Talk:National conservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does this category exist?[edit]

Is there really an umbrella big enough for both the Likud and the Kuomintang? Yakuman 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1) I've never heard this term 'National Conservatism used before, and the only evidence of such usage within the article is an unsupported claim that it is widely used 'in Europe'. This need a reference. Is the claim that the term is widely used in Britain or Ireland, ie in the English language? If so, I'm surprised never to have come across it. Or is the claim that an equivelant of the term is used in some other European language? If so, a reference would be useful for that. I'm slightly suspicious that this is a made-up term that doesn't deserve a Wikipedia entry at all, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

2) In any case, the definition provided doesn't fit the UK Independence Party. Eurosceptic, certainly, but the party isn't socially onservative (it is in many respects libertarian), and it isn't 'strongly' against immigration (it doesn't call for a ban on new immigration, only that control over immigration policy should be returned to Westminster from Brussels, and that numbers allowed in per year should roughly match the numbers emigrating from Britain each year.) As UKIP doesn't fit the description provided, I have deleted it from the list of parties in this article. Twilde 25/11/06

I partly agree with you, that may-be there shouldn't be such an article. Though I'm not sure if the "don't deserve" part is right. What I see more prolematic is the fact that connecting "nationalism" and "conservatism" produces so many different results, that it might not be worth trying to write a good article about it. There is at least one party in Estonia that defines itself through "national conservatism" and "christian democracy". This might just justify the existence of an article about "national conservatism" - even though it does not mean that it is a widely used term. I was just thinking whether or not an article of Estonian equivalent to "national conservatism" should be created and so I ended up here. But I have not come across the term in English a lot. May-be we could agree, that the article deserves to exist, but should be more accurate about actual usage of the term and where does the concept as a political idea exist? Another thing about the party in Estonia is that it is absolutely not "eurosceptic", and probably not "VERY" opposed to immigration. Nevertheless, leaving out the "national" part when describing the party would be a loss. So defining is definitely not as simple as it is in the current article.

Merge with Social conservatism?[edit]

  • I strongly oppose the merge of this article with Social conservatism. They're two completely different concepts. Some national conservatives may be also social conservatives (and viceversa), but this doesn't mean that they are synonims. --Checco 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on that, but I don't think that national conservatism is necessarily far-right. --Checco 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The entry should probably be redefined precisely, and explain varieties of national conservatism. On the cited parties, the League of Polish Families, the National Alliance, the Movement for France and the National Front, and the Swiss People's Party are all usually considered as far-right. The Likud is not, and I gather that the Democratic Unionist Party is not either. Tazmaniacs 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, yes. —Nightstallion 16:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The Swiss People's Party is not far-right, as National Alliance undoubtely is not: it is a moderate-conservative parties, with both social-conservative and liberal stances. It is definitely part of the Italian political mainstream, exactly as Forza Italia. --Checco 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Third positionist fascism strikes again with more bullshit. Heres how it works. Pick a political position, any position, and tack the word "national" in front of it. Mush in white supremacist nonsense and you have a new fake political movement to recruit people into the neo-nazi actual movement. Witness the abominations! National Bolshevism (This actually exists). National Anarchism (This philosophical absurdity also exists. Aparently the anarchists like the beat the hell out of the 'national anarchists'). I'm sure some dim-wit has invented "National Capitalism", "National liberalism" "National Nationalism" , "National Zionism" (Why not , lets get really absurd) , and so on. Suggest: Delete (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the National Football League, and National Parks are all a part of the vast third position conspiracy. Thanks for your contribution, you're a integral part of our organization. --Anthonysenn (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't UKIP be on the list here? -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, shouldn't One Nation Conservatism also be mentioned? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"As such, national conservatives can be distinguished from economic conservatives, for whom free market economic policies, deregulation and fiscal conservatism are the main priorities."

UKIP are strongly supportive of free market economic policies, deregulation and fiscal conservatism, should they really be listed here? In the UK the largest party of this type would be the British National Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Aren't BNP an ultranationalist party rather than national conservative?

Parties and Elections in Europe[edit]

I have taken this source to RSN.[1] TFD (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


(Find sources: "National conservatism" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "National Konservatismus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

As I mentioned at the AfD, I was unable to find any sources for "national conservatism" and no useful secondary sources have been provided. However since it is a European term, I searched for National Konservatismus and it appears that it is used in a consistent way in German to describe authoritarian conservatism from Bismarck to the right-wing of the CDU/CSU. Does anyone have any other foreign language sources? TFD (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A list of US national conservatives[edit]

Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt come to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:31, 22 June 2011

You could even extend that to Charles Lindenburgh and Henry Ford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:05, 18 March 2012‎

The PVV[edit]

Shouldn't the Party for Freedom (Netherlands) be listed?

Under their Wikipida article it even stands that they're national conservative — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not support that description. TFD (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-valid source[edit]

This article takes the definition of "national conservatism" from the "Dictionary of Public Administration".

However, the article about "national conservative" in that book, published in 2007, is almost exactly identical to... this wikipedia article in 2006, meaning that the book (at least, in the "national consevative" entry) is a copy of wikipedia.

Then, I think that these book should not be accepted as a "source" - if we use as a source a book that is a copy of the wikipedia article, these mean that, in the end, the article is the "source" of itself.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I think that the 2007 book validates what Wikipedia contained before. Moreover, the content you removed from the article is correct in any case: even without a source, it can stay there with a "citation needed" tag. This is no more the case, anyway. --Checco (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)