile, 1966–94) (formerly the Conservative Party (Chile)) and the Union Nationale (Quebec) (formerly the Conservative Party of Quebec (historical)) are all defunct. TFD (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

All major sources on the defining characteristics of conservatism point to: support for a state religion, or at least a belief that the state should support the most popular religion; support for the upper class, either in the form a state favors to the upper class, in terms of tax breaks and various other incentives, or at least a belief that the state should get out of the way, and allow the upper class to dominate by means of its wealth and social influence; and a preference for the values of the past over against "modernism" in all its forms, or at least a belief that all change should be gradual, and that government should not support "progress". All three of these can be encapsulated in a belief that the past is better than the present, and that we need to return to the way things were in the good old days.

The majority of young people embrace modernism. I don't know much about conservatism in Germany, Chile, and Quebec, but I assume that what The Four Deuces is saying is that the conservatives in those three countries fought against modernism and lost. In the US, the conservatives compromised -- they combined with the economic liberals under the blanket name conservative. The economic liberals were willing to accept laws against abortion, bussing, assisted suicide, and in some cases contraception in exchange for the lower taxes and less regulation that was their main issue. In the US, we now have a libertarian/conservative coalition which still cannot win a national election, but is dominant in the poorer and more rural states. Is this what you mean, DemitreusFrontwest, in saying that "conservatism is not a single issue ideology"? That it has joined with libertarianism? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Where does the quote about the good old days come from? Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.40.184 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the Britannica which supports the first paragraph of this article. "Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics. This suspicion of government activism distinguishes conservatism not only from radical forms of political thought but also from liberalism, which is a modernizing, antitraditionalist movement dedicated to correcting the evils and abuses resulting from the misuse of social and political power."

This part of the lead contradicts the premise that conservatism supports an organic view of society: "There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues." It is a different definition of conservatism and should say so. TFD (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of conservatism in four countries

The section Conservatism#Comparison of conservatism in four countries, which compares modern France, Russia, the UK and the U.S. appears to be original research. First, it is not clear that all the parties listed are conservative or that the positions listed are core principles. French conservatives for example are called "strong defenders of republicanism", while U.K. conservatives "reject[] conservatism." But French conservatives only agreed on republicanism because they could not agree on which line should assume the throne and restoring the monarchy today would be absurd, while in the U.K., where the Queen still reigns, even the socialists support monarchy. Then again UKIP (which is included under UK) is the least pro-monarchy party of them all.

I suggest removing it and only have such a section if it can be sourced to a text that makes comparisons.

TFD (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No objection here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

we can keep it--it has been revised with new info & cites. The text does not make OR comparisons of the sort "Britain is more conservative than France." Rjensen (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Progressive conservatism

The section Conservatism#Progressive conservatism is a summary of a former article, "Progressive conservatism" which was deleted as synthesis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive conservatism, and is now a re-direct to Compassionate conservatism. It combines such facts as the Tory party in Canada was called the "Progressive Conservative Party" after a former Progressive Party premier became leader of the Conservative Party and a few examples of conservatives who were arguably progressive.

I suggest deleting this section.

TFD (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the content verified? If no, than WP:BURDEN. If yes, than we should discuss if it is WP:FRINGE or given undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The relevant policy is synthesis. You need a source that says when Cameron says he is a "progressive conservative" he means the same thing as what Canadians meant when they said they were "Progressive Conservatives." TFD (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Civil Society

So, I check this page from time to time. Is it my imagination, or did Conservatism used to have 'civil society' listed in it's key concepts, and has been recently replaced with the obviously much more slanted and less accurate term 'conformity'? It should be obvious that conformity doesn't apply to conservatism any more than it does to any other ideology in places where that ideology is dominant. I don't want to set off some sort of fit or war by changing it back as a nobody, so I just thought I'd ask. 184.153.188.173 (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it must be your imagination. TFD (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:VER applies here. Can we find reliable sources where civil society is essential to Conservatism in every nation where it is practiced?

It is mentioned in the Fiscal Conservatism section, and there are numerous reliable sources that use the words conservatism and "civil society" close together, so there might be something here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources on google do not all say that conservatism supports civil society. Some say it does not. A google search that shows words used close together should be approached with caution. In any case, it is not all clear to me what "civil society" means in this context. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree in this matter with Rick Norwood, Rjensen (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A closer examination of the sources might be in order. What I am saying is that it shouldn't be dismissed out right without more in-depth examination of what reliable sources say.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The onus is on editor wanting to add the information to show sources for it. TFD (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are some sources that appear to support civic society as being part of the conservatism concept:

• Don E. Eberly; Ryan Streeter (1 January 2002). The Soul of Civil Society: Voluntary Associations and the Public Value of Moral Habits. Lexington Books. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-0-7391-0424-8.
• Michael Edwards (29 August 2011). The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society. Oxford University Press. pp. 111–112. ISBN 978-0-19-539857-1.
• Fred Powell (2013). The politics of civil society (Second edition). Policy Press. pp. 11–12. ISBN 978-1-4473-0714-3.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I gather "civil society" refers to volunteer groups and clubs. The sources you cite, RightCowLeftCoast, mention as examples labor unions, church groups, and social clubs. There is no suggestion that conservatives are more likely to join such organizations than liberals, though the Oxford Handbook suggests that in modern times, conservatives have been pushing (and attempting to redefine) civil society in order to get out the vote. Here is a quote: After discussing such examples as the AFL-CIO, the AARP, and the PTA, the author goes on to say "Finally, voluntary groups founded in the 1970s and 1980s adopted new forms of organization. Some -- such as public law groups, think tanks, foundations, and political action committees -- are not membership groups at all. Many others are staff-centered associations that have few, if any, chapters, and recruit most supporters individually via the mail or media messages. ... Recently proliferating associations have other telling features. Even when they claim substantial numbers of adherents, they rarely have chapters, or they have very sparse networks of subnational affiliates. ... To the degree that there is any exception to the civic transformations I have just recounted, it is on the conservative side of U.S. civil society. Professionally managed advocacy groups have proliferated across the board, but present-day conservatives have done more than liberals to renew or reinvent massively large, popularly rooted federations. The National Right to Life Committee, the Christian Coalition, and the National Rifle Association are all extensive chapter-based membership federations that have flourished in recent times, and the Tea Party movement is a very recent addition to this panoply. ... One unabashedly liberal membership federation to experience comparable massive growth in recent decades is the National Education Association, a teachers' union."

So, something referencing this paragraph might be added to the article, but not in the lead, and not claiming that "civil society" is characteristic of conservatives but not of liberals

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You would need a passage from a source about conservatism, not passing references to conservatives in books about civil society. It is true that traditional conservatives supported medieval institutions and "corporations" that were given some government powers. So for example the established church could run health welfare and education, have legal immunity, raise taxes and even run ecclesiastical courts and prisons. There is no indication that U.S. conservatives recommend transferring powers of the state to non-government organizations, just that they recommend contracting out responsibilites both to for profit and not-for-profit groups. But their ideological motivation is traditionally liberal - efficiency and to reduce the size of government. TFD (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The sources describe Reagan and especially Thatcher as neoliberal. Reagan self-identified as libertarian. As far as I know, Thatcher did not, and across the pond the term neoliberal was much more common. Also, as TFD points out above, neoliberal is much more specific than libertarian. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that 'conformity' was always there and I am simply remembering wrong (though I'd swear I learned about the association between the terms "Conservatism" and "Civil Society" FROM Wikipedia and now that connection is lost). But none of the above justifies why 'conformity' fits conservatism well enough to be listed as one of it's key concepts. Do we have reliable sources where conservatives claim that conformity is central to what they believe? Does history show us that conformity is more important to conservative societies than, say, socialist or communist societies? Following the link to 'conformity' and reading it, it talks about groupthink and caving to social pressure, and doesn't reference politics at all. Many of you just argued that we can't include civil society as a key concept in conservatism (despite the Burke quote and so on) because it's not particular enough to conservatism. Conformity as defined by wikipedia certainly is not either and I would ask that it be removed on the same grounds described above. 2604:6000:150B:E0BD:4D02:87E3:2A7A:1AF5 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is not just about political conservatism, but also about social conservatism, which denotes conformity to social mores. The opposite of socially conservative is avant-garde. Thus one dictionary definition of conservative: "moderate, avoiding extremes". Rick Norwood (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Collins provides "conservative" as a synonym of "conformist." It also mentions that supporters of the Church of England were called "Conformists".[1] Liberals of course are mostly Nonconformist. However, it is questionable whether Thatcher or Reagan were conservatives. Both claimed they became Conservatives because the Liberals had abandoned their values. So they meet the definition of situational conservatives, supporting the status quo or status quo ante, but not traditional conservatives, supporting pre-liberal institutions such as civil society. As Thatcher said, "There is no such thing as society." TFD (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

neoliberalism or libertarianism

A recent edit changed descriptions of European conservative economics from "neoliberal" to "libertarian". The sources say "neoliberal", so I reverted the changes, but I would like to see referenced sources that discuss what the difference, if any, is. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Libertarian, like liberal, is a term that can have different meanings and when using the term it should be clear which meaning is intended. Neoliberalism has a specific meaning, it refers to the policies introduced by Thatcher, Reagan and others and followed by their successors. TFD (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"neoliberalism" is only used by the enemies of the concept... That makes it the Pio the term that should be avoided Unless you are talking about those enemies. Rjensen (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No one questions that a new paradigm emerged with the Thatcher and Reagan administrations. What other term would you use to call it? They did not call themselves libertarians and certainly Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did not either. It is not paricularly pejorative. It just means returning to 19th century liberalism. TFD (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We have to follow the sources. Neoliberal was not pejorative at the time and neoliberal is what the sources use to describe Thatcher's policies. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Many political terms began as pejorative or acquired pejorative connotations. TFD (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Neoliberal" is a pejorative word, like "ultraliberal". "It just means returning to 19th century liberalism" : we say just "classical liberalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azertopius (talk • contribs) 21:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Except it is not a return to 19th century liberalism. For example, the welfare state remains in place and there is no return to the gold standard. And government spending in the U.S. has gone from around 5% of GDP in the 19th century to over 40% today. Not only that but many of the ideas associated with classical liberalism, such as Malthusian population theory, became obsolete long before the 19th century ended, partly through the efforts of the Austrian school, which would go on to develop what they originally chose to call neoliberalism. TFD (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that "neoliberal" is only used by enemies of the policy involved. I've been watching and have (almost) never seen it used by a neutral observer or by a supporter. That makes it feel the term of this sort that loads the Wikipedia article in favor of the editors own political preferences, which is not allowed here. In 2015, "libertarian" fits the policies pretty well, and is not a POV term. "The term is generally used by those who oppose it. People do not call themselves neoliberal; instead, they tag their enemies with the term." says Jonathan Arac in Peter A. Hall and Michèle Lamont in Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era Hardcover (2013)p xvii. Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If, in fact, Maggie Thatcher was a libertarian, there should be a source that says that. If not, and if neoliberal is really a negative word, we need a more neutral word that is sourced. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added an additional reference, from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, whose entry on "neoliberalism" does not make any suggestion that the phrase is derogatory. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Arac says the term is generally used by those who oppose it, not that it is exclusively used by them. The book, which has "neoliberal" in its title, was published by Cambridge University Press, the project was developed by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) and includes the work of many scholars across many disciplines. CIFAR is sponsored by the governments of Canada, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta and receives funding from major corporations in Canada. The fact that a source of this stature, which is hardly an enemy of neoliberalism, although some of the writers may be, shows the mainstream use of the term. TFD (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We now have one example of a source that tries to be neutral. N=1. The count on its use by friends of the pop policy = N=0. The book clearly states that "neoliberal" is generally used by the enemies & and states that it is not used by the friends of the policy. They're trying to break away from the status quo, and maybe indeed the term will become standard someday. But Arac says today it generally flags an enemy of the term. There's an excellent discussion and a recent Oxford dictionary of geography: ‘Neoliberalism’ is very much a critics term: it is virtually never used by those whom the critics describe as neoliberals. Noel Castree (2013). A Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford University Press. p. 340.

In this very talk page, I believe that all of the editors who use the term are in fact hostile to it. Am I wrong? will some editors speak up to say he has been using the term neoliberal in a friendly way? Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMHO we should find a more-neutral term, as suggested by Rjensen, the sections in discussion should not be defined and be heavily favored in the view of its opponents (just as much that it shouldn't be pro-its subject either).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I searched three books about Thatcher on amazon. None of them contained either the word "neoliberal" or the word "libertarian". Maybe we need another word. Why not just "conservative"? That seems to be the word almost everyone uses. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

lots of scholars say Thatcher was libertarian in the sense of Friedman & Hayek (whom she admired & coinsulted): 1) "Even beyond a set of pro-American, pro-libertarian instincts, Thatcher understood ...." Aldous, Reagan and Thatcher p 42 (2012); 2) "Here we have both Margaret Roberts 'the paternalist' and Margaret Roberts 'the libertarian'. In this, the young candidate was in fact reflecting the ideological tensions within her party at the time." Filby, God and Mrs Thatcher; 3) "strong evidence that there was a slowly but steadily building resentment against the size and style of government social provision which might be answered by a libertarian appeal to greater individual choice...." Nicholas Wapshott & ‎George Brock Thatcher 1983; 4) but there is a contrary view of her too: "Thatcher, more of an authoritarian Conservative than a libertarian Conservative, gave lip service to the rhetoric of the minimalist state, but her activist government expanded the power of the central state" Pugliese, The Political Legacy of Margaret Thatcher - 2003. I think "libertarian" works best for her economics Rjensen (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

All of these examples are equivocal, and the last says she was more conservative than libertarian, which is the change I suggested.

I trust Maggie Thatcher did not "coinsult" Hayek.  :) Rick Norwood (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

OOps :) -- no she did not "co-insult" Hayek, she consulted him & praised him. In my reading of the biographies, Thatcher has a traditional/conservative attitude toward authority and a favorable view of the power of the state, especially in dealing with labor unions and foreign enemies. However her main fame is her economic policy and that is pretty heavily libertarian. It is very hard to find a top Western leader who is 100 percent libertarian and zero percent conservative. Democratic politics involves too much negotiation and compromise for that. What I'm saying is that she was conservative outside of economics, and libertarian inside of economic policy. Rjensen (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The text is, "The Conservatives generally accepted those policies until the 1980s. In the 1980s the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher, guided by neoliberal economics, reversed many of Labour's programmes." We cannot say "conservative", because that would imply that Churchill, Macmillan and Heath were not really conservatives, while Thatcher was. But Conservative opponents of Thatcher saw the shift being toward liberalism and away from conservatism. The problem with the term libertarian is that it can have different meanings depending on context. I do not think it would be clear if used here. Similarly the term "liberal economics" could be misinterpreted as Keynsianism. Perhaps "neo-classical liberal economics" would be a better description. TFD (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree here with TFD We need to change it. "neo-classical liberal economics" Is a bit too fancy for the episode...How about "free market policies as advocated by her advisers Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek." Rjensen (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been reading up on the subject, and the word "libertarian" in Great Britain seems to be mainly associated with the libertarian socialists, which certainly would not include Thatcher. I like Rjensen's formulation, "free-market policies". Rick Norwood (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an interesting article, "Thatcher, Hayek & Friedman" on the official Thatcher Foundation website. It uses the term "economic liberalism", but that might be confusing for U.S. readers. It points out too that Thatcher was influenced by Hayek as a political and economic philosopher, rather than an economist. {Are many people aware of his economic theories?) She does not appear to have been a doctrinaire Friedmanite either. So perhaps we could just say "free market policies", even though that sometimes included intervention in the market. TFD (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If neoliberal is seen as a derogatory phrase, is there a more neutral term that can be verified for usage? The last thing we should be doing is creating a phrase that carries non-neutral tone. It would be like substituting African American with the N-word (not that I support such a thing).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"free-market policies" has been proposed by myself & Rick Norwood. I think it is quite accurate & neutral, is one used by the principals, & has no trace of a neologism or made-up term. Rjensen (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2015

81.82.207.213 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Who are the 'conservative groups' opposing Obamatrade?

DrudgeReport "More conservative groups come out against...[ObamaTrade]"

Headline-1: HERITAGE ACTION AND AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT PLEA TO SENATE: VOTE ‘NO’ ON OBAMATRADE

• http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/22/heritage-action-and-americans-for-limited-government-plea-to-senate-vote-no-on-obamatrade/

QUOTE: "The Senate is set to vote on the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation the House passed last week that gives President Obama fast track trade authority to finalize his trade negotiations without Congressional amendments." [Vote is tomorrow.] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. New NEWS today, for future editing.

Too insignificant to discuss in an article about conservatism with a world-wide perspective. TFD (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

agreed. the text does not give any ideological reasons for opposition. It looks like pure partisanship, esp after conservatives in 2012 supported the original author of Obamnacare (Romney). Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

QUESTIONS: So Obamatrade does not have worldwide implications? There are not a lot of other articles saying Conservatives oppose the Obama bill that no one is able to read? This isn't the article that talks about Conservatism in America? There is a better WP article for American conservatism? -- Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's recentism policy is relevant here. Wikipedia is not a newsfeed. For your second question. see Conservatism in the United States. Abierma3 (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's why I said, "For future editing." I'll go the the other article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228202939/https://positiveatheism.org:80/writ/ghwbush.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of

Every other ideology has a page, or at least part of page, detailing the criticisms of the ideology. Why isn't there one for conservatism? Has this ideology simply not received much academic scrutiny? Epa101 (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced, very biased

This article cites very few sources, and seems to be very incorrect. Conservatism is not about "keeping things the way they were", it is, for most people, about preserving individual liberties and responsibility, much like classical liberalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.128.78 (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Except it's not. As explained in the article, the American Right, believing that individual liberties and responsibility were the way things were, chose in the 1950s to call themselves conservatives. There is a separate article about Conservatism in the United States. And this article has 146 footnotes. TFD (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the final line under "The United States" reads; "In 2016 election, Donald Trump's presidential campaign has expanded the conservatism in the United States, which includes protection of United States industries and develop the grassroots movement in the working classes." Aside from being poorly written, it provides no citation. Will be removed if citation cannot be provided. 2602:306:C4CC:D6B0:C96A:A2E0:4291:1E2 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)RL

Someone beat you to it. Considering the brief mention of conservatism in this article, adding Trump would be undue recentism. TFD (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

conservatism and race

It is understandable that people who identify with a particular ideology want to airbrush out of the history of that ideology people who hold beliefs that are now largely discredited. Communists would like to forget Stalin, conservatives would like to forget Hitler. But an encyclopedia should not be edited by those who wish to rewrite history. The people who supported slavery rightly called themselves conservative, because they were trying to preserve an existing institution. The people who opposed the Civil Rights movement rightly called themselves conservative, because they were trying to preserve an existing institution. And today, while most conservatives say they are not racist, most racists say they are conservative.

The referenced view is that conservatism is not specific to the social values it espouses, but is rather the view that the way things are should not be lightly changed. And many conservatives say that the way things were, in the good old days, were better than they way things are now. The list of "beliefs" that make one a conservative is therefore dubious, whether the claim is that conservatives believe in "slavery" or that conservatives believe in "freedom". Very few people today support slavery, but when slavery was the established system, the people who supported it called themselves conservative. Almost everyone in the US today believes in freedom, so to say conservatives believe in freedom is to suggest that they believe in freedom more than anybody else, a view not supported by the evidence.

The problem with the list, subject to so much editing, is not what is on the list, but the fact that there is a list at all. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the article should be clear that conservatism has more than one meaning. You are referring to positional conservatism. In the 1980s, Reaganites, hard line Communists, the ayatollahs and anti=Thatcher Tories were all described as conservatives, but there was a huge different in what they wanted to conserve. TFD (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Communists would like to forget Stalin, conservatives would like to forget Hitler. Linking 'conservatives' as a whole with Hitler is mistaken. Communists are anti-democratic totalitarians, Stalin was a psychopathic mass murdering totalitarian and so was Hitler. Conservatives believe in democracy and progress that doesn't 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. People who are right-wing and call themselves conservative but don't believe in democracy and individual rights and freedoms are not conservatives - they are fascists. Just as on the left there are Marx inspired democratic socialists and totalitarian socialists aka Communists.

The list of people is inaccurate

Is there any reason why the list of people in the "Part of a series on Conservatism" box contains so many obscure fascists and Nazi sympathizers (if not, perhaps, to poison the well)? I take the list to be a compilation of persons who are noteworthy conservatives, but many of them are neither noteworthy nor conservative in any sense. I would go in and remove those entries, but I figured I would clear the air here first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisokathorongil (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know which people you have in mind, but keep in mind that this article is about conservatism world wide, and that in many countries conservatism means something quite different from what it means in the US. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who you have in mind either and would appreciate it you mention some. TFD (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I just went through all the people yesterday and have now gone through the list yet again. Take a look at the following people:

* https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Manuel_Fraga_Iribarne

* https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jaime_Guzm%C3%A1n

* https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

* https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Francisco_Rol%C3%A3o_Preto (This is perhaps the most perplexing if you actually read the summaries)

* https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Eugenio_Vegas_Latapie

* https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Salvador_Abascal

* https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Charles_Maurras

* https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Arthur_Moeller_van_den_Bruck

* https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jacques_Bainville

* https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Anthony_Ludovici

* https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/John_C._Calhoun

A collection of fascist/Nazi/Francoist sympathizers, dictator supporters, anti-semitic crackpots, and a slavery supporting Democrat. I don't see what's especially conservative about them.Hisokathorongil (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Technically, this discussion should be on Template talk:Conservatism sidebar. But I agree that there's no need to have over 100 names in a sidebar. Rather than simply removing the most controversial, I'd rather see a proposal to replace the list with a new list of at most 25 names. Also, I'd like to see "philosophers" separated from political leaders. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not extremely familiar with the Wikipedia editing pages and processes, so apologies for raising this in the wrong place. I agree with your suggestion: a list of 25 or so important and influential conservative political philosophers and writers would be ideal. Hisokathorongil (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You won't be able to find agreement on which 25 people to include. I think it should go but you are right it is better discussed elsewhere. TFD (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hisokathorong: you hurt your cause by wanting to remove John C. Calhoun. He was indeed a slavery supporting Democrat, but at a time when the Democratic party, at least in the South, was the conservative party, and the Republican party was the liberal party. Following Lyndon B. Johnson and the Civil Rights movement, the two parties did a little dance, and the 100% Democratic South became the 100% Republican South. I never heard of any of the other names on the list, and doubt they are important enough to be included. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dubitable. What you've just described is what many conservatives would consider a myth, namely, that somehow there was a "big switch" in the late 1960s, when all the alleged bad, white, racist conservatives switched from the Democratic to the Republican party. Dinesh D'Souza challenges this narrative and so do more sober academics, like Shafer and Johnston in their book, The End of Southern Exceptionalism. The fact is that conservatives don't look to the Democratic party or figures like Calhoun when tracing their political and intellectual influences. What you're doing by suggesting that they must is, as I said in my OP, an example of poisoning the well.Hisokathorongil (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Calhoun is considered one of the top conservatives by Russell Kirk, author of the Conservative Mind. See Chapter Five, "Southern Conservatism: Randolph and Calhoun." Incidentally, whatever credibility D'Souza might have had in the 1980s, his recent writing has serious problems of credibility, according to mainstream commentators. TFD (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you can cite someone in support of that identification. It once again depends on what we mean by conservatism. I notice the list is dominated by paleocons and Catholic ultramontanists, even though conservatism has significant overlap, if not synonymity and identity in some cases, with classical liberalism, libertarianism, and, by dint of the label itself, neoconservatism. And yet, I see hide nor hair of Locke, Hamilton, Adams, Kristol, etc. I could be okay with Calhoun on the list, though it wouldn't be of my making, provided he's counterbalanced by people who aren't paleocons, ultramontanists, monarchists, racists, and so on, as the list is currently almost exclusively comprised of. Hisokathorongil (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The Republican Party didn't exist in Calhoun's era. As far as party ideology goes, I quote 30 Rock (which is definitely not a reliable source, but happens to be correct): "today's Republican Party would be unrecognizable to Lincoln. He fought a war to preserve federal authority over the states. That's not exactly small government." Power~enwiki (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact remains that Lincoln is an immensely important figure for conservatives. Hisokathorongil (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Conservatism, not about the Republican party. I agree with 30 Rock that even though modern Republicans call themselves "the party of Lincoln", Old Abe would not recognize them. But as for challenging the narrative of the "big switch", the Dixiecrats were part of a coalition that called themselves "the Conservative coalition". And the solidly Democratic South is now the solidly Republican South. So the American South did switch parties, why remaining staunchly conservative. I don't speculate on the motives. But we need to focus on your proposal to remove names from the list. I'm fine with removing all but Calhoun. The Four Deuces gives a good reference, Russell Kirk, for keeping Calhoun. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not really about whether you agree that Lincoln would recognize the Republican party but about whether conservatives, by and large, claim him, and they do. I've already said my piece about the "big switch" myth, so I'll leave it there. Hisokathorongil (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hisokathorongil, note that this article is about conservatism, not conservatism in the U.S., and it is questionable whether U.S. conservatism is part of conservatism or really a form of liberalism. Historically, conservatism supported pre-liberal institutions and traditions, such as monarchy, aristocracy, and the established church. TFD (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sisters First: Stories from Our Wild and Wonderful Life

I've created a stub for Sisters First: Stories from Our Wild and Wonderful Life. Feel free to expand it if you're interested. I didn't add the WP Conservatism tag on the talkpage however, because I don't think this is a political book. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Corey Robin

I have removed corey robin. he is a self publicist and clearly him or his close friends change the wiki to make his nonsense prominent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.131.126 (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

An editor has tried to remove the name of Corey Robin from the article, describing Dr. Robin as "a self edifying no mark named 'corey robin' who is pushing himself as an expert". Dr. Robin has a Ph.D. from Yale University, is the author of several books, and has written about political science for such respected publications as The London Review of Books, the New York Times, and The Nation. He is certainly not a "no mark" (whatever that means) and he is not "pushing himself as an expert", he is an expert. The only reason I can see for removing his names is that he is critical of conservatism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The Oxford University Press published his book on conservatism, which means he is an expert. This type of ad hominem attack is not constructive. TFD (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

So having published one book he (Or I presume YOU) is now the worlds foremost expert who You think is thye one that should be quoted as to be defining what conservatives think.There are vastly more important experts than the unknown American Corey robin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitebear1967 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No one said he was the world's foremost expert. If you expect other editors to reply to you, I suggest your comment accurately and avoid insulting them. I'll post a welcome template on your talk page so that you can familiarize yourself with the project, if you have not already done so. TFD (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Is his view that common though? Sure he may be an expert but doesn't Undue Weight come into play? I'm not aware of his definition being universally accepted (though to be fair conservatism is poorly defined anyway, so as an alternate definition I guess it could pass) or even being uncontroversial. I mean if I recall correctly, he admitted his book was mainly about the United States and conservatives there. This would make it a poor fit for a universal definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.76.76 (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that this statement already has a second reference, with a source outside the US. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In his book, The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin, Robin attempts to place American conservatism in the same category as English and European conservatism. So he is working with a universal definition. Russell Kirk essentially agrees in his 3rd canon of conservatism: "A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions." TFD (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Shit sorry I completely forgot about this. I see what you mean though. Not sure one source from the Guardian newspaper really qualifies as sufficient but whatever (then again I've never heard of Quintin Hogg and he's up there, so it's not like I can claim he's more important than Robin and perhaps scholarship has been more interested in his arguments, either in a supportive or critical fashion). I wouldn't say Russell Kirk is really agreeing with Robin since Kirk seems to argue that a good society requires orders and classes because this will somehow make society better, whereas Robin's argument seems to be more that conservatism is the ideology of the powerful attempting to hold onto their power in the face of democratic threats (indeed Robin speaks of it as an attack on emancipatory ideologies and talks a lot about the links with pro-slavery ideologies in the US and modern American conservatism if I recall correctly). Robin's definition strikes me as closer to a sort of Marxist view of ideology (as an a instrument of the ruling class to justify their power and privilege) than what Kirk has in mind, in my view. Still not entirely convinced it's a good choice but then as I said, I've never heard of Quintin Hogg and he's there so *shrugs* 80.192.76.76 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hogg is better known as Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor under Heath and most of the Thatcher years, although he first came to attention in the 1938 Oxford by-election, which was fought over appeasement. The dispute between conservatives and their detractors is whether the elites serve in the interests of society or in their own interests. We need to show both perspectives. Robin represents the latter point of view and although he is not in the same league as Hogg, the value is that it is from a recent and well-known work. The controversy over Robin's book (and there's controversy about any writers on the subject) is whether or not the description applies to modern U.S. conservatism or other modern variants such as Thatcherism. TFD (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

To-do list

Good idea. But it has only been used a couple times since it was created. If there are no objections I'll delete it. – Lionel^(talk) 10:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Donald Trump official portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Paternalistic Conservatism

I am puzzled about these new edits, renaming "progressive conservatism" as "paternalistic conservatism". A google search shows more than five million hits for the former name, only a few hundred thousand hits for the latter. I'd never heard the phrase until it turned up in this article, so what it sounds like to me is an attempt to rename a movement in order to attack it. I'm tempted to revert, but I'm not a conservative, and I would rather a conservative made the edit. Is calling "progressive conservatism" by a new name a major movement, or a minor one? I hope someone here can answer this question. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably better just to call it Paternalism, since it's not really a form of conservatism but an aspect. I found three times more hits on Google books for conservative paternalism than paternal conservatism. The term progressive conservatism has been used to describe lots of things - David Cameron's supporters used it and it is the name of political parties in Canada. TFD (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

From what you say, it doesn't sound like it should be here at all. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Conservatism and religion/morality

This article doesn't really do a good job of explaining what conservatism is about. Conservatives don't support tradition for the sake of tradition or inequality for the sake of inequality. They support these things because they support moral order. Conservatives believe inequality is justified because it is part of a moral order. The moral aspect of conservatism is wholly missing from this article, despite the fact that most people in real life know there is a close link between conservatism and religion.

2602:306:8010:B930:2109:B8B9:7E00:190B (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a close tie between conservatism and religion, but not between conservatism and morality, as shown by the conservative support of President Trump. You may love Trump, but it would be hard to maintain that Trump is a moral person. The question, then, is whether there is any link between Christianity and morality. Many Christians I know are moral, but Christianity itself is generally immoral. I hardly need cite examples, but could easily do so from the news of the day, any day, any year, any century, for the past 2000 years. We can begin with St. Paul: "Slaves obey your masters." and end with the recently defrocked Cardinal McCarrick. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well then, why don't we ask the people who most opposed conservatism what they believed? The Great Soviet Encyclopedia articles on idealism, materialism, philosophy, and dialectical materialism explain that materialism supports the political left while idealism, which they link to religion, supports the political right. Vladimir Lenin wrote in 1913: The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the eighteenth century in France, where a resolute struggle was conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism has proved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, true to all the teachings of natural science and hostile to superstition, cant and so forth. The enemies of democracy have, therefore, always exerted all their efforts to “refute”, under mine and defame materialism, and have advocated various forms of philosophical idealism, which always, in one way or another, amounts to the defence or support of religion.

2602:306:8010:B930:2109:B8B9:7E00:190B (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Marxism is largely based on the concept of historical materialism, and Marxists were influenced by Hegelianism's focus on rationality. Idealism assigns "crucial importance to the ideal or spiritual realm in its account of human existence".

The difference is not necessarily on ethics, but on a much different perception of reality. Dimadick (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

But the point is that the political left has tended to argue that society shapes the people (materialism) while the political right has tended to argue that people shape the society (idealism). Conservatives don't "support inequality" because they are all business owners or are just mean, they support it because they think people earned their wealth. Obviously leftists disagree and think socialism is morally superior, but even the founders of "scientific socialism" had to admit that belief in a spiritual moral order supports conservatism.

104.1.11.147 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC) (Sorry I don't know why the signature changed)

Let me put it in a less confusing way. I am not saying that the political right has some sort of monopoly on morality. Again, many leftists are passionately moral about what they believe. What I am saying is that conservatives attach an independent significance to spiritual/psychological issues in society while leftists usually argue that such issues are of a secondary matter.

2602:306:8010:B930:2109:B8B9:7E00:190B (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia is not a reliable sources. Examples of its misinformation abound. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I agree it's not suitable for Wikipedia, I'm just using it to point out that even Marxists understand conservatism better than this article does.

2602:306:8010:B930:2109:B8B9:7E00:190B (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Supporters of all ideologies support the things they do because to them it is the moral thing to do. I agree that supporting tradition for its own sake is irrational, but that's what conservative theorists from Burke to Kirk argued. TFD (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying that the political right has some sort of monopoly on morality. Again, many leftists are passionately moral about what they believe. What I am saying is that conservatives attach an independent significance to spiritual/psychological issues in society while leftists usually argue that such issues are of a secondary matter. Even hardcore Marxists acknowledge this.

As for the tradition argument made by conservative writers, it is pretty obvious that the tradition in question is based heavily on religion.

2602:306:8010:B930:2109:B8B9:7E00:190B (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In other words, the true conservative/right-wing position isn't "respect the hierarchies" (although some conservatives do argue that). The true conservative position is that "consciousness determines existence" and that the alleged existing hierarchies in society are not actually preventing people from having a successful life.

2602:306:8010:B930:2109:B8B9:7E00:190B (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

This is original research. Wikipedia relies on scholarly publications. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence is 100% wrong.

"Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization."

No, it absolutely is not.

It is a series of political philosophies that have been labeled "conservatism" but which differ greatly from one another. In the 1950s this meant a bit to the right of Eisenhower, who was a moderate Republican U.S. president. For many years it meant people who espoused beliefs like family values, law & order, a strong military, and maybe above all low taxes.

Now the meaning of the word has evolved so much that its current use means believing in a cult of personality, a revulsion to both facts and logical reasoning, and agreeing with whatever the leader of the personality cult says.

That is 100% different from what the word used to mean only a few years ago (like 25 years ago).2600:1700:E1C0:F340:2D34:2EF6:5E9A:41A0 (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is about the ideology in all its manifestations throughout its history. No one is going to say that Burke and de Maistre were not conservatives because they did not see the world in the same way as Donald Trump. TFD (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This is also Wikipedia, not a left-wing blog. It is supposed to be neutral and academic, not your opinion. -2600:1003:B103:F799:A951:A3D:46E4:D819 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, and I'm not even left-wing. It's that I've been around for a while (70+ years), and during that while, the definition of conservatism has changed drastically.

Therefore, it is inadvertently misleading to say that conservatism "is" what it used to mean. It would be correct to say that it was what it used to be (at least in the U.S.) and it is what it is now. Do you disagree with that?50.203.182.230 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Let me add that I'm speaking specifically about political conservatism and not necessarily other kinds.50.203.182.230 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What does it mean today? TFD (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"What does it mean today?" is the wrong question. The right question is, "What do reliable sources say." I'm sympathetic with Special:Contributions personal observations, but personal observations cannot be published in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a blog. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"Modernism"

From the article's introduction:

>Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, hierarchy, authority, and property rights. Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as monarchy, religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity. The more extreme elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".

The author mistakenly used the word "modernism" in the place of "progressivism". Modernism refers to novel philosophical and cultural perspectives that became popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Modernist meta-narratives were not inherently progressive and effectively catalyzed the rise of fascism. The wording should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8200:2569:6C44:C0EF:7C73:8404 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

While it can mean that, the most common meaning is "a practice, usage, or expression peculiar to modern times."[2] Progressive would be ambiguous, since it has different meanings. There are for example, people who call themselves progressive conservatives. Some support progressive policies such as gun control, same sex marriage and universal health care on the basis of social stability. TFD (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I (Mrtweedles (talk)) have sympathy with the original critique of using "modernism." I reacted to the word as being too specific. I do see the point of TFD's defense, but think it relies on too subtle a reading. The word is used here generically and isn't meant to identify a specific movement. However, the sense I drew when reading was as a reaction to specific movements, especially those fore-fronted by the term "postmodern."

Looking around for clarity didn't help much:

The Wikipedia article][3] is about a specific movement, which is why I presume it wasn't linked to:

"both a philosophical movement and an art movement that, along with cultural trends and changes, arose from wide-scale and far-reaching transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries"

Britannica[4] conflates the two senses: "Modernism, in the arts, a radical break with the past and the concurrent search for new forms of expression. Modernism fostered a period of experimentation in the arts from the late 19th to the mid-20th century", which is arguably generic but not what the earliest "conservatives" were reacting to; but also "The Modernist impulse is fueled in various literatures by industrialization and urbanization and by the search for an authentic response to a much-changed world", which is fairly specific; and "The term Modernism is also used to refer to literary movements other than the European and American movement of the early to mid-20th century", which is specific.

Google puts the Oxford's definition first, "modern character or quality of thought, expression, or technique", and then refers to two generic "movements", one in the arts and one in Catholicism.

If clarity and ease of reading are important, I think this "ism" should be explained. Below is my proposal.

Conservatism, generally is a tendency in political and social thought to advocate for traditional social institutions in response to attempts to modernize society and culture. Historically, those labeled as conservative held to the principles of human imperfection, hierarchy, authority, and property rights. However, conservatives variously seek to preserve a range of institutions such as monarchy, religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity. The more extreme conservatives—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".

This language spells out what "modernism" means in this context ("attempts to modernize society") before using the term ("[reactionaries] oppose modernism"). It also moves the term from a "philosophy" to a "tendency in thinking", which I think is more defensible, because "conservatism" reappears in the history delineated in this article more as a tendency when reacting to modernization than as any definable philosophy ("the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline", cf. google/Oxford). It also removes a technical term "elements". --Mrtweedles (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Odd snippet shows up in Bing search engine (but not Google)

I searched the term "conservative political philosophy" and got hits on the first page for Wikipedia (of course). I was surprised to see that the snippet appearing on Bing started with this:

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting arrogance,prejudice and petty behaviour. The central tenets of conservatism include social conformity to harmful traditions, the delusion of loyalty, the delusion of hierarchy, the social construct of authority, and the idea that having property rights means that you can trample over people because “it’s my house”.

Clicking on the link shows that the actual article contains no such text. Did it at one time, and this is merely Bing's private copy of that time which has not been updated as yet? Or is it possible something else is going on?

I was surprised enough to try the same search term in another Edge tab and got the same result. I tried it with Google and Firefox and there was no such inflammatory snippet.

Teamtempest (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, a troll wrote that[5] and it was reversed 7 minutes later. Likely the Bing search engine picked it up and that's what you see. It will disappear next time Bing searches the article. TFD (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Leftist Writers and Rightist Writers Talk Past Each Other Because They focus Differently on Outcome and Process

The description of conservatism by its outcomes is not recognizable to conservatives because they understand their ideology in terms of process. Both ideological wings generally are interested in the same things: equality. Howevever for the left this is embodied in equality of outcome and the right it is embodied in everyone playing by the same rules. One can pick exceptions on each side but it is a focus on process that makes a conservative ideology: it is one which focuses on identifying which types of actions/relations have priority in a conflict. To identify the ideology by the outcome is a leftist strawman attack. 68.134.72.214 (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The core principle of conservatism is social hierarchy: some people are born to lead, while others are born to follow. That's the opposite of equality by any description. You are confusing it with conservatism in the United States, which most experts do not consider to be a form of conservatism. TFD (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

id actually agree on this. most of the American pundits and writers talk past each other. most liberals I know of do not understand conservatism at all outside of a "Good-Guy VS Bad-Guy" context. There is no room for discourse or talking between the two sides anymore, the left seems unwilling to do so yet call for "Unity". their unity means just coalescing around liberal ideas and agreeing with them/showing solidarity with them. its as if they blindly feel like they are 100% correct and everyone is 100% wrong. like I get the appeal in making fun of boomer conservatives, evangelicals/baptists and corporate conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk... but I am tired of the tired, over used straw-manning and stereotyping people do of conservatives as well as others who partake in the social counter culture of today.

All we want to do is bring back respect, dignity culture and some social norms to prevent people from being taken advantage of as a class or as an individual. politics is all about making one side believe the other is responsible for everything bad (which isnt the case in US politics, both sides have harmed the working class for a multitude of decades, and some call it progress) Daggerfella (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, this article is not about conservatism in the United States. Books on comparative politics classify U.S. conservatism as a form of liberalism, not conservatism. The U.S. political debate is basically about which liberal principles to emphasize and how to interpret them, not whether they are valid. Incidentally, in the 1960s there was a "generation gap" between the the boomers and their parents much more pronounced than exists today. Before that, the Silent Generation rebelled against their parents, as in the film Rebel Without a Cause. TFD (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is a forum discussion and should be deleted or archived as per WP:NOTFORUM and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, If you keep engaging in forum discussions Daggerfella I'm afraid we'll end up at the drama boards soon. Bacondrum 20:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Psychology

• The psychology section really seems unethical and biased, and I would argue for its removal, due to its questionable objectivity. Personal politics are a subjective matter, and the holders of said views have their individual reasons for holding them. The entire psychology section draws generalisations from data that is, at best, a mere correlation, and even draws some conclusions that can come off as insulting, such as on intelligence. Enshrining this in an encyclopaedic setting outright presents this as fact, slandering the subject in question. -2600:1003:B103:F799:A951:A3D:46E4:D819 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, how is this even here? There may be obviously studies that suggest negative psychology factors about conservatism and also liberalism, but no one would ever publish a non-relevant study in the liberalism article, in fact, the liberalism article lacks one. Fvoltes (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Scientific studies show both good and bad characteristics for both conservatism and liberalism. These studies show statistics. Populations are more diverse than samples, but a significant sample reflects the properties of the population. In general (again, on the average, not in every particular case), conservative Wikipedia editors want Wikipedia to say good things about conservatives, and bad things about Liberals. Liberal Wikipedians want it the other way around. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, and reliable sources should not be removed because they do not support the opinions of the reader. Thus, the correct question to be asking about the Phychology section is not is it "insulting" but is it supported by reliable sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Bodinski2 edit

I have twice reverted a long editorial by Bodinski2. I could use my third revert, but would prefer not to. I also have no interest in getting into an edit war with Bodinski2. I'll leave this to other editors. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I will revert it. The additions seem to be extremely tangential to conservatism and also repeat information already included. Also the grammar is confusing, so it's not always clear what it means. TFD (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Edmund Burke: Louis XIV and George Washington are my teachers, and Catherine the Great is only a woman.

The article without a foundation in quintessence is like a car without an engine. Furthermore, in this form, the article after the summary turns into a presentation of forms such as liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism, which is nonsense. Unfortunately, conservatism is neither an English nor a US patent. Without this paragraph, there is a total distortion of semantics. There is no repetition, but there is clarification. Ideologies have their own history, as well as conservatism, and this history is connected with France and Europe and only in contact with Great Britain, let alone the United States. The article in its current form is duplicitous as Edmund Burke. You both evolutionistly approve of the American Revolution and you deny the French Revolution. Bodinski2 (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Insulting people is a poor strategy for persuading them to agree with you. TFD (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The comment is not directed at someone personally to make them feel offended. The article is not authored. It can be strong words, but true. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. Bodinski2 (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC) The only important point in this discussion is that Wikipedia does not publish original research. Whatever the merits of your ideas, they must be supported by references to appear in Wikipedia.Rick Norwood (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Reflections on the foundation of conservatism

The term "Ancien Régime" dates back to 1794 in English. It was newly forged at that time. However, the existing previous order in France was not old, but accepted as something divine, that is, only possible and reasonable. France's ties with the United States so far have nothing to comment on. They are reflected in the Statue of Liberty. The Anglo-French War (1778–1783) predetermined the success of the American Revolution.

The United States is partly copying, somewhat adapting, the existing French model of government (and order) in a presidential republic. There are also clear differences — the United States has neither aristocracy nor clergy, but only a third class. The second level has been replaced by an indirect democracy that has survived to this day — the United States Electoral College. In other words, classical conservatism is objectively impossible in the United States. Britain at that time had healed its wounds from the English Civil War and power was really in the middle class, which means that the English model was far from the classic conservative model.

In Russia, since the time of the Government reform of Peter the Great, there is the Governing Senate and the Most Holy Synod, a model analogous to Estates General (France). Catherine the Great only supplements it with Charter to the Gentry. Bodinski2 (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The article has slowly changed since I last did major edits and it might be worthwhile to determine if it still makes sense. American conservatism should only be in this article to the extent that some people have argued it is conservatism while most sources view it as a form of liberalism, since conservatism means to conservative the ancient regime. Also, Burke was considered to be a liberal until the 20th century. His liberal conservatism meant control by the traditional elites (the aristocracy), but allowing some degree of participation in politics by capitalists who would bring wealth into the country. American "conservatives" ignore the conservative elements of Burke's writing and emphasize the liberal ones. His Irish heritage, acceptance of American independence, opposition to the French revolution (which was a forerunner of anticommunism) and support of Catholic emancipation checked all the boxes for the U.S. conservative movement that arose in the 1950s. But instead of adding a new section that corrects information in the article, we should just ensure that the information is accurate and clear. TFD (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article is about a major revision in relation to the title to the content. In its current form, the content is like "Earth to the Sun, but we are almost outside the solar system". Bodinski2 (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Vivisection

To illustrate the current status quo with the status of the article, it is best to make a comparison with The Island of Doctor Moreau.

The title is Homo sapiens, and below it are sketched all the representatives of the island. Bodinski2 (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead paragraph

My recent edits to the lead paragraph were reverted so I'm starting a discussion thread here.

• My first edit seems to me quite self-explanatory; rather than changing the meaning of the topic, as The Four Deuces stated when reverting, this edit simply clarified the meaning which was already present and cut meaningless repetition of terms (other than adding the qualifiers "modern" and "largely", for which see below): [6].
• My second edit simply added a Wikilink to the term property rights: [7]
• In my third edit, the most substantive change by far, I cut the term "parliamentary government" and provided the following edit summary: "Cut parliamentary government from list of core institutions conservatives seek to preserve, as 1) not distinctive (just as true of e.g. democratic socialism), 2) not applicable to e.g. American conservatism (where the system in question is non-parliamentary), 3) not consistent with the views of prominent conservative thinkers from Joseph de Maistre to Carl Schmitt." [8] I'd be happy to provide sources to support this edit summary, but I'm wondering if that's really necessary.

Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest you make your edits one at a time.Rick Norwood (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

First, you cannot changed sourced material, even if it is not sourced in the lead but is sourced elsewhere in the article without providing new sources. Secondly, as noted in the article, American conservatism is a different ideology and the subject of a separate article. And U.S. conservatives and democratic socialists do not seek to preserve parliament or congress because it is traditional but because it is democratic. TFD (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll think through my more substantial edits before proceeding further, and will simply reinstate what I believe should be uncontroversial edits for clarity. Generalrelative (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Cognotive ability

"A 2009 study found that conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated..." I'm not really familiar with the subject, full disclosure I am left-wing and have only read the abstract. This inclusion seeks to label conservatives as unintelligent. The primary source is US-centric, and, at least in the abstract, seems to ignore key factors such as income level and education. In my opinion a claim like this requires a secondary source. Edit: In addition, wouldn't you expect that having lower levels of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) result in lower educational performance anyway? Kauri0.o (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to have a secondary source that connects all the research. But the concept of a psychological dimension for voting applies across different countries. While the main determinant of voting is class, psychological factors may explain why enough members of the 99% vote for the parties of the 1% to make them competitive in elections. Among other things, higher education leads to more left wing voting although education is corelated to wealth, which predicts more right wing voting. TFD (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess my issue with this statement is that the relationship is correlational, but the paragraph implies that it is causational. I think all the information included about SAT, vocabulary etc is all reasonable information, but in its current state it all piles on to imply that there is some causational relationship, for which, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence. In this case I think the causality is due to other underlying factors including, as you say, class, education and wealth. In my opinion this isn't NPOV unless it addresses the reasons why that correlation exists. Kauri0.o (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There are many different types of "cognitive ability". In my experience, conservatives are unable to "think outside the box" and are unable evaluate evidence that conflicts with their core beliefs. But this applies to other groups, and if your hope is that you will discourage people who are by nature conservative, that is a misplaced hope.

The most widely read book on this subject is "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. The phenomenon of the true believer, impervious to evidence, is well known. But it is not unique to conservatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

In that case, we should also probably specify what sort of "cognitive ability" we are talking about. Nonetheless, that does not demonstrate that it is causative. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is causative, not correlational. TFD (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed? WP:Extraordinary As mentioned above there are reasonable factors that would explain the correlation without requiring causation. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

See for example the abstract for the first source provided ("Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.") It's not particularly extraordinary to claim that people who oppose change and support social hierarchy are more likely to vote conservative than those who don't. TFD (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

But it is extraordinary to claim that people who oppose change and support social hierarchy have lower congitive ability. I get that its kind-of implied, but not our job to interpret studies. Kauri0.o (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

There are any number of refereed papers and serious books on this subject. From time to time, I have tried to cite them in Wikipedia but any such citation has always been dismissed as "fringe", so I've pretty much given up. There is a similar hard-core constituency to dismiss as "fringe" the large body of medical evidence that shows masturbation helps prevent colon cancer. it appears that "fringe" means "taboo" and evidence is not a factor that will be taken into consideration. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair, but citation needed. As stated above I don't think the one currently cited proves anything more than a correlation. Kauri0.o (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of the books and articles I have read on this subject are careful not to say "lower" cognitive ability, just different cognitive ability. There is considerable research on the actual genetics behind liberalism. The genes correlated with liberalism, such as the allele of DRD4, dopamine receptor D4, known as 7R+, are first found in the fossil record about forty thousand years ago. At about this time, there were great changes in how humans lived, as contrasted with hundreds of thousands of years before this time when the fossil record shows almost no change. The primary difference between liberal and conservative cognitive ability seems to be a willingness to change ones mind and to accept new ideas. At about the same time liberalism evolved, the first large structures were built, from Göbekli Tepe in Turkey to Stonehenge in Britain, and it was the time when humans first crossed from Asia to the Americas. A good book on the subject is "Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences by John R. Hibbing, Kevin B. Smith, and John R. Alford." Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

idk I don't think this kind of info should be included as it seems more like an intentional smear. Years ago I saw an article that said if they put electric probes into someones brain and ran a current to induce temporary brain damage, that conservative individuals would be more Pro-Immigration. and it led to people thinking that liberals must have some kind of deficiency or brain damage. I do not think there is real merit to genetic reasons why there are differences between conservatives and liberals, as again much of it seem as to be smear pieces to rustle some jimmies. and i am of the opinion that its not that liberals are open minded, to an extent everyone is open minded, they just seem the most susceptible to peer pressure and group think dynamics, there are exceptions to the norm, however I have seen more liberal minded people will accept an idea because all of their liberal friends, and the media/pop-culture they consime (that the upper class creates) blindly advocate for it due to confirmation bias and peer pressure. (yes conservatives do this too, however they have terms for fake conservatives within the republican party and will constantly call them out)

Either way it doesn't seem to be NPOV, so id vote to keep it out. its not that its a lower or different cognitive ability, they just have different goals and focuses in life. if there is any merit to the evidence, conservatives are generally more direct and blunt, tend to be more hands on when it comes to learning and tend to prefer skilled labor jobs. Liberals tend to be hands off and passive in the interactions to achieve their goals, and rather have a hands off approach to learning more in theory than practical hands on training and prefer jobs that are not blue collar at all.

and personally Im quite open minded and conservative, I am pretty nuanced about the things I am for and against. just because someone advocates for tearing down a social hierarchy or pushing for social change, doesnt mean that its entirely positive or not naive or potentially ignorant. alot of damage has been done to the american system both in the open and behind closed doors, stapled to "social progress" and other omnibus bills that brought forth negative things stapled to something passed off to be a positive by our leaders and the media. alot of conservatives realise this, hell I was a liberal myself so i feel as if im a pretty neutral source for talking about the two.

and in my own opinion its dishonest to say that conservatives are completely closed minded and have lesser cognitive abilities because we do not support every bandwagon and political movement that may or may not be controlled opposition so that a career politician can get something personal out of it by creating fake trends, fake issues and empty solutions that just kick the can down the road or ultimately do nothing substantial for anyone (such as the 70's-80s enviornmental scares, everyone was told that the world was going to end by the 90s or 2000s due to pollution, every few years the date would change and it would be a new pursuit to ward off future disaster that never starts or ends and that nothing is ever enough, more needing to be done and more government and taxes off of the backs of the working class being needed to achieve it). so its a bad idea to consider conservatives to be lesser of any sort because of a social scientist has negative opinions of a group of individuals because they don't conform to their reality or confirmation bias, thus designating brain damage to someone because their opinions do not fit in their world view.

if it has to be kept, make it more neutral and talk about how it asserts it, or alleges it to be the case (as all or most sociology papers are just speculation and theorizing, rather than a 100% agreed upon consensus) Daggerfella (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You have the point. At one side, they would like to control your mind and if you disagree with their principles, or even just try to debate or open a moderate discussion about it, you are stigmatized, but likely to conclude you are evil/inferior by any means. Even the opening this section was a big mistake, and study's assertions are laughable, part of the political shoapboxing, really abhorrent.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC))

Edit about modern American conservatism

Hello!

About two days ago, an editor changed a portion of this article's section on modern conservatism in the United States, by removing the bold phrase of the following sentence: "Modern American conservatives consider individual liberty, as long as it conforms to conservative values, small government, deregulation of the government, economic liberalism, and free trade, as the fundamental trait of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on social equality and social justice." The edit was eventually reverted.

Now, I can see why this editor would have done it: because the implication that conservative values contradict individual liberties isn't so much an unequivocal statement of fact as it is a liberal talking point with which conservatives will often disagree. (One example might be the hot topic of abortion: whereas liberals accuse conservatives of suppressing women's freedom to abort by attempting to restrict legal access to abortion, conservatives respond that what's at stake is not at all an individual freedom, but rather an act of unduly taking away a human life, thus resolving the apparent contradiction [at least, from their viewpoint].) Regardless of our individual positions, Wikipedia must present a neutral viewpoint, which, in my opinion, means not assuming the contradiction between conservative values and individual liberties as factual, but rather as the one-sided argument that it really is.

Therefore, I suggest a compromise: perhaps rephrasing the sentence into something like: "Modern American conservatives consider individual liberty (although liberals often accuse conservatives of precluding it in favour of conservative values), small government, deregulation of the government, economic liberalism, and free trade, as the fundamental trait of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on social equality and social justice." A valid alternative might be deleting the bold part entirely, in order to present the whole set of conservative ideas without interspersing it with criticism, which might very well more adequately have its own section in the article.

What do you think? LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Other than abortion, conservatives have opposed contraception, interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, pornography, communism, recreational drugs, assisted suicide and more. So too have liberals. In each case the argument is that freedom does not include the right to do make immoral decisions. So the point is valid but could be more clear perhaps. I am reminded of the Puritans who preached religious freedom but prosecuted heretics. TFD (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

yes, I agree with TFD, we should be specific about the Limits on Freedom conservatives espouse, and reflect reliable sources in his regards. I personally agree with the claim that “as long as it conforms to conservative values,” but it sounds like a POV snipe at conservatives and is an incited claim Bacondrum 22:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case, to be clear, are you both supporting a deletion of this "POV snipe" clause (the one that states "as long as it conforms to conservative values") and, at the same time, the introduction of a new section of specific criticism of conservatism elsewhere on the page? LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

While I can only speak for myself, I think it is accurate but could be better worded. I don't see it as criticism. TFD (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I see. Do you agree with the rewording suggestion I made initially, or would you like to propose a different one? LongLivePortugal (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

As this article notes, almost all American politicians say they favor "freedom". The slave owners in the civil war said they were fighting for freedom, the freedom to own slaves. Conservatives say they are fighting for freedom, the freedom to prevent non-Christians from coming to the US, the freedom to ban transexuals from the military, the freedom to storm the US capital. This is not the way the word freedom is usually used. Therefore if the word is to appear in this article at all, with the claim that this is a conservative value, it needs a qualifier. I think the qualifier "as long as it conforms to conservative values" is both accurate and mild. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the qualifier include a reference to exactly who views conservative policies as being contradictory with the normal sense of the word liberty? By not doing so, aren't we assuming as true a contradiction which is just one-sided criticism? Aren't we writing as opinion as fact? Wouldn't that break the WP:NPOV principle? LongLivePortugal (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it would probably best to cut back on the section, since textbooks typically treat U.S. conservatism as a form of liberalism. We should limit the section to explaining that the U.S. ahistorically adopted the terms liberal and conservative to describe the ideological debate. U.S. conservatives are more accurately described as conservative liberals. TFD (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not familiar with such descriptions of American conservatism. But you seem to be proposing a significant overhaul of that section. If you have sources for that categorisation, would you like to go ahead and rewrite the section as you think best? LongLivePortugal (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It's stated right at the beginning of the section: "The meaning of "conservatism" in the United States has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism"." It would seem that the section should address the two questions of why it is considered liberalism and why it is called conservatism, rather than engage in a detailed description. TFD (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, I agree with TFD here. Bit of trivia for you TFD (though I'm sure you may already know this) regarding "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism" we do a similarly confusing thing here in Australia, we generally refer to the conservatives as liberals due to the conservative movement here having merged to form the Liberal Party of Australia, but they are not liberals in the way the rest of the world uses the term, they are conservatives (with a few exceptions). In the media here we often call true liberals "small l liberals" to differentiate. Bacondrum 21:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The party developed largely out of 19th century liberalism and radicalism. Today they are in sync with the U.S. Republicans, the UK Tories and the German Christian Democrats, working together in the International Democrat Union. The system of classifying parties according to their history has limitations but still helps to understand parties. I cannot see for example a UK Tory leader leading a campaign to abolish the monarchy. TFD (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"Ultraconservatism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ultraconservatism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 6#Ultraconservatism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Burke as a philosopher

Just wondering if he should be listed under politician instead? He was an MP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.244.235.83 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Why did someone delete the section about "characteristics of conservatism in different countries"? I think this was very useful and interesting infirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.244.115 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I restored it although the section headings may be different. Some editors want to erase the fact that the original meaning of conservatism was conserving monarchy, aristocracy and the established church. TFD (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Italy

I moved the Italy section to modern conservatism because it as the article says, the Italian Right developed out of 19th century liberalism, rather than conservatism. TFD (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Conservative psychology

This article seems to imply that the consensus among psychologists is that reason for the happiness gap between conservatives and liberals is the rationalization of injustices. However, some literature I have read gives me a reason to believe that this might not be 100% true. This study has been cited 266 times, and offers an alternative explanation for the happiness gap. This study supports the article's current explanation, but it seems to partially accept the results of the previous study. I am no expert in political psychology, so my interpretation of what little I have read may be flawed. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This study states that religiosity can also explain the happiness gap. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent lead changes.

This lead change (which has plainly been contested since shortly after it was added, given the edit-wars over it) is completely unacceptable and sharply decreased both the quality of the relevant text and the extent to which it summarized the article. "Things" is incredibly vague and does not accurately reflect the majority of sources (most of which were removed, I'll noted, in the change, with almost no explanation) - it would imply that eg. environmentalism is a commonly-accepted form of conservatism, when the article text mentions it only to note conservative opposition to it. The article as a whole talks entirely and near-exclusively about conservatives defending institutions; if an editor thinks that that is insufficient (a stance that I do not think the sources support), the appropriate place to begin expanding is in the body, not in the first sentence of the lead. More generally, this is the first sentence of the lead - some WP:BOLDness is fine, but once it was reverted it shouldn't have been restored until there was a clear consensus for it on talk. --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Thomas Carlyle

Considering that there is no mention of Thomas Carlyle in the body of this page, and that the question of whether or not he is conservative is contentious, I propose his removal from the "Thinkers" section. Sinopecynic (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I would remove the entire section. They really only belong in stub articles. Once an article is developed, the most important people should be mentioned in the text. TFD (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism section

This article still lacks a criticism or analysis section, which many other Wikipedia articles about political ideologies have. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Conservatism does have a criticism section, which could be a good start for creating one here. X-Editor (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Good articles in Wikipedia do not have criticism sections because they are inherently POV. Instead, criticism should be incorporated into the article where they arise. I do not see the point anyway. If we say for example that conservatives believe society should be governed by an hereditary elite, why do we need a separate section that says conservatives has been criticized for saying that society should be governed by an hereditary elite? We could also say it has been praised for saying this. TFD (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

From a encyclopedic (and NPOV position as long as it is obvious that it is subjective or at best objective criticism) perspective it actually would be interesting to have such a section on this article as well as the Liberalism article. Obviously such criticism is quite subjective but then again what form of criticism is not? Like with many articles, a "Criticism" section at the end of the article can be to the benefit of the reader, especially for readers that would like to get independent perspectives on political ideologies.

Kind regards Locaf1985 (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography

A bibliography is more useful if it is selective rather than exhaustive. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

'The conservative case'

Please add page. Its on page 16. 81.0.166.183 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Should read "nuclear family"

"Other major priorities within American conservatism include support for the traditional family, law and order, the right to bear arms, Christian values, anti-communism and a defense of Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments'." The above quote should say "nuclear family" and not "traditional." Traditional is an entirely subjective term placing one tradition over others. The link goes to the "Family" page, which itself discourages the use of such a politically loaded term. 4Tildes 208.125.143.178 (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove Paragraph about RWA Scale

The third paragraph in the Psychology section fabricates a tendency of political conservatives to possess right-wing authoritarian “RWA” values. This is based on the claim that conservatives are likely to score higher than liberals on the RWA scale. Well, no shit. Every conservative is, by definition, closer to RWA than a liberal. That would be like listing communist tendencies under the psychological section of liberalism. This is a politically-active passage disguised as scientific research and should be removed. Sidotl (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

i do not understand your objection. If conservatives score higher on the scale than liberals, isn't that evidence that the scale works? In comparison, heavy objects score higher on a weighting scale than lighter objects. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the scale. TFD (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Parliamentary government

I checked the source on the statement on the first paragraph that "...depending on the particular nation, conservatives seek to promote a range of social institutions such as ... parliamentary government" and I don't think the source supports this statement. The only time the source mentions "parliament" in the chapter on conservatism is in the following places:

• "[Tzar] Nicholas’ successors stubbornly refused to allow their power to be constrained by constitutions or the development of parliamentary institutions. In Germany, constitutional government did develop, but Otto von Bismarck, the imperial chancellor, 1871–90, ensured that it remained a sham"
• "The unwillingness of continental conservatives to come to terms with reform and democratic government extended well into the twentieth century. For instance, conservative elites in Italy and Germany helped to overthrow parliamentary democracy and bring Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler to power by providing support for, and giving respectability to, rising fascist movements."
• "‘Tory’ was used in eighteenth-century Britain to refer to a parliamentary faction that (as opposed to the Whigs) supported monarchical power and the Church of England, and represented the landed gentry; in the UsA, it implied loyalty to the British crown."
• "Christian democratic thinking has nevertheless had a wider impact, affecting centre-right parties in France, the Benelux countries, much of Scandinavia and parts of postcommunist Europe which are not ‘confessional’ parties or formally aligned to the Christian democratic movement. This certainly applies in the case of the European People’s Party (EPP), the major centre-right group in the European Parliament and the Parliament’s largest political group since 1999"

I'm going to remove the statement about parliament, but if anyone objects then feel free to revert it and explain your reason for doing so. --Spekkios (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

repeatedly deleted image

Trakking has repeatedly deleted the image of Jair Bolsonaro, the former President of Brazil, on the grounds that it "interferes with the template". If there is a conflict between a template and the information in the article, resolve the conflict, don't delete the information. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The image interfered with the outline of the article regarding the templates for Brazil and Germany. But the section on Brazil has been elaborated and now the problem is solved. Trakking (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Reactionism

The two paragraphs under the heading "Reactionism", about the difference between those conservatives who support the status quo and those who support the status quo ante, originally added to the article by JohnAdams1800 a few days ago, and as yet not discussed here in Talk, have been twice removed. When the two paragraphs were removed, the picture of former president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, was also removed.

Both of these items seem clearly to the point and well referenced. The reason given for the original removal was "removal of newly added section due to irrelevance: "reactionism" is not the same as conservatism and is therefore not one of the major themes in conservatism; also "reactionary" is an obscure term that is mostly used pejoratively".

While not all conservatives are reactionary, many are, especially today, when many conservatives call for and enact legislation requiring a return to the days before Roe v. Wade, before rules requiring Black votes to count as much as White votes, and so on. Far from being "obscure", I hear the word "reactionary" often on the daily news.

For the removal of the picture of Jair Bolsonaro, no explanation has been offered.

I think both belong in the article. I post this here in hopes of gathering a consensus. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The problems associated with the ”Reactionism” section are too many to even count, but I will do my best to enumerate as many as come to mind. They are all very grave and exclude all possibility of reasonably including this section in the article.

1. ”Reactionism” is not even a word, the real term is reactionary.

2. The term is normally used as an ideological buzzword by political opponents, never ever used by conservatives themselves and only rarely used by neutral commentators. It is the equivalent of calling left-wingers degenerates.

3. The term is loose and obscure and is possibly not limited to conservative politics. Many communists believed in the idea of primitive communism – that the primordial social order was communistic and that society should return to this way of living. Paul Johnson claimed that no British politician has ever won an election on any other promise than that everything should become like it used to be. Does this mean that all of these people are reactionary?

4. It is a fallacy and a prejudice to suggest that conservatives are opposed to change or creation. After all, it was conservatives who created the European Union (Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi, Robert Schuman). It was conservatives who created the first welfare states (Otto von Bismarck in Germany, Benjamin Disraeli in Great Britain, Rudolf Kjellén in Sweden etc.) National romanticism was primarily a conservative cultural project. In literature, J. R. R. Tolkien was a conservative traditionalist who basically created the modern fantasy genre. And so on and so on.

5. There are many more principal themes in conservatism than ”reactionism”. As an authority on the subject, who is familiar with most of the best literature written about conservative philosophy, I can name plenty: family values, patriotism, loyalty, authority, faith, culture, property rights, monarchy, law and order etc.

As for the picture of Jair Bolsonaro, it had to be removed because it interfered with a template. And templates have priority over images. Trakking (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the edits in question, but this response gives me pause because it's a collection of what appears to be personal opinions about the concept. What should be focused on instead is the quality of the sources used. If an editor is "an authority on the subject," then the best way to express that is to lay out verifiable sources to support these positions, or in the alternative, sources that demonstrate why the sources that were introduced regarding "reactionism" are not verifiable. Show, don't tell. ~TPW 14:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with TPW. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

1. I agree. The title of the section should be "reactionary", not "reactionism".

2. The term "reactionary" is a perfectly good English language word. Conservatives rarely call themselves "reactionary" and liberals rarely call themselves "pro-abortion". People usually phrase their beliefs using words that will make those beliefs sound good. Instead of calling their view that we need to return to the status quo ante "reactionary" a conservative might call their beliefs "moral". Instead of calling their belief that abortion should be legal "pro-abortion", a liberal might call their belief "Right to Choice". Reactionary is a well-understood, relatively neutral word.

3. "Reactionary" is not loose. Merriam-Webster defines it as "relating to, marked by, or favoring esp. political reaction" and defines "reaction" (4) to turn back or revert to a former condition. The word is not obscure. Most people understand perfectly well what it means. You are right that "reactionary" is not limited to conservatives. Neither are "patriotism", "loyalty" or any of the other words you say are "principal themes of conservatism" limited to conservatives.

4. Wanting to return to a former condition not "opposed to change". It is in favor of change. You list a number of conservatives. Pointing out that not all conservatives want to return to a former way of life does not change the fact that many conservatives are reactionary.

5. The article mentions most of the qualities you describe as "principal themes in conservatism". It should also mention the reactionary views of many conservatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, there are better ways to fix a picture that interferes with a template than deleting it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

1. "Reactionary"—an adjective—as a subheading? That is awkward and unconventional.

2. You just admitted that it is not a neutral word: "Conservatives rarely call themselves 'reactionary'…" If it was neutral, then no conservatives would have any problem of using the label. Thus, it is not neutral.

3. My dictionary defines the term reactionary as "strongly conservative". This is how the term is normally used. And yet, used in a broader sense, it could be applied to proponents of all ideologies. Consequently, it is a loose and obscure term.

4. Do you have any sources that indicate that "many conservatives are reactionary?" Who says that they ought to be labeled reactionary (whatever this even means) and not—plain and simple—conservative, traditionalist etc.?

5. There definitely are more themes to add to the list—with more reliable sources. I have thought about discussing this for a while. But "reactionism" is not among them. Scholarly works on conservative philosophy mention themes such as authority, family values, moral order, etc. Trakking (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A rather futile discussion. We already have an article on the term reactionary and its history, and it is part of the template on conservatism. And "reactionism" is perfectly good English.:

• • "In ideology, reactionism is a tradition in right-wing politics; the reactionary stance opposes policies for the social transformation of society, whereas conservatives seek to preserve the socio-economic structure and order that exists in the present. "
  • Try using relevant sources, instead of silly dictionaries. Dimadick (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Dimadick: The term reactionary is included on "Related topics" on the template for Conservatism, which indicates its peripheral place within the ideological tradition. It is a related term, that's all.

  If you're so fond of relevant sources, try to find one that explicitly identifies "reactionism" as one of the major themes in conservatism. You won't. But there are many scholars that claim the exact opposite, that "reactionaries" are outside mainstream conservatism or that they even are anti-conservative. Here's a quote from Andrew Sullivan in The Reactionary Temptation (2017):

  Reactionism is not the same thing as conservatism. It’s far more potent a brew. Reactionary thought begins, usually, with acute despair at the present moment and a memory of a previous golden age. It then posits a moment in the past when everything went to hell and proposes to turn things back to what they once were. It is not simply a conservative preference for things as they are, with a few nudges back, but a passionate loathing of the status quo and a desire to return to the past in one emotionally cathartic revolt. If conservatives are pessimistic, reactionaries are apocalyptic. If conservatives value elites, reactionaries seethe with contempt for them. If conservatives believe in institutions, reactionaries want to blow them up. If conservatives tend to resist too radical a change, reactionaries want a revolution.

  And here's a quote from Mark Lilla in The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction (2016):

  The reactionary is anything but a conservative. He is as radical and modern a figure as the revolutionary, someone shipwrecked in the rapidly changing present, and suffering from nostalgia for an idealized past and an apocalyptic fear that history is rushing toward catastrophe. And like the revolutionary his political engagements are motivated by highly developed ideas.

  I will remove the section on "reactionism" in the article as it clearly is not supported by the authoritative literature. In fact, the literature states the exact opposite, that "reactionism" is revolutionary and anti-conservative. The term does not represent mainstream conservatism and it is absolutely not one of the major themes within the ideology. Trakking (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think it looks bad for me to be the only one reverting this poster. I hope some of the other people who have posted here will restore the referenced sentences Trakking repeatedly deletes. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, your obstinacy looks really bad.

  The burden of proof lies on you for changing an article. And you have proven NOTHING. The "Themes" section is restricted to the central themes in conservatism, and "reactionism" is not among them. You have no reliable sources behind you that indicate such a thing. All the most authoritative literature on the topic refute your thesis with brutal force. See my former post: the quotations are written in stone.

  The most well-established and oft-quoted summary of conservative philosophy is made by Russell Kirk, who developed six canons of conservatism:

  • A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
  • An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
  • A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize natural distinctions;
  • A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
  • A faith in custom, convention, and prescription; and
  • A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

  Other users as well have urged you to support your edits with reliable sources. Please educate yourself thoroughly on a topic before you take action. Other authoritative scholars on conservatism are Robert Nisbet, Yoram Hazony, Roger Scruton, and Peter Viereck, who have written encyclopedic works on the topic. Start there. Trakking (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think Rick Norwood has the stronger argument here. I've restored the content in question and provided an additional scholarly source: Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald (Oxford University Press, 2018). Generalrelative (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I thought this discussion was settled, but okay… I will invite some people who have written extensively or authoritatively about conservatism lately: @GreenLoeb, @Gondolabúrguer, @Alejandro Basombrio, @Mureungdowon, @JPratas. You should have more objective expertise on the topic than Rick Norwood and Generalrelative, who both are left-wing activists and whose only source (Corey Robin) is another left-wing activist, which is just poor scholarship. Robin's The Reactionary Mind has suffered scathing criticism, whereas Mark Lilla, whom I quoted above, is known as a serious scholar on the political left, and he refutes the notion that conservatism is the same thing as ”reactionism.”

  The question here is whether ”reactionism” is one of the central themes in conservatism—and the answer is that it simply is not. No reliable sources are cited that indicate such a thing. In fact, the most reliable sources state the exact opposite. They identify "reactionism" as revolutionary, utopian, and strikingly non-conservative.

  Literally NONE of the most prominent conservative politicians were ”reactionaries,” trying to restore some old order from a bygone age—not Disraeli, not Bismarck, not Adenauer, not Gaulle, not Reagan, not Thatcher. In fact, all of these people transformed their societies in new and adaptive ways: Disraeli managed to combine Toryism with socialism, Bismarck unified the Germans into an empire, Adenauer was one of the architects behind the European Union, Gaulle created a syncretic ideology (Gaullism) in the aftermath of WWII, Reagan became the forefather of modern American conservatism, and Thatcher liberalized the entire nation.

  The history of conservative thought is complex and dynamic and it ought to be treated with respect and discretion. ”Reactionary” is a term that conservatives themselves abhor and that serious scholars criticize. It is normally used as an insidious slur by left-wing activists to refer to things like good old historism and traditionalism. In a similar way, articles on socialism should not dedicate entire sections on GODLESSNESS and LEVELLING, when the neutral terms are secularism and egalitarianism. Trakking (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The core of Conservatism is that there is a stable human nature and that, as a consequence, some things should never change. If these things change for a person, they benefit the persons who have not "touched" the thing. For example: every human being needs a family. If a person does not have a family, then others - with functional families - will have power over him. (This is happening right now in the whole world, for the benefit of a few hundred super-powerful, billionaire families.)

  The core of Conservatism is not the reaction towards Leftism. This reaction is a natural consequence. However, the measures against families done by Leftist activists, politicians, writers, even priests, are something new in the history of the world. Therefore it brings attention, like a "political Sep. 11, 2001". So, the reaction against this gathers attention, too. And, then, Conservatives are seen only as persons who react against the Leftists.

  Deceased (Jan. 24, 2022) professor Olavo de Carvalho wrote that the Leftist actions are extremely effective by themselves, but also by their newness in the history and their malignant character. He is a major reference for Conservatives in the Lusophone world. Olavo wrote extensively to warn Lusophones about the catastrophic effects of Leftist politicians and professor in Brazil, in special. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Friend, @Trakking, do you have a private channel, so that we can talk? I see that you need more attention. And I would love to help you. But this page is not the place for talks. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Also it is important to mention that Conservatism is not a new political thought. (I avoid the term "ideology" here because Conservatives do not have a "to-do list for a New Human(ity)". There never was a proposal for a Homo conservativus; persons stereotypically Conservative have always existed. However, there was a proposal for an Eurasian - at least an Eurasian - communist human(ity): the Homo sovieticus).

  However, certain Conservative actions were linked, in the past, with positions not much associated with the modern Conservatism. Thus, the modern Conservatism is viewed, publicly, as a reactionary action against the Left.

  Let me give you an example: there were Conservative politicians during the Empire of Brazil, such as José Bonifácio. But their actions do not resemble those of modern Conservative politicians, like Jair Bolsonaro. Why? Because there was no need for a "fight against the destruction of families" in the 1800s, for example. There was no struggle to keep Christianity in Brazil in the 1800s, too. These two main aspects of Leftism, the disaggregation of families and the "erosion" of Christian religion, were not part of the agenda of the Liberal politicians in the 1800s in Brazil. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is a good example of an accusation of reactionarism by Leftists: six youtubers accuse Jordan Peterson of mixing self-help and reactionarism. youtu.be/3lZt2ZXzluE Gondolabúrguer (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: I've invited more participation in this discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Should the article Conservatism have a section on Reactionism?. Generalrelative (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Here from NPOV/N. Reactionary politics is clearly relevant to conservatism, and the section is sourced to support such a claim (and even includes a rebuttal opinion which may or may not be due). Trakking has not made a valid argument for its deletion, and as said above, appears to be ignoring the cited sources in favor of personal opinion and their own analysis. I'm restoring the content, and I strongly suggest that Trakking consider Wikipedia policies on WP:Edit warring and WP:Canvassing before taking any further action. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    I have the most authoritative sources behind me. There are more to quote, if necessary. And no one has cited a source that explicitly states that reactionism is one of the central themes of conservatism. Trakking (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    On the complex relationship between reactionism and conservatism, I'd suggest taking a careful look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Conservatism. While Wikipedia's articles should be based primarily on secondary sources, WP:TERTIARY sources like the SEP can be useful guides for determining WP:DUE balance. In this case it is clear that a thoughtfully weighted presentation of the scholarly debate over the relationship between reactionism and conservatism is due for inclusion in the article. The current section could be substantially expanded to accomplish that, and I would suggest considering the sources marshaled by the SEP article as references. Generalrelative (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    Another excellent source here would be "Conservatism: A State of the Field" by Kim Phillips-Fein in Journal of American History (2011). That one shows a clear affinity and frequent slippage between the concepts of conservatism and reactionism, as well as scholarly criticism of a simple equation between the two in all contexts. Generalrelative (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    @Generalrelative: Very well. The article by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is often cited as a trustworthy source on the philosophy of conservatism. Their stance is aligned with my own:

    • "As we have seen, it is generally recognised that conservatism is not dogmatic reaction."
    • "For conservatives, vital political relations are organic. Unlike reactionary thinkers, they regard traditions not as static, but as in a gentle and gradual flux, encouraged by the astute reformer."
    • "To reiterate, reaction is not Burkean conservatism."

    Also—let me thank you, @Generalrelative, for being the sole person on the "opponent" side of this debate who handles it like a professional editor by providing sources and trying to view the complex topic from different perspectives.

    I can imagine being positive to the addition of a section on "Reactionism," if it is solidly referenced and thoroughly discussed. Then I would like to add some some important things, which are already mentioned in the article for the term reactionary:

    1. A clarification that the term is often used as a simple invective by anti-conservatives.

    2. The fact that some prominent conservative thinkers, e.g. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Nicolás Gómez Dávila, have adopted the label willingly and tried to cleanse it of pejorative connotations.

    3. Some illustrative examples of the application of the term—preferentially concerning major events like the Bourbon restauration or the Congress of Vienna. Trakking (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The contention that it's irrelevant is meritless. There is significant risk of over-weighting it or abusing MOS:LABEL, but the text currently in the article seems fine. Sennalen (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the section does not belong under "Themes," since it is not an essential theme of conservatism. Although "reactionary conservatism" is a form of conservatism, there is already a section for "Authoritarian conservatism," which identifies "reactionary conservatism" as an alternative name. So I do not see that the section is required.

Also, the article is about conservatism, not modern U.S. conservatism, the Right or the far right. All of those topics have their own articles.

TFD (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point made by @The Four Deuces: there already is a section dedicated to that particular form of conservatism, making this new addition superfluous and unnecessary. @Gondolabúrguer also made an excellent point, namely that "reactionism" is about conservatives defending things like religion and family values, which are the real core themes of conservatism, not the "reaction" in itself. Trakking (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a WP:FORUM. Please consult WP:TALK. Generalrelative (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Trakking. The way the Left uses the term "reactionary" is part of a defeatist strategy. Defeatism means: the Left promotes the loss of hope of its enemies by claiming that the Left's initiative - the Socialist revolution - cannot be defeated, that any reaction will be fruitless. «You cannot stop us! "Fascistas no pasarán!"» «The revolution will not be stopped!» «Our tremendous momentum is like a Titanic at full speed.» Translating the three phrases: «Give up, Right-wingers. There is nothing that you can do. Your reaction will never hit us.» And there are Conservatives who believe that Socialism is unavoidable, thus proving the success of this strategy! Jeffrey Nyquist wrote an article: Defeatism and Revolutionary Strategy (2022-09-08), about the use of defeatism by Putinists in the West, after the invasion of Ukraine. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC) The Conservatives who say "the Left will win, tomorrow or some day in the future", act as traitors. Defeatism stimulates this. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC) True. My first post above mentioned this as one of the critiques against adding the term: it is often nothing else but an ideological buzzword. Also—do you think that it is a coincidence that all of the people who want to add the term "reactionary" to the article are left-wingers themselves? Rick Norwood has been reprimanded by other users for writing stuff about left-wing politics without providing sources, Dimadick identifies as a leftist, Sennalen openly supports far-left movement Black Lives Matter etc. And the only author who supports their theory is Corey Robin—an anti-conservative left-wing activist. Yet the worst refutation of their entire assault comes from someone who is a moderate left-winger himself, the political scientist Mark Lilla, who clearly states that classical conservatism is nothing like violent "reactionism." (See quote above.) Andrew Sullivan and authoritative source Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy argue the same point. Wikipedia user The Four Deuces, who has received prizes for his contributions to articles on conservatism, also agreed with the criticism. Please, @Gondolabúrguer, feel free to revert the latest reversion made by Rick. His main objection is that I am just one individual reverting, as if what feels to me like a mob of left-wingers ganging together gives him any authority. That's not how Wikipedia works. The sources have been cited, the experts have spoken—and they reject the conflation of conservatism and "reactionism." Trakking (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Please tell me if you have a private channel for communication, like FB, Twitter or email. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Also—do you think that it is a coincidence that all of the people who want to add the term "reactionary" to the article are left-wingers themselves? The point is: there is nothing in the world compared to the scale and level of organization of the Left. And they are full of wrath, something that psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter and psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski wrote about in their books. How can the Left be defeated? It seems to be impossible! (This is why the Catholic circles devoted to the study of Fatima, 1917, talk about the "conversion of Russia" as an essential geopolitical turning point. It would be the long term consequence of the act of consecration done by pope Francis in March 25, 2022. Without the conversion of the Euro-Asiatic giant country, the world cannot avoid the decline towards Socialism according to the Catholics.) Therefore, the action, the start, is always from the Left, thus they can claim that everything else is reactionary! And they claim that no reaction would be fruitful. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Classical Conservatism is that of Reagan and Trump. Also that of Ron DeSantis. This is important, Trakking: pay attention to that guy. He will define the newest style of the political Right and will stimulate other politicians all over the world. The last time this happened was in 2014-2018, with Donald Trump - he was a model for Jair Bolsonaro, Macri, Meloni, Modi etc. But this time, with DeSantis, it will be more massive and more effective against the Left, as he openly talks about culture war. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC) The growth of the Left - the "awakening of the sleepers", as Yuri Bezmenov said - makes it impossible to avoid some violent clashes in them. They are provocative. They know how to make anyone angry and careless. The Left incites violence from the Right, then denounces the violence done by the Right. And they use it as a source of propaganda: «The Right is aggressive and reactionary!». One more thing. During the Trump years, the Right grew. But it is not organized. How can someone control millions of disorganized persons? It is impossible to avoid every potential act of violence under that circumstance. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that most of the right-wingers listed aren't classical conservatives but have been called conservative in the sense that they want to return to earlier ideologies such as 19th century liberalism or radicalism or 20th century fascism. Writers have also used the term to describe hardliners in both the Soviet Union and Iran. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, whom Trakking mentioned as a self-described reactionary conservative, called this the "great American semantic confusion." TFD (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Even as a communist, I do believe that conservatism and reactionary politics are separate views. Conservatism, just like any other ideology (and especially one as vague as this), evolves over time, and the feudalist conservatives of the 1700s and 1800s are very different from the capitalist conservatives of today. Whether you are a conservative or reactionary depends not only on your views but also on when you hold them, since today's state is oftentimes very different from yesterday's state. The conservative protects today's state, no matter what they are (which is why Stalinists in the Soviet Union are sometimes referred to as "conservative"), while the reactionary seeks to return to yesterday's state. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

According to Samuel Huntington, there are three definitions of conservatism: aristocratic, autonomous and situational. The focus of this article is the first type. As an ideology, it competes with liberalism, socialism, Christian democracy and others. In the few countries it survived, it did so by first appealing to the bourgeoisie and later the working class, as the franchise was extended. TFD (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

As a reader or editor I would assume that an article with such a broad title as "conservatism" would refer to all forms of conservatism, not merely aristocratic.

If you mind, can you describe specifically how Huntington distinguishes between aristocratic conservatism, autonomous conservatism, and situational conservatism? Based on what they are named alone I would assume that all follow the same pattern of aristocratic conservatism; an appeal to the capitalists first, and then an appeal towards the workers and peasants as capitalist appeal declines. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about topics, not words. For example, there are separate articles for Mars the planet and Mars the god.

Aristocratic conservatism was the reaction by aristocrats to the rising capitalist class and their liberal ideology. Essentially they believed in organic collectivism as opposed to liberal atomistic individualism. They formed political parties that called themselves Conservatives. This ideology has largely disappeared.

Situtational conservatism means support of the status quo whatever it is. It would be very different in the U.S., UK, U.S.S.R. and Iran.

Autonomous conservatism is a view that there are timeless conservative principles, so conservatives existed before the development of modern ideologies. TFD (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia articles are about topics, and not words. When a reader searches for "conservatism" on this website, do you think they are likely searching for conservatism in the modern sense of the word, or a now-dead one that they didn't even know existed?

Still I appreciate the definitions you have given me. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the modern use of the term belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia, since there is no body of literature sufficient to write an article. The same is true of liberalism. Besides, conservative is still used in party classification and remains distinct from other right-wing parties in many countries. TFD (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a clear distinction between conservatism as an ideology and a Conservative party, given one represents a belief and another represents an organization.

I think comparing this to corporatism is a good example. "Corporatism" is an incredibly vague term; in common modern usage it usually refers to corporatocracy or crony capitalism, while in common scholarly usage its definition is even less clear, and as a system it can either refer to fascist corporatism or neo-corporatism. Since there are other terms for corporatism in its modern usage, the page "corporatism" instead refers to corporatism in its common meaning before the 60s.

The same is true of conservatism, but there is a major difference between the conservatism page and the corporatism page in that one is in ubiquitous and agreed-upon usage as a system that preserves institutions while another is common (albeit non-ubiquitous) but incredibly vague (and there are also other terms to describe "corporatism" in its capitalist usage, which is why this specific usage is not described). There are other terms for these specific forms of conservatism. Aristocratic conservatism appears to fit the traditionalist conservatism (aka classical conservatism) page, or may at best warrant a section of its own within the larger conservative page. Replacing the conservatism page with that more narrow description, especially when that form of conservatism can be described with other terms, seems an awful waste of time. At least, that is my opinion. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

References

American Conservatism section

Firstly, I must note that I am neither a conservative nor a progressive (In American, "liberal"). As a communist I strongly oppose both, as they make claims that require the establishment of hierarchy and government authority to exist in the first place (e.g. progressive restriction of free speech, conservative enforcement of authoritarianism within the family). Therefore you should not consider me to be biased in favor of either of them, but instead opposed.

With that aside, I find two major problems with the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the section covering modern conservatism in the United States.

1. This section:

"Modern American conservatives consider individual liberty, as long as it conforms to conservative values, small government, deregulation of the government, economic liberalism, and free trade, as the fundamental trait of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on social equality and social justice."

This seems to be unsourced, given the claims the supposed source makes:

"The label (conservatism) is in frequent use and has come to stand for a skepticism, at times an outright hostility, toward government social policies; a muscular foreign policy combined with a patriotic nationalism; a defense of traditional Christian religious values; and support for the free market economic system.", "Within the conservative disposition in America, there are inherent contradictions between supporters of social order and tradition and supporters of individual freedom.

These mention skepticism towards social policies, nationalism, Christian values, support for a free market system, and conflict between supporters of social order and tradition and supporters of individual freedom (which is more closely related to libertarianism than it is conservatism). They do not mention individual liberty (besides, perhaps, the first value listed, but even this is contradicted by the last line), and government deregulation, small government, and economic liberalism are all purely economic (they imply that conservatives support more freedom than they actually do) and therefore should be placed under the "economic freedom" umbrella. Free trade is not only ignored by the source, but the populists of all political wings within the United States have embraced protectionism, including the national populists. While this may have been true of American conservatism in the past, since 2016 and the rise of this populist faction it has not been. In essence, all of the claims made by this paragraph are either false or misleading.

2. Conservatism was not associated with the Republican Party until the 1930s (and not the 1920s, as the article suggests). This sentence is unsourced as well.

If you have a source, feel free to point them out and add them to the article. This is primarily directed towards users who wish to keep these (misleading) lines, but anyone is free to provide their own commentary. Fascistinfowars (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

One grammatical error is "fundamental trait" which should be "fundamental traits".

I think you did the right thing to bring the discussion here instead of starting an edit war.

In America, all (or almost all) political parties claim to be for freedom, so you will find plenty of sources that claim conservatives are for freedom, and sources that claim liberals are for freedom. The reality is that both parties want some freedoms and oppose other freedoms.

At the core of the definition of conservatism is hierarchy. I'll keep my eye out for quotes. The most important thing is that Wikipedia wants sources that are academic, not random quotes from politicians. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Dan Asia states that European conservatism is more concerned with "conserving social hierarchies and established churches," while American conservatism seeks "to conserve or establish institutions and practices conducive to a social dynamism that dissolves impediments to social mobility and fluidity. online Rjensen (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"conducive to a social dynamism that dissolves impediments to social mobility and fluidity" But American conservatives have been opposing attempts at social mobility for decades. The article on socioeconomic mobility in the United States clarifies that the War on drugs resulted in the stagnation or decline of social mobility since c. 1980. Drug policies "have created an underclass with severely limited social mobility. Within the United States the prison population has been steadily increasing since the early 1970s and has now surpassed two million, making it the highest per capita rate in the world. This boom has been fueled to a large extent by the War on Drugs starting in the 1980s. In addition to the mobility handicaps of imprisonment, this "war" has effectively created a poor, immobile class by denying one of the most important tools for social mobility—education—in a number of ways" Dimadick (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

That's why Asia said they "seek" this rather than they actually achieved it. Lots of policies do not achieve their purported results. I say purported because you may be correct that the intention of the "war on drugs" was social control, even if it meant causing more drug abuse.

BTW, liberals, such as the Clintons and Joe Biden, built on these policies and were responsible for even more incarcerations than conservatives. But we wouldn't say that liberal ideology (as opposed to practice) in the U.S. opposes social mobility. TFD (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"such as the Clintons and Joe Biden, built on these policies and were responsible for even more incarcerations than conservatives." I was around in the 1990s, I remember multiple states enforcing three-strikes laws at the time. Which probably had an impact on the large increase of the prison population. I am not American, but the Greek press of the time was highlighting the increasingly authoritarian legislation in the United States. Dimadick (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It all began with the Rockefeller Drug Laws of 1973. Rockefeller was a liberal Republican and the bill had bi-partisan support. Biden sponsored the Comprehensive Control Act 1984, the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 and the 1994 Crime Bill, which together almost tripled the prison population. All these laws also had bi-partisan support. This legislation provided financial incentives to increase sentences and prison populations, even funding their expansion, and made convicts ineligible for higher education grants.

You cannot say that the drug laws prove conservatives oppose social mobility, while giving the liberals a free pass. TFD (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I view Clinton's version of the Third Way as conservative. Clinton and his supporters embraced fiscal conservatism and severely limited the welfare state. The main article on Third Way includes the following criticism of Clinton's policies: "American lawyer and former bank regulator William K. Black wrote that "Third Way is this group that pretends sometimes to be centre-left but is actually completely a creation of Wall Street—it's run by Wall Street for Wall Street with this false flag operation as if it were a center-left group. It's nothing of the sort". "Dimadick (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a legitimate criticism of any ideology that their application often doesn't lead to the results they claim. That doesn't mean that the ideology is different from what is presented. TFD (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Social mobility is more focused on a person's ability to move between social classes and not mere incarcerations. I think we should keep note of that. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"conservative enforcement of authoritarianism within the family" I am not a fan of conservatives either, but are there genuine legislative efforts to enforce authoritarian family structures in the United States? Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Anything that emphasizes traditional family structures is hierarchical (and in my book "authoritarian", but since that is a charged and controversial word I will avoid using that from now on), and includes opposition to same-sex marriage and moral absolutism, which are restrictions on freedoms. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should focus on the specific points the sentence makes:

- Individual liberty (that conforms to conservative values?)

- Small government (Nearly identical to points 3 and 4)

- Deregulation of the government (Nearly identical to points 2 and 4)

- Economic liberalism (Nearly identical to points 2 and 3)

- Free trade (Doubtful since 2016, and possibly outdated)

My claim rests on the fact that all of these points are either controversial, redundant, or doubtful, especially considering the values the next sentence lists:

- Traditional family

- Law and order

- Right to bear arms

- Christian values

- Anti-communism

- "Defending Western culture from pop culture and totalitarianism"

Besides the right to bear arms (which is a libertarian position), none of these values are related to supporting freedom, nor do they suggest "individual liberty" (which, using similar logic, would mean that progressives also support individual liberty).

I think that the main issue with this paragraph is that economic positions are conflated with social ones. "Small government", "deregulation of the government", "economic liberalism", and "free trade" are all economic issues that I'd imagine affect a democracy less than social issues such as Christian values. By mentioning economic stances before social ones the paragraph also creates the feeling that conservatism is akin to individual liberty, or perhaps even libertarianism considering their mention in the "economic conservatives and libertarians" sentence (and, again, neither of these are true), which strikes me as a form of bias.

This bias is probably extensive in the American progressive and conservative pages, though I will admit that I haven't read either. In the mean time we should focus on eliminating the bias here. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I am far from an expert here, but I have some observations on your points.

• • • Several supposedly conservative governments and organizations have nominally supported individualism, particularly in oposition to collectivism. I suspect that this is the "individual liberty" that they are talking about.
    • "Small government" is the catchphrase of libertarian conservatism, an American political movement which seeks de-regulation of certain economic sectors. They have adopted several key positions from anti-statism.
    • Economic liberalism is a primarily economic ideology, which supports a market economy and private ownership of the means of production. Economic liberals are typically opposed to labor unions and anything resembling worker's rights.
    • Free trade is one of the main goals of economic liberalism, typically in opposition to protectionism. Republicans in the United States nominally supported free trade until the Trump tariffs imposed de facto bans on imports. Dimadick (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

    As I said above, Trump's position was that other countries (EU, China, Canada and Mexico, among others) were cheating and brought in tariffs in order to force them to agree to free trade. Misguided as it might have been, it pales when compared with Biden's "Buy America" policy, which violates (allegedly) the agreements negotiated with Canada and Mexico. So in that sense, the Republicans are still more free trade than the Dems. TFD (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

    Even if progressives are more protectionist than conservatives (and they, in my opinion, are), that doesn't excuse the fact that conservatives have shifted heavily towards and now favor protectionism, just as both progressives and conservatives support their own form of liberalism. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

    They would argue that they haven't, that they are trying to promote free trade by punishing states that are protectionist. And they would point out that they renegotiated NAFTA to make it more fair to the U.S. You're going to get the same problems with any ideology. Do Communists really support equality for example. Maybe not, but that does not mean that equality is not a core tenet of communist ideology. TFD (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    Fair point. Would you support merging the first two sentences of the paragraph then? Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    Right, but nominal support is at best debatable. Even still individual liberty is not the same as individualism, as one supports the liberty of the individual while one believes in the importance of the individual (these are not necessarily the same, as you can theoretically have an egoist and culturally progressive totalitarian state, for example).

    I think it's best to just remove the "free trade" clause and incorporate it as part of economic liberalism, and mention that the values listed by the sentence are controversial. I don't see the problem, though, with limiting it to two values; economic freedom and (debatable) individualism. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think your quote above is Dan Asia quoting George Will, rather than something Dan Asia himself states. In any case, what the quote says about American conservatism seems to be the exact opposite of what American conservatives are doing today. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

There is a dispute over inclusion of criticism by Philip E. Agre.[9]

The section begins, he "argued that conservatism is "the domination of society by an aristocracy."" Since that is the definition of the topic of the article, that cannot be seen as criticism.

Agee continues, it "is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world." Mostly he is arguing against conservatism by saying it is incompatible with U.S. liberal values as represented by the Founding Fathers. But that begs the question whether the values of the Founding Fathers were correct.

TFD (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That "critique" is completely worthless. Here are some powerful counter-arguments:

• The conservative wave that has swept the entire world in recent years is not aristocratic, but deeply and broadly populist, while the "enemy" is often labeled the "establishment," the "elite" etc.
• Many of the richest countries in the West have a strong tradition of conservatism: Norway, Austria, the United States etc.
• Even in the "modern world," most human beings are conservatives or lean towards conservatism. Think of India. Think of China. Think of the Islamic world. Think of the revival of conservatism all over Europe. Saying that conservatism is out-of-date is disrespectful towards all of these billions of people.

That quote is not an authoritative critique, but a cynical, ignorant, and intolerant one. He's a leftist activist, by the way. If we're going to quote a leftist scholar speaking about conservatism, it should be someone who is able to respect aspects of the ideology while also being able to criticize other leftists—think of George Orwell or Bertrand Russell or the above-quoted Mark Lilla. These are left-wingers with intelligence, wisdom, and authority, not narrow-minded activists. Trakking (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Like the term liberal, the term conservative has various meanings. The traditional meaning is the ideology associated with the upper class leadership of Europe. Since then, some writers have adopted the U.S. usage where liberal refers to social liberalism, while conservative refers to neo-classical liberalism.

A third definition of conservatism is the right-wing populist reaction to neoliberalism, which is what you may be referring to. But as Peter Viereck said, populism is liberalism gone sour, right-wing populism is populism gone sour. Essentially it proclaims liberal values while claiming that the elites have abandoned them.

Serious critics universally condemn rw populism as demagoguery offering simplist and often bigoted solutions to complex problems. TFD (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Peter Viereck was a wise man. But one must remember that there always were two sides of conservatism: one aristocratic and one popular. This has been the case since the French Revolution, which was not as "popular" as some may think: it was headed by rich bourgeoisie in Paris, while half of the people murdered were common people on the countryside. The whole region of Vendée initiated a counter-revolution but were slaughtered by the revolutionaries—the first modern genocide. The rooted "people" in any given country throughout history has been represented foremost by farmers and common people on the countryside and in villages—and these are often conservative, that is Christian, patriotic, royalist, traditional.

Here is an illustrative quote from Joseph de Maistre—father of conservatism alongside Edmund Burke:

Any institution is only a political structure. In physics and in morals, the laws are the same; you cannot build a large structure on a narrow foundation, nor a durable structure on a moving or transient base. In the political order, therefore, if one wants to build on a large scale and for the centuries, one must rely on an opinion, on a large and profound belief. For if this opinion does not dominate a majority of minds and if it is not deeply rooted, it will furnish only a narrow and transient base. Moreover, if you look for what forms the great and solid bases of all possible first or second order institutions, one will always find religion and patriotism.

This is the main difference between classical liberalism and conservatism: a classical liberal only believes in the individual's right to freedom, whereas conservatives believe in religion and patriotism. The traditional aristocratic aspects of these two phenomena have been Church and Monarchy, but these powerful institutions collapse without a large popular support. This dual nature of conservatism is one of the most interesting things about the ideology. Trakking (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

You would have to show that your interpretation is supported by reliable sources. Basically, Maistre was saying that Church and the monarchy ("religion and patriotism") are the sole authorities. And while he acknowledges popular support is required, he doesn't mean that the authorities should listen to the masses. Instead, they should achieve this through education, propaganda, fear and paternalism. TFD (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, although Burke and Maistre are credited with developing conservative ideology, it does not mean that everything they wrote is part of it. This is particularly true of Burke, who accepted some liberal views and was considered a liberal until the mid-20th century. TFD (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"whether the values of the Founding Fathers were correct." And how is this relevant to this article? Dimadick (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I was arguing that this source is NOT relevant to this article. TFD (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

First, Trakking deleted the very brief "Criticism" section on the grounds that the author of the quote, a former UCLA professor with many papers published in refereed journals, is "completely obscure". Now he says the professor is a "POLITICAL ACTIVIST who became a sholar (without reputation)". He also says the author is a liberal.

He says that conservatism is not aristocratic but populist. And yet in an edit on June 10, in a list of things conservatives support, he himself replaced the word "populism" with the word "monarchy". That edit still stands.

He says "This is the main difference between classical liberalism and conservatism: a classical liberal only believes in the individual's right to freedom, whereas conservatives believe in religion and patriotism. The traditional aristocratic aspects of these two phenomena have been Church and Monarchy, but these powerful institutions collapse without a large popular support. This dual nature of conservatism is one of the most interesting things about the ideology."

This sounds a lot like the sentence he keeps deleting. The post he deletes says conservatism is "the domination of society by an aristocracy". Tracking says "conservatives believe in religion and patriotism. The traditional aristocratic aspects of these two phenomena have been Church and Monarchy."

The post he keeps deleting says conservatism "is incompatible with democracy". He cites China as a major conservative country.

More controversial is the last part of the quote he wants deleted. It says that conservatism is incompatible with "prosperity". China has become very prosperous, so whether freedom or authoritarianism is better for prosperity remains to be seen.

But here in the United States, while not all conservatives stand for "inequality and prejudice", certainly a large number of them do, as do most of the conservatives in India, another example Trakking cites as a major conservative country.

The question here is whether or not, after much praise of conservatism, a single sentence of criticism should be allowed. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Rick Norwood (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that Irakking's comments support Agre's analysis. My main disagreement with including it as criticism is that it actually explains how it differs from the U.S. liberal consensus that dates back to its founding.

To me, that's like including in the criticism section of Buddhism that they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, don't observe the Sabbath, don't read the Bible. It begins with an assumption that one set of beliefs is correct, so the other must be wrong.

The British colonial administrator, Francis Bond Head, made a concise defense of what would later call itself the Conservative Party in Canada:

"The family compact of Upper Canada is composed of those members of its society who, either by their abilities and character have been honoured by the confidence of the executive government, or who by their industry and intelligence have amassed wealth. The party I admit is comparatively a small one but to put the multitude at the top and the few at the bottom is a radical reversion of that pyramid of society which every reflecting man must foresee can only end by its downfall." TFD (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Now if only you would agree that a parenthesis is not an operation.Rick Norwood (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Edit by User 99.235.143.17

Is this legitimate? This is this user’s only edit ChecksMix (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Conservatism: A Rediscovery

Conservatism: A Rediscovery by Yoram Hazony Regnery Publishing 2022 is too controversial and unreliable a source to use to define the topic. The author works for right-wing think tanks and writes for right-wing publications and his academic writing was about ancient Israel. The publishing house calls itself "Conservative Books for Independent Thinkers" and its topic authors include Michelle Malkin, Denis Prager, David Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.[10] In the book, the author trashes earlier U.S. conservatives as not being authentic. However, serious reviews of his book have said he lacks an understanding of conservatism and in particular does not understand "that American conservatism is—has always been—a species of liberalism, forged to conserve a liberal revolution."[11]

Basically the author is presenting his own views which are not widely accepted. So I will remove it as a source. TFD (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are chapters in that book where he is explicitly polemic. But the chapters on conservative philosophy are scholarly and academic, citing many philosophers. I mentioned Edmund Fawcett’s Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition (2020) as another solid work; the fact that the author identifies as a liberal leftist has nothing to do with the merit of the work.

Remove the book if you want; but if this principle was applied to all political topics, then many references would have to be purged from Wikipedia, since many political scholars sympathize with a certain ideology, are polemic at times, and have been criticized for one thing or another. Trakking (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Bias in sources is acceptable. The issue is however reliability. Hazony is not an expert in the field and his publisher is known for publishing works that include false and misleading information. Reviewers have said his interpretation of intellectual history is wrong. TFD (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Pat Moynihan's caution applies: everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. Reliability means getting your facts right. TFD (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

While Fawcett's book (unlike Hazony's) may be solid, it is clearly an expression of his opinion and there is no reason why the article should accept it over any other.

He writes, "If you ask what kind of thing conservatism is, you will hear that it is a party-political family, counsel of government, philosophy of society, mouthpiece of the haves, voice of all classes, exalted picture of humankind, or universal preference for the steady and familiar against the changeable and strange. Each answer catches some aspect of conservatism. All are partial. Conservatism as understood here is a tradition or practice of politics." (p. 41)

Why shouldn't the article discuss conservatism as a party-political family, since similar articles on the far right, Christian democrats, liberals, greens, socialists, communists, etc., all do? Why should it ignore the positional view, which you seem to support?

There are a few assumptions in the book also that other writers would not accept. First, as you yourself mentioned, it's not clear whether Burke was liberal or conservative. Second, it's contested whether Maistre was a forerunner of fascism. Also, the U.S. revolution in fact did prompt resistance within the colonies to the extent that it has been called the first U.S. civil war. Per capita, it created more refugees than either the French or Russian revolutions. TFD (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

As I mentioned above, instead of basing the definition of the topic on writings by individuals who self-identify as conservatives or of non-conservatives presenting their personal interpretations, we should per Wikipedia:TERTIARY first determine which definitions are most common and present them according to acceptance in the literature.

One good source is Mark Garnett's article "Conservatism" in the political science textbook Ideology (OUP 2017).[12] Dr. Garnett explains how many self-described conservatives are writing about forms of right-wing liberalism or populism. I don't think the focus of the article should be on views that have little academic acceptance.

If you have other tertiary sources, I would appreciate them. TFD (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Now there are three tertiary sources in the lede—Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Encyclopædia Britannica and Andrew Heywood's Political Theory: An Introduction (2004)—with quotations incorporated in the references that support the current definition. Heywood is the leading writer of politics textbooks in the UK, and his works are referenced throughout the article. Trakking (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This Article Could Use a Short Disclaimer on the Usage of the Term

Before reading this article, I had taken issue with the article on Carl Schmitt for stating that he was a "conservative" theorist, when it's pretty obvious that he was a fascist as per both his membership in the Nazi party and explicit advocation of the suspension of the rule of law and establishment of a state of exception, effectively a rule by decree, in the form of a dictatorship in Dictatorship, as I was considering the term, "conservative", within the context of contemporary political debate and not as per both its historical use and use within the field of history, in which case, I think it's adequately descriptive of Schmitt to characterize him as such. Effectively, I'd thought that the term was either euphemistic or pejorative because of that I was thinking about as per its contemporary use.

Anyways, because of that, I was thinking that this article could use some sort of disclaimer on historical usages of the term and its use within the field of history as distinct from what is generally connotative of conservatism within a contemporary political context. For instance, when you hear someone described as a "conservative" in the news, you would be likely to assume that they have some opposition to proposed social reforms and advocate a right-wing economic policy, but, also, that they are still in favor of some form of representative democracy, whereas its use in, say, a historical textbook, though it would still generally connote an opposition to social reforms, may not necessarily favor contemporary conservative economic policy, and may even advocate for, say, absolute monarchy, at least, in a case where the status quo in question is an absolute monarch.

Basically, I think that there being multiple usages of the term in different contexts could be either confusing or even misleading, and think that some clarification could be given in this regard. When I see the term, "conservative", in a news article, I assume that the person whom it is ascribed to is right-wing, but not of the far-right, for instance, whereas they very well may be, as per my example of Carl Schmitt, within a historical text.

In short, I think a brief disclaimer distinguishing the contemporary political usage of "conservatism", i.e. right-wing both socially and fiscally within a political spectrum limited to representative democracies, and both the historical usage of the term and its use within the field of history as, to put it rather crudely, the maintenance of status quo, regardless as to what that status quo may be, with the simplest counter-point to the contemporary political usage of the term being absolute monarchy. No one, when they hear a newscaster say that someone is a conservative, assumes that they could be in favor of something like the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire, when it is entirely possible that they could be in a work of history. To me, there seems to be a clear difference between how the term is used in those contexts, which could use some clarification. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The article used to clearly define the topic as an historical ideology that developed in reaction to liberalism and pointed out that the terms liberal and conservative were ahistorically adopted in the U.S. Unlike both American liberalism and conservatism, it sees society as organic and explicitly hierarchical. It's actually more than situational conservatism (protecting traditional institutions regardless of what they are) because it protected specific institutions. TFD (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, adding something like that back in might be good, or just having a section on contextual usage. I mean, in the states, a conservative is someone who is fairly right-wing fiscally and socially, but still in full support of democracy or whatever, whereas in Europe, that someone is a conservative can refer to a return to all kinds of old world authoritarianisms. It could be a bit confusing for someone, say, in high school looking all of this up. What's more, the ambiguity of the term lends itself to a certain sophistry. For instance, someone on the far-left could claim that Leszek Kołakowski was a conservative in order to ascribe a slew of reactionary attributes to his person or someone on the far-right could exploit the ambiguity of the term euphemistically, for instance, with my above example of Carl Schmitt.

In general, I think, conservative beyond liberalism is colloquially called "reactionary", though it's a favorite political pejorative of the far-left, but something about the usage, I think, or a more in-depth explication like what was here previously would be helpful. Anymore, I don't think that "conservative" is regularly used, even in Europe, to describe something like a return to the aristocracy all that often, and, so, if there's just a usage section, a short bit about the history of the political philosophy could explain a thing or two. There could also be a more in-depth section on its history and the extrapolation of the term in the United States. It's all clear enough for me, but, like I said, could be somewhat confusing for others. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You have many thoughts and ideas, but you are not citing any authoritative sources.

Scholars have interpreted aristocracy in many different ways. The term literally means rule of the best. Aristotle equated it with meritocracy – rule of the most competent. And meritocracy is a core value of traditional conservatism, as confirmed by many works about conservative philosophy.

Sometimes, however, aristocracy is used as a synonym for plutocracy – rule of the wealthy. This is the caricature of conservatism, although it may be sometimes be valid.

The father of conservatism, Joseph de Maistre, claimed that ”democracy” was an impossibility, that all societies are aristocratic, that the power is always concentrated to the hands of the few. He writes: ”At all times and in all places, the aristocracy commands. Whatever form is given to governments, birth and wealth always obtain the first rank.” In sociology, the Italian school of elitism reached the same conclusion in the 20th century, with Robert Michels coining the iron law of oligarchy: ”Who says organization, says aristocracy.”

Even the ”medieval” definition of aristocracy is of enduring relevance to conservatism: the rule of specific families and their territorial claims. The average conservative person throughout history has been a farmer, and the lifestyle of a typical farmer is more ”medieval aristocratic” than that of a modern city-dweller, because he is the head of a large family and he owns land. Even the populist wave that is sweeping the West is aristocratic in this sense: a certain people (family) claims to be the legitimate ruler of a certain country (land).

Politics, especially, is an aristocratic business. The conservative ideology was a creation of a long range of aristocrats: Burke, de Maistre, de Chateaubriand, de Bonald etc. And the same is true for other ideologies. The most prominent modern exponents of classical liberalism were aristocrats: von Hayek, von Mises, Sir Berlin. The great anarchist philosophers were aristocrats: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Tolstoy. Etc.

Obviously, an article on conservatism must have a historical approach, and up until the 20th century the aristocracy ruled large parts of Europe. The United Kingdom is a nation where the aristocracy is still very powerful. Many of the most prominent conservative statesmen in the modern "democratic" era were aristocrats as well: Mannerheim in Finland, de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal, de Gaulle in France, Bildt in Sweden etc. And many European nations are still monarchies.

In conclusion, there are many different meanings of aristocracy, and conservatism is associated with all of them. Trakking (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"And many European nations are still monarchies." Define many. Per Monarchies in Europe, the only remaining European monarchies are: 1) Andorra, 2) Belgium, 3) Denmark, 4) Liechtenstein, 5) Luxembourg, 6) Monaco, 7)the Netherlands, 8) Norway, 9) Spain, 10) Sweden, 11) the United Kingdom, and 12) Vatican City. Eleven of them are constitutional monarchies, and 1 is an absolute monarchy (Vatican City). Dimadick (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

All the richest and most stable nations of Europe are monarchies. The only exceptions are Switzerland (the only European nation with a republican tradition) and Austria (where there is a strong popular support for a restored monarchy). Trakking (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not so much that aristocracy can be defined in different ways, but that the term has different meanings. That's true with lots of words. For example Mars is both a god and a planet. We determine which meaning the speaker is using through context. We know for example that NASA was sending a rocket ship to a planet rather than a Roman god, because of context.

Aristocracy of course was the class that dominated society before the advent of capitalism. Of course not every aristocrat shows class solidarity just as not every worker votes Labour. Hayek and Von MIses incidentally were not from the aristocracy but their middle class ancestors had been ennobled in the 18th and 19th centuries.

As this article points out, aristocrats formed conservative parties in reaction to liberalism and the two dominated politics until the end of WWI, when the main competitors became liberalism and socialism. After FDR accused his opponents of being conservatives, the terms liberal and conservative acquired ahistorical meanings in the U.S., something Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (whose ancestors were medieval lords) called the "great American semantic confusion." TFD (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What about beginning the article something like this:

Conservatism is a political ideology that developed as a reaction to liberalism and is associated with respection for tradition. Scholars have identified several commonly used definitions. Samuel P. Huntington for example identified three definitions: aristocratic, autonomous and situational.

The article could then be divided into three sections.

The first definition is used in the study of political parties. Von Beyme for example said that most parties in Europe could be categorized as extreme right, conservative, Christian democratic, liberal, green, socialist, communist, agrarian or nationalist. More recently, left parties have been added. But the other two definitions group other ideologies into the conservative camp. So it's important to distinguish the various definitions when adding material.

TFD (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Early conservative opposition to liberalism is not that relevant. Early liberal philosophers such as aristocrat Benjamin Constant, who supported constitutional monarchy etc., were right-wingers by today's standards. In the 20th century, classical liberals consistently sided with conservatives against the rise of a common enemy—socialism. The most predominant strand of American conservatism has been libertarian conservatism. The great liberal thinker Lord Acton pointed out the fruitful relationship between conservatism and liberalism in the United Kingdom:

"Great Britain had no instinct and no productive power that emancipated it from the customs of its forefathers. Every appeal against oppression was to the hereditary rights; the only protection which the Englishman knew was in the traditional laws of his country. By means of this perpetual recurrence to old principles, and of the gradual contrivance of new forms in which to secure their action, the English people conquered their freedom."

It may seem like a paradox, but liberalism sometimes have to be conservative. Even Edmund Burke, who was an "old Whig", claimed that freedom must be limited in order to be owned and sustained. Trakking (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Most political philosophers see the origins of political parties as essential to understanding them. It's also one of the main ways that parties are classified.

I don't see any significance in the fact that liberals and conservatives worked together in the 20th century, that they were both perceived as right wing or that conservatives adopted liberal policies. They were still organized into different political parties and had different ideologies.

I also do not see the relevance of Burke's quote. He is not considered to have been a liberal, so why does it matter if he thought freedom had its limits? And who says it doesn't?

It is important that this article point out that political scientists have identified an ideology called conservatism, which they consider distinct from liberalism, have documented its history and identified parties belonging to its tradition. Articles about liberalism, Christian democracy, communism, etc., do the same thing. What makes this topic different? TFD (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand btw Huntingdon's position: a conservative supports tradition, the tradition of America is liberalism, therefore a U.S. conservative supports liberalism. But that becomes problematic in Europe, where liberalism is not their tradition. To the extent European conservatives support liberalism, it is because they have incorporated liberal beliefs into their ideology. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Many authoritative sources actually identify Burke as a classical liberal as well as a traditionalist conservative—indeed, some even argue that he was more of a liberal than a conservative due to his support of free trade, Catholic emancipation, and American independence.

It should also be remembered that Western Europe, in the past two centuries, has never ever been as anti-liberal as Asia. A conservative in Western Europe may be a liberal in Asia (Japan, China, India, Russia, the Middle East etc.) Trakking (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

All of this is tangential to what we are discussing. How should the article define conservatism? and please provide a source. TFD (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

My point is that conservatism is coloured by its context—its time and place.

Tage Lindbom (the most erudite conservative thinker in modern Sweden) considered Burke a Manchester Liberal and not a true conservative. Writers for Timbro (the biggest think tank in Sweden, advocating for classical liberalism) have argued that Burke was more of a liberal than a conservative.

In Edmund Burke and the Invention of Modern Conservatism (2017), Emily Jones states that liberals and conservatives alike claimed Burke as their own throughout the 19th century, and it was not until the early 20th century that he was definitively seen as a conservative, first and foremost.

Scholars often label Burke's ideology liberal conservatism. See, for example, "Tocqueville, Burke, and the Origins of Liberal Conservatism" by Sanford Lakoff. Trakking (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is all tangential and stuff I know already. Can you please provide a definition we can use for the article?

It seems that your preferred definition is the "positional" one. So in the 80s people talked of conservatives in the USSR, US, UK, Iran and Germany, even though comparative politics would define them as having distinct ideologies. So my suggestion is that we devote part of the article to this but also to the other two definitions.

TFD (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Dimadick, you have some microstates in your list, though not Monaco. You have left out Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. Gibraltar is technically a British colony, thanks to the reversion clause in the Treaty of Utrecht, but for practical purposes it is an independent constitutional monarchy. Moonraker (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we can agree that monarchy continues in the UK, Scandinavia, the Benelux and some other states in Europe. These are also btw by and large the states where conservative parties have continued. In other countries they have not fared so well. For example, in Germany, the Conservative Party was merged into the Nazi Party and outlawed after WWII. Of course conservatism in Germany did not disappear, but was absorbed into the Christian Democratic Party, which had been known as the Center Party because they sat in the center between Liberals on the left and Conservatives on the Right. TFD (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: It is a relevant question since it is quite common to hear people claim that conservatism is notoriously hard to define succinctly. However, the current definition seems valid; it captures much of the essence of conservatism.

• Institutions: Yoram Hazony’s encyclopedic work Conservatism: A Rediscovery (2022) is a very scholarly treatise written on conservatism, and ”institution” is the main keyword; it is a term that he constantly returns to throughout the work. (A quotation could be incorporated into the reference, if necessary.)
• Customs: Another encyclopedic work, Edmund Fawcett’s Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition (2020), is referenced in the article claiming that custom and tradition are the two keywords of Edmund Burke’s philosophy. Political theorist Kenneth Minogue, mentioned later in the article, also highlights custom as a keyword of conservatism.
• Values: In post-war Europe there was a large scholarly debate about the nature of conservatism, where the established consensus was that there’s a distinction between mere Strukturkonservatismus (”structure conservatism”) and genuine Wertkonservatismus (”value conservatism”) and that the latter constitutes true conservatism. Jakob Söderbaum’s encyclopedic work Modern konservatism (2020), the most authoritative work in Swedish on conservative philosophy, constantly hammers home this point. Some of the foremost scholars on conservatism in modern times, such as Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind (1953) and Roger Scruton in How to Be a Conservative (2014), have argued the same point. Francis Wilson's definition of conservatism, cited in the article, also highlights the word value. In other words, conservatives believe in certain traditional values, such as family values, Christian values, or Asian values.

These are just some of the sources that come to mind in support of the current definition. Obviously, many additional sources could be referenced here, but these books are some of the most authoritative works written in recent times on the topic. Trakking (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I already mentioned how Hazony's and Fawcett's books reflect their opinions and the same could be said for Kirk and Scruton. We can no doubt find numerous other writers who have their own opinions on what conservatism means to them.

Kirk's interpretation of conservatism has gained little acceptance even in the U.S. conservative movement. Scruton's claim that Thatcher and Reagan are conservative leaders is controversial since both sought to return to Victorian classical liberalism, are referred to as neoliberals and Thatcher even gave her ministers Hayek's article "Why I am not a Conservative," telling them "This is what I believe."

According to policy the article is supposed to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." One way to do that is, "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other."

It's no coincidence that Fawcett listed "party-political family" as the first definition. It's one area where there is academic consensus, and certainly should be included in the lead.

Also, articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources. That means you want articles about Kirk, Scruton, etc., not our personal interpretations of their original writings.

Do you have any tertiary sources that back up your definition? TFD (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Jakob Söderbaum’s encyclopedic and authoritative work Modern konservatism (2020)—which I mentioned above—identifies Burke, Hegel, Kirk, Oakeshott, and Scruton as the five main philosophers of conservative philosophy. Tertiary sources on the topic usually cite several of these philosophers. Trakking (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a self-published book by a non-expert. Again, the article should be based on expert sources outlining the various views of the topic providing due weight, not be based on opinions of various people who consider themselves conservatives. TFD (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

no critisim?

The socialist page has one, the liberal page has one, even the nationalist one has one.

I grant you that i have no sources, but i would be dammed and death if i were told in all my years of being politically concious, that conservatism has no critisms 181.1.137.59 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As it stands, the essential information in this article is that conservatives are better people, more honest, work harder, and live happier lives, while liberals tend to be miserable and erratic. I'm not sure that the evidence justifies that conclusion.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Just one example of an obvious lie not identified as a lie: "The Tea Party movement, founded in 2009, proved a large outlet for populist American conservative ideas. Their stated goals included rigorous adherence to the US constitution, lower taxes, and opposition to a growing role for the federal government in health care. Electorally, it was considered a key force in Republicans reclaiming control of the US House of Representatives in 2010." The US constitution says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." For more than 100 years, essentially all conservative states denied the right of Black people to vote. But even after 2010, "The 2021 redistricting cycle was the first one without the full protections of the VRA. Many states and local municipalities have taken advantage of this to implement racially gerrymandered maps, i.e. district lines that limit the voting power of voters of color." If this article is serious, should it include claims that are clearly lies? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I plan to work on this article. As it stands, especially if one only reads the beginning and end of the article, it states essentially that conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong. If that is true, clearly the White race is superior, as is the male sex. I don't see evidence for this. And, in the US, clearly Trump is our greatest president and the Christian religion is the one true religion. I don't see evidence for this. Finally, again primarily in the US (the article Conservatism in the United States needs work, too) scientists are wrong about global warming and doctors are wrong about Covid. But the Wikipedia articles on those subjects say the exact opposite.

I plan to take my time and post nothing that is not referenced. We can only wait and see how it goes. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Rick, you misinterpreted the objection that was raised. Most articles on different ideologies include a distinct heading called ”Criticism,” where well-sourced and common criticisms against the ideology in question are presented. For example, Third Way is criticized as ”being a vague ideology with no specific commitments”. Trakking (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Also—some of your comments above are completely nonsensical. The article does not advocate white power or Christianity anywhere. Are you aware that black conservatism is a thriving ideology in the United States? Do you know that Afro-Americans were the most Christian group in the nation in the 60s? Are you aware that religion—Christianity and Islam as well as traditional religions—are booming in Africa? Do you know that some African countries, such as Botswana and Togo, have had a strong rightist conservative culture? Trakking (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You are basically proving Rick Norwood's point. The racist and exclusionary position of what you call conservatism is excluded. They are give plausible deniability because they use dog whistles instead of overt language. Meanwhile, the token inclusion of a few African Americans is considered proof of inclusivity.

In fact most of what you consider conservative is more properly called the extreme right. It's basically a petit bourgeouis reaction to social change which ironically has occurred due to market pressures.

There is nothing in this article about how the parties that rule Botswana and Togo with an iron fist are conservative. While I accept that authoritarianism is positional conservatism in that it seeks to preserve itself, why not include every authoritarian regime under the conservative banner? TFD (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think though that Rick Norwood is incorrect in his reference to conservatism. It's basically extreme Calvinism, usually adopted under evangelical churches but sometimes even by Catholics (charismatic Catholicism.) Even the atheist right-wingers seem to follow most of the belief system except for its explicitly religious dimensions. Basically it's the prosperity gospel without Jesus. TFD (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank you, Trakking, for actually reading my edits, and only reverting the first three of them. Your grammar edits were to the point, and appreciated.

I hope someone will restore my edits. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, and will move on, citing different sources.

Next, you say that the article does not advocate White Power or Christianity anywhere. Your statement is correct. My sources say that many conservatives do advocate White Power and Christianity. If they do, that is an important aspect of conservatism that the article does not mention but should.

You suggest that the idea that a large number of conservatives advocate White Power and Christianity is "nonsensical". I think I can provide a large number of examples to the contrary. Tell me how many you want.

You say "Do you know that Afro-Americans were the most Christian group in the nation in the 60s?" I wouldn't be surprised. But Afro-Americans in the 60's were not conservative, so I don't know what that has to do with this discussion. And, as The Four Deuces points out, your comments about Africa being both strongly religious and conservatives basically agrees with what my sources said one of the three posts of mine that you deleted.

In reverting three of my posts, you say "two of the three scholars referenced are extremely obscure and not authoritative, one of the sources (The Guardian) is heavily ideologized and unreliable plus cited incorrectly" The scholars you call "extremely obscure and not authoritative" are referenced in Wikipedia and published in major journals. In your opinion, is there any scholar who thinks conservatism is racist, sexist, and anti-science who is not "extremely obscure and not authoritative"? If so, tell me who, and I will cite them instead of the ones I cited. If, on the other hand, you take it as an axiom that everyone who is not conservative is "extremely obscure and not authoritative", we have nothing further to discuss.

As I said, I hope someone restores the three paragraphs you deleted on the grounds that the authors of the quotes are "extremely obscure and not authoritative", because they find them essentially correct and well-referenced. If that doesn't happen, I'll move on.

Let me mention that I, Trakking, and The Four Deuces are major Wikipedia editors, with hundreds if not thousands of edits that have stood the test of time. We three hold very different views of conservatism. The article current reflects only one of those views, Trakking's view, which is (correct me if I'm wrong) that conservatives are religious but the article should not say so, and that Blacks were conservative in the 60's because they were religious even though conservatives in the 60's would not allow Black people to vote. Rick Norwood (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Those phenomena have nothing to do with conservatism specifically. Communist nations (Soviet Union, China, North Korea etc.) have also been racist, sexist etc. Indeed, early socialists in Catholic Europe were significantly more sexist than conservatives. These leftists vehemently opposed the right of women to vote, instead believing in the sexist principle of ”brotherhood” derived from the French Revolution. Meanwhile, ultraconservative groups such as Action Française and Croix-de-Feu advocated for female suffrage as part of their political program. To quote Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn:

”Naturally the ochlocratic and egalitarian principle also demands female suffrage, but certain leftist groups had their doubts and scruples about the application of their dogmas. This is mainly true of the Latin countries where women, with the exception of a small, but extremely rabid minority, profess strong conservative and religious views, and therefore the principle of universal suffrage was quietly dropped in countries like republican France, Spain, and Portugal.” [The Menace of the Herd (1943), p. 58]

Trakking (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that for socialism, conservatism and liberalism, social and economic policy is not fixed and can change. But that only works if we use the historic meanings of the terms, where parties reflect class perspectives. For example, when manufacturing was in its infancy, American capitalists wanted protectionism, but dropped that when they were able to compete internationally. It had nothing to do with how they felt about tradition.

If instead we define conservatism as "respecting traditions," rather than specific traditions, then European and American conservatism is by definition racist, sexist, etc.

In the liberal-conservative dichotomy, it is understood that people advocating for more equality are liberal, while those who advocate for less are conservative. And how far along the axis one is depends on how extreme one's position is. And this is borne out by empirical evidence. TFD (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Recent edit

I just noticed that Trakking also deleted my Confucius quote. Is Confucius "extremely obscure and not authoritative"?Rick Norwood (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Confucius holds great authority, but he lived 2000+ years prior to the invention of the ideology of conservatism in the late 18th century. However, as the grandfather of Chinese conservative thought he could be mentioned in a new section about China under ”National variants”. Conservatism in China is strongly associated with Confucianism. Trakking (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, The Four Deuces, for correcting my mistake. I did not know that rule. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)