Talk:Conservatism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The section "Conservativism as an anti-ideology" seems to have been written by an anti-conservative. The whole thing is POV. It says, in a subtle way, that convervatives are opposed to reason. That section needs to be rewritten (and re-titled) or else deleted.

I'm not sure when this remark was added and as it is unsigned, it is really hard to take seriously an anonymous statement that such-and-such must be done. I don't see the statement that Conservativism is an anti-ideology as being anti-conservative at all. Although I am not a conservative, I see that anti-ideological position as conservatism's greatest strength and greatest contribution to society: a philosophy that says, basically: "Above all, no 'program'. Leaders with 'programs' are dangerous." Robespierre had a program. Hitler had a program. Stalin had a program. -- Jmabel 19:19, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Talk, copied from Political Conservatism

This talk has been copied here Feb 04 because the articles have long since been merged.

Conservatism is following traditional values.

Can it be argued that with the rise of New Deal, Great Society, and ever growing government, that Liberalism is the status quo and that conservatism is progressive?

Whoever fills out the history section of this topic might want to consider the influence of Southern conservatism both before and after the Civil War, and including the Southern Agrarians response to modernism. Difference between a pro-business, pro-industrialism conservatism and the old 'yeoman farmer' conservatism.

Talk, copied from Political Conservative

One fails to see how a set of viewpoints can be on both sides when defining one of the larger political groups. Here's a rewrite:

Basic principles of conservativism:

  • Personal responsibility
  • Everyone should be treated equally
    • No one should be discriminated against
    • No group should have higher rights or special privlidges in government programs, regulation, or judical proceedings
  • Laws should be enforced
  • Laws should be enforced equally
  • Personal freedom should be protected and enhanced
  • Citizens should be self sufficient except in cases of severe disability
  • Citizens should obey the law
  • have a strong military
  • Not help our enemy
  • Have limited government

Religious principles of conservativism:

  • Moral values of Christanity should be followed

Here's the original text, so one-sided it's quite funny. I'm placing it here so it won't be lost while I come up with something reasonably informative to those not involved (remember, folks, our purpose here is to describe things in a way that someone who has no prior exposure whatever to the ideas might understand them).

An adherent of Political conservatism.

Basic principles of conservativism:

  • Everyone should be treated equally
    • No one should be discriminated against
      • This includes discriminating against people that had nothing to do with any past discrimination - Consider Alaska and Hawaii which became states in the 1950s yet are under the same affirmative action regulation as states where slavery was practiced.
    • No group should have higher rights or special privlidges in government programs, regulation, or judical proceedings (i.e., in effect, discriminating against groups that do not have the special privilidges). Consider that one group has two government offices to file a discrimination complaint (i.e., two investigations) and another group can file a discrimination complaint at only one office (i.e, one investigation).
  • Personal freedom should be protected and enhanced
  • Personal responsibility
    • Earn your own living without government subsidy
    • Obey the law (criminals should not be given special treatment based on background, upbringing, etc. except in cases of mental disabilities)
  • Laws should be enforced and enforced equally (no one is above the law - including politicians)
  • United States should
"Terrists"? Who wrote that? Sounds like someone making fun of George Bush's accent.
    • Have a small but vigours government (limited government)
      • Larger government == more regulation == less personal freedom
      • Larger government == less economic product put into improving productivity == less economic work put into increasing standards of living == less personal freedom through less economic freedom

There's lots more to be added...

It seems to me all of these liberal/conservative/libertarian/etc. pages, where the beliefs themselves and the practices of those who hold them is so inconsistent and ill-defined, might be better served with lost of examples of legislation rather than more rhetoric. We certainly need a bit of defining text for foreign readers and such, but the real flavor should come though better with examples.

LDC, you rock.

Talk, copied from Conservative

It is very discouraging that in this United States of America, the true meanings of words like liberal and conservative are so often mis- enterpeted. Being judged as either one or the other is so unjustified. From the definitions of each, we can see a clear and different interpertation. Clearly, these changed over the years and cannot be used to lump each person into one category or the other because of their political party. I think that new words should be invented in order to clarify the true political views of each individual. I am especially sorry to see that our news media in this country is constantly being portrayed as either all liberal or all conservative. Personally, these inflamatory names have caused some very heated debates in our family. It is next to impossible to convince our 30 and 40 year old children that we are not liberals!!! To us , that is the farthest from the truth. Our intire life has been very conservative in every way. They were raised by us and use to call us "old fashioned", "not with it" , "uncool", etc. But now, we are suddenly LIBERALS, because we happen to belong the the "liberal" party. Please, someone, redefine the words, liberal and conservative , to make this generation "see the light" and recognize that you cannot put people in a specific category!!!


This page despite obvious attempts at generalization, is still awfully US-centric. In Europe, for example, conservative and liberal mean roughly the opposite of what they do in the US with regards to economic policy (i.e. in Europe, "liberals" are pro-free-market and "conservatives" are pro-social-safety-net, etc.). (Or at least, so I'm told). Steven G. Johnson

...or US/UK-centered, which maybe is what can be expected in an English language project? It makes me wonder about for instance Australia, India and South Africa, where English are important languages.

This is one of the reasons why I've shunned editing this article. There is also the problem with three articles (Conservative, Political conservatism & Conservatism) which probably ought to be merged, and then put in coherence with other related articles, such as Social conservatism.

Maybe articles on Political Conservatism in USA, and Political Conservatism in UK should be written and stabilized first?
-- Ruhrjung 06:50, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've been labouring to merge Conservatism and Political conservatism, the article at political conservatism contains my most recent edits and my first attempt at providing what hopefully will be a fully merged article.
My suggestion would be to merge all three of them; there's quite a bit of redundancy in the merged articles already. Being pompous and wordy, I may not be the best person to point it out. I have endeavored to describe conservatism as a way of looking at the world, w/o reference to the politics of any particular country, to avoid the claim of "ethnocentrism" (do real conservatives say such things?) but some is unavoidable. I do think that it's a good idea to have one merged article (at Conservatism, I think; this would be the best conformed to the de-facto standards about naming belief systems) but I did think I'd give someone a heads up before they went and made elaborate changes to any one of the articles. There does seem to be general agreement that three is too many. -- IHCOYC 19:55, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have endeavoured to copy the gist of what was here into a new article crudely combining the three conservative articles, which now sits at Political conservatism. I will let that one sit so that interested people can give their thoughts before doing anything further and drastic with it or the other two pages. It will need editing and further recombination by folks with better memories and heads for that sort of thing.
Maybe we need a fourth page, say at conservativism, for a sandbos? Whaddya know, there actually is a conservativism page! == IHCOYC 01:30, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Talk original to this page

I think there is a big problem with this article. The most basic meaning of the word conservative, meaning one who wants to conserve the way things are (for whatever reason), as opposed to those who want to change them (in whatever direction) is almost always never used by people who call themselves conservatives. In fact, many would be embarassed or disagree by this definition because it seems to sudgest an arbitariness contrary to reason. No, most who describe themselves as conservative (although an outsider might view them as essentially retaining the older views of their generation and not changing) view "conservatism" as a specific set of beliefs (whatever that might be). This article doesn't really make this distinction properly, and focuses on the first definition too much, which is too far outside normal usage and is almost a straw man argument.

Basically, conservatism is the attitude according to which: "unless you have a good reason to change it, don't change it." Or in other terms: "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." Or: "in absence of further information, let's consider what exists as good."
Extreme conservatism goes further, and says: "there can be no reason to change, anyway", "it isn't broken, so don't fix it", and "there can be no further information".

An encyclopedic treatment of an attitude such as conservatism simply cannot be given in terms of homey sayings and catchphrases. --LMS

It seems to me that perhaps this article should be merged with the article on Conservative.

I agree. We not only have separate articles on conservatism and conservative, but there's also political conservatism as well, that seems to have some unmerged text from an older version of this article as well. -- IHCOYC 16:59, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If you can merge the articles without losing any important information, go ahead. But if you fail, you will be accused of liberal bias!
I have endeavoured to combine this page with political conservatism, which used to contain an older version of this page, waiting another merger that was never done. It no doubt contains a number of redundancies and is in need of some tightening; but mindful of this advice, I have added, but subtracted very little. I do mean at some point to move all of that text here and make political conservatism a redirect back here, so it seemed a good idea to give all a heads-up. -- IHCOYC 19:00, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The merged conservative pages have stood all weekend w/o much attention being paid to them by anyone but myself. Now the former pages at conservative and political conservatism are all redirected here, as are a number of redirects that went to one a them. (Conservativism???) Now that it's done, you may all begin screaming at me. -- IHCOYC 14:26, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How about reducing killer phrases like "some have claimed ..."? It would fit the NPOV. (ly)

I'm neither a conservative nor a fan of Henry Kissinger, but I find it very odd to see Kissinger given as one of the few examples of a political conservative in the list near the bottom of the article. Kissinger rose through the (now largely defunct) liberal wing of the U.S. Republican Party, a protege of the Rockefellers. His role in the Nixon administration was focused almost entirely on foreign policy, and there he seems to have combined cold war anticommunism with Realpolitik and an unhealthy willingness to support authoritarian, even fascist or near-fascist, dictators. Nothing particularly conservative in that. I'm just now coming into this article for the first time, and a lof of people have clearly been in here, so I'm raising this issue and giving some time for comment before editing. I'd remove Kissinger from that list and replace him with Barry Goldwater or one of the Tafts. (I also would be inclined to add some other names. Looking at the list of back-links for this article might be suggestive.) -- Jmabel 01:43, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks like I can't get even a nibble on this. OK, I'm going to "be bold" and replace Kissinger with Goldwater as a more illustrative example. Also, I'm going to leap into this article and start editing; if the talk list is dead enough that I can't get aresponse in 24 hours, I'm going to assume no one is currently really taking responsibility for the article. -- Jmabel 02:24, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've done a pretty major edit of the article. This has been a little tricky for me, because I am trying to stay NPOV and not to take any "swipes" at a politics that is very far from my own. I believe I have significantly improved the structure of the article, giving it a better chance to grow in the future. Most of the material that I have added is illustrative examples. I've also tried to introduce more careful distinctions between social/values conservatism, institutional conservatism, fiscal conservatism, etc.
Here's my take on what the article could most use:
  • No one has really done much with the section "History of conservatism".
  • The article is far too US-centric (even more so in the lists of people near the end). Even other English-speaking countries are barely touched on, let alone, for example, continental Europe. I've tried to remedy this at least a little in some of my added examples.
  • I think the coverage of intellectual and philosophical conservatism is now pretty good, but the article is very weak on what we might call "actually existing conservatism", even in the US. Where is right-wing talk radio? The Christian Right? Discussion of the phenomenon of the "Reagan Democrats"? Discussion of how and why a "conservative consensus" may have come to replace the "liberal consensus" of the 1960s?
I personally don't plan to devote a lot of work to this in the foreseeable future. I did a lot on this article today, and I'm pretty systematically not going to make further major edits on it for a while. Someone else's turn. Hopefully, I've cleared the underbrush.

-- Jmabel 07:30, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added some info on the history of Conservatism and what it was defined as in its origins. Is it just me or do allot of people look out of place on that list? I think many of them would not define themselves as conservatives...eitherway this page needs allot of work and definetly has a POV. I am not sure it was the correct decision to consolidate poltical conservatism and the vocabulary of it into one page. -GrazingshipIV 20:30, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Looking back at the articles as they were before (highly overlapping, and some of it very POV) I think we are better off having brought the material together in one place to work on it, even if we do eventually parcel it back out to multiple articles (which might be very appropriate). GrazingshipIV, could you be more specific on who you think doesn't belong here & what you think is POV? It's hard for anyone to discuss or to follow through on remarks as vague as in the previous paragraph. I imagine you have a more specific notion of what bothers you. If you flesh it out, I bet it would lead to fruitful discussion, which I'm sure would help the article. -- Jmabel 04:31, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talk 2

In response to jmabel I see three people who would not identify themselves as conservative. I would like to say this purely for the article I consider most of these people to be conservatives but if someone denies they are can you still put them on the list? Is not political affiliation it most cases self-proclaimed rather than labeled?

Bill O'Reilly openly states he is not conservative in fact he responded rather negatively (understatement) when it was suggested he was by Al Franken at a book expo for independent booksellers (see C-SPAN Booktv there may be video on it).

Chris Mathews worked for both Democratic speaker of the house Tip O'Neil and President Jimmy Carter. Neither of whom were conservatives. Mathews espouses non-conservative views on his nightly program "hardball" on MSNBC (7pm E.S.T weekdays)

Christopher Hitchens, a polemicist who calls himself the heir-apparent to Gore Vidal (a VERY non-conservative person) is the man behing the documentary "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" in which he claims there was a conservative coup de ta' in Chile and that Richard Nixon and Kissinger were behind it to install Augusto Pinochet as dictator. He also attacked Mother Teresa as not being saintly. The reason he has been labeled one recently is because of his support for the war in Iraq. He also admits he was a trotskyist in his youth and wrote a book called "Why Orwell Matters" in which he critiques the power of the state. He also considers himself to be liberal by what I have seen of him on television-but he never calls himself conservative. He recently sparked controversey over Mel Gibson's new movie the passion by claiming it was anti-semetic and that the bible along with religion was nonsense.

Also Ayn Rand espoused the philosophy of objectivism which is atheistic and if practiced undermines allot of conventional and conservative beleifs.

Milton Friedman is an economist who espouses beleifs that would be more libertarian than conservative. In fact his proposed system would be closely identified as anarcho-capitalism. GrazingshipIV 21:05, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know enough about O'Reilly or Matthews to comment. I agree that Hitchens does not belong on a list of conservatives -- I'd view him as a "lapsed" leftist, but no conservative -- and would second the proposal of removing him from the list.
As for Ayn Rand, certainly her atheism doesn't remove her from being a conservative, any more than being a Christian minister made Martin Luther King, Jr. a conservative. All of her political alliances were on the right, usually with people who called themselves conservative, and she was tremendously influential on at least two generations of conservatives (from Barry Goldwater down to the '60s Young Republicans who are now old Republicans). Milton Friedman is a trickier case; I think it's a fair characterization of where his political allegiances lie, though maybe not his overt ideology. The Chicago Boys certainly played a role in the Reagan administration, which I presume we can all agree was a generally "conservative" administration, in the sense that word is usually used in America.
I don't really feel a big stake in this, but I'd keep Ayn Rand on the list, drop Christopher Hitchens, probably keep Friedman, and have no opinion on the others.
By the way, nothing here expands your earlier remark, "this page ... definetly has a POV." What even do you see as its POV? --

Jmabel 21:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This page defines conservatism as seperate from libertarianism. Ayn rand definetly fits in the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist dynamic more than the conservative one. In fact the libertarian party and movement resulted primarily from one of followers who fell out of favor Nathaniel Branden who was a major player in the objectivist movement and right-wing politics. GrazingshipIV 22:08, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

History of Conservatism: Questions

This section is a bit of a mess; would someone like a pass at it? In particular:

  • Although this section claims to be a history, it deals almost entirely with a single period of 25 years.
  • There is vague allusion to the English Civil War, but no clarification of its relevance.
  • The copy currently reads, "It was not institutionally adopted until the Congress of Vienna..." I have no idea what "it" in this sentence refers back to. -- Jmabel 22:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Several things seem to be stated more than once.
  • Is de Maistre really "Joesph", not "Joseph"? The article on him has the same spelling, but it seems also to have been contributed by the same person at the same time.
  • The list of conservative principles and beliefs in this section consists of a group of phrases that are not grammatically parallel.
  • Judging by its content, the list of conservative principles and beliefs in this section appears to be specific to a particular era (early-to-mid-19th century) but that is nowhere explicitly stated. Also, if we are being specific to that era, shouldn't support for monarchy be on the list?

-- Jmabel 22:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We have a fairly long article about Joseph de Maistre, who seems to be the same dude. That probably ought to be fixed, and the two articles merged. Smerdis of Tlön 00:12, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

POV?

A recent set of anon edits that mostly did a good job of removing POV material also killed the following paragraph in its entirety:

The relationship of political conservatism to the religious right is a perennial source for commentary. It could be argued that the religious right is scarcely conservative: it is instead a movement for social reform with a strong ideological basis, wishing to remake society through forced obedience to its version of Christian values. The religious right is called conservative primarily because there is a strong element of nostalgia in its plan for social reform; it sees liberal, secular society as deviating from a better world that it believes used to exist. Its plan to remake the world involves reviving a purported older vision. Were reactionary a neutral term, it would apply here.

I do agree that the way this is written is rather POV, but there is some important content here. I suspect that someone more sympathetic than I to the politics in question should do a rewrite and return it to the article. I do think that it is important to say that a lot of what is called "religious conservatism" is actually a social reform movement, certainly not institutionally conservative, and arguably not simply socially conservative, since it wishes to change a great deal about actual social relations. -- Jmabel 19:15, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that something making similar points should be added to the article. Perhaps in that connection, it is worth bringing up the thesis that Louis Hartz put forward in his The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution (1955). This is that since America was founded on liberalism, American conservatives (unlike, say, European conservatives) must necessarily be liberals. Furthermore, to develop a "conservative" position, right-wing Americans (according to the thesis, it would be incorrect to call them conservatives) must invent an American past which never existed. This they find in a mytholigization of antebellum Southern society. Hyperion 02:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What to call "non-classical" conservatism

The article divided conservatism into "classical" and "modern" conservatism. I have never heard the term "modern conservatism" anywhere else. There are two problems with it. First, it is historically awkward, since among historians, "modern" means sometime after the Renaissance. Thus, Burke, the prototype of classical conservatism, is also modern. Second, "modern conservatism" sounds very point of view: many people would take some forms of conservatism in the US to be not modern at all -- indeed to amount to an assault upon modernity itself -- so calling conservatism "modern" would seem to be an attempt to preempt such a line of thought.

The introductory entry defined the main difference between the two kinds of conservatism as lying in one's being ideological and the other's not being ideological. So it is natural to call the one that is ideological "ideological conservatism", which is what I did; the phrase "ideological conservatism" was already used in the article. (Another possibility would be to use "contemporary" instead. But that has the disadvantage that it does not say anything about the content of the doctrine, and also that "contemporary" means "present day", so that it's meaning literally shifts from decade to decade, which is not what is desired.)

The article also bizarrely omitted linking to "liberalism", something that is especially strange given that Burke was largely responding to Locke's liberal philosophy. I've corrected the omission. Hyperion 19:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Entertainers

Similarly, I have my doubts about most of the recently added list of entertainers.

  • I don't konw anything about Lou Costello's politics, and nothing in our article discusses them.
  • Mel Gibson: Sure. "Conservative" understates the matter.
  • Bob Hope: I suppose he's identified that way for his USO work, but I don't think he was dramatically politically conservative. As far as I know, he hung out with Kennedy and Johnson as happily as with Reagan.
  • Ronald Reagan: During much of the time he was an entertainer he was a New Deal Democrat.
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger: Not particularly conservative. I'd characterize him as a moderate Republican.
  • John Wayne: Sure. No argument here.

In short, Gibson and Wayne are the only ones on the list I would think belong there (if classifying entertainers by their politics is a useful exercise at all). -- Jmabel 02:24, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'd love to know what we're basing the Britney Spears statement on. Has she ever made a true political statement before? I know in the 2000 election she said she'd probably vote Bush because her parents were going to, but that was 4 years ago and she took a ton of heat over it, and I haven't seen a single political statement from her since. I think proof needs to be shown of each entertainers conservatism in order for us to list them. I added Wayne Newton because he's repeatedly said in interviews that he's a conservative, but some of the others just leave me wondering how we know their political beliefs when they're not exactly known for them.
Also, it seems to me that it would make more sense to list Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger as politicians and not entertainers, since their political careers are what made their conservatism (if you can all Schwarzenegger a conservative) known.
To be honest with you, I don't know why we're listing conservative entertainers and novelists at all -- shouldn't that be a list article or something like that? It would be like us listing every gay actor at the article on homosexuality. It doesn't explain conservatism in any way, so why is it relevant? (For the record, I also think listing Bill O'Reilly doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either, since a huge part of the entry on him is about the debate over whether or not he is conservative, which basically means one Wiki page says as fact that he is and another is completely undecided and gives convincing arguments both ways.)
In short, I don't see what these lists add to the article. If we want to give examples of conservatives, they can be given in a paragraph somewhere, but having actual lists -- and multiple ones, at that -- seems totally unnecessary (note that liberalism doesn't have them). Beginning 05:46, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

The big revamp

Messy

I am massively revamping this. It is quite redundant, having three sections on the same topic (US conservatism) and repetitive in other instances as well, also exhibiting contradictions, no doubt added by people of varying politic persuasions. Amicuspublilius 02:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The individual and the State

From that massive revamp, the following paragraph seems to me to be rather polemical:

"Conservatism can be contrasted on the one hand to radical libertarianism or anarchism on the one hand, and such statist movements as fascism, communism, and socialism on the other hand. To these, conservatism falls in the middle. While one end of the spectrum sees no need for the state to exist, the other sees the state as more important than the individual."

Certainly most democratic socialists would not agree that they see the state as more important than the individual. They might argue that society is more important than the individual, but not that the state is. The paragraph as it stands (especially the last sentence) is more of a swipe at other ideologies than an explanation of conservatism. I'm not exactly sure how best to rewrite it, or I'd have done so, but I'm bringing it up here to flag it for someone's attention. -- Jmabel 04:07, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

To rewrite it, I'll simply delete "socialist" from that. The point is to show where conservatism falls on the alternate political spectrum from "up" to "down." Amicuspublilius 13:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To me, this characterization seems problematic for more reasons than this (although I certainly agree with Jmabel that it is, outside of the nationalistic movements which exist within all of these ideologies, it is society which is held in the higher regard than the individual, not the state). Unless we want to redefine what conservative commonly means today (if that's what the article strives for, and it may be a more time-honoured definition we're going for), this is only true for some issues. Generally, on civil issues, conservatives have more tolerance for state intervention in and/or disruption of individual lives than liberals do. Conservatives, generally, are more apt to argue for, say, more police surveillance, army authority, narcotics regulations, immigration restrictions, etc., even if it's at the expense of some civil liberties, whereas, generally, liberals line up on the other side of the fence. In general understanding, it reverses on economic issues, with liberals more vocally advocating general wellbeing and guarantee standards of living (social objectives) even if they come at the expense of individual autonomy (through taxation).
Honestly, I read this summation of conservatism on the political spectrum, and said, yeah, the same could be said for liberalism - and it can be, depending on what issues you are talking about. In practice, it seems liberals and conservatives both want the state to exist, and have a forcable say, but on conflicting issues. So I don't think this is a meaningful way to describe conservatism. -- Matty j 02:27, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Reagan's popularity?

Similarly, this:

"Reagan's immense popularity coupled with other factors caused Congress to rubber-stamp virtually every major policy incentive of his administration. Consequently, this time-period is often referred to as the 'Reagan Revolution.' However, insofar as rule of law was not breached, Reagan cannot be called a revolutionary. The contrast is between 'means' and 'ends.' The conservative opposes revolution on the grounds that rule of law must not be breached: in many cases, however, rule of law proves (as in Reagan's case) a more expedited tool of change than revolution."

1. What "immense popularity"? Poll statistics show Reagan as having had about popularity ratings about average for a post WWII-president. Those who liked him liked him a lot, probably more so than any other president since Kennedy, but the straight-out numbers aren't particularly impressive. 2. "coupled with other factors" means what? 3. "policy incentive": what the hell is a "policy incentive"? I'm guessing that you mean "policy initiative"? or do you mean something else? 4. "to rubber-stamp virtually every major policy incentive[/initiative?]": I happen to agree with this, bit it's very POV. 5. The rest of this seems to be playing on two meanings of "revolutionary", even willfully confusing the two meanings: (1) "making extreme changes rapidly" and (2) "engaging in violent political revolution". This rhetoric is either deliberately confusing or accidentally confusing, and either way it should be reworded. -- Jmabel 04:27, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'll simply rework a lot of this to remove the "hot topics." The point is not to be biased, and if some people disagree with the "immense popularity" part I can replace it with "perceived electoral mandate." The point is simply that Reagan dominated Congress to sweeping reform, but insofar as it was not "violent," the conservative would not consider it "revolutionary." The paragraph is intended to make it obvious that there are two meanings: if you picked up on it, the paragraph worked. I will change it though. Amicuspublilius 13:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A paragraph on homosexuality removed

In the course of editing some of this, I deleted the following and replaced it with some different, but related material.

"The Communist Soviet Union opposed homosexuality. While many social conservatives may oppose homosexuality, the reasoning is different. The Communists opposed homosexuality because it did not fit in with the social construction of their state. Social conservatives tend to oppose homosexuality less on that ground (active construction) and more on traditionalist grounds (passive maintenance of the status quo). Some right-wing politicians do espouse active social change, but their motives are generally different than those of the social conservatives."

I deleted it because the characterization of the Soviet position on homosexuality is somewhere between POV and outright wrong. I've replaced it with what I believe to be a more accurate sentence that was in the article before: "For example, some Communist organizations and most Communist regimes have been very puritanical with respect to sexuality, arguing, for instance, that homosexuality was a bourgeois vice." This makes the "active construction" / "passive maintenance" no longer fit, so I dropped it. Also, the last sentence is so vague that I deleted it, but it might be worth restoring with a good example, as might the "active construction" / "passive maintenance". -- Jmabel 05:17, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

The dichotomy can still fit with the reworked sentence. It is, like so much, subtle semantics that stops the conservative from going over the edge to ideological right-winger. Perhaps that should be clarified. Amicuspublilius 13:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fiscal conservatism

The recently revised section on Fiscal Conservatism seems to me to be a POV mess. I don't have time right now to take it on. If no one fixes this, I'm inclined to go back to the old version in preference to the current version, but of course I will look to see what I can salvage from the new material if I do that. Meanwhile, if someone feels it's going at all the right direction, please work on it and make it less opinionated. -- Jmabel 05:30, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'll make citations, and clarify. If it seems to you a POV mess, it seems that way to other people. Amicuspublilius 13:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • This is coming along nicely! Will have a quote for the Burke position in a day or so: fret not!Amicuspublilius 18:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that Fiscal conservatism is by no means the same thing as support for free-market policies. You can be a fiscal conservative and a mercantilist.

I was going to point out something to this effect. I don't know if this is just a difference between American politics and terminology versus Canadian politics and terminology, but "fiscal conservative" up here is used exclusively in reference to government taxation and spending policy, and the resulting fiscal balance. "Fiscal conservative" here simply means that the government strives for balanced budgets where prudent and does not spend money frivilously (i.e. does not start up / support programs which have limited or unproven societal returns). It's a measure of prudence with taxpayers dollars, not ideological support for "markets". In that sense, it is distinct from both "political conservative" (we have universal health care up here, and yet it is still considered, among the Canadian populace, "fiscally" conservative because it is not viewed as "frivilous" spending and can be achieved without going into the red) and "economical conservative" (which is what the section seems to be describing, an adherence to free markets - but one could imagine a completely ideologically free market where government still taxes and spends in what we would all consider "fiscally liberal" ways). -- Matty j 03:27, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
Precisely. What you call an "economical conservative" appears to be what the article in a couple of places calls a "business conservative". -- Jmabel 04:47, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, there are some Burke quote very apropos of fiscal conservatism and of limiting welfare spending (both from Reflections on the Revolution in France):

  • "...it is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing

but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large."

  • "A brave people will certainly prefer liberty accompanied with a virtuous poverty to a depraved and wealthy servitude."

Conservatism and environmentalism

I've moved the following paragraph out of the article, because I think it is riddled with problems:

Oddly enough, the earliest environmental legislation has its roots in the Republican party and in Conservative politics, in the US and UK respectively. Republican Theodore Roosevelt was a noted conservationist, and signed into being the first US National Parks. British Tories were among the harshest critics of the enclosure movement.
  • I assume we can all agree to drop the purely POV "Oddly enough...". *What legislation is being referred to as "the earliest environmental legislation"? There were already, for example, sanitation laws in many cities before Roosevelt's time.
  • The implication that Roosevelt should be seen as a conservative is a bit tricky: his one-word description of his own politics woudl have been "progressive".
  • At least Yellowstone National Park predates Roosevelt's administration (our article says it was declared March 1, 1872, and I believe that is correct).
  • The point about the enclosure movement is on the mark and deserves expansion. I wouldn't have cut it, except with the rest of this paragraph gone it would be left dangling.
  • Amicuspublilius, do you want to take a shot at rewriting the paragraph, which I believe was yours? If not, I'll do it eventually, but I'm really busy this next 2 weeks. -- Jmabel 21:47, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't mine, but I will work with it. I agree with you about Roosevelt: progressive on many issues. However, it is interesting to note that the "first wave" environmental movement originated out of the upper class wishing to preserve their elitist stomping grounds. It wasn't until the 60s that "environmentalism" came to refer to issues of public health as well. Amicuspublilius 01:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thatcher and the Tories' "roots"

(From the article:) "With the advent of the Thatcher administration, the Tories have returned to their roots." Hmm. Certainly they backed off from social democracy, but an interesting case could be made as to which was closer to the party's roots. The Tory Chartists would certainly have been more comfortable with Heath than with Thatcher; I suspect Disraeli might have been as well. Can we either expand this paragraph to deal with this complexity, or reword the sentence in a manner that avoids this claim about "roots"? Thatcher has a strong element of free marketeer in her which is not particularly close to the party's roots. -- Jmabel 05:12, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "roots" was an oversight on my part. The Tories were the liberal party in the late 1700s ---supporting the monarchy and all that. The Whigs were the conservative party. I was referring to its early 1900 roots, prior to its conciliation with socialism. Amicuspublilius 01:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I reread the change to that section, and it much better! Amicuspublilius 01:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking forward

I would say that the last few weeks have been a net improvement in this article. Some of the points I mentioned above still need addressing; still, if someone wants to work on the article, they might do well to focus on the second half, which as far as I can tell hasn't had much of a recent going over, and where several sections duplicate a lot of the same material. -- Jmabel 06:03, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)