Political Ideology Thread: Conservatism

[immamac 44199]

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, hierarchy, and authority, as established in respective cultures, as well as property rights.

Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump are apparently Conservatives

[Parliament 14559]

Generally Conservatives are more hawkish than the others.  And not particularly effective at reducing the size of Government, they're presumed be less effective at making it better, when compared to Liberals.  

Re: hawkishness.  Why is strong defense a conservative thing?  I've always wondered that.

[immamac 44199]

I'm having a hard time understanding conservatism in general.

[Bevo14 8468]

"fuck you pay me"

[ztejas 44114]

The core tenet I subscribe to above all others is individual accountability. When that is put into practice everything else falls into place. 

Another key point for me is promoting the efficiency of a free market economy over the efficiency of a typically overly bureaucratic government.

Then there are fringe ideologies that I sometimes subscribe to but sometimes divorce from like Judeo-Christian values. 

Also really big on the individual freedoms and rights as protected in the constitution, and am generally of the opinion that they got it right the first time around (minus necessary amendments like abolishment, women's suffrage, term limits).

[Hagbard Celine 11159]

The Transformation of the Republican and Democratic Party Coalitions in the U.S.

September 2008

https://polisci.wustl.edu/files/polisci/imce/z.1152008.2.pop_.published.pdf

The Creation of the Republican Coalition

It was also in the 1964 election that the first tentative steps toward the current Republican coalition were made. Despite its alliance with the interests of American capital and manufacturing, the GOP had still regarded itself as the party of civil rights as late as 1956. Leading up to 1960, Nixon had hoped to build a coalition of “fiscal conservatives, educated suburbanites, and Negroes.”23  Goldwater saw that opposition to the federal government was a concern shared by Republicans of the west and Southern opponents of civil rights. In a 1961 speech in Atlanta, he offered up states’ rights as the basis for a coalition between anti-integration and anti-regulation forces. “We are not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are....[School integration is] the responsibility of the states. I would not like to see my party assume it is the role of the federal government to enforce integration in the schools.

[hobbes2702 13351]

16 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm having a hard time understanding conservatism in general.

The problem is most of the actual policy of conservatives and conservatism has been shown to be outright lies and power grabs. Trickle down economics and the “free” market being obvious examples.

[ztejas 44114]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Trickle down economics and the “free” market being obvious examples.

Why do you put "free" in quotations? I would not call the SEC or IRS conservative institutions. The DOJ corrupt as it is would be a different discussion entirely.

 

[tchookem 3965]

Generally Conservatives are more hawkish than the others.  And not particularly effective at reducing the size of Government, they're presumed be less effective at making it better, when compared to Liberals.  

Re: hawkishness.  Why is strong defense a conservative thing?  I've always wondered that.

I always took hawkish to be less about preparedness (defense) and more about preemptiveness (attack). Which can be problematic for obvious reasons.

 

[washparkhorn 9967]

According to Russell Kirk - a leader of conservative thought and ideas - the six core tenants of conservatism are:

Quote

1. TRANSCENDENT ORDER

First, conservatives generally believe that there exists a transcendent moral order, to which we ought to try to conform the ways of society. A divine tactic, however dimly descried, is at work in human society. Such convictions may take the form of belief in “natural law” or may assume some other expression; but with few exceptions conservatives recognize the need for enduring moral authority. This conviction contrasts strongly with the liberals’ utilitarian view of the state (most consistently expressed by Bentham’s disciples), and with the radicals’ detestation of theological postulates.

2. SOCIAL CONTINUITY

Second, conservatives uphold the principle of social continuity. They prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long and painful social experience, the results of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the lifeblood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the social necessity for prudent change is in the minds of conservatives. But necessary change ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never “unfixing old interests at once.” Revolution slices through the arteries of a culture, a cure that kills.

3. PRESCRIPTION

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. “The wisdom of our ancestors” is one of the more important phrases in the writings of Burke; presumably Burke derived it from Richard Hooker. Conservatives sense that modern men and women are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very frequently emphasize the importance of “prescription”—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so “that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary.” There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights in property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. “The individual is foolish, but the species is wise,” Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for “the great mysterious incorporation of the human race” has acquired habits, customs, and conventions of remote origin which are woven into the fabric of our social being; the innovator, in Santayana’s phrase, never knows how near to the taproot of the tree he is hacking.

4. PRUDENCE

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative holds, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be effective. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are perilous as sudden and slashing surgery. The march of providence is slow; it is the devil who always hurries.

5. VARIETY

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality in the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society longs for honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences among people are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality. Similarly, conservatives uphold the institution of private property as productive of human variety: without private property, liberty is reduced and culture is impoverished.

6. IMPERFECTION

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectibility. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To aim for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are forgotten, then the anarchic impulses in man break loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.”

 

https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Russell-Kirk-Selected-Essays/dp/1933859024

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by washparkhorn

[hobbes2702 13351]

30 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Why do you put "free" in quotations? I would not call the SEC or IRS conservative institutions. The DOJ corrupt as it is would be a different discussion entirely.

 

Because it doesn’t exist and when it did people owned each other.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

56 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm having a hard time understanding conservatism in general.

It’s impossible to come to a consensus on this because the language and ideology of self described conservatives has moved so much over the last forever.  

My contemporary understanding based on observation is “conservative” means “anti-progressive.” Conservatives tend to define themselves as opposition to whatever self described liberals want to do.  Take for example Obamacare, a conservative approach to healthcare modeled after a Republican plan. 

[hobbes2702 13351]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s impossible to come to a consensus on this because the language and ideology of self described conservatives has moved so much over the last forever.  

My contemporary understanding based on observation is “conservative” means “anti-progressive.” Conservatives tend to define themselves as opposition to whatever self described liberals want to do.  Take for example Obamacare, a conservative approach to healthcare modeled after a Republican plan. 

I don’t agree with this at all. I think the issue here is you’re conflating republicans and conservatives, which I get, but I don’t necessarily think that’s fair. There are some true conservatives out there who hold ideals that I would consider traditionally conservative. My point generally is that those ideals, imo, don’t work in a modern world and some of them were just outright lies sold to the masses.

[ztejas 44114]

14 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Because it doesn’t exist and when it did people owned each other.

That's fair. Thanks for clarifying.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

40 minutes ago, tchookem said:

I always took hawkish to be less about preparedness (defense) and more about preemptiveness (attack). Which can be problematic for obvious reasons.

 

To some extent, conservatives tend to believe that "national defense" is the most legitimate federal governmental function that exists.  That may actually be true.  It does not, however, justify aggressive foreign or military postures and the ridiculous spending to support it.

Conservatives have flipped and flopped over isolationist/interventionist foreign policy, so there's no consistency there.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

11 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I don’t agree with this at all. I think the issue here is you’re conflating republicans and conservatives, which I get, but I don’t necessarily think that’s fair. There are some true conservatives out there who hold ideals that I would consider traditionally conservative. My point generally is that those ideals, imo, don’t work in a modern world and some of them were just outright lies sold to the masses.

I think it's accurate in that it is a force in opposition to progressive liberalism.  I tend to think of it as a moderating force rather than an obstructionist one.

The GOP sees it differently, of course, especially of late.  But the actual regression of government and society is not a legitimate conservative goal and never has been.  That's when things start to bleed over into fascism.

The economic policies espoused by the GOP aren't really conservative.  They're capitalist or "pro-market," which is not necessarily conservative.  And I agree that they are failed.

Conservatives have become associated with capitalists, but that's not a necessary thing.  In the US, it follows because relatively unfettered capitalism was kind of the default.  It is then progressive to introduce regulation and conservative to "oppose" it, or seek to move moderately on it.

Edited October 25, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Part of me wants to say, let’s be real, conservative in America means white patriarchal supremacy.  

Edited October 25, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[hobbes2702 13351]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let’s be real, conservative in America means white patriarchal supremacy.  

I mean those things can absolutely overlap but they are cousins, not brothers.

Edited October 25, 2020 by hobbes2702

[TexArcher 38816]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

Re: hawkishness.  Why is strong defense a conservative thing?  I've always wondered that.

Because we need a strong military to protect the international business interests that make rich people richer.  See: oil, etc.

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by TexArcher

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

I mean those things can absolutely overlap but they are cousins, not brothers.

How so?  America was founded on a economic and social system built for white men.  Seems to me all the movements on the right of the ideological spectrum are based in a foundation of preserving the dominance and wealth of white men.  

Edited October 25, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31987]

26 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How so?  America was founded on a economic and social system built for white men.  Seems to me all the movements on the right of the ideological spectrum are based in a foundation of preserving the dominance of white men.  

Well, again, to some extent, conservatives are going to support the status quo.  It isn't so much an endorsement of the status quo as it is  "the evil we know." As set forth in WPH's post above.

Personally, I don't see anything conservative about supporting the status quo where human or civil rights are involved.

One quarrel I have with Conservatism is the fundamental reliance on "natural law."  I don't have a problem with natural law so much as a problem with ascertaining what it is.  The conception of natural law evolves.  Things have to evolve with it, and that has to include acknowledgement of rights previously unrecognized.  "All men are created equal" is pretty much a statement of natural law.  Fairly obviously, the conception of who are "men" and what is "equal" has necessarily evolved.

It's hard to be perfectly consistent. It is the hobgoblin of little minds, after all.

 

[NAVY 6910]

For me, conservatism used to mean slow down and use science/ social science to try to understand the longer term repercussions of changes to policy. 
 

Now it just means stubborn, uneducated assholes. 

Maybe I’m conflating conservative with republican, but that’s the brand image conservatives have projected 

[bad_teammate 13479]

Will be interesting to see the conservative/Republican movements in the post-Trump era.

Also will be interesting to see when a post-Trump era could actually begin.

[Neonmoon 38130]

Conservatism is a tool of the powerful. Slowing down change keeps them in power longer. It is not an ideology because no one actually practices conservatism or adheres to its values. It's only used in todays world as a talking point, as most people who say they're conservative don't actually know what it means, and they sure as shit don't adhere to it in their actions. It's just used to limit other's attempts to get resources. 

[staboner 5067]

4 hours ago, ztejas said:

The core tenet I subscribe to above all others is individual accountability. When that is put into practice everything else falls into place. 

Another key point for me is promoting the efficiency of a free market economy over the efficiency of a typically overly bureaucratic government.

Then there are fringe ideologies that I sometimes subscribe to but sometimes divorce from like Judeo-Christian values. 

Also really big on the individual freedoms and rights as protected in the constitution, and am generally of the opinion that they got it right the first time around (minus necessary amendments like abolishment, women's suffrage, term limits).

great post. Your first line is somewhat overarching and the main point. I'd argue the free market might be more time stamped a bit, but yes it still ties somewhat into the accountability point.

Conservatives - individual accountability. Liberals - (lots of ways to frame this) but say helping those in need. 

Both are needed elements of government. I wish more people recognized this and acted accordingly. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

It is not an ideology because no one actually practices conservatism or adheres to its values. It's only used in todays world as a talking point, as most people who say they're conservative don't actually know what it means, and they sure as shit don't adhere to it in their actions.

You could say the same thing about "liberalism" or "progressivism."  No one in the Democratic party can agree on what their ideology is, exactly or what policies define "liberalism."

In practice, it implicates a certain level of altruism that conservatism, in practice, does not.  But that's about it.

[Wanker Bob 379]

Conservative is supposed to be that guy who when you say let's go spend $5,000 on a TV he says "let's hold up a bit and think about it".  

Instead the supposedly conservative in America are the ones who tell you yes let's do it before stealing the $5k from you and accusing you of trying to violate their personal right to steal from you. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

Just now, Wanker Bob said:

Conservative is supposed to be that guy who when you say let's go spend $5,000 on a TV he says "let's hold up a bit and think about it".  

Instead the supposedly conservative in America are the ones who tell you yes let's do it before stealing the $5k from you and accusing you of trying to violate their personal right to steal from you. 

Yep.  There are some nice TVs for less than 5k.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

43 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You could say the same thing about "liberalism" or "progressivism."  No one in the Democratic party can agree on what their ideology is, exactly or what policies define "liberalism."

In practice, it implicates a certain level of altruism that conservatism, in practice, does not.  But that's about it.

I would say progressives are about the democratization of power/wealth in society while conservatives are focused on concentrating it. 

I could site countless examples of this in American history. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

There's no right answer here.

There is, however, room and even a need for a conservative political movement to temper the best intentions of the liberal/progressive movement.

We haven't really had one in a while.

[G650 14421]

Conservative has lost almost all meaning in modern political discourse.

 

The only thing in @immamacoriginal post that is actual conservative policy is property rights. But it would take a volume of posts here to adequately describe true conservative thought that its basically a fools errand.

[Continental Op 3934]

Conservatives are all about personal responsibility!  Now that we've said that let's discuss the multi-billion dollar bailout that my corporation needs because we spend all of our free cash on stock buybacks!

[TwiceHorn 31987]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I would say progressives are about the democratization of power/wealth in society while conservatives are focused on concentrating it. 

I could site countless examples of this in American history. 

These may be examples of people acting in their self-interest rather than in service of some political philosophy.

Already we have people conflating the Republican party and its actions with actual conservatism.  Once you inject actual partisan politics, whether they are "conservative" or "liberal" is just window dressing.  

[Guest]

bailouts are not a conservative action.

Not by a long shot.

[G650 14421]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

These may be examples of people acting in their self-interest rather than in service of some political philosophy.

Already we have people conflating the Republican party and its actions with actual conservatism.  Once you inject actual partisan politics, whether they are "conservative" or "liberal" is just window dressing.  

Indeed.

 

@Wanker Bob

 has by far the most accurate description of actual conservatism in this thread.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

These may be examples of people acting in their self-interest rather than in service of some political philosophy.

Already we have people conflating the Republican party and its actions with actual conservatism.  Once you inject actual partisan politics, whether they are "conservative" or "liberal" is just window dressing.  

The semantics are a beating in this thread.  I think most of us can agree we live in a left vs right political culture.  The left being more liberal and the right being more conservative.  In contemporary America, the liberal left tends to represented by Democrats and the conservative right tends to be represented by Republicans.  I don’t think these are controversial assumptions but perhaps the alignment is just an illusion we like to tell ourselves. 

To me, the difference between conservative and liberal is how each side believes power/wealth should be organized in society. 

[G650 14421]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The left being more liberal and the right being more conservative

No, I don't think we can agree actually. This is a false statement.

[Mole 4338]

1 hour ago, Wanker Bob said:

Conservative is supposed to be that guy who when you say let's go spend $5,000 on a TV he says "let's hold up a bit and think about it".  

I live in Georgia, home of the gun-toting, self-proclaimed Trump conservative governor. My wife has taken to calling our state’s reckless COVID response as the disgusted insult, “liberal,” since the conservative response would surely be more measured than what we’ve seen here.

At first I thought her comment was fodder for the wives thread (if not for the CR issue), but the more I think about it:

1. it’s correct — the conservative approach would be to protect life rather than radically experimenting with the public health 

2. it must annoy Trump conservatives that use “liberal” as an insult have it pointed against them.

Part of what makes the term conservatism so tough to nail down is all of the hacks using the term to give credence to their incoherent worldview. In the modern use of the term by its adherents, conservatism is nothing more than a post-hoc justification for whatever is most self-serving and expedient.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Mole

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

14 minutes ago, G650 said:

No, I don't think we can agree actually. This is a false statement.

Because the alignment of conservative to the contemporary right is an illusion/misrepresentation? 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[G650 14421]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Because the alignment of conservatives to the contemporary right is an illusion/misrepresentation? 

Sometimes it is a misrepresentation, sometimes it isn't. Which is why I said before it would take and entire text book to dissect. For example Milton Friedman and Keynes both espoused extremely liberal economic viewpoints, yet listen to anyone talk today and they are ideological opposites.

 

The contemporary right isn't conservative at all fwiw. If you question this, then ask yourself a simple question. Is the right trying to maintain the generally accepted form of American political discourse and mechanics of the past century? Bipartisanship, civility, public welfare, global leadership? No? You say they are actively tearing all that down at a rapid pace? Surely you have them confused with the noted leftists the Bolsheviks.

 

As you can see they aren't being conservative about anything, they are actually radicals.

Edited October 26, 2020 by G650

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

When I hear “conservative” I think of William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater, and George Will.  

[hobbes2702 13351]

30 minutes ago, G650 said:

No, I don't think we can agree actually. This is a false statement.

Agreed.

[cactusflinthead 27626]

Conservative in political terms means preserving the ability of businesses to avoid liability. See the Senate. It also means making sure that it is as difficult as possible to vote for those that they don't want to vote. 

Y'all want me to get the article from Jennifer Rubin on why she took the word off her bio. 

Whatever conservative meant to Disraeli or Eisenhower or Reagan is not a part of conservatism today. 

It can be summed up thusly 

"I got mine. Fuck off and die."

[quigley 1565]

7 hours ago, Parliament said:

Re: hawkishness.  Why is strong defense a conservative thing?  I've always wondered that.

In theory, because "Conservatives" want to protect the society from outside invaders. See Eisenhower.

In practice, because "Conservatives" use the military-industrial complex to enrich themselves at the cost of American soldiers lives and money from American taxpayers.

[hobbes2702 13351]

13 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Conservative in political terms means preserving the ability of businesses to avoid liability. See the Senate. It also means making sure that it is as difficult as possible to vote for those that they don't want to vote. 

Y'all want me to get the article from Jennifer Rubin on why she took the word off her bio. 

Whatever conservative meant to Disraeli or Eisenhower or Reagan is not a part of conservatism today. 

It can be summed up thusly 

"I got mine. Fuck off and die."

Those aren’t conservative things though. Those are republican things. Just because we conflate the two in this country does not mean they are the same.

Edited October 26, 2020 by hobbes2702

[quigley 1565]

7 hours ago, ztejas said:

The core tenet I subscribe to above all others is individual accountability. When that is put into practice everything else falls into place. 

Another key point for me is promoting the efficiency of a free market economy over the efficiency of a typically overly bureaucratic government.

Then there are fringe ideologies that I sometimes subscribe to but sometimes divorce from like Judeo-Christian values. 

Also really big on the individual freedoms and rights as protected in the constitution, and am generally of the opinion that they got it right the first time around (minus necessary amendments like abolishment, women's suffrage, term limits).

Accountability, free market theory, individual freedoms would best be described as "Libertarian."

There is a Libertarian wing to the Republican party, but, in as governing practice, that has been squeezed out. Republican administrations have been adept give Federal subsides to favored industries to allow them to win a governing coalition (fossil fuels, agribusiness, eg), contrary to free market theory.

Republicans focus on certain freedoms for individuals (guns) over others (drugs, reproductive rights) in illogical ways. They favor rights of business, especially big, lobbyist-supported business, without recognizing there responsibilities of these businesses.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Those aren’t conservative things though. Those are republican things. Just because we conflate the two in this country does not mean they are the same.

Perhaps we should call the current Republican brand “postmodern conservatism.” 

[ztejas 44114]

2 minutes ago, quigley said:

Accountability, free market theory, individual freedoms would best be described as "Libertarian."

There is a Libertarian wing to the Republican party, but, in as governing practice, that has been squeezed out. Republican administrations have been adept give Federal subsides to favored industries to allow them to win a governing coalition (fossil fuels, agribusiness, eg), contrary to free market theory.

Republicans focus on certain freedoms for individuals (guns) over others (drugs, reproductive rights) in illogical ways. They favor rights of business, especially big, lobbyist-supported business, without recognizing there responsibilities of these businesses.

I think the discussion is supposed to be about ideology. Not party alignment. Libertarians are more extreme in pushing for a market completely free of regulation and absolute personal freedom - and I'm not sure I would consider either of those platforms part of traditional conservative rhetoric. You're kind of bastardizing what I wrote but I appreciate the response.

[cactusflinthead 27626]

10 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Those aren’t conservative things though. Those are republican things. Just because we conflate the two in this country does not mean they are the same.

Then conservatism exists only in texts that are unread by those that purport to believe it.

I don't give a damn about their words. The deeds are loud enough.

[quigley 1565]

6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Part of me wants to say, let’s be real, conservative in America means white patriarchal supremacy.  

Agree with hobbes2702 in a sense.

The Wm F Buckley-ish version of the term described incremental change to the society. The rationale for slow change was that society was functioning pretty well and that changes have unintended consequences.

In practice, things weren't good for all.

And "slow change," for those who benefited from the status quo, wasn't desired at all.

Ego, the current Republicans want to block everything because things are okay in the eyes of their supporters.