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)