Talk:Conservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Conservatism:
  • Expand on the Continental Conservatism sub-section.

Iceland is named twice in the list of countries that have conservative parties which according to Alan Ware's book. This is in the sentence before reference 58.

Priority 1 (top)

Who are the 'conservative groups' opposing Obamatrade?[edit]

DrudgeReport "More conservative groups come out against...[ObamaTrade]"

Headline-1: HERITAGE ACTION AND AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT PLEA TO SENATE: VOTE ‘NO’ ON OBAMATRADE

QUOTE: "The Senate is set to vote on the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation the House passed last week that gives President Obama fast track trade authority to finalize his trade negotiations without Congressional amendments." [Vote is tomorrow.] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. New NEWS today, for future editing.

Too insignificant to discuss in an article about conservatism with a world-wide perspective. TFD (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
agreed. the text does not give any ideological reasons for opposition. It looks like pure partisanship, esp after conservatives in 2012 supported the original author of Obamnacare (Romney). Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
QUESTIONS: So Obamatrade does not have worldwide implications? There are not a lot of other articles saying Conservatives oppose the Obama bill that no one is able to read? This isn't the article that talks about Conservatism in America? There is a better WP article for American conservatism? -- Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's recentism policy is relevant here. Wikipedia is not a newsfeed. For your second question. see Conservatism in the United States. Abierma3 (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That's why I said, "For future editing." I'll go the the other article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of[edit]

Every other ideology has a page, or at least part of page, detailing the criticisms of the ideology. Why isn't there one for conservatism? Has this ideology simply not received much academic scrutiny? Epa101 (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced, very biased[edit]

This article cites very few sources, and seems to be very incorrect. Conservatism is not about "keeping things the way they were", it is, for most people, about preserving individual liberties and responsibility, much like classical liberalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.128.78 (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Except it's not. As explained in the article, the American Right, believing that individual liberties and responsibility were the way things were, chose in the 1950s to call themselves conservatives. There is a separate article about Conservatism in the United States. And this article has 146 footnotes. TFD (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the final line under "The United States" reads; "In 2016 election, Donald Trump's presidential campaign has expanded the conservatism in the United States, which includes protection of United States industries and develop the grassroots movement in the working classes." Aside from being poorly written, it provides no citation. Will be removed if citation cannot be provided. 2602:306:C4CC:D6B0:C96A:A2E0:4291:1E2 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)RL

Someone beat you to it. Considering the brief mention of conservatism in this article, adding Trump would be undue recentism. TFD (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

conservativiam and race[edit]

It is understandable that people who identify with a particular ideology want to airbrush out of the history of that ideology people who hold beliefs that are now largely discredited. Communists would like to forget Stalin, conservatives would like to forget Hitler. But an encyclopedia should not be edited by those who wish to rewrite history. The people who supported slavery rightly called themselves conservative, because they were trying to preserve an existing institution. The people who opposed the Civil Rights movement rightly called themselves conservative, because they were trying to preserve an existing institution. And today, while most conservatives say they are not racist, most racists say they are conservative.

The referenced view is that conservatism is not specific to the social values it espouses, but is rather the view that the way things are should not be lightly changed. And many conservatives say that the way things were, in the good old days, were better than they way things are now. The list of "beliefs" that make one a conservative is therefore dubious, whether the claim is that conservatives believe in "slavery" or that conservatives believe in "freedom". Very few people today support slavery, but when slavery was the established system, the people who supported it called themselves conservative. Almost everyone in the US today believes in freedom, so to say conservatives believe in freedom is to suggest that they believe in freedom more than anybody else, a view not supported by the evidence.

The problem with the list, subject to so much editing, is not what is on the list, but the fact that there is a list at all. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the article should be clear that conservatism has more than one meaning. You are referring to positional conservatism. In the 1980s, Reaganites, hard line Communists, the ayatollahs and anti=Thatcher Tories were all described as conservatives, but there was a huge different in what they wanted to conserve. TFD (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The list of people is inaccurate[edit]

Is there any reason why the list of people in the "Part of a series on Conservatism" box contains so many obscure fascists and Nazi sympathizers (if not, perhaps, to poison the well)? I take the list to be a compilation of persons who are noteworthy conservatives, but many of them are neither noteworthy nor conservative in any sense. I would go in and remove those entries, but I figured I would clear the air here first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisokathorongil (talkcontribs) 18:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know which people you have in mind, but keep in mind that this article is about conservatism world wide, and that in many countries conservatism means something quite different from what it means in the US. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who you have in mind either and would appreciate it you mention some. TFD (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I just went through all the people yesterday and have now gone through the list yet again. Take a look at the following people:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Fraga_Iribarne
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Guzm%C3%A1n
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Rol%C3%A3o_Preto (This is perhaps the most perplexing if you actually read the summaries)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenio_Vegas_Latapie
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Abascal
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurras
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Moeller_van_den_Bruck
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Bainville
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Ludovici
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun
A collection of fascist/Nazi/Francoist sympathizers, dictator supporters, anti-semitic crackpots, and a slavery supporting Democrat. I don't see what's especially conservative about them.Hisokathorongil (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Technically, this discussion should be on Template talk:Conservatism sidebar. But I agree that there's no need to have over 100 names in a sidebar. Rather than simply removing the most controversial, I'd rather see a proposal to replace the list with a new list of at most 25 names. Also, I'd like to see "philosophers" separated from political leaders. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not extremely familiar with the Wikipedia editing pages and processes, so apologies for raising this in the wrong place. I agree with your suggestion: a list of 25 or so important and influential conservative political philosophers and writers would be ideal. Hisokathorongil (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
You won't be able to find agreement on which 25 people to include. I think it should go but you are right it is better discussed elsewhere. TFD (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hisokathorong: you hurt your cause by wanting to remove John C. Calhoun. He was indeed a slavery supporting Democrat, but at a time when the Democratic party, at least in the South, was the conservative party, and the Republican party was the liberal party. Following Lyndon B. Johnson and the Civil Rights movement, the two parties did a little dance, and the 100% Democratic South became the 100% Republican South. I never heard of any of the other names on the list, and doubt they are important enough to be included. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dubitable. What you've just described is what many conservatives would consider a myth, namely, that somehow there was a "big switch" in the late 1960s, when all the alleged bad, white, racist conservatives switched from the Democratic to the Republican party. Dinesh D'Souza challenges this narrative and so do more sober academics, like Shafer and Johnston in their book, The End of Southern Exceptionalism. The fact is that conservatives don't look to the Democratic party or figures like Calhoun when tracing their political and intellectual influences. What you're doing by suggesting that they must is, as I said in my OP, an example of poisoning the well.Hisokathorongil (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Calhoun is considered one of the top conservatives by Russell Kirk, author of the Conservative Mind. See Chapter Five, "Southern Conservatism: Randolph and Calhoun." Incidentally, whatever credibility D'Souza might have had in the 1980s, his recent writing has serious problems of credibility, according to mainstream commentators. TFD (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, you can cite someone in support of that identification. It once again depends on what we mean by conservatism. I notice the list is dominated by paleocons and Catholic ultramontanists, even though conservatism has significant overlap, if not synonymity and identity in some cases, with classical liberalism, libertarianism, and, by dint of the label itself, neoconservatism. And yet, I see hide nor hair of Locke, Hamilton, Adams, Kristol, etc. I could be okay with Calhoun on the list, though it wouldn't be of my making, provided he's counterbalanced by people who aren't paleocons, ultramontanists, monarchists, racists, and so on, as the list is currently almost exclusively comprised of. Hisokathorongil (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The Republican Party didn't exist in Calhoun's era. As far as party ideology goes, I quote 30 Rock (which is definitely not a reliable source, but happens to be correct): "today's Republican Party would be unrecognizable to Lincoln. He fought a war to preserve federal authority over the states. That's not exactly small government." Power~enwiki (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The fact remains that Lincoln is an immensely important figure for conservatives. Hisokathorongil (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Conservatism, not about the Republican party. I agree with 30 Rock that even though modern Republicans call themselves "the party of Lincoln", Old Abe would not recognize them. But as for challenging the narrative of the "big switch", the Dixiecrats were part of a coalition that called themselves "the Conservative coalition". And the solidly Democratic South is now the solidly Republican South. So the American South did switch parties, why remaining staunchly conservative. I don't speculate on the motives. But we need to focus on your proposal to remove names from the list. I'm fine with removing all but Calhoun. The Four Deuces gives a good reference, Russell Kirk, for keeping Calhoun. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not really about whether you agree that Lincoln would recognize the Republican party but about whether conservatives, by and large, claim him, and they do. I've already said my piece about the "big switch" myth, so I'll leave it there. Hisokathorongil (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hisokathorongil, note that this article is about conservatism, not conservatism in the U.S., and it is questionable whether U.S. conservatism is part of conservatism or really a form of liberalism. Historically, conservatism supported pre-liberal institutions and traditions, such as monarchy, aristocracy, and the established church. TFD (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)