Talk:Conservatism

Paternalistic Conservatism

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

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

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

Conservatism and religion/morality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Modernism"

From the article's introduction:

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

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

While it can mean that, the most common meaning is "a practice, usage, or expression peculiar to modern times."[1] Progressive would be ambiguous, since it has different meanings. There are for example, people who call themselves progressive conservatives. Some support progressive policies such as gun control, same sex marriage and universal health care on the basis of social stability. TFD (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Psychology

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

The first sentence is 100% wrong.

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

No, it absolutely is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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