Talk:Conservatism

Archives
August 2003 — July 2004 September 2004 — July 2005 August 2005 — December 2005 December 2005 — October 2007

Keep Link to Libertarianism?

I reverted the edit that deleted the link to libertarianism. Conservatism has a strong individualist tradition, so unless there's a valid explanation for deleting it, I think it should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Terribly obese with partisanship towards the liberals. Conservative's have more defined views and you know it.70.178.23.13 (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Social Dominance Orientation Should be Deleted

It references sources that are not able to be checked online. Specifically they are:

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In W. McGuire & S. Iyengar (Eds), Current approaches to political psychology (pp. 183-219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Without being able go to a university library and dig up these 15 year-old studies, it is not possible to verify the validity of these studies. For example, did they use a large enough sample size to be statistically accurate? Often these psychological studies, especially from that long ago, do not.

I therefore am going to delete that section from the article, pending a good explanation for why it should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Going to the library is acceptable, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. Cretog8 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, somebody should go and check these sources. The Social Dominance Orientation section makes some strong assertions, so it had better have some strong evidence to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if someone checked, but I'm going to assume good faith that they're described correctly. On the other hand, they're about 15 years old, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's more recent research. Cretog8 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, it should be noted that Prof. Felicia Pratto is a liberal. If this were flipped and a conservative researcher had discovered bad things about liberals, it would be absolutely fair to note this bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop talking about this and change the "article." Pompous windbagery at it's finest!70.178.23.13 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to change it, but whenever I do the edits get reverted. So, the article as it stands basically says that conservatives have mental problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What rubbish - the section makes no such claim. Stating a group has a particular preference isn't the same as implying a mental instability in that group.144.32.126.15 (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers science to be evidence. As Colbert said, "Reality is biased".

There must be some reason why so many conservatives deny facts for which there is overwhelming evidence: climage change, evolution, the fact that the US Constitution does not establish the Christian religion, the fact that there are no laws against prayer in the public schools, the fact that Saddam Hussain did not plan 9/11, the fact that Obama is not a Moslem, that Hillary Clinton did not murder anybody, that liberals do not hate America.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about the self-appointed Conservative spokespeople in the mass media. There is another strain of conservatism, which stresses small government and self reliance, that has a lot to recommend it. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Wikipedia was an appropriate place to air your political views, but thanks for sharing. 63.230.79.208 (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If not here, then where? If not now, then when?

???

"but classical liberals are less suspicious of big government than conservatives"

What kind of nonsense is that ?? Libertarians are not suspicious of big government? This website's a joke 201.212.90.185 (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Your point makes no sense. Assume Good Faith, yes, but are you confusing Liberals and Libertarians? This page is a reference to conservatism as the right-leaning portions of the political spectrum, including Libertarianism, and to a more extreme extent, Fascism. In the same vein, the page on Liberalism is indicative of the left-leaning political spectrum, including Socialism and to a more extreme extent Communism.

Please read more into the goal of an article before you incorrectly complain about its contents. Pmo22 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK... Whoever is writing all of this about less suspicion... just stop alright?... Liberals think that government should control everybody's lives and in that the entire nation to the point that nobody actually has an identity... can anybody see the connection to Communism... thought so. Mistinis (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Mistinis

Liberals DO NOT belive that the govermant should control everyone's lives. Liberalism has to do with extensive human rights and equality not to control everyones lives. (Some people are crazy) Hungaryboy1 (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, actually that's your opinion of what liberals want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.128.191 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy"

I have removed this from the article because whoever added it had misunderstood what Disraeli meant. To give the quote its context and why it has been misinterpreted, I'll give the peroration of the speech addressed to Sir Robert Peel:

"There is no doubt a difference in the right hon. gentleman's demeanour as leader of the Opposition and as Minister of the Crown. But that's the old story; you must not contrast too strongly the hours of courtship with the years of possession. 'Tis very true that the right hon. gentleman's conduct is different. I remember him making his protection speeches. They were the best speeches I ever heard. It was a great thing to hear the right hon. gentleman say: "I would rather be the leader of the gentlemen of England than possess the confidence of Sovereigns". That was a grand thing. We don't hear much of "the gentlemen of England" now. But what of that? They have the pleasures of memory—the charms of reminiscence. They were his first love, and, though he may not kneel to them now as in the hour of passion, still they can recall the past; and nothing is more useless or unwise than these scenes of crimination and reproach, for we know that in all these cases, when the beloved object has ceased to charm, it is in vain to appeal to the feelings. You know that this is true. Every man almost has gone through it. My hon. gentleman does what he can to keep them quiet; he sometimes takes refuge in arrogant silence, and sometimes he treats them with haughty frigidity; and if they knew anything of human nature they would take the hint and shut their mouths. But they won't. And what then happens? What happens under all such circumstances? The right hon. gentleman, being compelled to interfere, sends down his valet, who says in the genteelest manner: "We can have no whining here". And that, sir, is exactly the case of the great agricultural interest—that beauty which everybody wooed and one deluded. There is a fatality in such charms, and we now seem to approach the catastrophe of her career. Protection appears to be in about the same condition that Protestantism was in 1828. The country will draw its moral. For my part, if we are to have free trade, I, who honour genius, prefer that such measures should be proposed by the hon. member for Stockport than by one who through skilful Parliamentary manoeuvres has tampered with the generous confidence of a great people and a great party. For myself, I care not what may be the result. Dissolve, if you please, the Parliament you have betrayed. For me there remains this at least—the opportunity of expressing thus publicly my belief that a Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy". (Buckle & Monypenny, Life of Disraeli. Volume I (1928), pp. 718-19.)

Disraeli was saying that Peel, elected to uphold the Corn Laws but repealed them a few years later, had betrayed the people who elected him. It was not who "personally profit from the repeal of the corn laws". Disraeli would later be the head of a Conservative Government.--Johnbull 03:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, many MPs were voting their own financial interests. However, I have no objection to your formulation of the quote. Let's have it with your words to explain it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it should be in the article because it does not relate to conservatism as an ideology—Disraeli was not criticising conservatism but the hypocrisy of Peel's Conservative government in not pursuing Conservative policies despite being elected to do just that.--Johnbull (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the observation of Disraeli, a major conservative, of the relationship between conservative ideology and self-interest is of major importance. It is one example of many. Since the article on patriotism mentions jingoism, I think the article on conservatism should at least mention the relationship between conservative government and the self-interest of the upper class, not only in England, but in many times and places.--Rick Norwood, 14:17, December 16, 2007.

Disraeli is not talking about self-interest. He was not a landowner and therefore he cannot have had a self-interest in the maintenance of the Corn Laws. Without a source which claims Disraeli was talking about self-interest in this regard, to include the quote in the article with the claim that he was talking about self-interest amounts to original research.--Johnbull (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to include that in the article, I would of course quote sources. What I suggested was including the quote with your own explanation of it. Since the quote is important enough to appear in Bartlett's, it is certainly important enough to appear in this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For any historical quote, context is incredibly important. In this case, the context is very specific - Disraeli, a conservative, was condemning a particular conservative government for betraying the interests of the rich landed interests that had arrested it, and comparing it to a previous conservative government of a decade or so before which had done a similar thing to anti-catholic interests which had similarly supported it. The statement has little relevance to any general discussion of conservatism. As far as Bartlett's goes, it's purpose is close to the opposite of ours - its purpose is to strip quotes of their context and present them as general maxims. We should not be doing this. john k (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Chesterton an example of conservatism?

I was correcting the punctuation and word order of the following quotation of G. K. Chesterton: "'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" In doing so I paid closer attention to the statement it's used to demonstrate, i.e. that some conservatives wish to "expose the hypocrisy of an existing regime." Although there are situations in which this is true, isn't it a patent characteristic of liberalism? The article's example is the Chesterton quotation. According to Wikipedia, his ideas "were far too nuanced to fit comfortably under the "liberal" or "conservative" banner." I believe this point is in need of elaboration and evidence. 66.251.27.98 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Chesterton on the subject of "niggers". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you be less sibylline? What do you mean? David Descamps (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Definition

Political Conservatism does not mean the favor of slow, gradual change. It means small or "conservative" government interference, where as liberal means much or liberal government interference. I don't know why this definition is spread around and regurgitated. This definition is often associted with the GOP in the U.S. It's simply not true. For instance, the GOP's favor of Second Amendment rights is a conservative political stance, but the GOP's pro-life stance is a liberal stance because it involves government interference. The Democratic Party favors the legalization of drugs, which is a conservative stance, but endorses the limiting of Second Amendment rights, which is a liberal stance. Libertarianism is the most conservative political ideology (except for, perhaps, anarchism) and fascism (and, hence totalitarinism) is the most liberal. Chenzo23 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition of conservatism as meaning small government is peculiar to the United States and (more recently) some other English speaking countries. Bismarck was highly conservative yet he introduced state socialism/welfare state yet no one denies he was a conservative, yet under your definition he would be, bizarrely, a liberal. Can the conservative doctrine of Joseph de Maistre, for example, be really reduced to "small government"? Your post showed awareness of America only. And as for the definition of liberalism as "big government" (and fascism and totalitarianism as the most liberal!) that is even more US-centric and wide of the mark.--Johnbull (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Political conservatism means limits, so a limited government. Belgian conservatives (long long time ago. No more conservative party there), with Charles Woeste who once said «J’ai peur de l’état et je hais le Césarisme» [I fear the state and I hate Cæsarism] and Auguste Beernaert « Il faudra réduire le gouvernement au strict nécessaire » [We will have to reduce the government to the strict necessity], wanted that limited government. (Quotes from the "Biographie Nationale")David Descamps (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chenzo23 is right on target. A "Conservative" government "conserves" its resources and only gets involved when absolutely necessary. Whereas a "Liberal" government is quite "liberal" with its resources and gets involved in all sorts of things. The problem most people have with the word "Conservative", is that they apply the definition of individual, personal, social conservatism to government and think that personally conservative individuals in government should apply their personal conservative values to public policy, which often requires an extremely liberal use of government resources to implement them. The United States was founded by a group of Libertarians who created a Conservative government to interfere as little as possible with individual liberties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommm3000 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In a word, balderdash. Conservativism does not mean, nor has never implied "limited government interference," as if liberalism favored "unlimited government interference." Do you have any idea at all how blantantly biased that sounds? Conservatism" is so named because they are trying to "conserve" the status quo. The generally wish to keep things as tradition upholds. Whether this is done through small or large amounts of government interference truly depends on the society in which the conservative movement exists, and the amount of government "interference" varies from issue to issue. You think the pro-life stance, for instance, can be upheld with no government interference? On the contrary, the way things are now would require large amounts of government interference to make abortion illegal. (Of course, pro-life is also a biased term, but that's a topic for another board.) Even before abortion became legal, it would require large amounts of government interference to keep individuals from getting abortions if they were determined to have them. PatrickLMT (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Chenzo23, you've gotten a couple of good answers, but since you ask for my thoughts on the subject: the word's "liberal" and "conservative" as they are bandied about in the current political debate are meaningless or, rather, just mean "my side" and "your side". On the other hand, if you read books written before, say, 1960, or serious scholarly books, you discover that the meaning of the words is much closer to the dictionary meaning. Liberals favor freedom, conservatives favor the status quo or the status quo ante.

The ideas that you have picked up, that liberals favor big government and conservatives favor small government, go back to the time when FDR was president. The class structure at that time was as strong as it has ever been in America. Both New York City and the state of California had police lines that only upper class people were allowed to cross. FDR was called, explicitly, "a traitor to his class". The wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few, who conspired to fix wages and prices, to bust unions and to use government power to restrict the rights of workers, people of color, and women. People in America were starving, living in "shanty towns", wandering from place to place looking for work. It was in this context that the government, under FDR, began to offer very limited help to ordinary Americans. He was called every dirty name in the book, including "Jew" and "communist".

It was never a question of "big government" vs. "small government". It was a question of big government helping the rich vs. big government helping the poor.

The political movement that actually favors small government is the libertarian movement. The Republican party in the United States wooed the libertarians, by promising small government, and by portraying the Democrats as in favor of big government. In fact, the federal government has grown in power under both parties, so that no American president in my lifetime has ever paid more than lip service to "small government" conservatism.

And political propaganda has done its best to destroy the meaning of words, in order to increase the power of government.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Very educational, but Chenzo has a point. In the US, 'conservative' has certainly come to be identified with 'spending conservatively'. Having this article limit the definition to 'limited change' misses the full range of meanings the word has come to have. Insisting that 'conservative' only ever means the first definition would *kinda* be like defining 'gay' as happy and bright, ignoring the word's now predominant association with people who have a particular sexual orientation. (I'm using some hyperbole, but it's true nevertheless) Regardless of the way the word acquired this particular shade of meaning, under NPOV it should really be addressed. 'Liberal' and 'conservative' are such widely applicable words - like 'Functionalism', 'Structuralism', or 'Postmodernism', their meaning varies too widely according to the word's context and the person who is using it for any succinct definition, such as the one on this page, to be rightly given. --NZUlysses (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The link to Fiscal Conservatism basically argues that the way it is used here (i.e. limited taxes) is wrong. So which one is it, limited government involvement or balanced budget ? 63.241.31.130 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Johnbull and Chenzo you have it right... you would not believe some people... some actually think that Conservatism is anarchy... :P right?

Once again, this article is not about modern conservatism in the United States. There is an article on that subject. This isn't it. You need to read some history, and find out how the word was used before the Republicans got ahold of it. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong definition for Britain

The use of the word 'Conservatism' in British politics was firmly attached, originally, to the preservation of the link between the state and the Church of England: more specifically, the retention of laws preventing Catholic Succession. As this is fundamentally based on a belief that protestantism represents progress and independence, whereas Roman Catholiicism represents loss of national independence and regression, Britain's original Conservatives were therefore, in their own view, actually conservators of revolution/progress achieved, progressives opposing a certain type of conservatism, their use of the word therefore in some ways verging on the cryptic/ironic/colourful/'tongue-in-cheek.' No doubt the Party has attracted hordes of following, and even leading active members, totally ignorant of this original history and meaning, resulting in a deeply misleading and confusing state of affairs, historically, and in terms of fundamental character, but one which Wikipedia surely need not add to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.230 (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Conservatism

I'm not sure why a recent edit removed references to older conservatives. It is standard to use the word in discussing history, especially the history of Greece, Rome, and China. It seems that some people want to change the meaning of the word. This seems counterproductive. In every culture, there are people who support the old ways, the traditions, the old religion, and the importance of family. In all times and places, modern historians identify such people as conservatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What about reformation? How can you source the POV you wrote earlier? I've never read that protestant reformation was conservative…Usually, it is said that protestant reformation lead to French Revolution. David Descamps (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Self identified Conservative Christians trace their beliefs to Martin Luther and the protestant reformation, which took place in the 16th Century. The French Revolution took place two hundred years later, in the 18th century. Not only did the two events take place in different centuries, they took place in different countries. The protestant reformation was largely German (also Swiss and English). The French remained Catholic. The French Revolution was a liberal, overthrowing the monarchy. Both were anti-Catholic, but that is just about the only thing they had in common. The protestant reformation wanted to replace the Roman church by Bible believing Christianity; the French revolution wanted to replace the Catholic church by atheism. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on… you're showing off your ignorance. Large parts of France became protestant during reformation, resulting in wars. France regained catholic faith because of Counter-Reformation which was really conservative. It is not because conservatives in USA are mainly protestant that reformation was conservative. And you're mixing political philosophy with some psychological bias or with radical fundamentalism. David Descamps (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What a strange response. I'm certainly aware of the Huguenots. I'm also aware that they were slaughtered, and that, as I said, France remained Catholic. You have not offered any evidence for your claim that "protestant reformation lead to French Revolution." And to suggest that, because I know what "Conservative Christians" mean when they so identify themselves, that makes me a radical fundamentalist is absurd. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You said that reformation didn't take place at the same place of French revolution. (both had implications on the whole of Europe) Now you said that French protestants were simply slaughtered, this is a nice shortcut. Between Edict of Fontainebleau and Edict of Nantes, there is some years… Perhaps I didn't offered any evidence, but I didn't write any claim on main page, on the contrary of you. Perhaps you would find some similarities between Monarchomachs and the tyrannicide theory used in 1789. Perhaps this book of Dale K. Van Kley will give you a light : The Religious Origins of the French Revolution: From Calvin to the Civil Constitution, 1560-1791. David Descamps (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what I wrote that you are objecting to, or what point you are trying to make. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote that conservatism is based or comes from Protestant Reformation. That is not correct. You wrote that conservatism is just a bias that some people have in every culture and every epoch. That is not correct. This page is about conservatism, a political philosophy that mainly comes from reaction to progressivist French Revolution based on Enlightement ideology. So mainly from Edmund Burke, not Cicero, not Martin Luther. Even if lots of conservative protestants think it is from Martin Luther (but that point of view should be written in this article as it is : a point of view) or even if Cicero can be considered as a conservative (but this is anachronistic). I think you have a (legitimate for me) problem with the american meaning of the word Liberalism and you try to make that point here, look at your speech about "conservative propaganda to lure libertarians" (I think you mix also conservatism with neoconservatism). I also do think that the use of the word liberal in US is wrong, but it is not here that you will change that. This seems counterproductive to me. David Descamps (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been edited so many times that I can no longer tell which parts I wrote and which parts other people wrote. I don't think I ever said that conservatism was a 'bias' or that conservative propaganda tries to 'lure' libertarians. That doesn't sound like me. But that is not important, the only important thing is that the article be correct.

One strand of conservatism, modern political conservatism, can be traced back to Burke and to reaction to the French Revolution. But the word is commonly used in other ways. If one reads history, one finds the word often applied to Cicero, Confucius, and many others who valued family and stability above individualism and freedom. Burke's ideas were not original with him -- few ideas can be traced to a single source.

Of course Martin Luther was not a conservative -- he was a revolutionary -- but the people who currently identify themselves as "conservative Christians" (not only in the US, but also in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia and many other places) consider themselves to be followers of Martin Luther. Thus the revolutionary ideas of one generation become the conservative ideas of later generations.

I tend to place a great value on the dictionary meaning of words -- standard dictionaries, especially the Oxford English Dictionary -- are the only defense against propagandists spinning words to mean anything they want them to mean. Without common meaning, communication becomes impossible. I don't have an OED handy, but Webster's Seventh New Collegiat Dictionary defines conservative as "1 a: an adherent or advocate of political conservatism b cap: a member or supporter of a conservative political party 2 a: one who adheres to traditional methods or views b: a cautious or discreet person." This article places its greatest emphasis on definition 1, but should also include definition 2. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is about the political philosophy : the first definition in the Webster dictionary (1a), not the second. There is a disambiguation page to deal with other meanings. David Descamps (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct -- I withdraw the view expressed in my final paragraph. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is inappropriate to trace conservative Christians back to Martin Luther. Martin Luther was not the progenitor of the entire protestant movement! In fact, Methodists would claim that John Wesley was a protestant before Martin Luther was, if I recall correctly.

The largest current Lutheran church in the United States, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), is not a part of the conservative christian movement in the United States, although other Lutheran churches in the United States, including the Missouri Synod, are. The ELCA is in fact considered one of America's more (politically) liberal churches.

The conservative Christian movement is more frequently identified with the Southern Baptist or Presbyterian churches in the United States than it is with the Lutheran church. It would be more appropriate to trace their history and theology back to John Calvin. 205.175.123.26 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the economy stupid

This article focuses almost exclusively on social values. What about the economic values of conservatism?

The wedding of conservatism and economic liberalism came much later, primarily in the US during the administration of FDR, when "that man in the White House" put the welfare of the American people above the rights of businessmen. At this point, the economic liberals in America split off from the social liberals and, looking for a home, joined the God, King, and Country conservatives. For more on this subject, see Conservatism in the United States.

By the way, it looks as if the future will bring more political bed-hopping, as the conservatives, because of their suspicion of foreigners and foreign ways, put Americanism above the rights of businessmen to go multi-national. As this happens, according to The World is Flat, economic liberals will return to the liberal camp. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont centre around America there is conservatism elsewhere in the world as well. Hungaryboy1 (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

RWA and SDO

Why is RWA and SDO discussed here? They don't seem like legitimate topics under this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.240.130 (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Psychological research

The entire section "psychological research" does not belong in this article, since the subjects of these studies were present day Americans, and this article is about conservatism as a general political philosophy. If the section belongs anywhere, it is in Conservatism in the United States. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it does not belong. It's amazing to see that "impartial" Wikipedia considers conservatives to basically have psychological deficiencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick Norwood,

1) The psychological section contains the following sentence: “For instance, a meta-analysis by Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway in 2003 analyzed 88 studies, from 12 countries, with over 22,000 subjects, …” I understand the sentence to mean that conservatives from other countries have also been studied. How did you reach the conclusion that only Americans participated in all the studies?

2) You state, “…the subjects of these studies were present day Americans,…” How do you know the 88 studies only included “present day” research? Could some of the studies used in the meta-analysis come from decades ago?

3) What do you mean by the term “political philosophy”?

a. We are in agreement that this article is about conservatism as a political philosophy, as long as you are using the second meaning and understandings found in wikipedia. The second wikipedia meaning states that a political philosophy is “a general view, or specific ethic, belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy.” The fields of knowledge that studies world-views, beliefs, or attitudes are cultural studies, psychology, and sociology.

b. The first meaning for “political philosophy” in wikipedia states a, “Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority in a given system: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever.” If you meant this by the term “political philosophy,” then you believe that political philosophy died out in the late 1970s. The last conservative political philosophers were Friedrich Hayek and Leo Strauss. If this is your position then I have a question. How do you explain the changes in conservatism over the last 30 years?

4) Perhaps this article should change the word “political philosophy” to “ideology.” From my perspective, the word ideology describes this article better than political philosophy. Ideology would remove any confusion caused by difference in meaning between the older and newer usage of the term “political philosophy”.

5) Psychology has studied conservatism (and liberalism) for well over 100 years. In the United States, Wolfe wrote about the difference between conservatism, radicalism and the scientific method.(1) At this time, conservatism was associated with anti-science and anti-intellectualism.(2) After WWII, the study of the psychological factors that contribute to fascism began with the work of Theodor Adorno. Adorno developed the F-Scale that identified authoritarian personality characteristics, which subsequent scientists have confirmed, refined, expanded over the last 50 years, in many different countries. Adorno’s F-scale identified several characteristics linked to conservative cognition and behavior. Santo F. Camilleri applied factor analysis to the F-Scale in 1959. The Milgram experiment confirmed authoritarian submission in conservatives, and some liberals. In the 1960s, the term used in psychology to identify characteristics highlighted in the F-Scale changed to “authoritarian personality,” which gained popularity outside personality psychology. Diane Baumrind’s child development parenting styles identifies an “authoritarian” parenting-childrearing style. F-Scale also correlates with racism through of stereotyping. Moreover, Neurobiology has also identified differences in between how liberal and conservative brains work. Indeed, a recent neurocognitive study correlated between conservatism and liberalism, supported through brain imaging that “conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty.”

Daniel Oneofshibumi (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources: 1) Wolfe, A.B. (1923) Conservatism, Radicalism, and Scientific Method: An Essay on Social Attitudes. New York: Macmillan. 2) Hofstadter, R. (1966). Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (Paperback). New York: Vintage Books.

Your points are well taken. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Critisism

There is a cristism part on the liberalism page some one should make one for this page.Hungaryboy1 (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note, just under your remark in Talk: Liberalism, Wikipedia policy on "criticism sections". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

POV flag

It occurs to me that the recent POV flag could have either of two meanings. It could be a claim that the way in which the research is reported is biased, that the research does not in fact make the claims made here. Or it could mean that the research is invalid because the researchers themselves were biased, even though what they said is accurately reported here. How to respond to the flag depends on which meaning is intended. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's simply no way to know, since none of these sources can be found online. I've seen lots and lots of psychological studies that are invalid. Either the sample size is too small (because the researchers aren't properly trained in statistics) or the data quality is suspect. That's why it's always important to actually look at original studies rather than relying on 3rd party reports of those studies. Maybe these cited studies are valid, or maybe not. But just because a study has appeared in a journal doesn't mean it's free from the sample size or data quality issues I mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Felicia Pratto doesn't seem to be the most impartial researcher when it comes to proving conservatives have "Social Dominance Orientation." A quick glance with a search engine reveals Pratto's other works have titles such as "The bases of gendered power" and "When race and gender go without saying." So she's hardly an objective academic. So, it's pretty amazing that a 14 year-old unverifiable study by someone with a prejudiced agenda would be acceptable in a Wikipedia article. If it were flipped around, and an arch-conservative researcher had published an unverifiable study in 1994 showing that liberals have psychological issues, it would be swiftly deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot help but contrast the two comments above. First, 63.230.79.208 says "there's simply no way to know" but, discovering that Felicia Pratto is a woman, he concludes she is "someone with a prejudiced agenda". Would he be as quick to accuse a Black researcher writing on civil rights of having a "prejudiced agenda"? Also, he has moved from the reasonable "important to actually look at original studies" to a thought experiment about an "unverifiable study".

We need input from a sociologist, who has read the original article and confirm or deny the existence of follow up studies. Science consists of what is replicable. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I registered finally, so I don't have to be a number anymore. :) No, my criticism has absolutely nothing to do with Pratto being a woman, but rather with my research into the other things she has written. Quick work with a search engine reveals that she has a very strong point of view and, presumably, did not conduct this Social Dominance Orientation study of conservatives with an objective, impartial point of view. It is highly likely that she instead went into the study with a conclusion already in mind and merely found the evidence to support her view.

Now, this alone does not invalidate her work. It's important also, as I said, to consider the data quality and things like the sample size used and whether it was truly a representative sample. I agree that an expert (one WITHOUT an agenda, hopefully) needs to chime in on the study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyb1 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Conservatism and social dominance theories

I'm moving the discussion from the top of the page to the bottom.

There have been any number of follow-up studies, all confirming the original results. Here is a recent book on the subject, from a major university press, which has had good reviews. It is international in scope, and has a quite good discussion of the relationship between political conservatism and the patronage system. I'll add it to the references.

Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help make the case to have material from different authors. There's related conceptual stuff at Social Dominance Theory and Social dominance orientation, but not real criticism there. I'm honestly surprised and a bit disturbed by that. Cretog8 (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's one recent paper, which by its abstract seems critical of the theory (so, by implications, application of the theory): "Group domination and inequality in context: evidence for the unstable meanings of social dominance and authoritarianism", by Lehmiller & Schmitt; link to abstract Cretog8 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Studies like this can certainly be used to play "gotcha!". Most liberals I know (which means American liberals, because those are the ones I talk to) are baffled about how conservatives can still believe the things they believe (creationism, global warming is a hoax, Sadam Hussain masterminded 911, George Bush is a great president who cut government spending and decreased the power of the federal government, the war in Iraq fights terrorism and we are winning). Social Dom theories provide one explanation. But that has nothing at all to do with the question we should ask: is the theory correct?

For that, we need comments from a professional sociologist, who keeps up with the journals and with current research. In short, we need an expert. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dang, I can't find the WP policy I'm thinking of. In any case, I'm pretty sure that part of that policy was that it doesn't actually matter whether the theory is true. It matters whether it's notable, and verifiable--in the sense that you can verify there's people putting forward the theory, not verify the theory itself. I think it's somewhat notable, since the overall idea of psychological differences between conservatives and liberals comes up in the popular media periodically. It does really look like it's getting undue weight, though. Cretog8 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the key distinction as I understand it. If a belief is widely held, Scientology being a good example, then in the article on Scientology you report that belief in as neutral manner as possible, while making it clear that the article is about a belief, not a known fact. On the other hand, in the main article religion, you would not go into much detail about the beliefs of Scientologists.

The question, then, is whether Dom Theory is a mainstream belief, in which case it should be reported here, or a minor belief, in which case it should at most be mentioned here and reported in its own article. As best I can tell, only a professional sociologist can tell the difference. All I have to go by is that the most important book on the subject was published by a major university press and got good reviews. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like none of us currently in this conversation are qualified to do so, but here's what I'd propose: Make an article on something like Psychology of political orientation. Most of this could go there, with a brief snippet and "main article" link from here. The main trick I see is that the new article would be seen as having POV problems until more stuff is added. Cretog8 (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Next go put all the "verfiable" and "notable" research from the Bell Curve on the African-American page while you're having fun with offensive statistics. 75.5.100.86 (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On conservatives and the fetus

To conservatives, you are very valuable as a fetus. They care most about you before you are actually born. From the moment you are born to the moment you turn 18, military and voting age, they don't give a damn about you. To think all those frozen embryos with all those life saving stem cells are going to waste. Why? Because conservatives have this notion in their minds that they might come back to life. Might as well send the National Guard to the grocery store's frozen section. "Stand back! The clam strips may come back to life any moment!"

Note to conservatives: GET THE FUCKING HELL OUT OF POLITICS. STOP STALLING PROGRESS AND DIE FOR YOU COUNTRY. I MEAN ACTUALLY DIE. Wikipedia is not a forum Cretog8 (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

maybe I can help a little....

Personally, I find this entire task daunting. There is far too much POV for anything involving politics and religion. (which is probably why you're never supposed to bring them up in polite company.) Considering that conservatism is about ideas, you're faced with the task of quantifying and organizing ideas. Then others begin to consider "actions" and begin to contribute things they think are conservative simply because people they think are conservative have done them.

Might I suggest separating out the ideas? Start with the basic ideas; I saw a very good list in the talk archives:

Basic principles of conservativism:

   * Personal responsibility
   * Everyone should be treated equally
         o No one should be discriminated against
         o 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

Then, the last item... stay away from connecting it to religion. As a conservative, I have found (I know, POV!) that connecting conservatism to christianity isn't something conservatives do, but it is something liberals do to define-down conservatives. Besides, statistically it doesn't hold up... you can go to the dkospedia (daily kos's reference manual) of all places, and see that christianity (and religion in general) is spread pretty evenly across the parties. Christianity is not a conservative phenomenon.

Fascism. Any connection between fascism and conservatism is not only false, but inflammatory. The use of "Fascist" to smear conservatives in general and the current President in particular is just that - a smear. Fascism in all it classic forms (Mussoulini, Hitler, Stalin) and its current forms (Chavez, Mugabe), has always been a stepchild of the left. Socialism and communism have all bred fascism. The Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. They were anti-smoking, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, nationalized health care, racial quotas, speech codes at universities, holistic medicine etc. Hitler was a strict vegetarian and Himmler was an animal rights activist. There was even an anti-department store movement going on at the time in Germany (think, anti-walmart) These are not people of the right; you would be perpetuating a myth to include references to fascism such as that.

I would also recommend removing those bizarre passages attempting to connect the conservative movement with racism. Trying to scientifically prove conservatives are racists is such a bizarre waste of time. Trying to assign such qualities (racist, bigot, homophobe) is not only a bigoted act itself, but is fundamentally unprovable and will always be in dispute. Why even go there?

And why remove libertarianism? I've always seen the spectrum of the right starting there. The most basic sweep of thought in this entire process is this: conservatives focus on individual identity; liberals focus on collective identity. It starts with fascism on the left and ends with libertarianism on the right. (And don't give me that poly-sci nonsense about the "circle connecting at both ends"; fascism and libertarianism are polar opposites.)

Thank you for your time. I hope I can help.

Wikitfl (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You write from your experience with modern American conservatism. This article is about "conservatism" as it is understood in a world-wide historical context. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Which is the problem with this subject: everyone not only will, but has to approach it from their own POV. The more I think about this project, the more impossible it seems. At first I thought stripping it down to simple ideas was the best course... but how to manage the progression through history when event hose ideas have changed? In particular; the whole period in the 20s-30s, when liberals and conservatives pretty much switched places? There's a company that sells an [amazing poster]http://www.historyshots.com/Parties2/index.cfm... check it out if you get a chance. It actually may provide some kind of roadmap.

And besides, much of those are pretty universal things. Conservatives claim those in rheotric just like liberal cliams "racial equality" and "care for the poor" in rheotic. And what the hell do Nazis have to do with this anyway? 66.112.100.15 (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We have to start with the universal, no? It seems to me that this topic becomes incredibly complicated when you dwell too much in the specifics. Broad strokes at first, then work in the detail. The definition should start with the ideals, (as expressed through the rhetoric). This is what I meant when I said you can't get into the actions. If a "pure" conservative policy is expressed through an incompetent republican party that compromises and gives backroom deals to democrats in a corrupt government... how can one adequately relate policy/action to whether something is or isn't "conservative". It seems strange, but I think the only way to define either side (conservatism/liberalism) is by sticking to the pure thought and intentions; not the results. (Although that could certainly have its own section)

As for the Nazis... haven't you noticed the "tendency" (being kind) for people to attempt to associate "the right" with the "fascist right wing". It pops up here and there in the entry already, and a lot of the conversation in this area keeps pushing that assumption that the "right" and the "fascist" are close or cousins or related. Its simply not true, 180 degress out of phase, and its a smear. The origin of this began when Americans erroneously applied European political descriptions to American parties in the 1930s. At the time, the national socialists (who became the fascists) and the international socialts (who would've been slightly less fascist?) were fighting it out and the intls succeeded in painting the natls as "further right". Since the late 60s, the left in this country has succeeded in perpetuating this myth... to their own benefit.

I would think that any definition of conservatism would also have to dispel myths about what it is or isn't.

As soon as you mention the Republican and Democratic party, you are rooted in the present day US. Did you know that in the 1880s, it was the Republican party that was liberal, and the Democratic party that was conservative. Things change. If we are to communicate at all, we must use words as the dictionary defines them. "Conservative -- disposition to keep to established ways." Rick Norwood (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I liked those charts and various ways of describing the liberal/conservative relationship... and all of them recognize the spectrum (individual -> collective) I noted above... so I'm, not sure what the fuss about my comments are all about. I'm less "nuanced"?

What I'm saying, is the problem with these analysis is that they get clouded by too many variables. So why not start with one? Individuality. I'm willing to bet that someone could sit down and see the history of conservatism in America as a movement across that spectrum alone.

I am fully conscious of the switches that have taken place between conservatism and liberalism and democrats and republicans and libertarians in the past 100 years. ([check that poster link I added]http://www.historyshots.com/Parties2/index.cfm ) , I know you can't correlate anything more than a temporary relationship between the parties and the ideas, but that (in a way) is the point: despite all the shifting and morphing... this still remains a "bi-polar" process. There are two sides. There are most definitely two different kinds of thought competing for focus.

The goal, I would think, is to distill this down to its essence, a broadly drawn distinction... and start there. individual -> collective

The only reason I start with conservatism as the "home" of the individual, is that is because where the mantle currently resides. And since people NOW are looking at wikipedia to understand conservatism NOW, that's where we should start, no? This is all completely relativistic ultimately, and that's why there has to be a starting point somewhere. Certainly conservatism today resembles liberalism of the 1900s, etc.

I afraid you have made the same mistake the American left has. European conservatives were not too keen on free markets like modern American ones. In Germany in particular, the conservative tradition involved a strong sense of the responsibility of the state, like aristocrats of old, to take care of the people. It was they, not the leftists, who put in the welfare sysrems.

And no the Nazi were not pro-abortion (not for Aryan woman) and they did not nationalize healthcare. As for guns, gun control laws under Germany were already established by the Weimar Republic. Paleo-conservatives also support enviroment protection and animal welfare, are they leftists? And Hitler being a vegaterian is a red herring.

Your one dimesional view of left being fascist/colletive and right being liberatarian does not belong here. There are many different ways of looking at the left-right scale. You're just trying to put all the oppressive idealogies on the opposing side and the good ones on yours. It's a typical "good vs evil"-type mentality.

Fascism's relationship with the right has being discussed before, check them out. 207.118.248.114 (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I'm not a troll and am generally trying to help. I'm not gonna debate Nazi party policy. You can quibble on the details or the eventual implementation... the [Nazi Party platform]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program is largely leftist. And if the Nazis only were pro abortion for non-aryans does that make it better somehow? Does racism trump sexism or leftism? Does caring for animal rights makes paleo-conservatives make them leftist or facist? Yes, I think it does in some ways.

You only prove my point: you can't link any party or idea with fascism... yet the left continually attempts to link fascists and bush and nazis and republicans blah blah blah. All I've been trying to say is, "in the creation of this entry, can't we just please try to avoid that?" Can't we?

When we start to debate the people and the policies and the implementations, we lose sight of what went into the sausage maker in the first place.

If my views on this are "one dimensional", it's because I am attempting to define only one dimension of it in particular. Your views may be multi-dimensional, but to the point of ambivalence... and I suspect you're a bit of relativist; you like to dwell in the "grey" and resent people who do draw black and white distinctions. Apparently like me.

On my scale all of the totalitarian regimes belong on one side; because they all suppress freedom. Libertarianism is a slight notch above anarchy; almost complete freedom. Both conservatism and libertarianism emphasize the individual; (libertarians more so) but you want to separate them for some reason.

This process of creating an entry is a process of discernment and reason; it requires distinctions and assessments. It also requires discussion and thought. The very idea that "my one dimensional view" is not welcome here goes against the entire process of rational thought and open discussion that - presumably - should be going on here. The fear and supression of individual thought could be said to be a leftist/fascist trait.

Apparently you didn't read the whole article, Hitler and the Nazi pretty much ignored the program. My point is that you are doing the same thing the left is doing by saying that fascism is entirely on the left, which is of course just as wrong. Many consevatives and liberatarians have also though the years have tried to do that.

Also, fascism does not require enviromentalism nor vice versa, dispute what you want to believe And conservatives may support individualism on economic issues but not so much on social issues. Demanding that immigrants completely intergrate in American culture and ignore their previous culture is not individualist. Supporting state sponsored school prayer is not individualistic. Supporting "gay conversions" is not individualistic. Individaulism can also conflict with tradition and religion which conservatives embrace. And yes, support for the Civil right and feminists movements came mostly from the progessives not the traditionalists and mainstream anarchists have mostly been on the left.

But anyway maybe this whole discussion on how collectivist and individaulist conservatism can be on issue can be put in the article. Fair enough? 207.118.248.114 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That is completely fair, but you keep skirting around this realization I'm trying hatch in your head: state sponsored school prayer and supporting "gay conversions" is not individualistic. Then it's not conservative. Let that sink in. Do you see what I'm saying? You have been raised to believe a series of associations with conservatives that are contrary to reality. There are roughly equal numbers of religious people on either side. You have to toss out religion. You have to toss out rich vs poor, gay vs straight, black vs white, jesus vs the devil, patriot vs traitor. All of that has to go. That's social baggage and political hackery.

A better analogy? You keep getting drawn into discussions about why vanilla is sometimes with chocolate chips and sometimes with rocky road and even all by itself sometimes... so you keep redefining "vanilla". What I'm trying to do is get you to examine what the ice cream is.

Individaulism can also conflict with tradition and religion which conservatives embrace. And yes, support for the Civil right and feminists movements came mostly from the progessives not the traditionalists and mainstream anarchists have mostly been on the left.

What I'm saying is that was a period of time in history where the mantle of individualism rested with the liberals. Now, I don't think it does. I think the left has sacrificed its individual liberty to collective security. It passed to the conservatives after that point, but has become difracted through so many different "strains" that its almost unrecognizable. That whole period of time (1900-1935) has been fascinating to me lately. Permit me, if I may, to make a hypothesis:

You have a group of individualists called liberals who are always focused on the proper use of government... they focus on the bill of rights; what the government cannot ever do.

WWI happens, and the one thing it did was change the way we looked at our government. Prior to WWI, the government was trusted, and reasonably functional. Being a "G-Man" was a cool thing. (Now you have to be a G-Unit to get any respect). And during the conflict, in response to the crisis, we nationalized and socialized and the benevolent government did a good job.

But when it came time to dismantle the machine after the war, some of the liberals became "progressives" and they put their liberal idealism "into action". This is how we got all these public works projects, Roosevelt was president for 12 years, and we got grande new things like the income tax, prohibition, Federal Reserve, welfare, the american protection league, etc. All collectivist solutions. The progressives of the time were an American blend of Fabian Socialism.

There was a split in the 30s... liberals who didn't become progressive just kind of drifted; and America started to slide into collectivism. Hitler, Roosevelt and Moussolini were all very popular at the time for the same reasons: this idea that government shouldn't stay out of your life, but make it better. When WWII ended, these people were largely discredited (except roosevelt) and progressives ran for the hills.

Liberals came back into the spotlight again; the fight against communism made them coalesce and the mantle of individualism passed to them. When they became to enmeshed in business interests, it slid back to the liberals for a bit... but those weren't necessarily the democrats -- it was Al Gore's father who philibustered the civil rights act, after all.

Then, back in the 70s-80s, liberals began to drift into collectivism again, and that's why liberal became such a dirty word in the 90s... and very few self identify as such now. They usually use the term progressive. Back to the original big government solution provider.

This strain of individualism keeps switching sides and jumping parties through history, doing whatever it can to oppose collectivism.

It gets more complicated if you look at policy: The Social Security act was largely considered unconstitutional for its time, and Roosevelt had to reduce the size of the Supreme Court to get it passed. Truly a collective, top-down, 1930s government solution.

Fast forward 80 years... individualism has been vindicated -- the program is a leftover from a bygone era that is simply in tatters and proof that government solutions fail. It's corrupt, bloated, and probably going to crash hard one day and hurt a lot of people. But it has become such a part of the fabric of our country, that George Bush will attempt to "indvidualize it" with personal accounts... an individualist spin to a collective solution?

Conservatism is not about individualism; it just happens to be about that right now. If history were a bit different, we could easily be discussing opposite roles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitfl (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Concern regarding neutrality in article

Section "Schools of Conservatism," sub-section of "Cultural conservatism," second paragraph reads as follows (with what appears to be non-neutral wording bolded):

"In the subset social conservatism, the norms may also be moral. For example, in some cultures practices such as homosexuality are considered "wrong". In other cultures women who expose their faces or limbs in public are considered "immoral", and conservatives in those cultures often support laws to prohibit such practices. Other conservatives take a more positive approach, supporting good samaritan laws, or laws requiring public charity, if their culture considers these acts moral."

My problem with regards to this is that this paragraph (in general, but especially the bolded words) conveys the point of view of a conservative. I'm all for re-working it somewhat (and additionally referencing it), but I would like hear what others think before continuing. Master&Expert (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the passage you quote is one of those passages that strike a liberal as being too conservative and strike a conservative as being too liberal. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's probably not the only one, either. Let's see what I can find...

This, which is the entirety of the subsection "North America," may not have the bias of the previous paragraph above, but there is little doubt that it is too small to provide any particularly useful information, plus (like the message reads) it contains some original research - despite some referencing:

"Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism,wildlife conservation, free market or economic liberalism, social conservatism, bioconservatism and religious conservatism, as well as support for a strong military, small government, and states' rights."

Master&Expert (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Note the references in that paragraph aren't particularly reliable, with the first linking to a conservatism support site (and thus, not NPOV), the second being practically non-existant, and the third being marginally useful if it were used properly. In general, they do not help the comprehensiveness of the article. I'm currently working on re-writing the section entirely, and was wondering if anyone knows of any reliable sources to use in the article. Master&Expert (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. NPOV requires that Wikipedia report that conservatives believe what conservatives say they believe, not what liberals claim conservatives believe (and vice versa). What better evidence that modern American conservatives believe something than a statement by a major conservative support site. On the other hand, the claim that there is a major bioconservative movement is doubtful, and in my opinion should be eliminated.

If you do a rewrite about conservative beliefs, then you are going to have to be very careful to report what major conservative organizations and commentators actually say they believe. You are also going to have to take a historical perspective, and not focus too strongly on the passions of the hour. Conservatism started with Burke's "God, King, and Country" conservatism. In America, conservatives have supported a strong military, flag-waving patriotism, and the natural superiority of the White Man and Christian Civilization. As America became more industrial, conservatism became more and more a belief in the natural rights of the upper class, and of big business. As the upper class has done throughout history (read Livy), conservative leaders preached religion as an alternative to social progress, what labor leaders called "pie in the sky by and by" instead of wages and benefits in this world. From the time of the Civil War to the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, the conservative party in America was the Democratic party, which adopted the slogan "The White Man's Party". Democrat Woodrow Wilson invited the Ku Klux Klan to march in Washington. The shift of conservatives from the Democratic party to the Republican party began with FDR, who the upper class called "a traitor to his class" and "the Jew in the White House". By offering relief to Americans made homeless by the great depression, FDR alienated business interests, who shifted from the Democratic party to the Republican party, though in the "solid South" the branch of the Democrats known as Dixiecrats still upheld White Conservatism. By leading us to victory in World War II, Democrat FDR and Republican Dwight David Eisenhower helped to heal the breach between the two parties, and you will find few conservatives today who are openly racist, though of course they still don't admit Jews and Blacks to their country clubs, because "those people are happier with their own kind", so it would be incorrect to report racism as a major theme of modern conservatism. The main branches today are flag waving patriots (Obama is not anathema because he's Black, he's anathema because he doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel), conservative Christians (there is a ruling going through the Department of Health and Human Services right now that will allow employers to fire women who practice birth control), and big business Libertarians, who gave up on the Democratic party for supporting clean air, clean water, and other such "big government", anti free enterprise causes.

I've gone on longer than I intended. Whoever writes anything about politics needs to know all this. On the other hand, keep in mind that few modern conservatives have any sense of history at all. They think conservative means upholding Christian ideals, American ideals, and the integrity of the self-made man. How could anyone who wasn't evil oppose such obvious good?

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose those ideals, and despite the fact that this information could prove to be useful, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Are you defending the ideals of conservatism as non-racist for a particular reason, as I don't recall ever stating or even implying that they were. Regarding the link, I think you're right. Though to be honest, Ask.com doesn't really strike me as a reliable source altogether (of course, I could be wrong) and that is largely the reason I removed it. But regardless of the particular use of the link, that paragraph is in need of a major rewrite, as right now, it's weak and riddled with original research. Master&Expert (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do anything except to set forth the facts. The situation is complex, and difficult to boil down to a clear and accurate statement. If you can do better, more power to you, but keep in mind that many before you have tried their best. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment above implied that I counter-argued against a non-existant argument in a rather uncivil way. I'm not sure how well I'll do - this article does need significant improvement. I plan to do a full review of the article tomorrow to subjectively analyze what specific areas need improvement. Might I ask, are you an expert on the subject? If so, I could really use your help, as I know relatively little regarding the topic and am here to both improve this article and learn more about conservatism as a whole. Your imput is therefore greatly appreciated. Master&Expert (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started a personal sandbox that focuses on improvements to this article, which can be found here. Comments are of course welcome. Master&Expert (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My degree is in mathematics, not in political science, and so I prefer to work on articles in mathematics and leave this one to political scientists. But I read a lot of history just for fun, and correct errors where I find them. Sometimes I use the "Random article" button, and fix any mistakes I find. Certainly I think anyone who works on this article should have read a lot of history, especially Livy. Good luck. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, this was a mistake. I though he changed "do" to "to" instead of the other way around. Master&Expert (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)