Talk:Conservatism

Edit by User 99.235.143.17

Is this legitimate? This is this user’s only edit ChecksMix (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This Article Could Use a Short Disclaimer on the Usage of the Term

Before reading this article, I had taken issue with the article on Carl Schmitt for stating that he was a "conservative" theorist, when it's pretty obvious that he was a fascist as per both his membership in the Nazi party and explicit advocation of the suspension of the rule of law and establishment of a state of exception, effectively a rule by decree, in the form of a dictatorship in Dictatorship, as I was considering the term, "conservative", within the context of contemporary political debate and not as per both its historical use and use within the field of history, in which case, I think it's adequately descriptive of Schmitt to characterize him as such. Effectively, I'd thought that the term was either euphemistic or pejorative because of that I was thinking about as per its contemporary use.

Anyways, because of that, I was thinking that this article could use some sort of disclaimer on historical usages of the term and its use within the field of history as distinct from what is generally connotative of conservatism within a contemporary political context. For instance, when you hear someone described as a "conservative" in the news, you would be likely to assume that they have some opposition to proposed social reforms and advocate a right-wing economic policy, but, also, that they are still in favor of some form of representative democracy, whereas its use in, say, a historical textbook, though it would still generally connote an opposition to social reforms, may not necessarily favor contemporary conservative economic policy, and may even advocate for, say, absolute monarchy, at least, in a case where the status quo in question is an absolute monarch.

Basically, I think that there being multiple usages of the term in different contexts could be either confusing or even misleading, and think that some clarification could be given in this regard. When I see the term, "conservative", in a news article, I assume that the person whom it is ascribed to is right-wing, but not of the far-right, for instance, whereas they very well may be, as per my example of Carl Schmitt, within a historical text.

In short, I think a brief disclaimer distinguishing the contemporary political usage of "conservatism", i.e. right-wing both socially and fiscally within a political spectrum limited to representative democracies, and both the historical usage of the term and its use within the field of history as, to put it rather crudely, the maintenance of status quo, regardless as to what that status quo may be, with the simplest counter-point to the contemporary political usage of the term being absolute monarchy. No one, when they hear a newscaster say that someone is a conservative, assumes that they could be in favor of something like the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire, when it is entirely possible that they could be in a work of history. To me, there seems to be a clear difference between how the term is used in those contexts, which could use some clarification. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The article used to clearly define the topic as an historical ideology that developed in reaction to liberalism and pointed out that the terms liberal and conservative were ahistorically adopted in the U.S. Unlike both American liberalism and conservatism, it sees society as organic and explicitly hierarchical. It's actually more than situational conservatism (protecting traditional institutions regardless of what they are) because it protected specific institutions. TFD (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, adding something like that back in might be good, or just having a section on contextual usage. I mean, in the states, a conservative is someone who is fairly right-wing fiscally and socially, but still in full support of democracy or whatever, whereas in Europe, that someone is a conservative can refer to a return to all kinds of old world authoritarianisms. It could be a bit confusing for someone, say, in high school looking all of this up. What's more, the ambiguity of the term lends itself to a certain sophistry. For instance, someone on the far-left could claim that Leszek Kołakowski was a conservative in order to ascribe a slew of reactionary attributes to his person or someone on the far-right could exploit the ambiguity of the term euphemistically, for instance, with my above example of Carl Schmitt.

In general, I think, conservative beyond liberalism is colloquially called "reactionary", though it's a favorite political pejorative of the far-left, but something about the usage, I think, or a more in-depth explication like what was here previously would be helpful. Anymore, I don't think that "conservative" is regularly used, even in Europe, to describe something like a return to the aristocracy all that often, and, so, if there's just a usage section, a short bit about the history of the political philosophy could explain a thing or two. There could also be a more in-depth section on its history and the extrapolation of the term in the United States. It's all clear enough for me, but, like I said, could be somewhat confusing for others. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You have many thoughts and ideas, but you are not citing any authoritative sources.

Scholars have interpreted aristocracy in many different ways. The term literally means rule of the best. Aristotle equated it with meritocracy – rule of the most competent. And meritocracy is a core value of traditional conservatism, as confirmed by many works about conservative philosophy.

Sometimes, however, aristocracy is used as a synonym for plutocracy – rule of the wealthy. This is the caricature of conservatism, although it may be sometimes be valid.

The father of conservatism, Joseph de Maistre, claimed that ”democracy” was an impossibility, that all societies are aristocratic, that the power is always concentrated to the hands of the few. He writes: ”At all times and in all places, the aristocracy commands. Whatever form is given to governments, birth and wealth always obtain the first rank.” In sociology, the Italian school of elitism reached the same conclusion in the 20th century, with Robert Michels coining the iron law of oligarchy: ”Who says organization, says aristocracy.”

Even the ”medieval” definition of aristocracy is of enduring relevance to conservatism: the rule of specific families and their territorial claims. The average conservative person throughout history has been a farmer, and the lifestyle of a typical farmer is more ”medieval aristocratic” than that of a modern city-dweller, because he is the head of a large family and he owns land. Even the populist wave that is sweeping the West is aristocratic in this sense: a certain people (family) claims to be the legitimate ruler of a certain country (land).

Politics, especially, is an aristocratic business. The conservative ideology was a creation of a long range of aristocrats: Burke, de Maistre, de Chateaubriand, de Bonald etc. And the same is true for other ideologies. The most prominent modern exponents of classical liberalism were aristocrats: von Hayek, von Mises, Sir Berlin. The great anarchist philosophers were aristocrats: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Tolstoy. Etc.

Obviously, an article on conservatism must have a historical approach, and up until the 20th century the aristocracy ruled large parts of Europe. The United Kingdom is a nation where the aristocracy is still very powerful. Many of the most prominent conservative statesmen in the modern "democratic" era were aristocrats as well: Mannerheim in Finland, de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal, de Gaulle in France, Bildt in Sweden etc. And many European nations are still monarchies.

In conclusion, there are many different meanings of aristocracy, and conservatism is associated with all of them. Trakking (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"And many European nations are still monarchies." Define many. Per Monarchies in Europe, the only remaining European monarchies are: 1) Andorra, 2) Belgium, 3) Denmark, 4) Liechtenstein, 5) Luxembourg, 6) Monaco, 7)the Netherlands, 8) Norway, 9) Spain, 10) Sweden, 11) the United Kingdom, and 12) Vatican City. Eleven of them are constitutional monarchies, and 1 is an absolute monarchy (Vatican City). Dimadick (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

All the richest and most stable nations of Europe are monarchies. The only exceptions are Switzerland (the only European nation with a republican tradition) and Austria (where there is a strong popular support for a restored monarchy). Trakking (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not so much that aristocracy can be defined in different ways, but that the term has different meanings. That's true with lots of words. For example Mars is both a god and a planet. We determine which meaning the speaker is using through context. We know for example that NASA was sending a rocket ship to a planet rather than a Roman god, because of context.

Aristocracy of course was the class that dominated society before the advent of capitalism. Of course not every aristocrat shows class solidarity just as not every worker votes Labour. Hayek and Von MIses incidentally were not from the aristocracy but their middle class ancestors had been ennobled in the 18th and 19th centuries.

As this article points out, aristocrats formed conservative parties in reaction to liberalism and the two dominated politics until the end of WWI, when the main competitors became liberalism and socialism. After FDR accused his opponents of being conservatives, the terms liberal and conservative acquired ahistorical meanings in the U.S., something Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (whose ancestors were medieval lords) called the "great American semantic confusion." TFD (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What about beginning the article something like this:

Conservatism is a political ideology that developed as a reaction to liberalism and is associated with respection for tradition. Scholars have identified several commonly used definitions. Samuel P. Huntington for example identified three definitions: aristocratic, autonomous and situational.

The article could then be divided into three sections.

The first definition is used in the study of political parties. Von Beyme for example said that most parties in Europe could be categorized as extreme right, conservative, Christian democratic, liberal, green, socialist, communist, agrarian or nationalist. More recently, left parties have been added. But the other two definitions group other ideologies into the conservative camp. So it's important to distinguish the various definitions when adding material.

TFD (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Early conservative opposition to liberalism is not that relevant. Early liberal philosophers such as aristocrat Benjamin Constant, who supported constitutional monarchy etc., were right-wingers by today's standards. In the 20th century, classical liberals consistently sided with conservatives against the rise of a common enemy—socialism. The most predominant strand of American conservatism has been libertarian conservatism. The great liberal thinker Lord Acton pointed out the fruitful relationship between conservatism and liberalism in the United Kingdom:

"Great Britain had no instinct and no productive power that emancipated it from the customs of its forefathers. Every appeal against oppression was to the hereditary rights; the only protection which the Englishman knew was in the traditional laws of his country. By means of this perpetual recurrence to old principles, and of the gradual contrivance of new forms in which to secure their action, the English people conquered their freedom."

It may seem like a paradox, but liberalism sometimes have to be conservative. Even Edmund Burke, who was an "old Whig", claimed that freedom must be limited in order to be owned and sustained. Trakking (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Most political philosophers see the origins of political parties as essential to understanding them. It's also one of the main ways that parties are classified.

I don't see any significance in the fact that liberals and conservatives worked together in the 20th century, that they were both perceived as right wing or that conservatives adopted liberal policies. They were still organized into different political parties and had different ideologies.

I also do not see the relevance of Burke's quote. He is not considered to have been a liberal, so why does it matter if he thought freedom had its limits? And who says it doesn't?

It is important that this article point out that political scientists have identified an ideology called conservatism, which they consider distinct from liberalism, have documented its history and identified parties belonging to its tradition. Articles about liberalism, Christian democracy, communism, etc., do the same thing. What makes this topic different? TFD (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand btw Huntingdon's position: a conservative supports tradition, the tradition of America is liberalism, therefore a U.S. conservative supports liberalism. But that becomes problematic in Europe, where liberalism is not their tradition. To the extent European conservatives support liberalism, it is because they have incorporated liberal beliefs into their ideology. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Many authoritative sources actually identify Burke as a classical liberal as well as a traditionalist conservative—indeed, some even argue that he was more of a liberal than a conservative due to his support of free trade, Catholic emancipation, and American independence.

It should also be remembered that Western Europe, in the past two centuries, has never ever been as anti-liberal as Asia. A conservative in Western Europe may be a liberal in Asia (Japan, China, India, Russia, the Middle East etc.) Trakking (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

All of this is tangential to what we are discussing. How should the article define conservatism? and please provide a source. TFD (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

My point is that conservatism is coloured by its context—its time and place.

Tage Lindbom (the most erudite conservative thinker in modern Sweden) considered Burke a Manchester Liberal and not a true conservative. Writers for Timbro (the biggest think tank in Sweden, advocating for classical liberalism) have argued that Burke was more of a liberal than a conservative.

In Edmund Burke and the Invention of Modern Conservatism (2017), Emily Jones states that liberals and conservatives alike claimed Burke as their own throughout the 19th century, and it was not until the early 20th century that he was definitively seen as a conservative, first and foremost.

Scholars often label Burke's ideology liberal conservatism. See, for example, "Tocqueville, Burke, and the Origins of Liberal Conservatism" by Sanford Lakoff. Trakking (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is all tangential and stuff I know already. Can you please provide a definition we can use for the article?

It seems that your preferred definition is the "positional" one. So in the 80s people talked of conservatives in the USSR, US, UK, Iran and Germany, even though comparative politics would define them as having distinct ideologies. So my suggestion is that we devote part of the article to this but also to the other two definitions.

TFD (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Dimadick, you have some microstates in your list, though not Monaco. You have left out Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. Gibraltar is technically a British colony, thanks to the reversion clause in the Treaty of Utrecht, but for practical purposes it is an independent constitutional monarchy. Moonraker (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we can agree that monarchy continues in the UK, Scandinavia, the Benelux and some other states in Europe. These are also btw by and large the states where conservative parties have continued. In other countries they have not fared so well. For example, in Germany, the Conservative Party was merged into the Nazi Party and outlawed after WWII. Of course conservatism in Germany did not disappear, but was absorbed into the Christian Democratic Party, which had been known as the Center Party because they sat in the center between Liberals on the left and Conservatives on the Right. TFD (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: It is a relevant question since it is quite common to hear people claim that conservatism is notoriously hard to define succinctly. However, the current definition seems valid; it captures much of the essence of conservatism.

• Institutions: Yoram Hazony’s encyclopedic work Conservatism: A Rediscovery (2022) is a very scholarly treatise written on conservatism, and ”institution” is the main keyword; it is a term that he constantly returns to throughout the work. (A quotation could be incorporated into the reference, if necessary.)
• Customs: Another encyclopedic work, Edmund Fawcett’s Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition (2020), is referenced in the article claiming that custom and tradition are the two keywords of Edmund Burke’s philosophy. Political theorist Kenneth Minogue, mentioned later in the article, also highlights custom as a keyword of conservatism.
• Values: In post-war Europe there was a large scholarly debate about the nature of conservatism, where the established consensus was that there’s a distinction between mere Strukturkonservatismus (”structure conservatism”) and genuine Wertkonservatismus (”value conservatism”) and that the latter constitutes true conservatism. Jakob Söderbaum’s encyclopedic work Modern konservatism (2020), the most authoritative work in Swedish on conservative philosophy, constantly hammers home this point. Some of the foremost scholars on conservatism in modern times, such as Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind (1953) and Roger Scruton in How to Be a Conservative (2014), have argued the same point. Francis Wilson's definition of conservatism, cited in the article, also highlights the word value. In other words, conservatives believe in certain traditional values, such as family values, Christian values, or Asian values.

These are just some of the sources that come to mind in support of the current definition. Obviously, many additional sources could be referenced here, but these books are some of the most authoritative works written in recent times on the topic. Trakking (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I already mentioned how Hazony's and Fawcett's books reflect their opinions and the same could be said for Kirk and Scruton. We can no doubt find numerous other writers who have their own opinions on what conservatism means to them.

Kirk's interpretation of conservatism has gained little acceptance even in the U.S. conservative movement. Scruton's claim that Thatcher and Reagan are conservative leaders is controversial since both sought to return to Victorian classical liberalism, are referred to as neoliberals and Thatcher even gave her ministers Hayek's article "Why I am not a Conservative," telling them "This is what I believe."

According to policy the article is supposed to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." One way to do that is, "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other."

It's no coincidence that Fawcett listed "party-political family" as the first definition. It's one area where there is academic consensus, and certainly should be included in the lead.

Also, articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources. That means you want articles about Kirk, Scruton, etc., not our personal interpretations of their original writings.

Do you have any tertiary sources that back up your definition? TFD (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Jakob Söderbaum’s encyclopedic and authoritative work Modern konservatism (2020)—which I mentioned above—identifies Burke, Hegel, Kirk, Oakeshott, and Scruton as the five main philosophers of conservative philosophy. Tertiary sources on the topic usually cite several of these philosophers. Trakking (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a self-published book by a non-expert. Again, the article should be based on expert sources outlining the various views of the topic providing due weight, not be based on opinions of various people who consider themselves conservatives. TFD (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Conservatism: A Rediscovery

Conservatism: A Rediscovery by Yoram Hazony Regnery Publishing 2022 is too controversial and unreliable a source to use to define the topic. The author works for right-wing think tanks and writes for right-wing publications and his academic writing was about ancient Israel. The publishing house calls itself "Conservative Books for Independent Thinkers" and its topic authors include Michelle Malkin, Denis Prager, David Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.[1] In the book, the author trashes earlier U.S. conservatives as not being authentic. However, serious reviews of his book have said he lacks an understanding of conservatism and in particular does not understand "that American conservatism is—has always been—a species of liberalism, forged to conserve a liberal revolution."[2]

Basically the author is presenting his own views which are not widely accepted. So I will remove it as a source. TFD (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are chapters in that book where he is explicitly polemic. But the chapters on conservative philosophy are scholarly and academic, citing many philosophers. I mentioned Edmund Fawcett’s Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition (2020) as another solid work; the fact that the author identifies as a liberal leftist has nothing to do with the merit of the work.

Remove the book if you want; but if this principle was applied to all political topics, then many references would have to be purged from Wikipedia, since many political scholars sympathize with a certain ideology, are polemic at times, and have been criticized for one thing or another. Trakking (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Bias in sources is acceptable. The issue is however reliability. Hazony is not an expert in the field and his publisher is known for publishing works that include false and misleading information. Reviewers have said his interpretation of intellectual history is wrong. TFD (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Pat Moynihan's caution applies: everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. Reliability means getting your facts right. TFD (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

While Fawcett's book (unlike Hazony's) may be solid, it is clearly an expression of his opinion and there is no reason why the article should accept it over any other.

He writes, "If you ask what kind of thing conservatism is, you will hear that it is a party-political family, counsel of government, philosophy of society, mouthpiece of the haves, voice of all classes, exalted picture of humankind, or universal preference for the steady and familiar against the changeable and strange. Each answer catches some aspect of conservatism. All are partial. Conservatism as understood here is a tradition or practice of politics." (p. 41)

Why shouldn't the article discuss conservatism as a party-political family, since similar articles on the far right, Christian democrats, liberals, greens, socialists, communists, etc., all do? Why should it ignore the positional view, which you seem to support?

There are a few assumptions in the book also that other writers would not accept. First, as you yourself mentioned, it's not clear whether Burke was liberal or conservative. Second, it's contested whether Maistre was a forerunner of fascism. Also, the U.S. revolution in fact did prompt resistance within the colonies to the extent that it has been called the first U.S. civil war. Per capita, it created more refugees than either the French or Russian revolutions. TFD (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

As I mentioned above, instead of basing the definition of the topic on writings by individuals who self-identify as conservatives or of non-conservatives presenting their personal interpretations, we should per Wikipedia:TERTIARY first determine which definitions are most common and present them according to acceptance in the literature.

One good source is Mark Garnett's article "Conservatism" in the political science textbook Ideology (OUP 2017).[3] Dr. Garnett explains how many self-described conservatives are writing about forms of right-wing liberalism or populism. I don't think the focus of the article should be on views that have little academic acceptance.

If you have other tertiary sources, I would appreciate them. TFD (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Now there are three tertiary sources in the lede—Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Encyclopædia Britannica and Andrew Heywood's Political Theory: An Introduction (2004)—with quotations incorporated in the references that support the current definition. Heywood is the leading writer of politics textbooks in the UK, and his works are referenced throughout the article. Trakking (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

no critisim?

The socialist page has one, the liberal page has one, even the nationalist one has one.

I grant you that i have no sources, but i would be dammed and death if i were told in all my years of being politically concious, that conservatism has no critisms 181.1.137.59 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As it stands, the essential information in this article is that conservatives are better people, more honest, work harder, and live happier lives, while liberals tend to be miserable and erratic. I'm not sure that the evidence justifies that conclusion.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Just one example of an obvious lie not identified as a lie: "The Tea Party movement, founded in 2009, proved a large outlet for populist American conservative ideas. Their stated goals included rigorous adherence to the US constitution, lower taxes, and opposition to a growing role for the federal government in health care. Electorally, it was considered a key force in Republicans reclaiming control of the US House of Representatives in 2010." The US constitution says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." For more than 100 years, essentially all conservative states denied the right of Black people to vote. But even after 2010, "The 2021 redistricting cycle was the first one without the full protections of the VRA. Many states and local municipalities have taken advantage of this to implement racially gerrymandered maps, i.e. district lines that limit the voting power of voters of color." If this article is serious, should it include claims that are clearly lies? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I plan to work on this article. As it stands, especially if one only reads the beginning and end of the article, it states essentially that conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong. If that is true, clearly the White race is superior, as is the male sex. I don't see evidence for this. And, in the US, clearly Trump is our greatest president and the Christian religion is the one true religion. I don't see evidence for this. Finally, again primarily in the US (the article Conservatism in the United States needs work, too) scientists are wrong about global warming and doctors are wrong about Covid. But the Wikipedia articles on those subjects say the exact opposite.

I plan to take my time and post nothing that is not referenced. We can only wait and see how it goes. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Rick, you misinterpreted the objection that was raised. Most articles on different ideologies include a distinct heading called ”Criticism,” where well-sourced and common criticisms against the ideology in question are presented. For example, Third Way is criticized as ”being a vague ideology with no specific commitments”. Trakking (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Also—some of your comments above are completely nonsensical. The article does not advocate white power or Christianity anywhere. Are you aware that black conservatism is a thriving ideology in the United States? Do you know that Afro-Americans were the most Christian group in the nation in the 60s? Are you aware that religion—Christianity and Islam as well as traditional religions—are booming in Africa? Do you know that some African countries, such as Botswana and Togo, have had a strong rightist conservative culture? Trakking (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You are basically proving Rick Norwood's point. The racist and exclusionary position of what you call conservatism is excluded. They are give plausible deniability because they use dog whistles instead of overt language. Meanwhile, the token inclusion of a few African Americans is considered proof of inclusivity.

In fact most of what you consider conservative is more properly called the extreme right. It's basically a petit bourgeouis reaction to social change which ironically has occurred due to market pressures.

There is nothing in this article about how the parties that rule Botswana and Togo with an iron fist are conservative. While I accept that authoritarianism is positional conservatism in that it seeks to preserve itself, why not include every authoritarian regime under the conservative banner? TFD (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think though that Rick Norwood is incorrect in his reference to conservatism. It's basically extreme Calvinism, usually adopted under evangelical churches but sometimes even by Catholics (charismatic Catholicism.) Even the atheist right-wingers seem to follow most of the belief system except for its explicitly religious dimensions. Basically it's the prosperity gospel without Jesus. TFD (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank you, Trakking, for actually reading my edits, and only reverting the first three of them. Your grammar edits were to the point, and appreciated.

I hope someone will restore my edits. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, and will move on, citing different sources.

Next, you say that the article does not advocate White Power or Christianity anywhere. Your statement is correct. My sources say that many conservatives do advocate White Power and Christianity. If they do, that is an important aspect of conservatism that the article does not mention but should.

You suggest that the idea that a large number of conservatives advocate White Power and Christianity is "nonsensical". I think I can provide a large number of examples to the contrary. Tell me how many you want.

You say "Do you know that Afro-Americans were the most Christian group in the nation in the 60s?" I wouldn't be surprised. But Afro-Americans in the 60's were not conservative, so I don't know what that has to do with this discussion. And, as The Four Deuces points out, your comments about Africa being both strongly religious and conservatives basically agrees with what my sources said one of the three posts of mine that you deleted.

In reverting three of my posts, you say "two of the three scholars referenced are extremely obscure and not authoritative, one of the sources (The Guardian) is heavily ideologized and unreliable plus cited incorrectly" The scholars you call "extremely obscure and not authoritative" are referenced in Wikipedia and published in major journals. In your opinion, is there any scholar who thinks conservatism is racist, sexist, and anti-science who is not "extremely obscure and not authoritative"? If so, tell me who, and I will cite them instead of the ones I cited. If, on the other hand, you take it as an axiom that everyone who is not conservative is "extremely obscure and not authoritative", we have nothing further to discuss.

As I said, I hope someone restores the three paragraphs you deleted on the grounds that the authors of the quotes are "extremely obscure and not authoritative", because they find them essentially correct and well-referenced. If that doesn't happen, I'll move on.

Let me mention that I, Trakking, and The Four Deuces are major Wikipedia editors, with hundreds if not thousands of edits that have stood the test of time. We three hold very different views of conservatism. The article current reflects only one of those views, Trakking's view, which is (correct me if I'm wrong) that conservatives are religious but the article should not say so, and that Blacks were conservative in the 60's because they were religious even though conservatives in the 60's would not allow Black people to vote. Rick Norwood (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Those phenomena have nothing to do with conservatism specifically. Communist nations (Soviet Union, China, North Korea etc.) have also been racist, sexist etc. Indeed, early socialists in Catholic Europe were significantly more sexist than conservatives. These leftists vehemently opposed the right of women to vote, instead believing in the sexist principle of ”brotherhood” derived from the French Revolution. Meanwhile, ultraconservative groups such as Action Française and Croix-de-Feu advocated for female suffrage as part of their political program. To quote Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn:

”Naturally the ochlocratic and egalitarian principle also demands female suffrage, but certain leftist groups had their doubts and scruples about the application of their dogmas. This is mainly true of the Latin countries where women, with the exception of a small, but extremely rabid minority, profess strong conservative and religious views, and therefore the principle of universal suffrage was quietly dropped in countries like republican France, Spain, and Portugal.” [The Menace of the Herd (1943), p. 58]

Trakking (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that for socialism, conservatism and liberalism, social and economic policy is not fixed and can change. But that only works if we use the historic meanings of the terms, where parties reflect class perspectives. For example, when manufacturing was in its infancy, American capitalists wanted protectionism, but dropped that when they were able to compete internationally. It had nothing to do with how they felt about tradition.

If instead we define conservatism as "respecting traditions," rather than specific traditions, then European and American conservatism is by definition racist, sexist, etc.

In the liberal-conservative dichotomy, it is understood that people advocating for more equality are liberal, while those who advocate for less are conservative. And how far along the axis one is depends on how extreme one's position is. And this is borne out by empirical evidence. TFD (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit

I just noticed that Trakking also deleted my Confucius quote. Is Confucius "extremely obscure and not authoritative"?Rick Norwood (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Confucius holds great authority, but he lived 2000+ years prior to the invention of the ideology of conservatism in the late 18th century. However, as the grandfather of Chinese conservative thought he could be mentioned in a new section about China under ”National variants”. Conservatism in China is strongly associated with Confucianism. Trakking (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, The Four Deuces, for correcting my mistake. I did not know that rule. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Where the article stands now

181.1.137.59 posted that the article "has no criticism of conservatism".

I suggested that "As it stands, especially if one only reads the beginning and end of the article, it states essentially that conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong."

I posted a few referenced quotations.

Trakking deleted most of them.

It seems best to take them one at a time.

Here is my first post, under "Themes", now deleted.

"A less positive view of conservatism is expressed by scholars Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, who wrote in Dædalus in 2022: "Empirical data do not support the conclusion of a crisis of public trust in science. They do support the conclusion of a crisis of conservative trust in science: polls show that American attitudes toward science are highly polarized along political lines.""

Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That information only concerns contemporary American politics; it does not cover the topic from a historical and global perspective. It is a subject for the main article on US conservatism. Furthermore, the information is irrelevant if you do not mention the connection that the study draws between a growing distrust in science and the belief in limited government. Trakking (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes is full professor at Harvard, with more than 900 papers published in refereed journals, but she is an American, so you conclude she only knows about American contemporary politics. And, she is not a conservative, so she doesn't understand that distrust in science is related to a believe in limited government. In short, you agree that conservatives distrust science but you don't trust Americans. Erik M. Conway has a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota, works for Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and is the author of several books, including one titled High-Speed Dreams (2005), in which he argues that "U.S. government sponsorship of supersonic commercial transportation systems resulted from Cold War concerns about a loss of technological prowess in the modern world." But he is also an American, and therefore cannot be trusted to have learned about anything except what the American government wants him to know. Further, he does not mention that the reason conservatives distrust science is that conservatives distrust government.

The statement that I am trying to balance, just above the post you deleted, is by Quintin Hogg. His claim, which remains in the article is: "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself." His views of free society and a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself you find reliable, because he is a conservative politician, and President of the Oxford University Conservative Association. He is British, and therefore not under the thrall of the American government.

In short, you say that there is in conservative thought "a growing distrust in science and the belief in limited government." but don't think Americans scientists know as much about science as British politicians with no training in science.

So, in order for this article to state what you agree is true, I need to find someone who says that who is not an American. Ok. I can do that. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes is a reliable scholar, but her expertise is the history of science. This article is about a social and political ideology, and her opinion on the topic does not carry weight. The scholars quoted and referenced throughout the article are political scientists, political philosophers, sociologists, social psychologists, and historians of ideas. Many of these people (Corey Robin, Alexandre Kojève, Mark Lilla, Edmund Fawcett, Bob Altemeyer, Felicia Pratto, Jonathan Haidt etc.) are ideologically left-leaning, which is excellent because it makes the article nuanced and balanced. Trakking (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course, it is no surprise that you quickly reverted my post, even though you agree with what the post says. You claim that an expert on the history of science is not reliable and does not carry any weight. But that was my previous post, not the post you just now reverted. The post you reverted was credited to an Australian scientist, not an American. But you said of that the Australian scientist "it is only representative of parts of the Anglosphere [the US and Australia] and not the whole planet" But isn't your own source, a conservative British politician, also "only representative of parts of the Anglosphere ... not the whole planet"?

So, I will quote a British scientist, and see if you revert that quote while keeping the quote by a British politician. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Great Britain is still only the Anglosphere.

2. Quintin Hogg's quote is from The Conservative Case, a treatise written specifically about conservatism, and it is a famous quote that has been cited in different works on conservatism, stimulating much debate.

3. Skepticism towards vaccines and some aspects of climate change is a minor issue on the historical and global topic of conservatism.

4. There are many nations where conservative people have been the most pro-vaccine people. Trakking (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, how about what The Guardian says. I've cited a source that contradicts your claim that The Guardian is not trusted, and provided two examples, one new, of how the Tories are not helping. IF you delete it, I will provide more examples.

As for your points:

1. You object that my posts are only the Anglosphere, and are fine that the post my sources disagree with is only the Anglosphere. 2. You point out that your quote is famous. It is also wrong. Being famous (among conservatives) doesn't make wrong right. 3. Skepticism toward vaccines and some aspects of climate change have already killed millions of people and are killing more ever day. Killing millions of people is not "minor". 4. I do not say, and The Guardian does not say, that all conservatives are anti-vaccine. Clearly, many are anti-vaccine, and it is a major cause in conservatism world-wide. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read the article on green conservatism. In many nations all over the world, conservatives are taking environmental stances, forming alliances with green parties etc. The most influential conservative philosopher in recent decades, Roger Scruton, wrote How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism (2012) promoting green conservatism.

Meanwhile, the communist Soviet Union was the nation that caused most destruction to the environment in the 20th century. And in the 21st century it is communist China that is causing the most destruction to the environment. Trakking (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it is clear that no matter what I post you will revert it. Now, I'll put it back up. You'll revert it again. I'll put it back up. You'll revert it again. That will be your third and last revert. Then we'll let the Wikipedia referees sort it out.

I wish we could have actually exchanged ideas, but since you again assert that The Guardian, the most trusted newspaper in Great Britain, is not a reliable source, there's no point in trying to have a discussion. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not that the authors are Americans, it's that they are writing about American conservatism which most experts do not consider to be a form of conservatism. Notice that the authors cite (an admittedly wacky version of) Adam Smith, Hayek and Friedman as the intellectual giants of conservatism, although they were all liberals, as were the reforms initiated by Thatcher and Reagan.

Thatcher incidentally purged the party of Quinton Hogg's proteges and rejected his ideology. As Ian Gilmour recounted, she said Labour has an ideology, so should we and threw down a copy of Hayek's Constituion of Liberty, which includes a chapter "Why I am not a conservative." The tradition she wanted to return to was, as Gilmour explained, Manchester liberalism which she had learned from her father, who was a Liberal politician.

Rejecting vaccines comes from a tradition of peasants and pitchforks and burning witches at the stake. It runs counter to respect for authority and is an expression of selfishness and rugged individualism.

While there is consensus that the Guardian is reliable, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources points out that as with any newspaper, that does not necessarily apply to analysis, commentary and opinion, which must be judged on their own merits.

The Guardian article incidentally does not connect climate change policy and conservative ideology. An earlier Guardian article tells us that Tony Blair refused to sign on to Kyoto[4] and don't expect Kier Starmer to be any more receptive to fighting climate change.That doesn't mean that socialist ideology rejects climate change science. TFD (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, China emits half as much greenhouse gas per capita as the U.S. While the Soviet Union had higher levels of pollution per person as the U.S., it had only 80% as much overall. Bear in mind that what you see as a self-evident fact may not necessarily be seen as such by other editors. TFD (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

TFD: Excellent points. Rick is making the error of conflating traditional conservatism with modern neoliberalism, since there is no sharp distinction drawn between the two in the United States. We must consider the issue from a global and historical perspective, not a narrow American contemporary one. In fact, conservatism, as an ideology, arose in opposition to modern progressive industrialism, unrestrained capitalism, and individualist liberalism. Many of the early forefathers of conservatism were anti-capitalists, for instance Louis de Bonald and Adam Müller, and environmental concerns have been expressed by classical conservatives ever since Edmund Burke. Trakking (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Response to The Four Deuces: Thank you for actually responding to the points I am trying to raise instead of falling back on insults, false statements (repeated claims that The Guardian is unreliable), and deletion.

I have to go to work soon, but I would like to respond To what seems to be your main point, and to Trakking's repeated claims. You say "It's not that the authors are Americans, it's that they are writing about American conservatism which most experts do not consider to be a form of conservatism." But essentially all of the sources cited in the statements I've disagreed, essentially all of the articles cited sources, are American or British sources. How can you object to me citing American and British (and Australian) sources when you almost exclusively cite American or British sources in the sections of the article I've tried to edit. If you rule out American and British sources for my claims, you should also rule out American and British sources for your claims.

Trakking says: "We must consider the issue from a global and historical perspective, not a narrow American contemporary one." Please name one author who you think considers conservatism from a global and historical perspective. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources we use will be British or American, since most of the literature is. But this is what Ian Adams, who is British, wrote:

"Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone; how far should tbe state regulate or manage; and how far should government at federal or local level provide social security and welfare services?"[5]

Brendon O'Connor, who is American, explains how the U.S. adopted the terms liberal and conservative in the 1930s to describe two different approaches to liberalism. Both Roosevelt and Hoover had identified as liberals.[6]

Therefore, when someone writes about American conservatism we cannot assume that their comments apply to conservatism elsewhere.

Furthermore, the Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain is a result of the merger of the Conservative and Liberal Unionist parties. You cannot necessarily interpret comments about its actions as pertaining to conservative ideology.

There is of course a school of thought that classifies U.S. conservatism as a branch of conservatism rather than liberalism. See for example The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin. But articles are supposed to be neutral, to explain opinions not endorse them.

TFD (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Does conservatism support a free society

TFD: It is really good to have someone rational to talk to.

You quote Ian Adams. "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been." When did Adams write this, before or after the conservative denial of Covid and global warming? Before or after Donald Trump?

But, let that be for the time being. I agree that this article should distinguish between American conservatism and "real" conservatism, even though American conservatism, Turmp conservatism, is by far the most influential in the world today, and while Trakking calls denial of global warming and Covid "trivial", my guess is that you do not agree, and would say denial of global warming and Covid are not conservative, and that Trump is not conservative.

This is the main point I want to discuss now: You say, "to explain opinions is not to endorse them". I agree. The article, as it stands, says right up front that "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself." I disagree that conservatism supports a "free society" and have tried to post a few sources who say that conservatism does not support a free society but supports a society which the upper class rules. These attempts have been deleted, on the grounds that The Guardian is unreliable and that American sources are unreliable.

I have voted for both liberals and for conservatives. But I agree with you that "to explain opinions is not to endorse them". I think this section needs a second quote, from some neutral source, that does not agree that conservatism supports a "free society", but rather states that conservatism supports a society ruled by the upper class. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought the article should begin by mentioning the main defintions of conservatism. Positional conservatism supports tradition for its own sake whether it is feudalism, capitalism or communism. Aristocratic conservatism supports a specific set of traditions, such as the established church. As those traditions die out it becomes less relevant. Autonomous conservatism assumes that there is a set of values that conservatives follow regardless of the time and place in which they live. So Confucius might have been an autonomous conservative.

Basically the description in the lead describes how some self-described conservatives explain their philosophy. But of course they define the terms and the result is always to the advantage of some groups and the disadvantage of others. Presenting it as a true, unambigous statement is misleading.

So I think the first thing that needs to change is the lead.

I don't know to what extend Trump has departed from the right-wing liberal paradigm. But if he has moved, it's more toward right-wing populism or fascism than conservatism. Then again under the current definition, virtually anyone could claim to be a conservative.

Essentially Trump takes advantage of the suffering inflicted on Americans beginning with reforms in the late 1970s and accelerating under Reagan. But instead of blaming the system, he blames minorities, foreign countries and the supposed enemy within. He follows the Karl Rove playbook of energizing the base rather than fighting for the (increasingly small) centre. TFD (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but given that almost every change I've tried to make has been deleted, I want to move cautiously. Today I plan to add one carefully referenced paragraph including a quote, and we'll see what happens.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)