Talk:Conservatism/Archive 4

Definition out of line with political science textbooks

Again we have people making political definitions that would not be agreed upon by political scientists. A political position describes a role that the government should have in a society, not a position relative to time as described in the entry. For example a communist government can be conservative in trying to conserve its position but that has nothing to do with politics anymore than a diver trying to conserve air. A political conservative typically favors a free economy and accepts the inequality that naturally follows. The opposite is a socialist who favors a controlled economy in an effort to reduce inequality. This is a simplified definition but is closer to currently exists.

This is the view of libertarians, but not of social scientists in general. Rick Norwood 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a social scientist who agrees or disagrees? Ace Diamond 23:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the definition is a bit out of whack. Here's one I found from an introductory textbook: "An ideology based on the belief that society is an organic collective whole. Moreover, conservatives believe that the best form of society is hierarchical-- a society in which everyone knows their place, a society where some rule and the rest are ruled. Order and tradition, not freedom and reason are key political values" (Critical Concepts. An Introduction to Politics). Some of these key elements are missing on this site's definition.--Apples99 03:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

First, please note that newer posts go at the bottom of the page.

The textbook definition is in reflected in the article, but not in the introduction. American Republicans want a strong, positive spin on conservatism. The current introduction, which I think is relatively neutral, is the result of long hours of compromise among people of good will. Rick Norwood 15:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So a bunch of neo-conservatives who don't realize they are neo-conservatives changed the definition of conservatism because it doesn't suit them? So what would happen if this was the article on the holocaust and holocaust deniers claimed that it never happened? Round the numbers down? I'm not going to make an issue of this but this is part of the problem with Wikipedia. Are there any solutions?--Apples99 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The solution is compromise. I don't think the current definition is a bad one, and I don't think the definition from your textbook is a perfect one. I haven't checked, but I assume the article on the Holocaust mentions holocaust deniers, just as the article on the Kennedy assassination probably mentions the idea that the CIA carried out the hit (or was it Cigarette Smoking Man?) A thousand philosophies flourish, a thousand poppies bloom. Rick Norwood 14:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The adding of "Criticism" section

It was earlier stated that the adding of the "Criticism" section of this page was inappropriate because it was "carried no references". But I must inform you, the reader, that the Socialism page has a thriving Criticism section that also carries no references. Conservatism and Socialism alike are ideologies that have spread their influence on a very large number of people throughout history. In the spirit of neutrality, should they not have an equal section to inform the reader of the claims made against these belief systems? Frankly, I question the neutrality of the Wiki's decision to remove this section. I will take this up with Wikipedia itself if necessary.

Unrequired and poorly worded. I will remove it again. It's also worth noting that what you are truly being critical of is (in real terms) American Conservatism; it has it's own criticism section. michael ^talk 01:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree.

               -User:EnglishEfternamn

All Wikipedia articles should be referenced. To achieve equity between conservatism and socialism, the solution is to require reference in criticism of socialism. Rick Norwood 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No section of wikipedia, an encyclopedia, should be without references. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," is stated in the wikipedia rules of conduct. This applies to all articles, including socialism and conservatism. Websurfer135 02:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Silvio Berlusconi

Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi's comment on the September 11 attacks has less to do with racial and biological superiority than cultural one... this should be put somewhere else if it is used at all.

split off various national conservative movements?

The article is getting so long, and being rewritten so intensively, that we may want to consider splitting off the details of various national conservative movements. There are already American and Canadian articles. I suggest we split off British conservatism, Chinese conservatism, and maybe German conservatism. Then this article would focus on the big picture -- history, meaning of the word, common conservative beliefs -- with brief (!) mentions of each national conservative movement with a (see main article) link. Rick Norwood 15:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And as an added bonus, it would slow down the attacks! Good idea, I don't see why not!--sansvoix 06:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Rick have you considered the fact that your ideas of what words mean are simply YOUR IDEAS, and while many people have different ideas of what words mean, they are not intent on their personal definition appearing, rather one that is agreed upon. (anonymous user)

Seems to me whoever wrote this article was intent on having their personal definition appearing. -- 2nd Piston Honda 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you guys figure this out. I've been too afraid to touch the article. --Ogo 23:20 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest going even farther and splitting off all specific ideologies and making this into a description of the term itself. It's silly to try and generalize the description of this "ideology" to try and take into account everyone who's ever been called conservative, taking such labelling as some big shared political ideology. For example, maybe communists who want to preserve communism think that way because they actually (gasp) like communism on its own merits. It seems to me a logical fallacy to claim they like it just because it's old and tried traditional. keith 03:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

They like the traditional, not the old and tired. Not all old things are traditional and not all traditional things are old. I do not think we are tuning in to the same frequency yet. Conservatives appreciate those values and attitudes which have been shown to promote what they see as good, not what is anti-Fascist. For instance, French conservatives wax nostalgic about a wild and bloody revolution, and they support gun control, and they support nationalized health care. Until we agree that conservatism is not a form of democratic liberalism, or perhaps reach some other useful agreement, I think you will fail to have a discussion with the other editors. Ogo 19:57 13 January 2006 (UTC)

that misses the point. See above and consider my suggestion again. This article can't even reach the sophistication understanding of a decent dictionary, which will be able to distinguish between conservative as an adjective which means "supporting tradition", and as one of any number of different ideologies. They are different uses of the same word. But this article combines them. As for democratic liberalism, I'm not sure what you mean. Did you mean to say economic liberalism? maybe you are confusing me with rsetliff? keith 02:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, interesting. So to resolve this, let me try to restate your point. You argue the word conservatism refers to, firstly, certain ideologies, and second, idologies that are either apathetic to tradition or even antitraditional? I think it would help me a lot if you would list some and explain why they are conservative.

Also, I said and meant democratic liberalism. It is my impression that you would not include someone who believes in nondemocratic government any more than one who supports nationalised health care or a a very mixed economy. It would help me if you included some of these people on said list. Ogo 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If in the land of Freedonia, the political movement called "conservatism" advocated monarchism and nationalized healthcare, then that information belongs in the Freedonian conservatism article. This still misses the point, which is that article would describe a totally different ideology than the American Conservatism article, and should not imply they are aspects of the same thing. They are just using the same name, presumably because the name is to some degree descriptive of the ideology's similarity to past systems in that country.

As long as American conservatives are given the impression that the article is meant to apply to their political views, as shared with the rest of the world, we will keep having these drive-by deletions. Which I sympathisize with; if the article is trying to list common denominators among all people called "conservative" then specific things that American conservatives disagree with won't make the cut (not to mention things they find repugnant). Same for American ideals the Europeans don't share. I personally find the process rather silly, as it ceases to have any meaning beyond a dictionary definition of a "conservative" person. I think complete separation of the countries is a more useful and verifiable way to go. keith 02:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I see now. You do not believe that conservatives in one country share anything essential with conservatives in another country. (We could delightfully refer to this position as nominalism in regards to conservatism.) But clearly they do share important things in fact, because you and I can both communicate about them as conservatisms and understand each other. Moreover you acknowledged this when you argued separate conservatisms would belong in a separate conservatism article, admitting the notion of a common conservative idea. Otherwise, why call them conservative? Given that American conservatism and French conservatism share certain important things, this is the article where we talk about them. Ogo 12:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well we can certainly try. But we seem incapable of resticting ourselves to the "shared things"--or remotely agreeing what they are--and somehow end up talking about fascism and other inflammatory fringes. Do you think the article is in a consensus state? keith 02:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The article seemed to have settled down in a consensus state for several months, but then the whole conservative/fascist paragraph stirred things up again, with conservatives rejecting the idea of any connection between conservatism and fascism with the fervor of a Star Trek fan insisting that Kirk never had sex with Spock. In fact, despite Dick Cheney's public willingness to embrace the "Dark Side" of conservatism, many conservatives (like many non-conservatives) find it very difficult to step back and look at history objectively.

As for common conservative beliefs -- conservatism is defined not by what beliefs are held but rather by where those beliefs come from: the past. Conservatives believe in tradition, and so there are as many conservative beliefs as there are traditions. Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof is as much a conservative as Berry Goldwater, though they come from different traditions.

The anger we so often see on this page usually comes from conservatives who hold the very conservative belief that there is only one true tradition, and all other traditions are false traditions. This means that people from different conservative traditions -- Jewish conservatives and Muslam conservatives for example -- often hate one another not because of their differences but because of their similarities. Rick Norwood 14:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I will label you two as the reductionists. You have formed an (unholy) alliance with Russel Kirk and the conservatism-is-not-an-ideology-ists. Me and the other "nominalists" (just me?) have allied with the conservatism-is-an-ideology-ists in opposition.

btw how do you explain the catholic and jewish opposition to the death penalty as traditionalism? keith 21:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Um. Speaking as a Catholic, I think the Church's stance on anything is part of a tradition because the Holy See is the oldest corporate body in the world, and Catholics lean on its authority. I would assume Judaism has its equivalent, as Islam has in its great jurists, Buddhism with its lamas.

Sheesh. Refer to Religious conservatism. You know, though I helped write that section, it does not necessarily describe what I think. Nor do I bite my nails at night worrying that it is as politically correct as the half-baked mish-mash of ideas in my head. I edit Wikipedia because I often learn a lot by it, and while I have learned quite a bit from reading and thinking about conservatism(s), especially from reading Rich's entries, I am sick of this topic. You've got to let this go, K. Can we move on? Perhaps to adding some frequent conservative values? Ogo 00:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

what topic are you sick of exactly? Do you yet understand why this article will not come within a mile of featured status? For a start it would help if you stopped dismissing the pov of people who disagree with you. btw in fact the church consists of the papacy, the bible, and the apostic tradition, in equal parts some might claim. You don't need to invoke a weak argument about authority to get to tradition in that organization; its presence is canonized. My point was there are ideals which are more important than tradition. Tradition for it's own sake is not the point, but rather the ideology itself. That most traditions are already in line with your ideology makes it easy to keep them. But to say those who maintain tradition do so primarily because they are traditionalist is like saying someone who married an older woman did so primarily because he has a fetish for older women. Perhaps that is the primary reason. or perhaps it is secondary. or perhaps it is irrelevant. keith 02:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for redirecting me, Keith. I now have an account, but can someone tell me how to make my name show up at the end of my posts? I'd like everyone to go up and read the Open Letter to Wikipedia section on this discussion page. I'll quote myself: "why don't we just have the Conservatism article explain that it is the name of varying political/ideological philosophies and parties throughout the world, and then give links to each country's conservatism page? That seems to me to be the most accurate and honest way to do things". Can anyone provide a reasonable objection to this?

well I see you figured the signature out on your own already, but for the other anons that edit here, it's four tildes. Also there's a button above the edit wondow for it. keith 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

List of ideologies

This article should provide a list of some common beliefs among conservatives, not just vague descriptions. anonymo the nameless

I agree. In fact, how about we list some common values conservatives share?

Wait, we had a section with these a few months ago. Can I put it back now? (-: Ogo 16:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are going to have a lot of difficulty listing anything that conservatives around the world agree on -- unless it is not wanting to pay taxes, but then, nobody wants to pay taxes, so that isn't unique to conservatives. Rick Norwood 20:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

everyone knows liberals love taxes. keith 21:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are kidding, but just in case -- no, liberals do not love taxes. Liberals want the government to protect the poor, conservatives want the government to protect the rich, but I haven't seen anyone running for office who actually wants to reduce the amount of money they will be allowed to spend once they are elected. Rick Norwood 22:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Ugh. You're both wrong. In my wisdom I'm withholding why.

2. Rich, I think what we had before represented some common things that conservatives appreciate, don't you think? | The current list is already pretty good, I'd just like to shorten it a bit and elaborate on what is left, a la the section on Order that somehow survived. Ogo 23:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Order over chaos (nope -- "What ever happened to the good old days, when men were men, the days before all these laws and cities.") Orientation toward the past rather than the future (agree -- this is the definition of conservative) The rural over the urban (a Confucian conservative would not agree, this is mostly an American idea) Unity and homogeneity, over discord and fragmentation (I tend to go along with this one) The natural over the artificial and technological (I think this seems true only because technology is so closely allied with the new. Most conservatives I know like technology.) Existence over possibility (no "The existing welfare state must be overthrown so we can return to the good old days of capitalism.") Slow and incremental change over utopian projects (I agree about the opposition to utopianism, but certainly Islamic conservatives favor rapid and violent change away from modernism.) Hierarchy over egalitarianism (no, many conservatives are egalitarian (many are not) "In a free society, the strong will naturally rise to the top, if the damn government would just leave us alone." Sovereignty over union, in matters regarding the European Union (This is, of course, modern and local).

So, what have we got:

Orientation toward the past and toward conformity, away from new ideas and new forms of government.

I could live with that, but I doubt that many conservatives would agree with it. Rick Norwood 00:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How about we list values conservatives often accept, not that every conservative must accept. This might give the article a bit more substance and would help describe conservatisms. This would include order over chaos, natural over artificial, hierarchy over egality. Ogo 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't see anything conservative about those dichotomies. In order over chaos, you single out the conservatives who are happy to preserve the existing order, but rule out the many conservatives who see violence as the only way to restore the old order. In natural over artificial, you suggest that conservatives are typically luddites. That certainly isn't the case. Most conservatives are glad we have cars, and indoor plumbing. In hierarchy over egality, you focus on those conservatives who support the class system, and ignore the many conservatives who support the rugged individual. Rick Norwood 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Choice

It seems quite clear from the above discussion that there is little, if anything, that all groups labeled as "conservative" across the world would agree on. Thus, logically, there are 2 possible choices for the future of the article:

1. Preserve the current structure, and talk about conservatism in vague terms, understanding that there is no universal definition of the word and that it means very different things in different contexts (oh, and making it clear that not all conservatism is American conservatism).
2. Give up and make this a disambig page pointing to various new articles about the meaning of "conservatism" in different countries. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I emphatically vote for number 2. The term "conservatism" is ambiguous and has no universal meanings except that it is a name given to certain political or moral ideologies. -- 2nd Piston Honda 12:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The conservative tradition is a long and honorable one, and the meaning of conservative is clear -- one who wants to conserve the values of the past. Conservatives share a longing for the good old days, for the time when right thinking people came together, when things were the way they are supposed to be. Of course, the way Confucius thought things were supposed to be was very different from the way Cicero thought things were supposed to be, but I think every conservative would agree that the values of the past are of primary importance. That the values of the past are the only true values. They just disagree on which values of the past to adopt. Rick Norwood 14:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As an American conservative myself, i can tell you that that's completely wrong. Our beliefs have nothing to do with temporality, but rather with objective truth and a value system that guides everything we do (mainly this is Christianity). But the whole point is, not all conservatives are like American conservatives, so we shouldn't have one article trying to paint them all with a broad brush. -- 2nd Piston Honda 15:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am dismayed by this small-minded generalization. American conservatism is so convoluted and diverse that to claim it owes its dogma to Christian ideology is highly inaccurate. Certainly, social conservatism owes much to Judeo-Christian traditions, but it ends there. Fiscal and educational conservatism have nothing at all to do with Christian ideology. Fiscal conservatism, generaly, refers to limiting government spending and the government's control over industry and the economy, and educational conservatism calls for a return to classical and more traditional (i.e. good ol' days) methods of education. During the American Civil War, abolitionists (Republicans) were considered liberal, while southern Democrats in favor of the status quo were conservative (in that they resisted change). During the 1920's labor movements, labor leaders were considered liberal, while those who opposed organized labor were regarded as conservative. Again, religion played no part at all in either of these cases. In my opinion, the term "conservative" is so dependent on the time period in which the conservative lived, that it is not possible to have a "list of conservatives" that even marginally resembles a coherent ideology, with the exception that the people in such a list tended to resist what they percieved as liberal or radical changes to the status quo.--Bayyoc 16:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian values are one example of old values. The first followers of Christ were not conservative. They were radicals. But today Christian values are old values, which is why modern Christians choose to call themselves conservative rather than radical. Rick Norwood 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

and do liberal values come from the future? That might explain Jerry Brown. keith 20:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Rick, how can values or beliefs be old or new? They are what they are. -- 2nd Piston Honda 14:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Examples of new beliefs would include evolution, the germ theory of disease, racial and gender equality, and internationalism. Rick Norwood 15:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them new, since they've existed since the beginning. There are no created concepts, only dates when certain people have discovered them. Aside from that philosophical discussion, the point i'm making is that (American) conservatives don't judge a statement based on how "old" it is. We judge it on its merits (logic and accuracy). -- 2nd Piston Honda 20:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Then what is it about your beliefs that makes them "conservative"? Everyone thinks their beliefs are logical and accurate, so that doesn't separate conservative beliefs from other beliefs. Rick Norwood 21:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The difference between a conservative and a liberal who both honestly seek the truth and have no mal-intent are the weights they give to certain values. Also, a belief that this world is just temporary will totally shift one's values opposite of one who thinks this world is all we've got. These weights are usually given to us through our religion (or lack of), and most of it can neither be proven to be true or false (at least by us).

So in my opinion, an American conservative puts slightly more value on justice than mercy, but still does value mercy alot, especially if they're religious. The conservative's outlook on life is generally "God, family, country, friends, monetary success", with each of those willing to be sacrificed for the one before it. The liberal's outlook can be any number of things as they're more likely to be relativists and pluralists as opposed to absolutists. The american liberal puts mercy above justice and are very outcome-oriented. They're more likely to make day to day decisions based on an "end justifies the means" mentality than a conservative would, especially among those who aren't religious. I can go on, but i've answered your question sufficiently. -- 2nd Piston Honda 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. Rick Norwood 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak from the United States perspective, but in my opinion, and just from reading the ongoing debate, the National Socialist party (Nazi) was exactly that - a party of nationalistic socialists. Some of the nationalistic and conservative agendas in the West are similar (strong military for example in the United States) but some differ. The socialistic ideals of the Nazi party are definitely not in line with modern conservative ideals in the United States but they do fall in line with most Western European parties, both liberal and conservative from what I can divulge. Conservativism in the United States is definitely a very individual opinion; I feel myself to be a fiscal conservative but I have liberal leanings on certain issues. I am nonreligious but I believe that the individual is responsible for their own present and future. Low taxes, small government (which means more low taxes), a completely free-market economy without burdensome legislation, and people taking care of themselves so as not to become a burden to society are the ideals the bolster the conservative doctrine on this side of the Atlantic. I know this may not help too much, but I hope to bring to the picture that there are all kinds that make up a certain politcal strata. Some conservatives don't even believe in God (like me). ````

Unless it has been added recently, there is nothing in the article to suggest Nazi's were conservatives. I certainly don't think they were. But Fascists were explicitly conservative, desireing a return to the good old days of the Roman Empire, and, in Spain at least, to that old time religion (Roman Catholicism). They were also conservative in being anti-communist. Rick Norwood 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't put much stock in that assertion. The Microsoft Encarta encylopedia is wrought with some leftist spin and bias. But it is at least forthright and honest in the article on fascism to say it embraces Anti-Conservatism. "Beginning in the 1970s, some historians and political scientists began to develop a broader definition of fascism, and by the 1990s many scholars had embraced this approach. This new approach emphasizes the ways in which fascist movements attempt revolutionary change and their central focus on popularizing myths of national or ethnic renewal. Seen from this perspective, all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis." Under the header Anticonservatism, it reads, "Fascist movements usually try to retain some supposedly healthy parts of the nation’s existing political and social life, but they place more emphasis on creating a new society. In this way fascism is directly opposed to conservatism—the idea that it is best to avoid dramatic social and political change. Instead, fascist movements set out to create a new type of total culture in which values, politics, art, social norms, and economic activity are all part of a single organic national community."

I don't even considered this a moot point anymore. Fascism and conservatism are not the same. It just reflects your ideological prejudices to marry the two together, and on rather shallow pretexts. The Frankfurt School Marxists tried that earnestly after World War II, and they hoped to disconnect National Socialism for Socialism by insisting on referring to them with the acrostic Nazi, and insisting it wasn't true socialism. Many Russians under Soviet Russia had nationalistic sentiments and were very ethnocentric-- it didn't make them right-wing or conservative.

I won't even respond to this except to say let's keep this on topic. This section is about which of the two directions we should take with this article. -- 2nd Piston Honda 20:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

True. Thanks for getting us back on topic. Rick Norwood 20:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So when are we going to see a decision on this? -- 2nd Piston Honda 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, which means that everyone makes their own decisions (at the risk of being reverted). Since this has been a fairly stable article for a long time, I think to break it up would get reverted. There are already articles about conservatism in various countries. This article is about what those various conservative movements have in common. Rick Norwood 14:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the only stability we have here is from lack of readership due to the existence of the American Conservatism article, (which by the way has been evolving quite nicely in my opinion). No one even seems to care that there has been a dispute tag on for weeks. Anyway, due to a continuing lack of verifiability in most of this article, almost everything will continue to be fair game. keith 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, Rick. There's not one thing that's common to all conservatives, so trying to have an article about "conservatism" in general is irresponsible. -- 2nd Piston Honda 00:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of adding footnotes. Some parts of the article are confirmed by references, other parts are not. I'm a believer in the importance of words. If there is really nothing that conservatives have in common, then the word is meaningless. It seems to me that there are things conservatives have in common, chief among them the idea that things were better in the "good old days", when men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Arcturus were real small fuzzy creatures from Arcturus. (That joke, by the way, wouldn't work if people didn't have a pretty good idea of what conservatives have in common.) Rick Norwood 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is much more precise to say conservatives support the status quo--that is after all what the word means since you are such a word-fan--whether because they believe the status quo is great or because they believe the alternatives are all worse. If you are conservative, you want to protect something from being lost, maybe the good 'ole days or maybe the current fiscal situation. Hence law and order and military defense are conservative since they are protective, not because conservatives are by definition racist jingoistic philistines as this article has tried to claim in a display of complete antipathy toward the subject. To me the key qualities of conservatism are caution and pragmatism, not nostalgia. I also think using "conservative" to describe someone who advocates a revolutionary return to a previous status quo is incorrect, but widely-used unfortunately. But to try to use the fact that they are called "conservative" to say they must therefore be adherants to "conservatism" is dead wrong in that case. One is a philosophy the other is an adjective. Just as using a liberal helping of sugar in my coffee doesn't mean I follow Liberalism (I sure hope). keith 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Conservatives don't oppose change. They believe in certain ideals and values, regardless of what the status quo is. Therefore, this article is propaganda and needs to be a disambig page. -- 2nd Piston Honda 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What are these certain ideals and values? Do you mean that liberals do not believe in certain ideals and values, but only conservatives? Or do you mean that conservatives believe in certain SPECIFIC ideals and values that are common to all conservatives? I am a conservative as well. I would be interested in knowing what ideals and values you would have me believe in? I think you miss the point of the article. Conservatives in the Soviet Union in the 1980's held completely different values and beliefs than conservatives in the United States during the same period. Both groups were called conservative, because they opposed "radical" or forced changes in society. Conservatives in the United States supported the liberals in the Soviet Union. Conservatism and liberalism is completely relative to time and place, and I think the article does a decent job of exlplaining this. You obviously think this entire article is about American Conservatism, when it is not.--Bayyoc 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You missed the whole point of what i said. It's not about what the beliefs are, it's about whether those beliefs are based on or affected by the status quo. I'm sure some types of conservatism believe in things because of tradition, but not all do. THEREFORE, you can't have an article about conservatism in general which paints them all with one broad brush. This needs to be a disambig page because there is NOTHING held common among all conservatives. Can my point be made any more clear? -- 2nd Piston Honda 03:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states that conservatives oppose change for the sake of change. The point, I think, is that the ideals and values of conservatives come from the past, as contrasted with the ideals and values of utopians, which may be new and untried. Otherwise, there is nothing to differentiate conservatives and utopians, since both believe in certain ideals and values. Rick Norwood 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree it is innacurate to say "resistant to change" is the only definition of conservative. Further I'd agree it is a misnomer in many (if not most) cases it is used since someone may actually be called a conservative only because of how some subset of his views appear similar to some views of the past, according to a simple-minded observer (e.g. the press). I especially think it is a fallacy to claim a person is resistant to change first and ergo ends up at his views on current politics second. That may often be the case but we should not be in the business of mind-reading. That sounds a lot like a (certainly not liberal!) implication that conservatism is a universal mental defect or the result of brainwashing or something. And of course conservatives have ideals everyone does. keith 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Unlike other articles that cover political points of view, Conservatism contains no critique of the Conservative point of view. Contrast with Liberalism, Libertarian Socialism, and other nonconservative points of view, whose articles go out of their way to include what opponents of the point of view have to say. One would get the impression that conservatism has no opponents, or that Wikipedia recognizes those opponents as being in the wrong.

First, it is wiki to add new comments at the bottom of the page (use the + sign to the right of the "edit this page" button. Also sign comments with four tildes.

I will use the + button next time, and put four tildes in it.

Now, to address your point. You find the article too supportive of the conservative view, but if you will read the comments below you will discover many conservatives who think the article does nothing but tell liberal lies about the conservative view. I think the article does a good job of NPOV, and that critics from both sides want it to reflect their POV instead of NPOV. I'm a flaming liberal, but when I write for wiki, my efforts to be NPOV have gotten me accused of being a conservative spy! Rick Norwood 00:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

My main argument is not the way the article is written. It appears to accurately describe what conservatism is. But the articles on other political ideologies all have a section called "Criticism," where critique is included from opponents of the ideology. OTOH, no critique is found on the Conservatism page. Either all those other articles are POV for containing a critique, or Conservatism is POV for not having one.

Also, the Liberalism page contains a link to Conservatism in its See Also section. Conservatism does not contain a link back to Liberalism.

A critique, perhaps written by a flaming liberal like yourself, should be added to Conservatism, along with a See Also link to Liberalism, or the links to here from other political pages should be removed, along with their critiques.

216.23.105.44 01:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: On a more careful review of the article, I have found the following POV sentence: "This can take a benign form, such as Conservative Christians encouraging prayer in school, or a more violent form, such as zealots putting to death anyone who blasphemes."

From some people's point of view, encouraging Christian prayer in schools is not seen as benign. Therefore, this sentence reflects the POV of those who consider Christian praying in schools to be benign.

I could tell right from the start, that the author of the conservative article, that he or she is of the "liberal" persuasion. The article was filled with subtle but noticeable injections of their discontent for "conservative" thinkers and ideas. Later, when I got to the discussion page, their "discontent" has clearly manifested it self.

Though I looked, I did not find any interjections in the introduction to the article (which how I'm interpreting "right from the start"). Perhaps you could quote one of these interjections. 216.23.105.44 01:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections can also be a way of quarantining negative facts to weaken their weight in the subject, and get them out of the flow of the text without violating wikipedia policy. Such sections are also invariably weasel-worded. This article has profoundly critical assertions stuffed right in the main text, as with for example the references to fascism. keith 01:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The question, then (or, rather questions): 1) Was Franco fascist? 2) Was Franco conservative? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then the section is part of the history of conservatism. This is not a criticism of conservatism, but rather a historical fact. Rick Norwood 13:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Critics such as Rick Norwood argue that that Fascism is part of the history of Conservatism, citing the juxtaposition of alleged Fascist and Conservative elements in the Franco regime. keith 01:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The insertion of a Conservative/Fascist association (I just read) struck me as agenda based - which prompted me to read through the discussion to find out what was going on. Rick, I have to ask: 1) Did Jefferson own slaves? 2) Was Jefferson a Liberal? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then bound by your logic you must have concluded that Liberals are racists and endorse slavery - not as a criticism of Liberalism, but rather as historical fact. I jumped over to the Liberal article - and although I did see you as an active member of those discussions as well - I couldn't find this fundamental Liberal principle included. Of course, what must have happened is that since slavery is a thing of the past, any modern Liberal waxing on about the good ol' days of slavery would actually have to be a Conservative (per your argument in the section above). Even if it is nothing more than a case of unintentional cognitive bias on your part, I would politely ask that you (as a confessed "flaming liberal") defer a bit to conservatives to explain the conservative point of view. Phocion 06:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

First, let me suggest moving this discussion to the bottom of the page.

I did not write the section on Franco. I only defend it because it is historically correct.

1) Jefferson owned slaves. Without looking, I would be willing to bet that is mentioned in the article on Jefferson. 2) Clearly, Jefferson was a liberal, since he penned the words "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," making the change from the earlier "life, liberty, and property". Your conclusion does not follow. Nor does this article suggest that all conservatives are fascists nor than all fascists are conservatives.

If Franco was only incidentally both a Fascist and a conservative, just as Hitler was only incidentally both an antisemite and a vegitarian, then the section should not be in the article. But Fascism, as the name of the movement suggests, harked back to the glories of the Roman Empire, when the lictors carried fasces (rods) before the Emperor. In other words, the philosophy specifically embraces the supposed superiority of a past form of government.

Now, I know that many conservatives do not consider the dictionary definiton of conservative to be correct, and certainly dictionary definitons can get things wrong. But almost everything I have read on conservative values emphasizes the superiority of the morals, life styles, government, and religion of the past as superior to that of the present day. The only exception I can think of is those utopian libertarians who embrace conservatism as a route toward diminished government. Rick Norwood 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds exactly the textbook definition of reactionary. Hence I would suggest putting such information on that page, then the degree to which reactionaries are conservatives can be discussed here on a theoretical level if necessary. Continued below as suggested.. keith 18:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but it would seem that the sentence "It is the degree of political taboo, rather than inherent ideological incompatibility, that determines the overlap between 'respectable' conservatives and the right." is POV. In its context it implies that as a rule conservatives do not have any ideological qualms about the tragedies mentioned prior to this quotation such as "brutal repression of African decolonisation." In short, this line implies that all conservatives are morally reprehensible, if not simply monsters.

I concur with original author of this section, this page is not NPOV, it needs a critique. If liberalism has a critique, then conservatism needs a critique.

Certainly, the quote above is POV and badly written and does not belong in the article. Rick Norwood 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Netherlands

I removed this sentence: "In the Netherlands, for example, defenders of ‘Dutch tolerance’ as a traditional national value and Islamic supporters of Sharia law both call themselves conservatives."

It's nonsense. The only people in The Netherlands who call themselves conservatives are the people from the Edmund Burke Foundation. They are not supporters of 'Dutch tolerance'. No Muslim in the Netherlands call himself a conservative, although ignorant people in the media sometimes do.

Moreover, the sentence didn't add anything of substance to the article.

Gas

• The revered Conservative Winston Churchill wrote in the 1920's that he was "strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.", and did in fact authorise use of poison gas in Iraq.

I've a vague memory that Richard Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation" says that WC advocated it, but not that he authorised it. Even if he did, I'm not sure it's completely relevant to this article. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. "you should certainly proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them." Fisk cites p 1190 Martin Gilbert's Winston s. Churchill 1917-1922 Companion Volume IV.

You can read more at http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/01/19-0947-1272.html and I recommend you do. It is all very interesting, but I still don't see that it has any place in this article. Maybe somewhere else. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The definition of conservative.

"there is NOTHING held common among all conservatives. Can my point be made any more clear? -- 2nd Piston Honda"

If what Piston Honda says is true, then the word is meaningless, and the entire article pointless. I happen to be one of those people who think words have meanings. But words only have meanings if people agree on what those meanings are. In order to preserve some sort of meaning to words over time, we have dictionaries. The dictionary nearest to hand, The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "Conservative 1. preservative, 2. disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions."

Now, wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so the article does not stop with that definition, but goes on to discuss how various major writers have used the word, and how the meaning of the word has changed over time.

In the mass media the word "conservative" has indeed lost its meaning. To Rush Limbaugh it means "right thinking person". To Al Franken it means "blithering idiot". But neither of those "definitions" is appropriate to an encyclopedia article. Sure, a lot of people call themselves "conservative" or "liberal" without really thinking about what that implies. To some conservatives, "conservative" just means "my side". And a lot of people call other people "conservative" without thinking, meaning simply "the other side". People tend to take sides. But, again, that has nothing to do with rational discussion.

There really is a point of view, historically called conservative, held by intelligent people who are serious about ideas. That is what this article is about. Rick Norwood 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a conservative POV, but it is NOT Universal. As an example, within the English and Canadian tradition there is a concern about the total cost of capitalist economics that is largely absent from US-style Conservatism. And that is the point; Conservatism is PARTICULAR to the nation it emanates from - and it is NOT Universal. The only Universal traits may be the wish to preserve that which is good, and reform that which needs to change within the context of local, regional, and national constitutions, laws, traditions, customs, and conventions. TrulyTory 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, there are differences between conservative parties in different countries. That is why several articles on concervatism in various countries were split off from this article. On the other hand, political thinkers and historians use the word conservative to describe writers such as Confucius, Cicero, Burke, and Buckley. These people have in common either a desire to preserve the existing social order or a desire to return to an ideal social order of the past. That conservatism is the subject of this article. For political as opposed to philosophical or sociological conservatism, the reader is referred to the use of the word in various countries. Rick Norwood 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the word by itself is meaningless. However, the word within various contries does have meaning. THEREFORE a disambig article is perfect for this situation. How can people object to making this totally transparent and honest instead of the propaganda that it currently is? What is there to lose? -- 2nd Piston Honda 02:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think something in this article is propaganda, propose it for deletion. I explained above why an article on conservative philosophy is important, and how conservative philosophy differs from conservative politics. The word "conservative" has a perfectly good dictionary meaning. What is your objection to an article on conservative in that sense of the word? Rick Norwood 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to Rick's post about the Merriam-Webster definition of conservatism, it is in fact: [1]

Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism

Function: noun

1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party

2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

I believe many of us here have been arguing the article should be on those principles that fulfill the "capitol C" definition, #1. Not #'s 2 and 3 which are completely covered with simple dictionary definitions, and not worthy of an entire article, any more than a definition on the adjective "happy" need go in to depth on all the alleged happy people in the history of the world (Note that the definition of conservative, not -ism, is effectively the same). keith 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

reactionary

Interesting point about reactionary. Here is what wikipedia has to say about that.

"Reactionary (or reactionist) is a political epithet typically applied to extreme ideological conservatism".

So, yes, I would agree that Franco was a reactionary.

Let me mention the broader question that concerns me. Everyone likes to hear good things about things they identify with and hates to hear bad things. Therefore we have, for example, people of certain nationalities who try to hide anything bad that their nation has ever done, and exagerate the good.

There is a dark side to conservatism -- just as there is a dark side to America. I don't want wikipedia to go overboard in emphasizing the dark side of any subject, but I also want to avoid a whitewash.

Though personally a liberal, which means I favor freedom and equality of opportunity, I can see many good things about conservatism. But there are conservatives to whom conservatism means favoring the upper class, the white race, the Christian religion, the male gender, and the heterosexual orientation. Franco, with his compulsary Catholocism, his anticommunism, and his persecution of homosexuals, fits into that tradition. And I could easily name contemporary conservative spokespersons who carry on that tradition. I am NOT saying all conservatives are like that, but I do believe that the number who are in that camp is not small. Rick Norwood 18:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My statement on reactionism prophesized your desire to argue the connection to conservatism and as I suggested, that can be discussed at a theoretical level. With two degrees of separation, naming fascism on those grounds is not relevant to this article's subject. While you're at it I suggest you take your views on the "dark side" to the Islam article. That should be fun. keith 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since a "reactionary" is a kind of conservative, or so I gather, there are no degrees of separation. I don't know much about Islam, but I trust the article on the subject has plenty to say about the "dark side". In any case, making this a good article and making Islam a good article are independent projects. Rick Norwood 19:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the history of Islam article is a whitewash. Sad. But it is not a subject I know much about. Rick Norwood 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of arguing the extreme stuff in a reactionism section. It can also go along with a distinction between status quo and the past, which this article generally misses. keith 02:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Though personally a conservative, which means I favor freedom and equality of opportunity … (hey, wait a minute … isn’t that what you said it means to be a liberal?). Is it possible that conservatives and liberals can have the same principals? Of course it is, because conservatism (the opposite of which is radicalism – not liberalism) is centered more on the means than the end.

Burke’s ideal of statesmanship decidedly avoids both extremes of reckless change and resisting change at all cost – "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve" (the classical definition of true conservatism). Conservatives simply take a pragmatic approach to change that weighs the long-term and collateral effects of change and tend to tether their actions to established rules or traditions of affecting change in that particular society.

In Burke’s words: "By a slow but well-sustained progress, the effect of each step is watched; the good or ill success of the first gives light to us in the second; and so, from light to light, we are conducted with safety through the whole series."

His notion of a ‘social contract’ was a long-term partnership: "... a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born."

So, Rick, you and I are at odds less because you are "Liberal" and more because you are "flaming".

I agree that their can be derivatives of classical conservatism worthy of outline in this article. The ‘stand-pat’ conservative is so risk adverse or satisfied with the status quo that he resists all change. The ‘reactionary’ conservative only seeks to undo a specific change. But these derivatives should not muddy the classical definition. Nor should there be an attempt to lump anyone who makes reference to the past in promoting their other views as a conservative. Hitler and the Nazi movement was steeped in the Wagnerian imagery highlighting Germany’s illustrious past, not because they had anything to do with conservatism, but because it was a great marketing wrapper to distract from a twisted and radical core agenda - somewhat akin to modern American Liberal tactics to gain power.

Anyway, in an attempt to offer something by way of improving this article, I have to agree that the best course would be to shorten it considerably and treat it as a prologue to the much wider application and impact of conservatism – relying primarily on links to articles that can go substantially deeper into each derivative aspect of:

1. Streams of thought (fiscal, social, religious, paleo, neo, etc.) and,

2. Regional and Party (the capital “C”) movements

Phocion 22:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I can almost always get along with intelligent conservatives, since I share many of their values.

In fact, I was agreeing with everything you said, right up until the comparison between the tactics of the Nazis and modern American Liberals.

But, I'm back to agreement when you say that the article is better shorter. Most articles are. Rick Norwood 21:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Long sentences.

Would the author of the recent edit please rewrite his sentences to make them shorter. For example:

"These custodians can be, depending on the religion in question, relatively centralised, such as the case of the Catholic church, for example, or relatively de-centralised as in the case of Islam and other religions where there is no single supreme authority equivalent to the Pope or Dalai Lama, but rather authority is distributed among a learned class or caste, leaving it to individual believers to choose their own spiritual leader based on their inclinations, capacities and personal needs."

Rick Norwood 15:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The history of conservatism.

While the current version is good in its treatment of conservatism during the Enlightenment, it ignores what every Enlightenment philosopher was acutely aware of -- the debate about conservatism by Roman writers, especially Livy and Cicero. In particular, no Enlightenment writer would have said:

Although political thought, from its beginnings, contains many strains that can be retrospectively labeled conservative, it was not until the Age of Reason, and in particular the reaction to events surrounding the French Revolution of 1789, that conservatism began to rise as a distinct attitude or train of thought."

They all knew Latin, and most of them knew Greek. Rick Norwood 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rick, it would help if you could cite some specifics and not just your hypothesis of 18th century reading and writing habits. But to that well of knowledge you can add the fact that most important books of study were available in common tongue by that period.

We could, surveying the course of 6000 years of recorded history, exhaustively cite all of those who have made mention of:

1. society as complex,

2. man’s imperfect nature,

3. the fallibility of reason and a distrust of the abstract,

4. inequality and the need for order among men – along with rebukes of all forms of tyranny,

5. humility, civility, and measure in the face of arrogance, discord and haste, or

6. any reference to tradition, custom, or religion while defending anything

However, none of that would change the fact that is was not until Burke that the collection of ideas, in and of itself, gained a consciousness, became a topic of reflection and debate, and gave birth shortly thereafter to the word “Conservatism”.

That said, I would certainly like to see much more referencing used in objectively delineating the views, resulting principles, and criticisms of conservatism in this article (Cicero, an undeniable influence during the Enlightenment, included). It would, among other things, result in a stronger foil against POV and original research. I only hope that it be done in such a way as to clarify the salient points and not just provide another spattering of fyi. Phocion 01:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Livy's History of Rome is essentially the story of the struggle between liberalism and conservatism. I'll just offer a few quotes, more or less at random. "True moderation in the defence of political liberties is indeed a difficult thing: pretending to want fair shares for all, every man raises himself by depressing his neighbor..." "...when a tribune demanded a reason for keeping plebeians out of the consulship, Curtius, on the spur of the moment, said it was because only the nobility enjoyed the privilege of 'taking the auspices' -- or ascertaining, by certain ceremonies, the will of heaven..." "The hostility of the tribunes and the commons against the nobility was again on the increase; prosecutions of one or another member of the aristocratic party were continually reducing the public assemblies to uproar, and party strife of the most embittered kind seemed inevitable."

Let's see, that takes care of most of your six points. There is no doubt that President Bush is familiar with Livy, since the use of religion to acquire power, and the use of foreign wars to keep power, are spelled out in some detail. Rick Norwood 13:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference to British conservatism is, in my opinion, defective.

I suggest the following:-

"The old established form of English, and after the Act of Union, British conservatism was the Tory Party. It reflected the attitudes of a rural land owning class, and championed the institutions of the monarchy, the Anglican Church, the family, and property as the best defence of the social order. In the early stages of the industrial revolution,it seemed to be totally opposed to a process that seemed to undermine some of these bulwarks. The new industrial elite were seen by many as enemies to the social order.

Sir Robert Peel was able to reconcile the new industrial class to the Tory landed class by persuading the latter to accept the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. He created a new political group that sought to preserve the old status quo while accepting the basics of laissez-faire and free trade. The new coalition of traditional landowners and sympathetic industrialists constituted the new Conservative Party.

Benjamin Disraeli gave the new party a political idealogy. As a young man, he was influenced by the romantic movement and the then fashionable medievalism, and developed a devastating critique of industrialism. In his novels he outlined an England divided into two nations, each living in perfect ignorance of each other. He forsaw, like Marx, the phenomenon of an alienated industrial proletariat.

His solution involved a return to an idealised view of a corporate or organic society, in which everyone had duties and responsibilities towards other people or groups. This one nation conservatism is still a very important tradition in British politics. It has animated a great deal of social reform undertaken by successive Conservative governments."

If no-one objects, I will add this, and possibly more later about Randolph Churchill, Macmillan, and Thatcher. --Train guard 12:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of proposed rewrite

Your proposed rewrite has a number of awkward phrases. May I suggest the following revision:

My response in brackets.--Train guard 11:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"The old established form of English conservatism (after the Act of Union, British conservatism) was the Tory Party. It reflected the attitudes of a rural land-owning class, and championed the institutions of the monarchy, the Anglican Church, the family, and property as the best way to preserve the social order. In the early stages of the industrial revolution, it often opposed industrialization. The new industrial elite were seen by many as parvenus.

(It must be stated why they opposed industrialisation. 'Parvenu' means something very different to what I was saying. They thought that the industrial elite were the enemies of all that they held dear.)

Sir Robert Peel was able to reconcile the new industrial class to the Tory landed class by persuading the latter to accept the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. He created a new political group that sought to preserve the old status quo while accepting the basics of laissez-faire capitalism and free trade. The new coalition of traditional landowners and sympathetic industrialists constituted the new Conservative Party.

Benjamin Disraeli gave the new party a political idealogy. As a young man, he was influenced by the romantic movement and the then fashionable medievalism, and developed a devastating critique of industrialism. In his novels he outlined an England divided into two nations, each living in perfect ignorance of each other. He forsaw the phenomenon of an alienated industrial proletariat. His solution involved a return to an idealised view of an organic society in which everyone had duties and responsibilities.

This one-nation conservatism is still an important tradition in British politics; it has animated many of the changes made by Conservative governments."

(Not any change, but social reform. That's the point.)

Rick Norwood 16:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is "anti-spiritual" neutral?

Nobody seems to have complained, so perhaps this is just picking nits, but the following passage sounds kind of judgmental:

"Radical movements within established religious traditions illustrate the paradoxical method by which branches of religious conservatism can emerge that, rather than trying to preserve an existing, generally conservative, social order, seek to overthrow that order in the name of a puritanical ideal, and enforce adoption of a perceived 'pristine' form of the religion, usually consisting of a highly literalist, legalistic and, in some cases anti-spiritual core of traditions, values, worldview, and lifestyle. This radical or revolutionary movement is usually a reaction against perceived abuses, corruption, or heresy within the existing tradition. One example of such a movement was the Protestant Reformation."

Would anyone like to comment? Is this in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view?

Clearly, this is very POV. Why don't you rewrite it to make it more NPOV? Rick Norwood 13:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

THE INTRO MAKES NO SENSE

i just read it and i dont get it, what do conservatives like? reform? idk, it has to be cleaned up and made easier to understand.

Hardly. The introduction makes perfect sense - unless you have a comprehension problem, that is. This is an article about the idea of conservatism which varies by Country and Culture as a tradition of thought and as a disposition. It is not a universal school of political thought like liberalism and socialism. It is a particularist disposition, and as such the introduction is perfectly stated. Finally ... TrulyTory 12:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

criticism section

In my opinion, the critcism section is factually incorrect. Both conservatives and liberals tend to believe in similar outcomes or goals such as minimizing poverty. The difference is the means. Liberalism advocates raising taxes, distributing money to the "less fortunate", establishing quotas, creating government housing, food, and health care. Conservatism advocates economic growth to increase the number of jobs, disincentives to not working/saving/taking care of oneself, and individual responsibility. Of corse the aspect about the "racism" has to go... definately POV and not an accepted position (sure the left may makes these claims, but I would not go onto the liberalism page and state that conservatives think that liberals are retarded--even if they do). ER MD 08:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it several times and don't want to be put in the position of being the sole person reverting. It is absolute trash; unreferenced, point of view and not at all relevant to classical conservative philosophy (= this article). I honestly think there needs to be a link / explanation in relation to American Conservatism at the top. michael ^talk 09:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Also there is not a parallel section in liberalism. In my opinion, the "conservatism" and "liberalism" positions are both excellent opinions. A good example is economic conservatism, and economic liberalism. While it sounds like they should be conflicted, economic conservatism argues (according to wiki) that government should not tax and spend more than its means, whereas "economic liberalism" argues for lasie-farie (or however you spell it) economics outside of governmental control... Two different philosophies with essentially the same means and ends. Of course, any real economic discussion is based on the difference between monetary policies.. i.e. Kaynes versus Friedman. ...liberals following Kaynsian economics and conservatives following Friedman monitarianism. ER MD 09:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The section parallel to this one in the liberalism article is titled "comparative critiques". I agree that the deleted section should go, but for a different reason from those given above. It addresses modern American conservatism, not conservatism in general. The objections to it above have the same problem. This is a very transient and narrow view of a very broad subject. Rick Norwood 15:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section simply does not make sense in context. This article is about conservatism in the sense of Burke, the criticism is criticism of conservatism in the sense of Rush. They are ships that pass in the night. Please, instead of restoring an inapt criticism, provide some apt, and referenced, criticism. It isn't as easy, but a little hard work never killed anybody (except John Henry).

For starters, I suggest quoting the many Berkian conservatives who argued that the upper class was naturally superior to the working class, and ought by right to be the class favored by government. Rick Norwood 21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Response

You are free to edit the section, and I suggest you do if you feel it is "absolute trash" (I would refrain from using the word "absoute", though), but in the spirit of neutrality, this section does not have the right to exist without such a section, again, all perspectives must be adequately represented. Again, you can help by editing the section to what you feel is the most acccurate description, but I will dispute the neutrality of the article until the section is a permanent entity here. We have to play by the rules.

There you go... a broad description of criticism. Still needs some work, but is overall much better than the previous one. Examples are few since an exhaustive list of soapbox issues is not appropriate. The better explanation is defining the differences in ideology which leads to differences on social issues. ER MD 21:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "there is general agreement across cultural lines on the definition of conservative and liberal." is part of the new "criticism of conservatism" section. This is patently false. For example, is there "general agreement across cultural lines" that the wearing of veils by women is a conservative position? Instead of reverting, I'm going to see if the section can be salvaged. Rick Norwood 23:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not changing my words, the section is absolute trash and I have again removed it. If you want to critique what your own definition of conservatism is, do it elsewhere. If you want to rave on about separation of church and state / nationalism / big business / racism they have nothing to do with this philosophy and it is a joke to label it as being so. If you can find appropriate and intelligent means to critique the classical conservative philosophy do so, but from what I have read (both here on this talk page and through the addition) someone has not even read the article and understood the definition of conservatism - if they did they would not be adding this trash. michael ^talk 01:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section is a valid section and I attempted to explain the differences in how the two groups approach the problem. As an example, the conservative side tends to argue for individual rights and for equality in terms of means. The liberal perspective argues in terms of end results irrespective of means (such as affirmative action). Those perspectives are historical applications of the philosophy, and the use of examples in modern day life are germaine to its criticism. The previous section was junk and I deleted it myself one time, and then I wrote a balanced explanation of the conservative critique. As for the arguments opposed to my insertion of text: "veils by women". Is this all you could come up with? ..because that argument makes no sense. Under what other society would veils be considered liberal? And as for Michael, since he understands conservatism so well, why don't you write the section? In my opinion, the major differences is the 1) "ends versus means" idea with liberals often supporting ends and conservatives supporting means. 2) the idividual versus groups outcomes 3)conflict between individual rights versus societal standards and stability. Etc...

Those who think I was writing about some special interest are grossly mistaken... you should read it before deleting it, because some pinko will continue to put a biased position piece into the final section. Why not write a section that adequately reflects current conflicts with the "classical" concept of conservatism. It does exist... Maybe I will revise my original. ER MD 09:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pinko? I attempted a broader view, carefully referenced, but it was deleted. The problem with your section is that it concentrates entirely on modern American conservatism. Those criticisms should be (and are) in the article on American conservatism.

Since you did not understand my comment about "veils by women" I will be happy to explain. You maintained that "there is general agreement across cultural lines on the definition of conservative and liberal." As a counterexample, I offered the wearing of veils by women, which is a big issue for conservatives in the Moslem culture but a non-issue for conservatives in the American culture. Dozens of other examples spring to mind, where there is not a general agreement across cultural lines on the definition of conservative and liberal. As another example, you will note from the conversation above that most American conservatives think the US Press shows liberal bias, while most Europeans think that the US press shows conservative bias. Your definition of conservative and liberal depend on where you stand. Your position, of course, is the correct one. Therefore conservative is any position to the right of yours and liberal any position to the left. Move a few steps in either direction, and your definitions change. Rick Norwood 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on your above statements, it would be impossible to critique the philosophy. I disagree. The veils of women would be universally viewed as a conservative position. In muslim nations, it is the conservatives who want the veils on. In the US, we view that as an extreme form of conservatism. I would doubt that there are people who would argue that the wearing of veils is a form of liberalism. Hence, the argument against cultural aspects of conservatives is more retained accross cultural line. In fact I made references to the relative nature of conservatism. My example was of "conservatives" in a communist county who support retention of communism (a liberal position). Your example of europe thinking that that US press is conservative does not violate my statement along cultural lines. That example is on political lines. Finally, to argue that the critique of conservatism that has some overlap with American conservatism is a only a critque of American conservatism is a fallacy. Most of the criticisms of conservatism is along cultral line. In fact, we as conservatives (and virtually every non-muslim nation in the world) criticize Islam for its treatment of women as being too conservative. Agruing that the criticism of concervatism as a "classical" concept is too limiting and might be even viewed from the perspective of development of thought. There is modern criticism of conservatism, and it can be addressed. If a conservative writes the criticism, then it will be a better representation. Such as, countering social liberalism with social conservatism and making the point of societal standards of stability and efficiency (such as to expalain why we think some social concepts go too far liberal). ER MD 19:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Conservatism

Most controversial articles in Wikipedia have a criticism section. The important thing is that the criticism be sourced and stick to the subject. The previous criticism section got blanked because it belonged in the American conservatism article, not here. After some thought, I've restored my own version, which is sourced, and which only mentions American conservatism in the final paragraph, and there does not mention any of the hot button topics in the modern culture wars, except for the graduated income tax. Please discuss and improve this section, rather than simply deleting it. Rick Norwood 13:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tags up.

"In many historical situations, the young and the disadvantaged have struggled against a conservatism supported by the old and the upper class" - Conservatism as a philosophy has nothing to do with class.

No, but the upper class has the most to gain by preserving the status quo and the lower classes the most to gain by change.

"For example, in Athens in 399 BC, the philosopher Socrates was put to death on the charge that his teaching corrupted the young, by giving them new ideas. In Livy's History of Rome are countless examples of the patrician class invoking tradition and the gods to hold power over the plebeian class, who cried out for land and for relief from debt." - Again, nothing to do with class. In addition, you seem to imply that conservatism is wholly against change.

The implications, which are Plato's and Livy's implications, not mine, are that conservative philosophy, in trying to conserve "traditional" values, often opposes new ideas and changes in the traditional social structure.

"Conservatives are often criticized for invoking religion and patriotism as a cover for self-interest. Samuel Johnson wrote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundral," and Karl Marx said, "Religion ... is the opium of the people." Many a populist politician in modern times has stirred the voters to a patriotic fervor and then acted only to benefit himself and his cronies." - Why the attack on religion and nationalism? (aren't you supposed to be attempting to critique conservatism?) Conservatism as a philosophy has nothing to do with nationalism or religion. Also, you seem to parallel American Conservatism by implying this. If a society is socialist, then conservatism in that society would be the conservation of socialism. Scoundral = Scoundrel

Conservatism often strongly supports preservation of religious and nationalistic values. Of course, what those religious and nationalistic values are vary from nation to nation and time to time. But I doubt that Samuel Johnson or Karl Marx had American conservatism in mind when they made their famous remarks. Thank you for catching my spelling error.

"In America, many critics of conservatism see it as the enemy of freedom and equality. During the heyday of liberalism, between 1933 and 1969, there were efforts on the part of the federal government to provide for the general welfare, to replace the aristocracy by a meritocracy, by means of competative admission to college and by civil service examinations, to aleviate inequalities of wealth by a graduated income tax, to end the tradistional disenfranchisement of Blacks in the South, and to open more occupations to women." - American Conservatism.

American conservatism is one form of conservatism mentioned in the article, therefore discussion of it is not off limits unless that discussion focuses on it to the exclusion of other forms of conservatism. All triple indents above by Rick Norwood 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

michael ^talk 13:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the section that I wrote: (please ID POV or wrong statement)

Criticism of conservatism is relativistic since arguments may be specific to either cutural, traditional, economic, or governmental issues. As an example, conservatives in a communist country may act to preseve communism, whereas that position viewed from the outside is labeled as a liberal position. In terms of cultural issues, the criticism of conservatism is more uniform since there is general agreement across cultural lines on the definition of conservative and liberal.

The most common area in which conservatism is criticized in is in relationship to social issues. Such issues involve the rights of individuals, groups, and the relationship of those to a governmental and economic structure. Frequently, the differences between groups is cited by socialists and/or liberals as an indication of injustice in society. Sometimes, the difference between these groups is often perceived by the means by which social change is acheived. The premise for many of these claims is based on how the different groups view the concepts of fairness and equality. Addressing economic disparities, the conservative position would argue that the economic "means" be equal for all groups and the resulting disparities are the result of free markets. The liberal perspective would argue more on the "ends" stating that disparities need to addressed to attain equality across society. Therefore, the the two groups have differing perspectives on fairness and equality. A position which may be perceived as fair to one groups may not be perceived as equal to the other. Likewise, the other groups equality may not be fair to the other group. A good example of this is quotas. In an attempt to attain equlity, a liberal position is to support affirmative action. Yet, conservatives argue that the process of discriminating between groups to attain equality may be viewed as unfair to the groups not getting "preferential treatment." Likewise, the religious or value conservative support of traditional societal roles is perceived by liberals as discriminatory in process on such issues as gender equality, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage.ER MD 19:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer in your first paragraph does not change the fact that such issues as free markets, affirmative action, gender equality, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage are all very topical and are criticisms of modern conservatism having nothing to do with conservative philosophy in general. Rick Norwood 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely... Conservatism here is a philosophy. Not a bunch of petty single-issue political stands (equality, free markets, whatever). You are approaching it completely wrong - again, go to American Conservatism or elsewhere if you want to argue single-issue political stands. Your criticism section is an absolute joke and unrequired. michael ^talk 00:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As a philosophy, would you say that it cannot be criticized? That makes no sense. And claiming that it is a philosophy as a reson for its impunity in positions that differ from conservatism is a non-sequitur. Sure there is a historical aspect about conservatism as in Burke and his ideas, but that is not the sole exclusive concept. I don't know your education in this area, but I still have not heard a cogent argument other than "go look at american conservatism." But then again, I'm a doc but read about econ and politics all the time so you should be able to school me in this area if this is really your expertise. Logically, any philosophy that discusses political structure will have political issues. The claim that single issues do no belong here may be valid, but to argue that these are exclusive to only American conservatism is actually pretty naive. Do you not think that these issue (such as quotas or affirmative action in malaysia against the Chinese) occur elsewhere on the planet? Also statements about affirmative action not having issues with conservative philosophy does not make sense. If conservatism seeks to preserve optimal functioning of society based on past experiences, doesn't that argue against affirmative action? Seems logical to me. In addition, there are whole pages dedicated to criticism of socialism. Would you argue that that should not exist? As the criticism section is currently writen (i.e. scatterbrain), it probably should be removed--it was painful to read. As for my input here, I will waste my free time elsewhere... I don't think you two approach things logically which is especially painful since I pride myself on being a conservative yet dislike irrationality on my party's side much more than the retards on the left. ER MD 07:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We have here three distinct opinions about this section. ER MD deleted my historical and referenced criticism of conservatism and argues in favor of a criticism of such modern issues as affirmative action. beneaththelandslide argues, correctly, that narrowly focused criticism of specific issues belong in the subject article in question, not in the article on conservative philosophy. Historically, the criticisms of conservative philosophy usually were aimed at the fact that the philosophical arguments in favor of the status quo, or the status quo ante, were often made by people whose self interest was involved.

Please, let's keep the discussion polite and work to improve the section rather than deleting. Rick Norwood 12:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but the upper class has the most to gain by preserving the status quo and the lower classes the most to gain by change.

I'm not sure this is an accurate characterization of conservatism. I think both liberals and conservatives see that change is inevitable and often necessary. The two differ on what types of changes are needed, and what entities are responsible for the changes. To bring class into the discussion muddies the issue and brings clear bias into the discourse. Dubc0724 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Because "social class" is seen as unamerican, most American conservatives try to distance themselves from the roots of conservatism in preserving the class structure, at least when there are servents listening. But I grew up in a conservative family, and so I know how they talk when there is nobody around who isn't upper class. For example, I was taught as a child that Was it just the conservatives at the country club my grandparents were members of? I don't think so. Consider how many conservatives still belong to country clubs that are "white only" (and Jews and Hispanics are not considered "white" in this context). Consider that FDR, the founder of modern American liberalism, was called "a traitor to his class". And recently on a chat room, I was informed that liberalism is "low class". What did conservatives call Bill Clinton? They called him "trailer trash". He wasn't "one of us". Read Buckley's "God and Man at Yale". The roots of conservatism in preserving the class system run deep, and it does no good to say that that is not what you mean by conservativism. I believe you. But it is what a lot of very rich Republicans mean by conservatism. Rick Norwood 20:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

POV problems with "often criticized" (by whom), "for self-interest" (citation), "Many a populist politician" (citation), "and then acted only to benefit himself and his cronies", (citation) "many critics of conservatism" (citation) "During the heyday of liberalism" (citation) "there were efforts" (citation) "to replace the aristocracy by a meritocracy" (POV and citation)...in short, this is a biased, editorial article. Don't post again. Thanks.Scribner 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with above. Reference an article that has a critique of conservatism and don't place your opinions there. It obvious that at least 4 people have disagreed with your assertions. Do you intend to try and replace it every day after another person deletes it? Seems to me like a lot of work not your part. This is not a place for your soapbox. If you grew up in a family that stated "working class people have no more sensitivity than a toilet seat", you didn't grow up in a conservative family, you grew up in a family full of bigots and idiots. Yikes, read your opinion piece again...and all I can say is that your opinions are fringe.ER MD 07:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I already comprehensively ripped the section to bits earlier (and then Scriber did so again) so why is it still being put back in? References mean nothing when the text itself is point-of-view and absolutely rubbish. michael ^talk 13:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User Norwood, I've read your edit and if fails several standards of Wikipedia. Refresh yourself with the following: WP:AD WP:CITE and WP:REF. Please assume good faith and show good faith. Scribner 14:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That is always my intention, but I will reread the sections you suggest. Rick Norwood 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(The second and third links go to the same page.) Both of the links that Scribner suggests have to do with disputed accuracy. I don't think beneaththelandslide doubts the accuracy of my quotes, though I am providing footnotes just in case. I think the dispute is over whether or not some conservatives, at some point in history, have favored an upper class and an established religion. There are so many examples of this that to maintain otherwise seems to me to be to confuse certain areas within modern conservatism with conservatism throughout history. There is, however, no use for us to just state our present understanding. References are necessary. I will provide them below. Rick Norwood 14:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely - can you please re-read the message I put on your talk page and make sense of it. As I said there "it honestly seems as if you have some vision of conservatism being simply aristocracy, nationalism, religion, inequality and unfree- you then critique it based on this vision". michael ^talk 14:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You assume that if I only understood what you are saying, then I would agree with it. Here is what I understand you to be saying: that conservatism is not simply support for the upper class and the established religion. Am I correct in understanding what you are saying? Rick Norwood 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick you are way off base with your writings. Here is a comparision on the philosophies. http://www.nhinet.org/raeder.htm ER MD 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick, thank you for enlightening us. I had no idea that only conservatives are wealthy. So Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, Bill Clinton, George Clooney, and George Soros are all dirt poor members of society's underclasses? Give me a break. Dubc0724 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs

First, "The traditional opposite of conservatism, therefore, is radicalism (not, as is often asserted, liberalism)." This sentence is unnecessary, and flame-bait. I'm sure it's absolutely true according to some serious scholars of conservatism, but it sounds so much like the hackneyed conservative goad "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a radical." It's just begging for an argument from anyone who isn't (and many who are) a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. Furthermore, while it may be true in some ivory-tower scholarship sense, it absolutely isn't true in terms of how the words "conservative" and "liberal" are used in everyday language.

Second, the first sentence of the second paragraph is great, but it goes downhill quickly from there. "Additionally, conservative 'means' are often combined with other ideological 'ends [...]'" is getting rather obscure for an introduction sentence. And "(e.g.: Conservative or Classical Liberal versus Radical Liberal)." Huh? First, "Classical Liberal" and "Radical Liberal" are obscure terms. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but these are (apparently) being used as an example to clarify a previous point (that's what "e.g." implies) Clarifying the obscure with an obscure example isn't good writing. And even after clicking on the Classical/Radical links, I still have no idea what this whole sentence means.

And lastly, the final sentence in the second paragraph gets us back into scholarly ivory tower territory. In the real world (and in the U.S.), most people use "left"/"right" as essentially synonymous with "liberal"/"conservative." It's fine for the article to expand on the shades of meaning that these various terms have, or have in certain circles, or can have, or have had in the past. But right now the tone is one of some high-falutin professor saying "Well, let me start by informing you that the way you have used these words throughout your life is wrong."

Anyhow, that's my $.02 on the introduction. The only part I'm going to change right now is the "The traditional opposite of conservatism..." sentence. I urge more interested parties to look at the rest of the introduction. KarlBunker 13:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments make sense. One of the biggest problem with serious political discussion is that many Americans do not distinguish between Republican, conservative, and right wing on the one hand and Democratic, liberal, and left wing on the other. An example is the oft cited academic study which claimed to show that the media had "left wing" bias because of the frequency with which they mentioned subjects on the Democratic platform. If the academics in question had put even a little thought into their "study" they would not have made this gratuitous identification.

Good luck in your efforts to improve the article. Rick Norwood 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Norwood, I find it interesting that you remove another person's edits saying its fixable, then write a section yourself which is far from adequate or accurate, and then someone deletes it you request that we work or it??? I'll insert my text later and get rid of your biased "critics of conservatism see it as the enemy of freedom and equality" later. That is complete bull and you obviously do not know how to write in an NPOV fashion. I think you have a big double standard and a POV issue here and potentially do not understand conservatism even from the Burke or Hayekn perspective. ER MD 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith and see if we can't work together on this. What do you see as major criticisms of conservatism that are not focused on the modern conservative movement in the United States? Rick Norwood 13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Using Edmund Burke critic and subjective opinion in the lead paragraphs is rediculous. Edmund burk was a Whig, the opposite of a Tori (Conservative party at the time).It is Outdated and Antique at best. It's like having Ted Kennedy describe the Republican Party and putting it in the into paragraph of Republican. And KarlBunker is absolutly right in his critic of the intro paragraph.It is so intelectually obscure! WOW! and I say that in a bad way. As Cpt. Hook would say "Poor Form"--MadDogCrog 08:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Fame, thou glittering bauble. In seeking for thee, what fame has Hook not lost?" It is the philosophical conservatives themselves who cite Burke as their leading light. It seems to me much more reasonable to trace philosophical conservatism to Confucius, Xenophon, and the Patricians of Rome. But that might strike you as even more intelectually obscure. Rick Norwood 13:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

that would at least show some "Development of thought" into the subject. More inclusions would bring insight into the actual development of conservatism, but now thes paragraph just focuses on Edmund Burks dissertations. The intellectually obscure part is not the use of Edmund Burks writing, but in the writers editing choices of his work, almost exclusive reference of his opinion and view, and the writers style in those first paragraphs. see also Karl bunkers critisism above. --MadDogCrog 10:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad honorifics.

I noticed that in the religious section he's referred to with a SAW. As a neutral source, I don't think Wikipedia needs to pay heed to a tradition that is only applicable to actual believers. Heck, the article on Muhammad refers to him without PBUHs or SAWs. I didn't revert it out myself because I didn't know if there was some carefully measured compromise behind this or the like. SnowFire 17:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in being polite. Other examples include capitalizing "God" and "Bible". Rick Norwood 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it's not a huge issue. But there's a big difference between those two examples; God refers to singular "person" and so should be capitalized just like Norma or Captain Scott would be capitalized. The Bible refers to a singular book's title, and again, nothing new there ("Principia," "Tao Te Ching"). (You may have a point about references to "He" capitalized, but I'll chalk that up to tradition.) This is a bit closer to, say, prefacing any reference to a Pope with "His Holiness" or a queen with "Her Majesty." Subjects to said King or Queen might have to do it, and practicing Muslims should always add the honorific for prophets, but Wikipedia doesn't have to.

Though not quite a perfect fit, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. The impression I get is that casual use of honorifics should be avoided unless the article is actually about that person, and even then, it should be within the article, not headlining it. SnowFire 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SnowFire. Honorifics should be removed in the name of objectiveness. Mau 11:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

more on criticism

I think it is best to discuss this here, instead of flipping back and forth between this page and my talk page. First, I replied to your comments at the time. Second, I am not ignoring your point of view, I'm disagreeing with it. Third, "absolute rubbish" is name calling, not discussion. Rick Norwood 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few quotes that are easy to find. I will provide more.

"What is conervatism? It it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" Abraham Lincoln.

"There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism, joined with a certain superiority in its fact." Ralph Waldo Emmerson

"A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." Benjamin Disraeli

Less ready to hand (in my office) are Livy's many comments on conservative Romans. I'll provide some of those on Monday, if you like. In memory, but hard to find, are comments by a conservative bourgeois small businessman about the necessity for sumptuary laws forbidding the proletariat from dressing like the bourgeoise, something to the effect that "nothing is so disgusting as having a conservation with a person only to discover he is of the working class".

Turning to the OED, Conservative with a capital C is "the most common current designation of one of the two great English political parties, the characteristic principle of which is the maintenance of existing institutions, political and ecclesiastical." One quote given to explain this usage: "Conservative and Liberal, as we ordinarily use the terms, are distinctions having reference to a particular practical struggle, the gradual substitution of government by the whole body of the people for government by the privileged classes."

Enough, I think, to show that my view of a certain form of conservatism is not unfounded. Rick Norwood 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I do hope the readers of the article see through the poor quality nonsense that is the criticism section. There can be no agreement without further input from others and no one has done so signiciantly. michael ^talk 15:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think ER MD strongly agrees with your point of view, but the important thing is not more opinions, but more references. I've offered references for my understanding of the question. Please offer references for your. I will read them carefully. Also, I understand the difficulty of proving a negative. Rick Norwood 15:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Scribner's objections

The current article was hammered out over a long period of time by liberals and conservatives working together and respecting each other's good faith. Instead of a blanket condemnation of the entire article, why not try to improve what we have through discussion.

Meanwhile, I am still working on adding all of the citations you requested. Rick Norwood 15:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

references, neutrality, and disputed

I have provided a number of references. Please let me know if more are desired. Also, please specify which statements in this article are not NPOV and which are still disputed.

A couple of comments. First, if I factually report that Smith says Jones is an idiot, this does not violate NPOV. If I say I agree with Smith, that violates NPOV. Second, it is not helpful to say something to the effect that everything is disputed. If everything is disputed, you should be able to cite one thing that is disputed, and that's a good place to start. Rick Norwood 17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research

Hey Rick, the Conservatism Criticism section is original research. It's neither representative of the good work you've done on this article nor is it neutral or factual. It comes across as a patchwork intended to prove a point. WP:NOR Scribner 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Then help me improve it. Criticism of conservatism exists. The sources I've quoted exist. They say what they say. If it comes across as a patchwork, or as something I just "thought up" rather than things I've read, then I would welcome a rewrite. Rick Norwood 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I almost encouraged you to seek another avenue to prove your point. I can't rewrite what's there to convey what you're attempting to convey. As it stands, right now, it's original research. Scribner 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of my points come from Livy's History of Rome and Machivelli's Discourses on Livy, but a lot of them come from the history of British conservatives, and from modern liberal commentators on modern conservatism. None of the points I make are original to me, though I can understand how they may sound original to a modern conservative if he has not read much history and gets his commentary exclusively from conservative sources. I think what would surprise modern conservatives most is the frankness with which the British Conservative party put forth their beliefs that the government should support the interests of the upper class. The upper class were obviously the best people, the lower classes needed religion and foreign wars to keep them distracted, while the government acted to protect upper class wealth and power. It is all laid out very clearly in the commentators on British politics, some of whom I've quoted, and in commentators on American politics. And yet I think a person could read this article without having the least idea of the origin of conservatism as a movement to conserve the power of the upper classes and the established religion. Rick Norwood 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick, again, the section as it stands is a patchwork attempt at original research, with POV problems. I'm very familiar with the quotes and as it stands it's not factual or neutral. Scribner 00:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

RN: an interesting link was provided by ER MD above. I am moving here so it can be more easily accessable. I recommend it. Rick Norwood 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ER MD: Rick you are way off base with your writings. Here is a comparision on the philosophies. http://www.nhinet.org/raeder.htm ER MD 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

RN: Now, compare the conservatism in ER MD's link to the conservatism here: http://www.afa.net My point is that both of these groups call themselves conservatives. Burke was a Whig, that is to say a liberal. The conservative party was the Tory party. In my continuing efforts to make the "criticism of conservatism" section NPOV, I will incorporate this information into that section. Rick Norwood 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The "Criticism of conservatism" section is not original research simply because it doesn't meet any of the criteria listed in WP:NOR#What_is_excluded. Everything in the section is quoted and referenced, and I see no attempt at "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case"; in fact, describing the section as a "patchwork" precludes exactly this kind of argument.

NPOV tag is even more ludicrous. Hint: the section's title is "Criticism of conservatism". I have removed both tags now. GregorB 12:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank all of you who have forced me to make the section on criticism of conservatism less POV and more well documented. I continue to work toward this goal. Rick Norwood 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You have no goal but an agenda "One strong strain of conservatism is the preservation of a state religion, a landed upper class, and a hereditary aristocracy" and are actively decreasing the quality of the article. You openly state your POV and then include it within the article. At a complete loss of words with regard to your actions. michael ^talk 15:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you doubt the statement, you need to read some history. I feel a little bit here the way I feel when I tell my friends and neighbors that the Theory of Evolution is real science. Their reply is very much to the effect that I have no goal but an agenda, and they are at a complete loss of words how anybody can think that there is any science behind evolution.

There is history behind the statement above, standard, well understood history. Since this history seems to be unknown to some, I will continue to document it, using standard, well known, sources. Rick Norwood 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Assume good faith, as I do. You are defending what you mean by conservatism. I am reporting criticism of a certain kind of conservatism. The current rewrite makes that more clear, I hope. It is important that this section demonstrate two things. First, that these are views of people who clearly support conservative beliefs and who played a major role in history. Second, that the criticisms are sourced and are contemporary with those criticized. Rick Norwood 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick, no uses of "for example", OK. That's original research. WP:NOR Scribner 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by no uses of "for example". I don't see any alternative to using examples. In any case, I'm glad to see only a partial deletion this time. In a spirit of compromise, I've only restored about half of what was deleted. Rick Norwood 22:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bumper Stickers As Reference Material

"For example, a conservative bumper sticker reads"..., This is new. Bumper stickers, blogs and forums aren't reputable reference sources.

Rick, here's how Jimbo Wales wants you to handle original research:

..."But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history"

Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" WP:NOR Scribner 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the bumper stick was a weak example. I'll find a better one. On the other hand Disraeli is certainly a major political figure. I've dropped the Marx quote, but kept Johnson. The examples of the use of patriotism and religion by conservatives to cover self-interest is important. I'm looking for better examples, though. The section on Burke is "work in progress". And, of course, I agree with the statement by Jimbo Wales that you quote. Everything is referenced; nothing is original with me. I continue to search for more neutral language and better references.

Since there is a section on American conservatism in the article, it is appropriate to have a section on American conservatism here, but I've cut it down to two external links. Let them fight it out. Rick Norwood 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

down the memory hole

I can understand that conservatives are uncomfortable with some facts about the history of conservatism, just as Americans are uncomfortable with some facts in American history, and Australians are uncomfortable with some facts in Australian history. The fact remains, these people were major conservative thinkers, and they are not going to go away just because you delete references to them. Rick Norwood 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You about done grinding that axe, Rick?

I have no axe to grind. I'm one of those weird souls who think there is such a thing as the truth, and I follow wherever it leads. When someone demonstrates that I'm wrong, I rejoice, because I learn something new. But blanking is not the same as demonstration. Rick Norwood 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't blank your entries; that was someone else. I just find it interesting that a liberal wants to be so involved with "defining" conservatism. Seems ripe for POV. Dubc0724 15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (oops)

Sign your comments with four tildes, please.

I've voted for liberals. I've voted for conservatives. Right now, I'm flying my liberal flag, primarily because of conservative distortions about science and history. Let the liberals come into power, and I may start flying my conservative flag. Rick Norwood 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote however you want; many of my personal beliefs probably resemble yours. But they're our personal beliefs. WP should not be used as a tool for political propaganda, left, right, whatever. Cheers! Dubc0724 15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I try to be careful not to put anything on Wikipedia that is not sourced from a major writer on the subject. Rick Norwood 15:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick, on this article section and on the American Conservatism criticism section you continue a campaign loaded with your own POV and NOR agenda. Show some good faith. Scribner 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are acting in good faith. Please credit me with the same. I can understand how, if you are not familiar with the standard history I reference, it can come as a shock. But it is standard history. You can bet George W. Bush learned it in prep school, and would find nothing in it original, remarkable, or exceptionable. Rick Norwood 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe using GWB's education isn't the best example ;-> Dubc0724 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I know you are just kidding, but George W. Bush has one of the best educations money can buy. He went to prep school at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. He has a B.A. in History from Yale University. He has the training to fly a F-102. He is fluent in Spanish. And he has a MBA from Harvard Business School. Furthermore, he has run up a nine trillion dollar debt and left you holding the tab. You tell me who is smart and who is stupid. Rick Norwood 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick you used a bumper sticker as reference material. Your search for material to prove your agenda is wearing thin. Stop including POV and NOR materials. Scribner 21:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the bumper sticker reference. I agree, it was a weak source. I will try to avoid such weak sources in the future. Rick Norwood 22:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please cease this nonsense Rick. Your edits are loaded and opinionated. michael ^talk 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I also find the Criticism section extraneous. In the abstract, few people are "against" Conservatism. Conservatism is merely a tendency to value the known good before lurching into the unknown; whether this is a wise idea or not depends on the circumstances. Just as few people are pro-crime but can differ over how best to fight it, conservatism and liberalism both are an attempt to find the "good," just preferring different places to look. Criticizing it in the abstract implies a severely bizarre worldview, more associated with fictional forces of nature than people- who would be in favor of scrapping known good establishments for worse new ones sheerly for the sake of change?

If the section were to continue, I would recommend keeping it to saying that many conservative movements have been shot through with religious and plutocratic elements who merely adopted conservatism as a guise for simple self-interest. That is a stone-cold historical fact, unless you commit the No true Scotsman fallacy ("They weren't really true conservatives!"). Then again, I think this is already reflected in the article. SnowFire 06:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether a person is "against" conservatism depends largely on what that person thinks about the values being conserved. Historically, conservatives have supported the existing class structure against egalitarianism, the existing religion against other religions and atheism, patriotism against internationalism, and conformity against non-conformity, and so the poor, religious minorities, internationalists, and non-conformists have often spoken out against conservatism. It seems only fair, to me, that these views should have a voice in a balanced article on conservatism. Your "No true Scotsman..." is a good example. I think the people who keep blanking this section believe that the conservatives criticized in the quotations are not "true conservatives". Rick Norwood 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick the section that keeps getting blanked are your personal attacks (POV) on conservatives. I can not improve or work with the tripe you've laid out. You've given reasons such as you daughter converting to Islam and the hell the other school kids put her through. You said you had to buy her a car just to get her to complete school. Unfortunate yes, but why drag it into a talk page? You've used a bumper sticker as reference material? --You said that the Iraq war should be included in the American Conservatism Criticism article. You hand pick a sentence that you like, then scamper off to find a couple of totally unrelated quotes to verify your claims. Take a break. WP:NOR POV Scribner 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be back in a few days to add mine...have to run, sorry. Scribner 15:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The section that gets blanked is carefully referenced and historically accurate. You need to distinguish between what is appropriate for a talk page and what is appropriate for an article. Have fun on your break. Rick Norwood 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(con't down here)
My point is this. This article begins with discussing conservatism in the abstract, then separates into discussions of specific instances of conservatism in history. Your current criticism section is almost entirely criticisms of specific movements with conservatism- Roman patricians, French royalists, American conservatives, etc. I feel that these statements, if kept at all, should be moved to their specific section. Unless they can be tied into a general, abstract criticism of conservatism (which perhaps might require examples), I can't see their relevance at the end, which seems to be about criticism of conservatism in general. There might be relevance if you could prove that all implementations of conservatism have inherently been "corrupt" in some way (as some argue against Communism by saying that all its examples failed), but that section doesn't seem to do that. You can't show a philosophy is wrong in general by pointing out a few specific instances where it was "wrong." SnowFire 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC

A request for comment has been filed relating to Rick Norwood's edits. Please leave comments there. michael ^talk 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick's section, possible replacement?

I figured it'd be easier to just show an example of what I was referring to above. The kind of "Criticism of Conservatism" section I'm imagining (should it even be kept), which focuses on the idea:

---

Critics of conservatism find the idea of tradition having any kind of vote in what is just or right ridiculous. History contains many societies whose tradition contains practices considered bizarre or evil today. If a visionary should recognize that something is wrong, why should there be any hesitance to abandon it? While non-conservatives may hope that their societies are "right," they find no fulfilling proof that a common practice is also a correct practice.

Critics also often find the conservative wariness over revolutionary change overly timid. While there are many examples of revolutions gone horribly wrong, there are also examples where they provided a useful "clean break" with the past, clearing away accumulated mistakes in one mighty shift. A positive example might be the American Revolution. The danger is also seen in reverse; a society in decline often needs to change quickly or else risk disaster, and conservative elements might slow things down to the point where it is too late. An example of this would be Easter Island, which was too slow to change its tradition of moai-building before deforesting the island, leading to an ecological collapse. Some environmentalists critisize conservatives today over such worries, that adopting change too slowly will lead to ruin.

Conservatism has also historically been abused as a guise for self-serving interests. Since conservatism demands a respect for tradition and hesitance of change, people in powerful positions have often advocated conservatism not because they believed its merits, but merely to keep themselves in power. Livy's History of Rome contains countless examples of the patrician class invoking tradition and the gods to maintain their hold on power over the plebeian class and preserve the status quo. Critics of conservatism would counsel that asking Cui bono in the case of conservative ideology is much more important than with other ideologies, due to conservatism's natural benefits for established power structures.

--

How's that? SnowFire 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your version is certainly much more critical of conservatism than mine. I don't think that conservatism is "ridiculous" or that tradition should be ignored, and none of the people I quoted thought that, either. It just seemed to me that the article, without this section, gives the impression that, as you put it, "In the abstract, few people are "against" Conservatism." That just isn't so, and I've quoted a few famous people who have voiced their concerns.

In most societies, there are winners and loosers. The winners tend to want to keep things as they are, and become conservative. The loosers want things to change, and are critics of conservatism. Historically, the loosers are usually people born to poor families, or people who do not subscribe to the majority religion, or people who were non-conformist in various ways, either by nature or by choice.

It seemed to me that scattering criticism throughout the article would make it choppy, and cause it to seem to argue with itself. A small section at the end, however, seems necessary for balance.

I like your Easter Island example. Rick Norwood 00:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say that it was ridiculous as a whole, merely that the link between "right" and "is current practice" isn't established to opponents in general, which is actually a reasonably small pool. Ideally I'd dig some sources up for later. And yes, few people are against conservatism to such a sweeping degree (I think I've seen it in the writings of some anarchists and the like who believe that society must continually be smashed to prevent it from rising again with stultifying conformity). That is my complaint about your current section; it features almost irrelevant specific instances that say nothing of a larger difference with conservatism. So American liberals criticize the American Family association- who cares?! Same with Disraeli's quote. I just don't see the connection. I'm not saying all the references need to move within the article; some can go into deeper sub-articles linked throughout the page, too.

Just because every person who tried to build a heavier-than-air airplane in the 1800's failed, it doesn't mean that it isn't possible to actually do it. While historical examples are great to illustrate a criticism, your current section is very short on actual criticism of Conservatism in general, which was theoretically the entire purpose. Just because the conservatives were the Bad Guys in year X doesn't mean that conservatism is wrong, or serve as a useful criticism of the concept in a vacuum. So Socrates got executed. Lots of people get executed in the French & Russian Revolutions, too. Can you prove that either conservatism or liberalism is more amenable to violence? If you could, does that even matter? Maybe, but you don't even make an attempt. We're left with the evil conservatives jealously executing Socrates. However, the Easter Island example I used (thanks for the compliment, of course) was directly tied into a fault with conservatism: conservatism doesn't like revolutions, but sometimes revolutions are necessary. Simple, and you can scroll back up to the top of the article to confirm and see that yes, conservatives prefer slow, consensual, organic change over revolutions. SnowFire 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that when you think of conservatism you think of the intellectual idea that cautious change is best. But, in any movement, intellectuals are a small minority. The vast majority of conservatives think that what they learned as children is right, and that all other views are wrong. Einstein put it best, I think, when he said that what most people call "common sense" is just what they learned before the age of twelve. Or, as the song from South Pacific puts it, "You've got to be taught, before it's too late, before you are six, or seven, or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate..." Of course, the intellectual conservatives don't (usually) turn conservative philosophy into hatred of people who are different or who want change. But read Livy's History of Rome, or listen to Rush Limbaugh, and you will see another side of conservatism. This article, rightly I think, concentrates on conservatism's better side. But to entirely ignore the other side of conservatism seems to me unbalanced, which is why I am spending so much time defending this short section. By the way, I'm not happy with it being called "Rick's section". A number of people have contributed to it. Rick Norwood 15:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In most societies, there are winners and loosers [sic]. The winners tend to want to keep things as they are, and become conservative. Conservatism and liberalism aren't about "winners" and "losers". The differences arise from what the role of government is in serving the public. You are trying to make the class warfare argument where conservatives are rich and powerful, and liberals are underprivileged and living at the mercy of "the man". This is a gross misrepresentation of both movements you are working to help "define" in their respective articles here. Dubc0724 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If I want to show some part of Quantum Physics I think is wrong, I don't quote a 17-year old on the Internet for the opposing side. I cite current journal-published research, and then how those methodologies could have been wrong, or the results misinterpreted. If I think Creationism is mistaken, I don't try and scientifically debate televangelists; I find the books written by the "Creation scientists" that have gotten the most respect, and show how even then their results are suspect. If I disagree with American conservatism at a high political-science level, I don't dismantle Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter's invective that passes as arguments; I use scholarly books by William F. Buckley or Milton Friedman.

Defeating low-lying fruit proves very little. If "that side of conservatism" (as you put it) is relevant, then every article on a philosophy can include a section where it is revealed that some people that support that philosophy probably can't defend it well and might support it for emotional or self-serving reasons rather than logical reasons. This isn't news, and it doesn't imply that the philosophy is wrong. (Again, it may be relevant historically and in specific sections, and it may be relevant if a movement is much more vulnerable to these subsections than other movements- which as I noted above may in fact be true of conservatism, but that isn't in the article currently- but it is not logically relevant.)

I suppose my complaint is that the current section (I only joined recently and assumed from talk that it was mostly yours- apologes if it isn't) lacks an overriding intellectual framework. What are these critics trying to say? Unlike others here, I have no problem with a criticism section, but I'm still unclear on what exactly its current purpose is. Let me be specific.

Conservatives often invoke religion and patriotism in support of their views.

So? What does this lead into? Socialists often invoke equality and fairness in support of their views. Theocrats often invoke morality and justice in support of their views. Is this bad for some reason? If so, why?

Benjamin Disraeli, himself a Tory, wrote, "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."

the English poet William Wordsworth wrote of the French revolution, "Bliss in that dawn it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven!"

So Disraeli disliked a conservative government of the time and Wordsworth liked the French revolution. Could well have been just pithy quotes. What's the context? Why are conservative governments organized hypocrisies? Even assuming he meant it, this feels like "he said, she said." A criticism section that basically says "Some people don't like conservatism. Here they are and some quotes of them dissing conservatism and celebrating liberalism" isn't very interesting. Even if it's well-sourced, finding out that people disagree with conservatism isn't nearly as useful as finding out why they disagree with conservatism. As it stands, the Criticism section is notably short on actual criticism and argument. SnowFire 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Norwood, I feel the need to expostulate your sophistic comments june 8th @1530 hour, in remonstance.

First your comment "The vast majority of conservatives think that what they learned as children is right, and that all other views are wrong." Shows your pathological negitive stereotype of conservatives in general. Any Social Scientist or Phsycologist will tell you most all people believe what they learned as children was correct and all other points of view or wrong. You were right in saying that Einstein put it best, but to reflect his thought as proof of your negetive stereotype was disengenuos at best.

Second Comment ” the intellectual conservatives don't (usually) turn conservative philosophy into hatred of people who are different or who want change. But read Livy's History of Rome, or listen to Rush Limbaugh, and you will see another side of conservatism.” Taken in retrospect with your previous comment ” I get the impression that when you think of conservatism you think of the intellectual idea that cautious change is best. But, in any movement, intellectuals are a small minority.” ---------These comment basically say that the common conservative is a hatefull person and that only Ivory Tower Intellectuals can understand it’s true meaning. (like yourself I presume). Also that only conservative ideaology is disengenuos! Well looking at political history and even contemporary parties and politics, that is extreamly laughable! Excuse me for being Glib here, but I do it to prove a point-------So obviosly conservatives are just another group of stupid people that the Ivory Tower Trotsky/Proggressive intellectuals need to tell what and how to live!

Third Mr. Limbough is a Social/ Political Commentator. He may well be a pompus ass (that would be my opinion), but to propagate the falacy that he and his Conservative Ilk promote hate is wrong. Hate and intollerance is not an affliction reserved for just the conservative persuasion. but reserved for those who lack the ability to listen, to reason, and change what was learned as a child, if reason leads in that direction.

I commend you on your hard work in WP. I am sure your writing ability is far supperior to mine, and just the fact that you are taking the time to and effort is greatly appreciated. I am sure your expertise in other subjects is grandiose. Your knowledge in politics in general I also will say is grandiose, but your obvious intolerance and partisanship is just to large to overcome. I hope you can take my comments and others with a little introspective look.

Criticism of conservatism belongs in the article if they are in the other political (affliction) articles. My criticism is geared to the whole article in general and I find it poorly written and POV.--MadDogCrog 09:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is very interesting to see a Wikipedia-article on conservatism primarily uses conservatives as examples of criticism of conservatism. I cannot but help to wonder if the next thing we see is a part in the Wikipedia-article on socialism where Karl Marx is used as one of the criticizers of socialism.

William Wordsworth indeed used to support the French Revolution, but after the menace of the Jacobites and Napoleon he turned conservative (being influenced by Edmund Burke, even writing a poem for him, called the Haunted Tree). Concerning Plato; his thought is one of the main pillars of conservatism. And if I’m correct, the sophists even called him a conservative (this ‘accusation’ could also have been targeted at Aristotle, thus correct me if wrong). Last but not least, Benjamin Disraeli his words are in the first place no criticism of the conservative ideology, and therefore not suited in the part on ‘criticism of conservatism’. His words were (probably) words of anger or frustration on the ruling government at that time. Why do I say this? For the very reason that after these words Israeli continued to be a (important) conservative, as he helped to create the modern Conservative Party in Britain.

Therefore, I can not but say this part of the conservative-article should need some editing. To be more concrete: the parts on Plato, Wordsworth and Israeli should be removed, or nuanced with the facts above. I really believe people are able to come up with better philosophical criticism of conservatism as an ideology; there are enough well-known philosophers who critisized conservatism. Sincerely, Averroes 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms from Plato, Wordsworth, and Gladstone were offered in hopes that the three who objected to modern examples would at least accept criticism of conservatives by conservatives. (Livy was something of a conservative, too.) But as things stand, the those who object to the section are adamant that no criticism of conservatism is ever acceptable. Visit the arbitration page to see where things now stand. Rick Norwood 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but even then, the current criticism-section isn't really about criticism of the conservative philosophy at all. In Plato his days there was no real conservative philosophy (as we have now), and Wordsworth his 'Bliss in that dawn it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven' is no criticism of conservatism itself; the text even says it was 'in praise of the revolution that overthrew the Ancien Régime'. Thus, the discussion should not be if we should have 'criticism' of conservatism by conservatives instead, the question should be which well-known 'modern' philosophers (or others) we know who criticised the conservative philosophy with philosophical arguments. In the article on Edmund Burke we have some words of Marx about Burke: "The sycophant—who in the pay of the English oligarchy played the romantic laudator temporis acti against the French Revolution just as, in the pay of the North American colonies at the beginning of the American troubles, he had played the liberal against the English oligarchy—was an out-and-out vulgar bourgeois." So, the criticism by for instance (Marxist) socialists is conservatism is 'bourgeois'. Liberal criticism of the conservative stand against the French Revolution can be found in Thomas Paine's the Rights of Man. And if I'm correct, Karl Popper criticized conservatism as well, although some say he became a bit more conservative later in life as well. Sincerly, Averroes 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to the bottom of the page, where it will be easier to work. Rick Norwood 15:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving the most recent comments to a new subsection to reply

In most societies, there are winners and loosers [sic]. The winners tend to want to keep things as they are, and become conservative. Conservatism and liberalism aren't about "winners" and "losers". The differences arise from what the role of government is in serving the public. You are trying to make the class warfare argument where conservatives are rich and powerful, and liberals are underprivileged and living at the mercy of "the man". This is a gross misrepresentation of both movements you are working to help "define" in their respective articles here. Dubc0724 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some conservatives believe in limited government, but this is, historically, not a major theme in conservative thought. I cannot think of any conservative before the 20th century who wanted limited government. Most of the people in earlier societies who wanted to limit the power of government were liberals, and wanted to overthrow monarchies, dictatorships, or powerful religions. In fact, it is hard to understand how limited government fits any of the definitions of conservatism given in this article. It sounds more like libertarianism to me.

If I want to show some part of Quantum Physics I think is wrong, I don't quote a 17-year old on the Internet for the opposing side. I cite current journal-published research, and then how those methodologies could have been wrong, or the results misinterpreted. If I think Creationism is mistaken, I don't try and scientifically debate televangelists; I find the books written by the "Creation scientists" that have gotten the most respect, and show how even then their results are suspect. If I disagree with American conservatism at a high political-science level, I don't dismantle Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter's invective that passes as arguments; I use scholarly books by William F. Buckley or Milton Friedman.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are hardly "17-year old" Internet bloggers. They are best selling authors. They are also straw men, since the section in question does not mention either. All of the examples you mention are modern American examples, which suggests you think of conservatism in those terms, rather than as a major movement with a long history.

Defeating low-lying fruit proves very little. If "that side of conservatism" (as you put it) is relevant, then every article on a philosophy can include a section where it is revealed that some people that support that philosophy probably can't defend it well and might support it for emotional or self-serving reasons rather than logical reasons. This isn't news, and it doesn't imply that the philosophy is wrong. (Again, it may be relevant historically and in specific sections, and it may be relevant if a movement is much more vulnerable to these subsections than other movements- which as I noted above may in fact be true of conservatism, but that isn't in the article currently- but it is not logically relevant.)

You don't seem to distinguish between what is said on the talk page and what is said in the article. In the article, the section in question quotes only major writers, and only two modern writers, only one of whom is an American.

I suppose my complaint is that the current section (I only joined recently and assumed from talk that it was mostly yours- apologes if it isn't) lacks an overriding intellectual framework. What are these critics trying to say? Unlike others here, I have no problem with a criticism section, but I'm still unclear on what exactly its current purpose is. Let me be specific.

Conservatives often invoke religion and patriotism in support of their views.

So? What does this lead into? Socialists often invoke equality and fairness in support of their views. Theocrats often invoke morality and justice in support of their views. Is this bad for some reason? If so, why?

This is the beginning of a paragraph that reports claims, by various writers, that conservatives who invoke religion and patriotism are hypocrites.

Benjamin Disraeli, himself a Tory, wrote, "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."

This leads into the next paragraph, which is about those critics who accuse conservatives of hypocrisy.

the English poet William Wordsworth wrote of the French revolution, "Bliss in that dawn it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven!"

This is from an earlier paragraph, and offers a famous criticism of French conservatives, who supported the King, the aristocracy, and the church.

So Disraeli disliked a conservative government of the time and Wordsworth liked the French revolution. Could well have been just pithy quotes. What's the context? Why are conservative governments organized hypocrisies? Even assuming he meant it, this feels like "he said, she said." A criticism section that basically says "Some people don't like conservatism. Here they are and some quotes of them dissing conservatism and celebrating liberalism" isn't very interesting. Even if it's well-sourced, finding out that people disagree with conservatism isn't nearly as useful as finding out why they disagree with conservatism. As it stands, the Criticism section is notably short on actual criticism and argument. SnowFire 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your point is well taken. In an effort to keep the paragraph very short, I've probably left out some connective sentences that would make it clearer. I don't want the paragraph to grow in size -- the article is already too long -- but I will see what I can do to make it easier to understand. I'm not going to attempt that today. There are some reference books out at school that I want to consult first. But I will try to do something along those lines tomorrow. Rick Norwood 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

But...but...but...but! I suppose I'll have to wait until I see what your revisions are, but imagine a "Criticism of Liberals" section that said something like "My cousin Bob was a liberal. He just did it so he could hang out with the college girls as a conversation starter. Later on, he got shot by the police after he robbed a bank." You can surely see that this is utterly irrelevant to an article on liberalism, though it may be relevant to an article on Bob? It just plain doesn't matter that some conservatives have been hypocrites when discussing the philosophy in the realm of theory. There is a world of difference between saying "Conservatism has had some despicable champions, and maybe this is an inherent problem" and "Here are some examples of conservative movements I and others in history don't like." This is not splitting hairs; it's the difference between saying something substantial (if controversial) and saying something pointless and prejudicial. SnowFire 21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In my reading of history and political philosophy, I have come across three main criticisms of conservatism. (Obviously, I need to cite chapter and verse, which I will do tomorrow.) First is the criticism that while conservativism is good, conservatives tend to carry their love of tradition to extremes, as in the death of Socrates. Second is the criticism that conservatism is not good, because tradition stands in the way of progress. Third is the criticism that conservatism is a form of hypocracy, because the people who appeal to tradition are often the people who benefit most from that tradition.

No personal attacks on individual conservatives. No references to cousin Bob. Rick Norwood 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats is absolute Tripe! I sure hope that is not an example of what is taught in the so called higher education.

Here are 3 real examples of Conservatism Criticisms.

1. Conservatism has historical and contemporary atachment to religion, which seems to promote religious theocracy and traditions of governship into governments laws.

2. The historical and contemporary wealthy and barrister class has firmly established itself with Corporate Imperialism and has little in common with the Average Conservative.

3. The contemporary wealthy/ barrister class of conservatism seems to establish and propagate more Government Beurocracy that goes against the ideals of conservatism (Less Government).

This from a dumb Caveman--MadDogCrog 12:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A Message for Scribner

Sir:

I believe you are acting in good faith. That is, I believe these ideas are new to you and therefore you assume that I just made them up. But I have offered clear evidence, in the form of references, that this is not, in fact, the case. Please help me to understand why you continue to reject this evidence. Rick Norwood 21:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR WP:POV Scribner 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that this is original research means that you claim that I wrote the material in question. Please go to a library and verify that in fact the material in question was written by the people referenced. Your claim that this is point of view is a claim that the people quoted had a biased or non-standard point of view. Since one of them won a Pulitzer Prize and a Medal of Freedom, that claim is also unsubstantiated. Unless you can substantiate your cliams, you should stop blanking the paragraph in question.

I really expected better of you than just a repetition of unsupported claims. Rick Norwood 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick I have responded to your insane POV and NOR claims, repeatedly and in better faith than you deserve. You've proven bad faith and poor judgement in your "contributions." Let Admin sort it out. Wiki can't survive with the likes of you.

Once again, you will not even say what it is you want. But I will continue to work toward a compromise, which is hard to do when I have to guess what you are looking for. Rick Norwood 20:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

criticism section

"Conservatives often invoke religion and patriotism in support of their views."

Thats a pov statement. "critics have argued that conservatives have used religion and patriotism to support their views" would be a criticism as opposed to a statement of fact since not all conservatives do this, especially since conservatism is specific to each country. Futhermore, patriotism is not a conservatism specific issue. Why not write, "conservatives used patriotism to garish support for world war II."

First, I would like to thank you for your response. If I said that I thought that conservatives invoke patriotism and religion, that would be my POV. But I follow the statement with a supporting example. That is the way an article should be written. I could cite a dozen more examples, all from different times and different countries, but that would, I think, be overkill. Do you doubt the truth of the assertion?

You point out that not all conservatives do this. You are correct. That is why the sentence says "often" rather than "always". My big question is, why are we arguing over a commonplace that everyone who reads any history knows. Please let me know what you consider conservatism to be.

For example, consider Vicomte Louis-Gabriel-Ambroise de Bonald, one of the two leading French conservatives in the age of Napoleon. In Théorie du pruvoir politique et religieux (1796) he "defended absolute monarchy, hereditary aristocracy, patriarchal authority in the family, and the moral and religious sovereignty of the popes over all the kings of Christendom." [10]

Religious sovereignty seems to be different that the maintenance of an aristocracy. He even states the differences since its the Popes who have religious control, yet the aristocracy has control over government. Two different things.

Yes, the quote is clear. The Vicomte defended both. What is your point?

Critics of conservatism claim that conservative cliams of piety and patriotism are often used hypocritically to sway the masses. Samuel Johnson wrote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,"[11]

Quote does not support entry. How is it hypocritical? Patriotism seems to be a different topic and it is not specific to conservatism. Therefore, the quote is tangential.

The quote would be tangential if, in fact, conservatives did not often appeal to patriotism. But they do, so the quote is to the point. Do you doubt the statement "Conservatives often appeal to patriotism." If so, I can easily provide a dozen examples.

Many a populist politician in modern times has stirred the voters to a patriotic or religious fervor and then acted only to benefit himself and his cronies. [12] [13]

This is simply an attack on Bush. "only to benefit himself"... please. Somebody may have written it, but it is not encyclopedic. someone may have written that Clinton was a "pathological liar" and a "sexual pervert" in some obscure book, but that does not mean it should be reflected in wikipedia. Therefore, referencing for 12 and 13 above is simply out of line. ER MD 22:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I was careful to use two examples, only one of which refers to Bush. Bush has been particularly blatant in his use of religion and patriotism to enrich himself and his cronies (do you doubt it?), and so one reference to him seems fair. Two would be overboard. But you may be right. Even one may be too many. I'll find a different reference tomorrow.

Thank you for discussing this rationally. I hope we can find ground on which we agree. I have the impression that what you mean by conservatism is not what, say, the Vicomte meant by conservatism. But you are mistaken to think that criticism of some conservatives implies criticism of all. Rick Norwood 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick: you complain that I have deleted the section 3 times in one day. Well, 3 other people also deleted it. And you have reverted 6 times now so you are in violation of the 3RR rule. The preponderence of thought on this issue is that this parapgraph does not belong. I will delete for the 4th time. Request an arbcom if you wish. You are violating policy way more than me. ER MD 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the three revert rule. It is designed to prevent one person or one group of people from deleting opinions they disagree with instead of discussing the disputed material and reaching a compromise. I hope that you will discontinue the deleting and try to work toward something we both find acceptable. It would help if you would state what it is you think is true. Rick Norwood 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for a compromise

I really do not understand what it is about this paragraph that ER MD objects to, but in the spirit of compromise, I offer the following. I will limit my comments in this article, for one month, to conservatism before 1900, and delete from the Criticism of Conservatism section all references to events and persons after 1900. In return, you ER MD, stop blanking the Criticism of Conservatism section of this article for at least one month. If we both are happy with the result, we can extend the truce. What do you say? Rick Norwood 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick, get lost. Take it to a blog, pal.Scribner 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick, while I happen to believe that you do have something to contribute here, my recommendation would be to bring the entire Criticism of Conservatism section to the Talk page and hash out what it should be here first, so as not to cause a disruptive war in the main article. If on the Talk Page people can come to some consensus, then the section can be moved back into the article with much firmer backing. Continuing the battle on the main article page will only bring the wrath of the admins down eventually. SnowFire 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the majority are waiting on the admins to look at this. I recommend leaving the page as is, let all read about Rick Norwood and his bumper sticker insight to Conservatism and American Conservatism. Perhaps, he will enlighten all of Wikipedia. I vote don't touch a thing until this dispute is ruled on.Scribner 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, nobody has commented on the Request for Comment. Clearly, repeated blanking of a section is against Wikipedia policy, and I could easily take it to the administration. But I would rather work this out here. I still haven't heard from ER MD on the compromise I offer above. In the past, I've been able to work out compromises with ER MD, and I hope I can do the same here. On the other hand, Scribner's response "get lost" does not seem to indicate a willingness to compromise.

Snowfire -- The trouble with moving everything here and working here is that I have tried that in the past, and discovered that what often happens is the blankers declare a victory and move on instead of trying to compromise. If, later on, I put the section back, the blankers just go back to blanking. Blanking is not the Wiki way to deal with controversy.

I have repeatedly asked ER MD and Scribner what their opinion is, and they have not replied, so it is hard to know what they want. Rick Norwood 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they've made it pretty clear. They feel that the whole section's thrust is POV and not explanatory and think it should go.

As for moving it to the Talk Page, it's entirely possible that the consensus will, in fact, be to remove the section and not put it back. If that's the case, while you might think the consensus wrong, it will at least be a community decision. Oh well. People and organizations make mistakes, and you can just consider that possible occurrence one of them should it happen. SnowFire 15:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the official wikipedia policy on NPOV: "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." In trying to delete one point of view, rather than discuss it, it is the deleters who are violating NPOV. Rick Norwood 19:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Its been discussed and the wording/content has been determined by multiple people to be POV. Using the article to make a reference on Bush is uncalled for--its called a soapbox. 4-5 people are deleting it and you are the only person inserting it. Go write an american liberalism criticism section. ER MD 19:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick if you think it is a violation of wiki policy, bring it up with admin. Your soapbox does not belong here and I will delete perpetually. ER MD 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I continue to try to find a compromise that is acceptable to you, but that is hard to do when you won't say what you want. However, since you say "a reference on Bush is uncalled for" I will remove all reference to Bush. Rick Norwood 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick's Challenge, Samuel Johnson

Rick, the section we continue to remove severely mars the integrity of the article because it is loaded with POV and NOR.

Here's the section:

Conservatives often invoke religion and patriotism in support of their views. For example, consider Vicomte Louis-Gabriel-Ambroise de Bonald, one of the two leading French conservatives in the age of Napoleon. In Théorie du pruvoir politique et religieux (1796) he "defended absolute monarchy, hereditary aristocracy, patriarchal authority in the family, and the moral and religious sovereignty of the popes over all the kings of Christendom." [10] Critics of conservatism claim that conservative cliams of piety and patriotism are often used hypocritically to sway the masses. Samuel Johnson wrote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,"[11]

Samuel Johnson's quote should not be used because there is no specific reference as to whom the quote was directed: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." "Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson" does not specify to whom or to what party the quote is directed.

The Samuel Johnson quote is invalid unless you prove it was directed at Conservatism.

Now concerning religion: "...he appeared to be an orthodox, conventional, conservative adherent of revealed religion..." [2]

Again, not as you claim: Critics of conservatism claim that conservative cliams (sic) of piety and patriotism are often used hypocritically to sway the masses. Samuel Johnson's quote must support this sentence, which it doesn't so it's out.

Rick, please provide required citations, Thanks. Tomorrow I'll start on the Benjamin Disraeli quote. Scribner 05:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, I will remove the quote by Johnson. On the other hand, the Disraeli quote is specificly addressed to conservatism. Rick Norwood 12:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Conservatism}}

I'm guessing it is being removed all the time because of your edit wars but perheps I'm wrong. Anyone object this template to be added to the Conservatism article? Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, my bad. I'll put it back now. Rick Norwood 23:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

continue to work toward a compromise acceptable to all

I've removed the reference to Bush that ER MD objected to and removed the Johnson quote that Scribner objected to.

Earlier, there was an objection that the thread of the paragraph was not clear, so I am working to correct that.

I will have a new version, carefully sourced, later today. Rick Norwood 12:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

again criticism section...

First of all, it sounds like the "three" classical points of critique are original research. Reference a page that states that addresses the "three classical points of criticism."

Second, having assertions followed by quotes that are made without referencing the context of the quotes does not sound appropriate.

Third, a review of this webpage [[3]] seems to have a real critique of conservatism as opposed to what Rick has written and even what I have written in the past.

Therefore, I think this section needs to go. Not only can nobody agree on what should be written here, it seems to me that there are political motivations by Rick to influence people to his point of view by providing a soapbox. Note, I have not written any critique of american liberalism since to do so is just that... a soapbox. For an article to address a philosophy and then have a criticism section that covers aspects not in the article seems to be a violation. What would be the logic, lets say, of having a liberalism section which explains the philosopy, and then to write a criticism section that broadsides the philosophy with arguments not even referenced in the article.

The article by George Irbe seems to have a philosophical approach to the philosophy as opposed to what has been written here. ER MD 20:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I am not wedded to the number three. I found examples that fell into three major categories. The examples were there before, the topic sentence was in answer to a request to make the relationship among the three examples more clear. If someone wants to add another example, that doesn't fit into one of those categories, they should do so.

I'm trying to keep the section as short as possible, but I have expanded the quotes somewhat to provide context. What is there in the context that is not clear?

Please feel free to add material from radicalacademy if you like, though just from the name it does not sound as authoritative as the sources I quote.

To conclude that any section that is not already perfect "needs to go" is destructive, not constructive.

All of the criticisms directly address the definition of conservatism: respect for tradition.

Rick Norwood 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The George Irbe article [[4]] reads well and is strong critisism of conservatisism. If his material isn't used then maybe his NPOV (writing style) could be adopted.

Rick, my main objection to this re-write is exactly the same objection to the last. Please, stop writing leading sentences and then following up with a quote.

For example: The Benjamin Disraeli quote is a half truth as you've used it, but would be an excellent criticism of conservatism given some history of the quote.

This is more of the same NOR/POV. Scribner 00:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Norwood, I've had enough of your behaviour. Your blatant point-of-view, your original research and your condescending weasel attitude to everyone else - its disgusting. So far you have had no support from anyone. Unless someone else, other than you, opposes I will systematically be removing your additions to the article within twenty-four hours. This has gone on for too long. michael ^talk 02:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have requested mediation on this case from the Cabal. Rick Norwood 13:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What I have had enough of is the constant attacks on Rick Norwood that are entirely negative and made without any spirit of cooperation. I see Rick trying again and again to reach a compromise or a consensus for which he is insulted, attacked and vilified. If you aren't working towards cooperation and consensus then you don't belong in a shared community like this.Locker 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I, as a student of philosophy, must object to the characterization of Plato's Apology as a critique of Conservatism. Though the moral charges of doing evil, corrupting the youth, and not believing in the gods of the state can be viewed through the lens of modernity as a conservative argument; they have been employed by progressives in the past as means of critique and political dissention. We must remember that certain moral arguments are merely the means of a movement not embodiments of those moments. Plato's Apology is actually a critique of democracy and in a deeper sense the sophistry of democracy and not a critique of "conservative" moral arguments. Readers of Plato's The Republic will see this critique of democracy/sophistry continued in a much deeper and explicit manner.--Matt 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even though I came up with the Plato example, in an effort to find some authority that would be acceptable, Plato was really opposed to democracy rather than to conservatism per se. I have much better examples, due to Burke. Sadly, the mediation on this issue has gone on for months, now, with little or no progress, and I hesitate to make any changes that might start another edit war. Rick Norwood 13:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

One must be cautious when declaring what Plato was an was not opposed to. Plato wrote dialogues that bring out various aspects of their topics to their various observers through a non-direct literary method. Though it is true that, through Socrates, he seems to have a solid anti-democratic stance (something which could be understandable given Athens' condition at the time) we may also recall the words of book eight in The Republic:

[Democracy] contains every possible type, because of the wide freedom it allows, and anyone engaged in founding a state, as we are doing, should perhaps be made to pay a visit to a democracy and choose what he likes from the variety of models it displays, before he proceeds to make his own foundation

Plato, through Socrates, seems to begrudgingly acknowledge that Democracy is the only type of régime where he could do what he does, the "founding of a state" or, in a more general sense, the practice of political philosophy. That of all of the bad régimes of man Democracy is the best for pursuing the greatest path in life, that of philosophy: the love of wisdom.--Matt 17:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, as Churchill put it, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Rick Norwood 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Won't you come home, Disraeli.

In researching the context of the Disraeli quote in answer to ER MD's question, I happened on one of those ironies that keep history unpredictable. The struggle was over protectionist tarrifs called the corn laws. Disraeli, the conservative, was a protectionist. The other conservatives, in favor of free trade, broke away from Disraeli's branch of the party, and joined with the liberals to repeal the corn laws.

See, good things can happen when conservatives and liberals work together. Rick Norwood 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick proves his POV and NOR

Rick, your taunt at another member just backfired. Thanks for proving that you used a quote here to criticize conservatism without any historical background, whatsoever. The quote fit your POV agenda, that's all that mattered. You wrote a sentence loaded with weasel words and inserted it all as fact. Scribner 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Rick Norwood 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you want proof? Scribner 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand what "taunt" you are talking about. I have many faults, but I am unfailingly polite, and never "taunt" anybody. Rick Norwood 12:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Since we seem to have solved this problem on our own, does anyone object if I remove the request for arbitration? Rick Norwood 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I object. Scribner 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It has not been solved, more POV needs to be removed. Explaining the context is better. You can't come out and say things like "there are three classical points of criticism" its original research. Any crticism section needs to be overly POV otherwise it will get countless re-writes. The POV in american conservatism still needs major corrections to avoid degeneration into a blog. i'll look at it my next day off. ER MD 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The request for arbitration will stand.

I had already removed the introductory sentence you object to. I only added it at the request of a reader who thought more explanation was necessary. Personally, I'm happy to let the quotes speak for themselves. Rick Norwood 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. for ER MD. In my reading I came across a quote I thought you might like by the famous philosopher Herbert Spencer, "During immaturity benefits received must be inversely proportional to capacities possessed. Within the family-group most must be given where least is deserved, if desert is measured by worth. Contrariwise, after maturity is reached benefit must vary directly as worth: worth being measured by fitness to the conditions of existence. The ill-fitted must suffer the evils of unfitness, and the well-fitted must profit by their fitness. These are the two laws which a species must conform to if it is to be preserved. ... The only justification for the analogy between parent and child, and government and people, is the childishness of the people who entertain the analogy." Ethics, Book II

Wow, Rick that was a good one. A claim of immaturity... I love how you try and skirt wiki policy by making veiled personal attacks. You are a real idiot. I can't believe that you would spend so much time with trying to promote your POV. I'm not on american liberalism trying claim they are idiots, but an idiot is definitely here trying to make the same claim. This will do great for your arbitration claim. Claim, that I am violating policy while you blatantly violate polices of personal attacks and lack of consensus. I have made personal attacks in the past only in kind to an attack against me. So you have really opened up the door... ER MD 22:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My P.S., far from being an attack, was intended as a peace offering. Spencer is a major philosopher who agrees with your views about small government, as best I understand them. He is calling the liberals childish! I thought you could use the quote in the "Criticism of socialism" section if you wanted to. Rick Norwood 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is up with the "Good Job"?

Was that really said? It looks like a joke to me. --SeizureDog 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of Weasel Words

Quote from Wikipedias' policy on use of "weasel Words",

"If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."[[5]]

Rick, I advised you against the use of weasel words before I knew Wikipedia not only has a policy against them but also has coined a terminology for such words and phrases. Good work, Wiki!

I don't have time for a protracted argument. Please read and follow Wikipedia's policy WP:WEASEL, thanks. Scribner 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your sources don't support the sentences. If you claim that they do, then we'll debate each of three sentences separately. Scribner 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the nature of weasel words. For example, if I say "Shakespeare makes a point about the relationship between words and the objects they represent when he says, 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.'" that is an explanation, not weasel words. On the other hand if I say "Shakespeare has this really great quote, 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.'" that is weasel words. Explanations are not an example of weasel words, puffing the importance of a given quote is.

That said, I really am trying to work with you here, and so I will not dispute the changes you have made. I am happy to let the quotes speak for themselves. As I explained to ER MD above, I only inserted the explanatory notes at the request of a reader of the article. Rick Norwood 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia "weasel word" page :

Examples of weasel words:

Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles (but shouldn't be):

"Some people say..." "Some argue..." "Contrary to many..." "As opposed to most..." "Research has shown..." "...is widely regarded as..." "...is widely considered to be..." "It is believed that..." "It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..." "Some people believe..." "Some feel that..."' "They say that..." "Many people say..." "It may be that..." "Could it be that..." "It could be argued that..." "Critics/experts say that..."' "Some historians argue..." "Considered by many..." "Accusations..." "Apparently..." "Allegedly..." "Arguably..." "Serious scholars/scientists/researchers..." "Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers..." "The (mainstream) scientific community" "It is claimed..." "It should be noted that..." "Correctly (justly, properly, ...) or not, ..." Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..." "...is only one side of the story" "Experts suggest..." "Four out of Five Doctors/Dentists agree..."[[6]]

Your sentences:

1. Then there are those who claim that conservative philosophy is often a mask for self-interest.

2. Other writers have echoed the criticism that conservative philosophy is sometimes used to mask self-interest.

3. Finally, there are those who criticize conservatism as standing in the way of progress.

OK, no question that the sentences include weasel words. Now, which of the three did you want to debate first? Scribner 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The "Weasel Words" policy does not have exactly unanimous support, and is a young, comparatively new policy. While I happen to agree that we can probably do better and have quotes from actual people, there are lots of times where so-called weasal words can perform valuable service by summarizing a whole set of opinions (with the actual authors being summarized mentioned and referenced in a footnote). I'd disagree with Rick for other reasons than this. SnowFire 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Others already have disagreed with Rick on each of the three "claims". And weasel words can be used if they're sourced. They can also be used to interject POV, as was the case here, as was the ruling in a mediation complaint filed by Rick. Rick was given a chance to debate each of the issues, he chose not to. Read the sentence above your comment. Scribner 01:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As you know, I did not "choose" not to debate the issues. I was blocked. If you would like to debate any of the three "claims", dispite the fact that I removed all three in the spirit of compromise, I am willing to do so. Please pick one of the three "claims" that you disagree with and we can start there. Meanwhile, I've asked the cabal mediator to comment on the Criticisms of Conservatism section, and am restoring it for that purpose. Please do not delete it until the mediator has had a chance to read it and offer advice. Rick Norwood 06:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words is a style guide

Our page on weasel words is a style guide, not a policy. Avoid them like the plague if you can! It's better to use quotes or surveys instead. But if you can't (yet), fine. It's a level of quality thing.

• Some say that fooberry frobnosticators are fun. (ref?)

  This is ok as a placeholder while you're still digging for references, BUT

these are nicer:

• Mr Smith stated on the 12 february 1923 at the press conference for fooberry frobnosticators that "fooberry frobnosticators are fun!" [ref]
• A survey by frobnosticator fans magazine found that 83% of respondents thought that the fooberry frobnosticators are fun. [ref]

If you do have to use weaselwords as a placeholder, it's always wise to state on the talk page where roughly you're digging for references, or where you think references could be found. Else you might get in a situation where people delete them out of hand. They don't know about the magazine you read last month but forgot the page number of, so you have to point that out. ;-)

Kim Bruning 23:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

James Burnham: "movement conservatives"?

From James Burnham / Talk:James_Burnham - "His 1964 book Suicide of the West became a classic among movement conservatives" -- Can anybody please explain the meaning of the expression "movement conservatives"? Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 20:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Nationalism"

Good lord this section is a mess:

Nationalism, which sees the nation as a long-term, centuries-old, community, has many conservative aspects. Conversely, any centuries-old community is by definition attractive to traditionalist and Burkean conservatives.

Are we seriously saying this? Seriously? Was this written by someone who has ever read anything about 19th century European history? Traditional conservatives strongly opposed nationalism well into the 19th century, because they saw it as tied to liberalism and, in general, disintegrating to traditional ideas, and dangerous to order. The embrace of nationalism by conservatives in, for instance, Germany (i.e. by Bismarck) was for the most part seen as cynical, and, indeed, even in Germany traditional Prussian conservatives remained highly suspicious of German nationalism, instead embracing their idealized conception of the old Prussian state. It was the right wing liberals who became the most virulent supporters of nationalism, not the conservatives. When one was is discussing long-established countries like Britain and France, nationalism is an awkward descriptor. Ths historical illiteracy of wikipedia articles about political ideologies remains sad and embarrassing. john k 13:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

By focusing on 19th century conservatism, you are looking at one situation in a particular place and time. In the 19th century, Germany was not a "centuries-old" community. Rather, it was a new nation being put together from shattered fragments. Thus, in the case of Bismark, "nationalism" did not mean preservations of old traditions but the forging of new traditions. The article says, "nationalism ... has many conservative aspects". It does not say that nationalism is conservative in each and every case. Rick Norwood 15:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the article is, at present, ignoring the entire history of the 19th century. "Nationalism has many conservative aspects" is nonsense, in any event. Nationalism has been appropriated by many conservative movements, but it has equally been appropriated by movements on the left, and sometimes by liberals as well. The claims made in this article do a disservice both to the scholarship of nationalism - much of which focuses on the fact that the supposed "traditions" of the nation are often invented traditions, with no history behind them at all, and of conservatism, as it ignores the ways in which the relationship of nationalism and conservatism was ambiguous for so long. I know that I tend to focus on the 19th century in a lot of these political ideology discussions, and that I have a bias here (I study 19th century Europe). But I think there's a good reason we should always keep the 19th century in mind when we're discussing big "isms" like liberalism, conservatism, nationalism, socialism, and so forth, as well, as, for instance, the left-right political spectrum - these concepts all developed in the milieu of 19th century European politics. I'm certainly not looking to reify 19th century conceptions which have evolved in different directions since then. But the way the terms were originally understood, and generally continued to be understood for a long time thereafter, should be considered when we're writing an article, and we shouldn't include facile, amateurish, and meaningless claims like "Nationalism has many conservative aspects." john k 23:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why Why Why are you interpreting nationalism on the conservative page Rick! Nationalism is more a socialist/communist movement. American conservatives are for states rights and are not nationalistic but patriotic. Germans/Europeans in general have always been nationalists; liberal, conservative or communist! Oh! and the patriotism section is horrendous and absolutely ridiculous! Rick I have gone back a few months and looked over your POV writing and people having edit wars with you! this page is so terrible, and I think right now YOUR the biggest reason why. You waste so much time and effort of goodhearted people trying to fix your continuous POV, that this article is getting worse. Rick it is obvious your intention here to everyone but you! Why do you troll this article and write for it, when you only have disdain for anything conservative.This whole article needs to be restyled and rewritten if you ask me.--MadDogCrog 09:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Its nice to see someone else agrees with me. michael ^talk 09:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "nationalism" was a poor word choice. Patriotism is much better, and following John Kenney's good suggestion, I made the change. There is now only one paragraph about nationalism, and the purpose of that paragraph is to point out that nationalism is often not a conservative movement. I have no objection if you want to remove that paragraph. In fact, I have no objection to removing the sentences with "cite" tags, if, say, a week goes by without anyone providing the requested citations. (Some of those sentences are mine, some are not, but I'm not wedded to any of them.) There is a big difference between blanking, which is Unwiki, and asking for citations and removing unverified material, which is the essence of Wiki. I'm always glad when someone asks for a citation. It keeps me honest.

Please assume good will. I see a lot to admire in conservatism and a lot to criticise in liberalism. I also see a great deal of overlap between the two. Currently, both favor capitalism and democracy. Rick Norwood 14:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely saying that patriotism should be associated with conservatism is much much worse than saying that nationalism is. "Patriotism" is pretty entirely non-political, and is used by pretty much any politician - hell, what did Joseph Stalin call World War II again? Nationalism did come to be associated with the right in many parts of Europe by the early 20th century, although there've always been left wing and liberal nationalists, as well. "Patriotism" has never been primarily associated with the right, except in the minds of Ann Coulter, et al. john k 15:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Averroes suggestion

Yes, but even then, the current criticism-section isn't really about criticism of the conservative philosophy at all. In Plato his days there was no real conservative philosophy (as we have now), and Wordsworth his 'Bliss in that dawn it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven' is no criticism of conservatism itself; the text even says it was 'in praise of the revolution that overthrew the Ancien Régime'. Thus, the discussion should not be if we should have 'criticism' of conservatism by conservatives instead, the question should be which well-known 'modern' philosophers (or others) we know who criticised the conservative philosophy with philosophical arguments. In the article on Edmund Burke we have some words of Marx about Burke: "The sycophant—who in the pay of the English oligarchy played the romantic laudator temporis acti against the French Revolution just as, in the pay of the North American colonies at the beginning of the American troubles, he had played the liberal against the English oligarchy—was an out-and-out vulgar bourgeois." So, the criticism by for instance (Marxist) socialists is conservatism is 'bourgeois'. Liberal criticism of the conservative stand against the French Revolution can be found in Thomas Paine's the Rights of Man. And if I'm correct, Karl Popper criticized conservatism as well, although some say he became a bit more conservative later in life as well. Sincerly, Averroes 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely Marx's criticism is more complicated than just "Conservatism is 'bourgeois.'" john k 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While the word "conservative" did not take on its present meaning until a few hundred years ago, historians widely use the word to describe similar views in other times and cultures. For example, Confucius is usually described as a conservative philosopher. The conservative philosophy is the philosophy that upholds tradition. This distinction was well understood in Plato's day, and Socrates and Alcibides are described as liberal thinkers, while Thucidides and Xenophon are usually described as conservative -- upholders of the traditional ways of doing thing. Plato was conservative in some ways and revolutionary in others -- his Republic proposes a totally revolutionary form of government in which social class is decided by ability rather than by birth.

The current criticism of conservatism section has no examples in common with the original criticism of conservatism section, everything in that section was removed due to challenges by the three people who repeatedly blanked the section, in an attempt to compromise. The blankers, however, have so far rejected the very idea of any criticism of conservatism. I would personally like to see all of the examples you mention above added to the section. Rick Norwood 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When do historians use the term "Conservative" to refer to political beliefs other than those which emerged in Europe in the wake of the French revolution. I suppose it's occasionally used in classical contexts (although I've never seen "liberal" used to describe either Alcibiades or Socrates.), but it would be best to confine this article mostly to discussions of Conservatism as an actual conscious political designation, rather than a retoactively applied title. And I agree with Averroes that we should try to look at actual critics of Conservatism. There would be, I think, at least 3 types: 1) marxist/socialist critique; 2) liberal critique; 3) fascist/radical right wing critique. john k 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A reminder re: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Conservatism

The above is an ongoing mediation case regarding POV issues in this article. There is a Village Pump posting requesting opinions on the matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#A controversy in the Conservatism article and a RfC filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rick Norwood.

If anyone has a solution to resolve the dispute in a manner which may be acceptable to all sides, I'd appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Conservatism. Please keep Wikipedia policy in mind while drafting suggestions.

Thanks!

~Kylu (u|t) 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism

Can anyone justify why this section is here in the Conservative Article. Very Poor Form for Encyclopedic Reference. It needs to be deleted along with the Patriotism section, unless anyone objects.--MadDogCrog 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the two sections you object to. The patriotism section is important, I think, because patriotism is a value most conservatives espouse. I've removed the claim that patriotism is older than philosophy -- that is probably true, but would be hard to prove. The other requests for citations will have to be answered by someone who knows more about Eurpoean politics than I do. The reference to Orwell seems like an unnecessary aside, as does the comment about Nationalism. I may be responsible for the latter -- I misspoke at some point and said "nationalism" when I intended to say "patriotism". So, I have no objection if you remove Orwell and Nationalism. On the other hand, the article needs more, not less, about conservatism in Europe, so let's give the people who wrote about conservatism in Europe more time to cite their sources. And, yes, I would strongly object to deleting the whole section.

The section on Liberalism is more of a problem. Essentially, it is only in the US that people see Conservatism and Liberalism as polar opposites, so this section probably belongs in the article on Conservatism in the United States, if anywhere, rather than here. However, Wiki policy is opposed to blanking except in the case of obvious spam or vandalism, so I wonder if this section could be reworked, maybe with more about the conflicts between liberalism and conservatism in the writings of Locke and Hobbes, or during and after the French Revolution. Rick Norwood 13:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted comments below. Rick Norwood 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So your justification for the patriotism section is that you feel most conservatives are more patriotic than the liberal counterpart, So 6 poorly written paragraphs needs to be included into the conservative page. Instead linking patriotism in the See Also section. So I shall expostulate in remonstance.

You seem to be setting up a conservative/liberal dichotomy, which is an artifact of shallow American political discourse. No, I do not think that conservatives are more patriotic than other groups, only that they appeal to patriotism more often to justify their actions, and more often accuse their oponents of a lack of patriotism. In modern political jargon, they are more apt to play the patriotism card, just as they are more apt to play the religion card.

First paragraph; Has a mis-quote of Stephan Decatur Jr.’s that in Original form is quite patriotic but not affilliated with any Conservative group, agenda, and/or cause. If Stephan Decature was a Socialist would this be a famous Socialist patriotic expression. Why is this quote conservative?

I've fixed the mistake in the quote. Thank you for catching it. The quote captures, I think, the conservative idea that patriotism is more important that other virtues. For an example from recent news, liberals were generally horrified by the pictures out of Abu Greb, while conservatives generally expressed the view that the pictures should have been supressed, and that the newspapers who published the pictures were the ones at fault: our country, right or wrong.

Next paragraph; Discussion of the country of England Political postureing about retaining its Style and Culture! Which is definatly a classic conservative philosophy but seems to be a latent patriotic atribute at best.

This is a subtle point, but I don't think we are too far apart here.

Third paragraph; Is some form of Original Research tripe that goes nowhere, yet ends with the excellent patriotic quote, from the Conservative Sir. Walter Scott. That I Guess is supposed to justify the whole paragraph?

As I've said, I don't know as much about European conservatism as I would like, but I do love the quote.

Forth paragraph; Is a discription of patriotism in general. Nothing conservative specific. And yet it ends with the Social Liberal Democratic quote of John F. Kennedy to justify its content, Wich is quite patriotic, yet you could never consider him a classic conservative, but was a fiscal conservative!

I agree, the Kennedy quote does not really support what goes before.

Fifth and Sixth paragraph; More poorly written Alphabet Soup Original Research somehow made its way her to the patriotic Conservative section. I am at odds at the anchor to patriotic conservatism, and its intent and direction to inform the researcher using Wiki. And I believe you feel also should be deleted.

I agree that paragraph five should go. I think it got in there by mistake, as I mention above. And, as I said, I don't know enough to comment on paragraph six, but think that if there is a ralation between EU conservatism and patriotism, something should be written on the subject.

So there really is no reason to keep any of this erroneous information! Unless you can justify its inclussion in rebuttal.

Let me once again suggest shortening the section, and removing paragraph five entirely. I see below that you want me to do that. OK. Rick Norwood 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And lets see, you say we should Conserve the Liberalism section! Yet the Wiki Page on Liberalism does not have a Conservative section. So its wiki to keep inappropriate tripe! And its inclusion is very un-Encyclopidic. And as you agree this section is problematic and should be moved or included elsewhere.

So create and write a more suitable section with the information you find appropriate in this section as you suggest. And you or I shall remove this problematic and inappropriate section! I would argue against this section more, but I am tired and feel its existence is argument enough. My favorite quote of Sir Walter Scott ; “Oh! what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive!” --MadDogCrog 06:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened the Patriotism section, as discussed above, and started work on the Liberalism section. The Liberalism section seems to completely loose the thread of what it is about. It starts out discussing the relationship between the words "liberal" and "conservative" and how usage differs from country to country. This is an interesting subject, and on topic. But then the author gets carried away with a long editorial about how great free enterprise is, and seems to entirely forget the original subject. I'm going to read it over, but I think that as soon as it gets off topic, most of it needs to go. There are already articles on capitalism and libertarianism. Rick Norwood 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now done as much as I can do with these sections. There was some good material in what I cut, but it was totally off-topic, and appears elsewhere. I also moved the Fiscal conservatism section higher up in the article. I've done as much as I can. It is time for someone who knows more than I do to work on this material. Rick Norwood 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First I had to fix the quote of Stephen Decatur Jr. to be complete and correct! Still don’t understand why its there or who classifies it as conservative other than you rick! But I will just ask for citation and go from there.

To quote you Rick. “The patriotism section is important, I think, because patriotism is a value most conservatives espouse.” I was trying to clarify your justification of why a patriotism section exists. And where you get the idea that I was creating a black and white issue out of this defies logic to me. Other than to be a passive aggressive barb to belittle my intellectual depth of the issue. As verified by linking me to the Shallow American comment. Touche! But I will stay on the direct and intellectual approach.

Your comment that conservatives use the Religion Card Shows a little lack of depth on your part., for the Religious Conservatives, Religion and Morals are there issue. It is not a card that is played, but the hand they hold,

So you agree with me about the Second Paragraph, I think. Your rebuttal is fairly vague. Yet it is still there!

Third and Rest of the section---Excellent Quote! Very Patriotic! Again how is this Conservative! National Values, and Patriotism. Again not conservative specific.

Your comment ” I think, the conservative idea that patriotism is more important that other virtues.” Shows that this section is to again insert your POV. I do acquiesce to the your Literary quote “patriotism is a value most conservatives espouse.”as Being a part of the general Article on Conservatism, but to have a whole section on patriotism is rediculous when this value is espoused in many cultures, nations and the vast spectrum of political philosophy in one form of another.

And again there is no Conservatism section in the liberal page. So why do you feel a liberalism section belongs here!!! Don’t you see this just seems so obviously unEncyclopedic, reeks of poor form, and lack of Continuity of style for the editors and researchers using wiki--MadDogCrog 12:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Still more liberalism

The old section was rather long, so I've split off a new section. The main thing I have to say here is that if my comments about the liberal/conservative split in America sounded like a barb aimed at you, I apologize. Such was not my intention.

About playing the religion card. When a private citizen supports a particular religion, that is a matter of conscience and belief. When a politician says, vote for me because of my religion, that is playing a card. In the last American election, John Kerry and George Bush ran for president. Both men are Christians. But in my church, the pastor told the congregation, "If you are a good Christian, you will vote for George Bush, because he's a good Christian." When you mix religion and politics, it makes bad religion and bad politics.

About the patriotism section. Have you read Kipling's Stalky & Co.? There is a scene in that book where a politician comes to the boys' school and gives a speech about patriotism. It makes Stalky almost literally ill. Patriotism is something you feel, not something you talk about. It may help you understand how I feel when the American congress, at a time when we are fighting a war that serves no legitimate American interest, at a time when we are going nine trillion dollars deeper in dept, introduces an ammendment against burning the American flag. Now, I love my country's flag, and I love my country, but I would never try to use my own patriotism for political gain. The idea makes me sick.

The point about the liberalism section: as I see it, the section has one and only one legitimate purpose, and that is to explain how the words "liberal" and "conservative" are used differently in different contexts. For example, "liberal" is sometimes used to mean "conservative" as in the phrase, "economic liberal". And the meaning of the two words in the EU is very different from their meaning in the US. I tried to take everything else in that section out. But, as I said, I hope someone else who knows more about the EU than I does a rewrite. Rick Norwood 23:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

is this a blog or an encyclopedia?

Sorry if I got too chatty on the talk page -- I was trying to respond to a direct question from MadDogDrog. Rick Norwood 12:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that religious and political view will amalgamate I can find no wrong with that as you do. For if the politician is supporting and following religious views he would wish to seek out the same in his supporters! The pastor calling for your support feels the choice he advocates is the correct choice for their religious issues. Now I am not religious, but this seems reasonable and even pragmatic to me. As I would find it strange for my Gun Club President to try to persuade me on issues unrelated to firearms. Or my local Union to use persuasion in other issues unrelated to the industry it supports. Well this is not the issue at hand, but is your PPOV/ so called metaphor to justify the continuance of these inappropriate section.

I feel the need to keep the wiki derigueur. You seem to feel the need to include so much emotional rhetoric that this discussion will never reach any pragmatic level! EVER! This seems hypocritical, your quote” Patriotism is something you feel” Yet the burning issue (yes pun intended) of flag burning. Would be an issue many people feel very strongly needs to be legislated. Now I feel no crime is committed with flag burning, and is a waste of government resources. But I feel no need to marginalize the issue. Yet you say that supporting this issue is just political gain. I refute your allegations. As than we could just say that the environment is not an issue but just a card played for political gain by the left! Rick these are real issues. And why your left leaning non-pragmatic argument against this administration is justification for these section is beyond me.

You give the wiki researcher no credit with your latest reason tokeep the liberalism section! So liberal and conservative mean the same thing, like, (economical liberal), Huh, What, Uuhhh, Hey! my Webster's dictionary does not say that!

AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGG--MadDogCrog 11:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick to MadDogCrog: I'm going to try to keep this brief and focused, to avoid the accusation of blogging. (1) The problem with mixing religion and politics is hypocracy. (2) The difference between flag burning and the environment is that while flag burners may hurt my feelings, pollution may hurt my health. I'm willing to restrict freedom to protect my health, but not to keep my feelings from being hurt. (3) It is not I who equates economic conservatism and economic liberalism. I go with you and Mr. Webster. This section is a concession to the libertarians. Rick Norwood 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick the focus should be on the issue of why these sections are here. You have an uncanny inability to focus. First you tried to solve the problem with some revisions(did someone ask for revisions)? Did you fix it? I say (no)! Than you tried to justify the superfluous sections with your inane propaganda. And when you are put to task for you're reasoning, you change your reasons with again more inane propaganda that has less application to the issue of why these sections are in here. Than when any intellectual recourse fails you, blame the libertarians for the sections! Does this exonerate you from your emotional, and reactionary position on the issue of keeping these sections?

I have tried to have an intellectual discussion with you. I have pointed out that your constantly running off on parochial POV tangents. And I try, oh! I try to revert back to the topic of the reasoning behind conserving the sections I question.

It's not how long your post is Rick, as to the accusation of Blogging. It’s the CONTENT in the article! And furthermore, it's Hypocrisy! And mixing religion and politics is not hypocritical or hypocrisy. Look it up please, and educate yourself! Another example of the money wasted on so called (higher education). ------AAAARRRRGGGGGGGG--MadDogCrog 09:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My three responses above were direct answers to your direct comments to me. To respond directly to your comments above, and ignore the accusations of propaganda and bad spelling: 1) people may edit sections of Wikipedia without waiting to be asked. 2) if you don't like my edit, instead of insulting it, improve it. 3) The reason for the liberalism section was that (as best I remember) a libertarian wanted people to know that many libertarians considered themselves classical liberals but political conservatives. Then someone who knows about Eurpoean politics added some paragraphs that I found interesting. 4) The reason for the patriotism section (at first badly titled "nationalism") is that, as the section says, "Conservatives often express admiration of the patriotic values of duty, sacrifice, and obedience." Do you disagree? 4) I do know the meaning of hypocrisy, so my education was not entirely wasted. To belabor a point I thought was obvious, while there are many sincere Christians in politics, there are also many crooked politicians who hypocritically profess to be good Christians, so many that the real Christians tend not to wear their religion on their sleeve, for fear of sounding like the hypocrites. Rick Norwood 16:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick the patriotism section does not belong, as I said the comment "Conservatives often express admiration of the patriotic values of duty, sacrifice, and obedience." Or similair Belong somewhere in the Article, but a whole Superfluous/Redundant section is what I disagree with. Second; you are the one saying the liberalism section needs to be conserved. Yet so far the only argument you have is that some libertarian wanted it!( ? ) And as for hypocritical politicians. I don’t think the religious politicians have the Monopoly on that. If this is your best argument, I will delete these sections as they are inappropriate. As you said I may edit to improve the article, and the deletions would improve it immensely. As I have discussed it in this forum.--MadDogCrog 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No More Liberalism

Thank you Scribner for your editing!--MadDogCrog 10:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We have a consensus of editors against him, at least on the talk page.--Scribner 11:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Norwood, where's the discussion on the change of cite styles?

Rick Norwood, you've change all cited materials to the style of Footnotes, without discussion. Change every "footnote cite" back to the "Embedded HTML links" that this article has used since the article was started.

Citation styles

The following are different citation styles you can use to insert references into Wikipedia articles:

• Embedded HTML links
• Harvard referencing, and
• Footnotes.

All three are acceptable citation styles for Wikipedia. Do not change from Harvard referencing to footnotes or vice versa without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor. citation styles--Scribner 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references.If no agreement can be reached, the citation style used should be that of the first major contributor.--Scribner 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC) agreement required--Scribner 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick to Scribner: While I have no strong preference for one citation style over another, the problem here was mixed citation styles, which is clearly a bad idea. As for following the style of the first major contributor, I would say Jmabel deserves that honor. But, if priority is the issue, I was working on this article long before you were. Rick Norwood 00:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick, I do have a strong preference over citation styles, we disagree so, "prefer the style used by the first major contributor."

Change the cite style back to embedded HTML links. Thanks. WP:OWN--Scribner 02:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted sections

I've restored the two sections, one entirely deleted and the other cut to a single paragraph. On the other hand, I have no objection at all to shortening these sections. Would the person who deleted them please specify what these sections say that he does not think belongs in the article?

Personally, I think the patriotism section makes the article stronger. In fact, the appeal to patriotism is one of conservatism's greatest attractions.

The liberalism section is not as important, but seems to contain some interesting information, and helps the article to be less centered on American conservatism. If the name of the section were changed, would that help? Rick Norwood 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Article size

This page is 33 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable.

Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it.

A section or content that does not pertain to the philosophy of Conservatism should be removed. The Liberalism section clearly belongs in the liberalism article. The Patriotism section as well belongs in the patriotism article.--Scribner 04:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want a shorter article, then I suggest you respond for my request, above, for which parts of these sections you object to, intsead of deleting them all. The article contains a great deal of duplicated material, which I would like to work on, if we could only stop the blanking. Rick Norwood 12:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, Rick, since the material is not cited I've "hidden" it from view, per policy. The material I've left is all that I would leave. Also, let's keep it in a sequential timeframe.--Scribner 05:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

GregorB's edit

Good call, GregorB. Can we also remove the references flag, since the article now has many references? Rick Norwood 12:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing it seems to me that this is too big an article for an indiscriminate "no references" tag, and that individual unreferenced claims should be tagged instead. I'll take a look... GregorB 18:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Gregorb, the criticism section is under mediation. Please don't pull the tags until mediation is resolved.

Also, hyperlink references need to be restored, per cite discussion.--Scribner 20:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was mediation underway. I gave my reasons for the removal of tags here. For the record, I find the existing criticism section unappealing, to say the least, but I'd like to see my arguments addressed here, mediation or no mediation. GregorB 21:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

GregorB You can find my arguements both here and here two different meditation cases regarding the same section. Read the second link first, that's the active case.--Scribner 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of warning labels. I agree with GregorB that any warning labels should be on sections, not on the entire article. Only the criticism section is under mediation.

Rick to GregorB: The existing criticism section is the result of repeated unsuccessful attempts on my part to compromise with Scribner. He insists that the section must not contain any introductory remarks or framing material, must not contain any mention of US conservatism or modern conservatism, and must not include any examples. The existing section was the best I could do under those constraints, but he still considers it POV and OR. There are a couple of alternate versions on view on the mediation page, and I would appreciate another opinion which might help to break the deadlock there, which has gone on for more than a month.

Rick to Scribner: Please read the Wiki policy on blanking. I have offered to work with you on this. Please tell me what you want. Rick Norwood 22:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Scribner, Rick, thanks for the pointers. It seems that I got myself a homework... GregorB 22:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm back... I actually took the time to go through the mediation debate - well, most of it. It did a good job of reminding me why I steer away from the controversial articles as a matter of general principle.

It is hard to write a section on criticism of conservatism. For starters: what exactly conservatism is? Who is a conservative? (On a side note: to say that religion and nationalism have nothing to do with conservatism is true - and at the same time utterly false. Just one example: of all the European Christian political parties, I have yet to hear of one that is not conservative. I don't think this is a coincidence.)

My "line of attack" against conservatism would be to consider what were conservatives - historically speaking - been about. Did they support racial and social privileges, or their abolition? Did they support state religion, or advocated religious freedom? Did they support equality of women, or their subjugation? Finally, historically speaking, did they support monarchy and autocracy, or democracy? But that would be my line of attack, and thus a NOR violation...

That's all I have to say for now; let the mediation handle it. Perhaps I'll come here in a week or two to see how things are going... GregorB 11:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Centre Party in Germany, while no longer in existence, was a Christian party which was not conservative - it was (as its name suggests) in the middle of the spectrum of Kaiserreich and Weimar politics, and encompassed a broad range of political views from quasi-socialist Catholic trade union leaders to very conservative Catholic noblemen. john k 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism worldwide article

There is article Liberalism worldwide.Why there is no such article about conservativism? BoDu 30 July 2006

I, for one, would love to see such an article. Rick Norwood 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I created today article Conservatism worldwide.I invite you,and others to start writing.BoDu 31 July 2006

Requested references provided

I have provided requested references and removed unreferenced remarks. I hope we can now move on to more constructive work on the article. The thing that seems to me most needed is a careful read from beginning to end to remove duplication. Rick Norwood 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Editing

In my absence, and recent disgust! While trying to be a decent contributor, and editor to this article. It seem 'Rick' you have decided to remove the sections that I found inappropriate to this article, and include whatever gibberish that you found worthwhile in those sections to other sections!

Well Hooray! After almost a month of my diplomacy, discussion, and pragmatism. You finally did what I asked all along to be done, and removed those sections.

What gives!

Was I correct that these sections did not belong? Do I not deserve an apology for wasting my time? Do I not at least deserve an explanation of why now you changed your mind and decided to remove those sections?

I don’t have all day to spend on wikipedia! And I prefer to work diplomatically and pragmatically. And I truly would like to contribute! But this was a drain on my emotional constitution. And a big waste of my possible editing time. This article needs lots and lots of work!--MadDogCrog 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Rick Norwood 12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections

... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.----Comment by Jimbo Wales

See also, Wikipedia criticism guideline

And, POV forks POV forks

The criticism section was nothing more than a bundle of quotes, wired together with connective material. The guidelines regarding criticism in articles were never followed. Section removed.--Scribner 05:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be a platform for conservatives to paint a rosy and uncritical picture of conservatism. It is a fact that not all views of conservatism have been totally uncritical and approving. To repeatedly delete as POV any picture of conservatism that reflects this reality is unacceptable. Because I am honoring the mediation process, I am holding off from simply reverting Scribner's deletions. But Scribner has been told, repeatedly, that wholesale deletion of referenced material is not the way Wikipedia works. Rick Norwood 13:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism section has been tagged for POV and NOR for two months now, by two different editors. Get real. Criticisms should be incorporated throughout the article.--Scribner 14:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

All it takes is two different editors with a right-wing slant to tag a critisism section with POV. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it absolutely amazing that this new policy almost exactly mirrors many of the points I've made in this debate earlier? michael ^talk 14:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I will incorporate information into the article as a whole instead of in a separate section -- which only existed because of an earlier compromise anyway. I assume the same should apply to the "Criticism of American Liberalism" section. Rick Norwood 14:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Refences for recently added section:

1: "1.1 What is distinctive about conservatism as a political view?

    Its emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond
    what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated."

From a Jim Klab who has written several books on the topic.

2: "His decision to block the bill from becoming law is a major win for social conservatives, who opposed the measure because they argued extracting stem cells would destroy the embryos and thus end a life."

From CNN.

3: The Russian conservatives and reformers have different visions of the future. The Russian conservatives favour a strong state hand in economic development. In their view, the state sector should coexist with a largely independent private sector, and independent enterprises would have to shoulder their own debts. At the same time, the state would permit but regulate monopolistic enterprises and institute harsh penalties for cutting output and raising prices without valid reason. Key to conservative plans is the creation of a single CIS economic space.

From the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service.

This section is not inflammatory and specifically avoids a lot of topics.

Learn how to sign your post.

• This section is about incorporating criticisms into the article.
• Usenet is not a verifiable source.
• The stem cell debate doesn't belong here! Your posting to the wrong article. Other than being lost, you're halfway right.--Scribner 15:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly conservatism, at least much of its ideological stimulus in the past two centuries, has been little more than a reaction against liberalism. There is very little unique material to actually criticize. There should be a criticism section, but it's not as pressing a matter as it is for a topic like liberalism, which has been vastly more influential in global politics over the past two, three, four (?) centuries.UberCryxic 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there definitely needs to be a critisism section. There's one for liberalism and other political ideologies, so why not here? Conservativism is no different and does not deserve special treatment. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To some extent, modern conservatism is a reaction to the excesses of liberalism. However, there is also a strong conservative philosophy that goes back to the beginning of history, which supports tradition, the state, religion, and the existing class structure. The use of this kind of conservatism by the upper classes, to keep the lower classes in line by appealing to their religion and patriotism, is one of the major themes of history. These "social conservatives" are, in modern society, joined by "economic liberals", who, faced with the liberal principles of liberty and equality, reject equality but favor liberty. Thus, they are able to join the "social conservatives", who also reject equality, but reject liberty as well. It is an uneasy alliance -- which has libertarians marching with people who want a constitutional ammendment against homosexual marriage and flag burning. What keeps them together, I think, is the covert racism that underlies both views. Rick Norwood 13:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your characterization Rick is that before modern times, "conservatism" was really just an undercurrent in history. It only represented a general state of affairs - as you said, the support of tradition, religious institutions, and autocracies, among other things, in many societies - but it was not a coherent worldview and ideology like it is now. That would require Edmund Burke. When people did all these things you are saying, and they did do them, they did not appeal to conservatism; it was merely how they were raised. Liberalism as an ideology is far older than conservatism. And like I said, the latter is a reaction to the former (Burke was writing in response to the French Revolution).UberCryxic 14:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read a lot of ancient history, and whether you want to call liberalism and conservatism idiologies or a political philosophies they are set out very plainly by ancient writers in much the same terms that they are talked about today. There are few things in philosophy or politics that were not discussed by Plato and Aristotle, by Livy and Ciciro, by Confucius and Loa Tze. Rick Norwood 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

They were discussed by those writers in their own unique context and traditions. The ideological rigor only developed in recent times, which is true for many beliefs and ideas out there. Before the "isms" of the 19th century gave them systematic and coherent weight, they were mostly customary traditions, though not always. Generally speaking, I simply want to caution against taking a modern ideology and brushing history with its stroke. Doing that in no way illuminates on the intellectual debates and concerns of the writers that you identified, and, in fact, it may even detract from those pursuits.UberCryxic 17:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This has gotten off topic, so we will just have to agree to disagree. In my view, the more things change the more the stay the same. Rick Norwood 20:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

sentence on Chinese neoconservatism

The China section currently ends with the sentence:

Since the 1990s, there has been a neoconservative movement in China (not connected with the US neoconservative movement).

I'm not too sure what this means. The parenthetical phrase tells me what it isn't, but there's no link or explanation of what it is. What does this neoconservative movement believe, and how is it different from the Chinese conservatism discussed in the rest of the section? --Delirium 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Crunchy Cons

Is there any reason why "crunchy conservatives", the movement described in Rod Dreher's book, should not be included in the article here? There's some overlap with paleocons, but that moniker doesn't adaquately describe those who Dreher writes about. Mamalujo 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless the word comes into more common usage, it does not belong here. Maybe it belongs in the article on Dreher. Rick Norwood 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A disposition to preserve

"What's happened to this article? It's much shorter, and the quote: "A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve" which is the very heart of conservatism, is gone."

I agree that the quote above belongs in the article. Will someone who knows the citation please reference it.

On another topic, someone has added to the introduction the phrase "strong foreign defense". Whatever that is supposed to mean, it does not belong in the intro. Some conservatives favor a large army, others favor small government. Remember George Washington's statement, "Beware of foreign entanglements".

I've done a small rewrite of the intro. I haven't added anything, just removed a couple of unreferenced comments. Rick Norwood 13:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Russell Kirk needs improved cites

The cites in Russell Kirk are looking rather anemic. Anybody care to try to improve them? -- 201.51.211.130 15:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Conservatism?

I have a question why is it that conservatives are true conservatism these days. The articles does not reflect the aspects of all of this. I have gone threw a great deal of articles in this ideals section. I have not seen any conservative or traditional views that reflect those that support monarchies (Not just the British!! There are other Rulers besides in England!) My point being is that if the article is going to go on about conservatism why does it not address those with positive views of; nobles ruling, public executions, real art, castles etc.

--Margrave1206 18:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find all of that here, if you look far enough. Rick Norwood 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Baised CD?!

I find it appalling that Wikipedia included Liberalism on its 2006 CD, but failed to include its opposite. Open source is supposed to be neutral. What a disgrace.

It's not biased, it's just that the article on conservatism is not up to standards. --A Sunshade Lust 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

this article will never make it to CD as long as Rick dilegently stands guard here with his POV Rants and deliberatly beats any other contributor with his diatribe of POV babble. if they dare question his obvious POV contribution! --MadDogCrog 09:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, MadDogCrog. Good to know that my contribution is not forgotten. I'm tempted to leave it at that, but I did want to mention that most of my work these days is in the staunchly conservative area of good grammar and sentence structure. This has liberals calling me an archconservative and conservatives calling me an archliberal. Rick Norwood 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious Convervatism Biblical?

Religious conservatism is unlike other forms of conservatism, because of the many different forms it can take. Many religious conservatives are resistant to all change, because they see their beliefs as coming from an all knowing and unchanging God. St. Paul illustrates the importance of tradition in First Corinthians: "I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." The Latin word for delivered here is traditio.

"I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (exact reference: 1 Corinthians 11:23).

You know what they say, a text taken out of it's context becomes a pretext.

In this case, Paul's intention was clearly not an attempt to justify religious conservatism (In fact Paul, being a converted jew himself, often refers to Israel's religious traditions such as circumcision as being no longer necessary). In addition, the latin word traditio means "giving up, surrender; instruction, relation" (ref. University of Notre Dame's Latin dictionary). The word tradition may well have been derived from traditio, but the meaning of traditio has nothing to do with tradition. It's a one way street. Furthermore none of the new testament was originally written in Latin, but rather in Greek. It is generally accepted amongst historians and Bible scholars that the latin transaltion of the Bible is flawed and modern translations of the bible are done (for the vast majority) from the Greek texts.

As a side note, the use of the term "all knowing" is somewhat (if not very) sarcastic, and should be replaced with a more neutral term such as "omniscient". Also the usage of "St." is ambiguous (see the Bible's usage of the word, which is much broader that the "canonized by the Church" definition, only recognized in certain denominations, notably by the Catholic or Orthodox Churches), perhaps "apostle" would be more appropriate.

Category:Conservative newspapers and Category:Conservative weblogs

Result of debate was delete. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Radical Religious Conservatism?

This expression "Radical Religious Conservatism" seems to be irrelevant... "Radical Religious Conservatism" is a nice oxymoron : Radicalism is the opposite of Conservatism. People like muslim or christian fondamentalists are far nearer of Marxists and other radicals than conservatives... David Descamps 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A group should be identified with the description they use to identify themselves, not with a description others use to identify them (except for a careful translation into English, of course). On the other hand, the comment on Marxists ignores the fact that a good Marxist rejects all religion. Rick Norwood 12:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but in that light there are no such things as Anarchists. An Anarchist is someone who doesn't believe in political class. When someone labels themselves an Anarchist, they cease to be Anarchists because labeling oneself as an Anarchist constitutes putting themselves in a class (a class of Anarchists). Therefore, if the only ones who can successfully label people are those who label themselves, there are no such things as Anarchists.HillChris1234 19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Injustice

As a staunch liberal myself, I still want the conservatives to be presented correctly. I feel that the first paragraph of this article does not do justice to the conservative philosophy. "Traditional" values are hardly what conservatism calls for - if that were so, we might be stuck in the stone age. No, I think a stronger introduction would have conservatism shown as a philosophy that advocates for minimal government over the people. Gautam ^Discuss 05:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Minimum government conservatives are really libertarians. None of the major conservative thinkers before modern times called for minimum government, as far as I can tell. The call for "reducing the size of the federal government" was embraced by some conservatives in the United States when Democrats were in power (beginning with FDR). It was those conservatives who called for limited government that attracted the libertarians as allies. Then, a series of conservative presidents greatly increased both the power and spending of the federal government, leaving both the libertarians and the Goldwater conservatives looking for a party. Outside America, I don't think limited government is a major part of consevative thought. If I am wrong about that, I would appreciate examples. Rick Norwood 00:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The baronage of western Europe in the Middle Ages probably thought they were conservative when they were campaigning for their liberties, as in the Barons' Wars in England. The liberties which they fought for, which were enshrined in the likes of the Magna Carta, were the "traditional" liberties of free men, albeit a class of people very limited in size at the time. Nevertheless, these liberties, at least within the British sphere of influence, were simply extended gradually over centuries to other parties by the extension of the term "free men" to cover virtually everybody. In that sense, at least, conservatism has a long history of opposition to government and the phrase "a man's home is his castle" is both as conservative and as libertarian as you can get. Srnec 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Srnec. And consider that Edmund Burke was advocating limited government and respect for property rights as early as the eighteenth century, and is now considered a leading figure in the development of conservative thought, as much in Europe as in the US. So I don't agree with Rick Norwood's comments above. But it all depends how you define "conservative", and remember to use WP:ATT. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Norwood raised a good point. Conservatism is not necessarily minarchistic, as libertarianism is. However, conservatism is, I believe, necessarily for limited government. In different periods and places it has advocated larger and smaller governments to limit, but the idea of limitations is inherent in conservative thought, as it is in liberalism's. Only in totalitarianism and its ilk, including socialism, is the idea of unlimited government fathomable. What distinguishes conservatism from other limiting philosophies of government is what limits government.

The first governing party in Canada (in the British tradition still) was the Liberal Conservative Party. It is important to remember that liberalism and conservatism are not polar opposites. This is best illustrated by a look at Edmund Burke, a Whig, that is, a liberal, a progressive, even a leftist in his time. He is called the father of (modern) conservatism. Just look at his two diametrically opposed views concering two contemporary revolutions: the American and the French. He supported the American revolutionaries because they were fighting for rights both they, their fellow citizens, and their government recognised. The French, however, were clamouring for rights no Frenchman had recognised before. The American liberals were also conservative, but the French liberals were just radical.

I think that at root conservatism is not just about opposition to change, but rather an attitude set against the "snobbery of chronology," a phrase borrowed from C. S. Lewis (a man both liberal and conservative in my opinion), which says that something is better because it is newer, present-day, or future. Progress is made by retention, as Santayana, also both liberal and conservative, said. Srnec 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Traditional 19th century conservatism was advocacy of absolute rule of the traditional monarch, and obedience to the traditional church. This meaning of conservatism remained one of the principal meanings through the Second World War. To say that conservatism was for limited government is simply not true - just look at Russian or German conservatives before WWI for counterexamples. Given that the term "conservative" arose as a term for a political ideology in the 19th century, and meant this, it seems odd to define conservatism in a way which excludes most of the movements that were at the time considered conservative. I would agree, however, that "opposition to change" is not the best way to define conservatism. I would say that conservatism ought to be defined as "commitment to established elites and the currently existing social order." Conservatives have never had any consistent political ideology, and have ranged from advocating parliamentary liberalism to supporting traditional autocracy, but they have always had a commitment to the traditional social order, and, generally, have represented the interests of traditional elites. john k 22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the term "conservative" was politicised for use by the Tory Party largely during the time of George Canning. The Canningites supported Catholic emancipation and free trade. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Robert Peel was the first British Tory to really popularise the term: and he is famous for repealing the Corn Laws. I think that "traditional 19th century conservatism" was for limited government. While I admit to speaking primarily within a British context, I think my words about the medieval aristocracy can be applied to other countries as well, even if the modern developments in those nations were radically different from the course taken by Britain. Srnec 02:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a very anglo-centric understanding of the ideology. The continental understanding is entirely different. And the medieval aristocracy cannot meaningfully be described as "conservative." john k 03:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that even in the British context, it is odd to identify conservatism with two men whose followers broke with the Tory party. Obviously Peel was a major figure in British conservatism, but neither he nor Canning can really be considered the father of the modern party. That honor belongs, oddly, to Lord Derby, who, of course, opposed free trade, as well as not being very sympathetic to the Irish (I believe he split with the Whigs over some sort of Church/Ireland related issue). john k 03:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I only brought up Canning and Peel to demonstrate that your statement about the term arising in 19th-century political dialogue only supported what I had said. However "odd" my point about British politics, it does not change the fact that the term arose in Britain as a designation for certain "liberal" Tories. And though my view is admittedly Anglocentric (I pointed it out myself more than once: I am Canadian), your view is hardly less restricted. If conservatism as a term is to be used only for describing things of the past two centuries, then we can safely ignore the Middle Ages, but then I cannot see that the majority of "conservatives" have been absolute monarchists. Maybe in some places (the continent?), but not at all in others (British sphere of influence?).

I am not trying to call the medieval aristocracy "conservative," just to show that in a sense, modern libertarians do have something in common with historic conservative movements insofar as the medieval aristocracy believed in conserving liberites they thought they had from time immemorial. These liberties were extended by liberals to cover many groups, but they never lost their ancient connection in the British context. But the French context shows that the ancient liberties were thoroughly unconnected to the modern liberties the Revolutionaries fought for. In that sense, British conservatism is "liberal" and continental conservatism is not. Does that sound about right? And do you not think that conservatism limits government inherently by its appeal to the status quo and tradition? Srnec 04:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The medieval aristocracy was not a "historic conservative movement", nor is it commensurable in any reasonable way with modern libertarianism. As to Conservatives in the 19th century, I never said that the majority were absolute monarchists. My point was that absolute monarchists were always considered to be conservatives, and that conservatism tended to be monarchistic (I think this last is pretty close to universal). I would agree that British conservatism has always been, to some extent, "liberal" (although Lord Liverpool's administration, say, would not have seemed very liberal to those whose popular opposition it was crushing). And there have also been continental liberal-conservative movements - the Orléanists in France, the National Liberals in Germany, the Octobrists in Russia. It's worth noting, though, that continental liberal-conservatism, especially in the eastern reaches, tended to be in the middle of the political spectrum. Basically, I think my point is that there's no good way to determine the relationship between "conservatism" and "liberty" or "limited government." Conservatives have held positions all down the line on this issue, ranging from libertarianism to authoritarianism. Until after the Second World War, there was no sense in which "conservative" implied any commitment to constitutional rule at all, although of course conservative traditions in the anglosphere very clearly involved a commitment to political liberalism. But we shouldn't turn the British case into the normal baseline for conservatism. French legitimism, or Prussian junker conservatism, are at least as case-defining as Peel, et al. So my only point is that "conservatism" implies no clear advocacy of any particular form or style of government. As I said in my first comment, the best way to look at conservatism is in terms of the interests of established elites. john k 15:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say "commitment to established institutions" rather than elites. Srnec 18:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That probably works too, although I'm not sure that conservatives have tended to be committed to the established institutions of the welfare state, at least in the last 25 years or so. john k 19:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Of course this is controversial. It is about a political party.

whilst i realise that conservapedia is not run by the people who run wikipedia, could anyone please explain to me why every single link i click on in that site blocks me from adding content to discussions or contacting administrators? someone called Joaquín Martínez keeps blocking me, so quickly i can't help thinking he's locked all the pages. why is this, and is there anything anyone can do about it?

Fhbear 22:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They may suspect you of being a liberal. Rick Norwood 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Selling Short

A couple of obversations: 1 - the page on liberalism is about 5 times longer than this page 2 - it also has many more pictures of prominent 'thinkers'

Surely, there can be something done to balance this out a bit

The page on liberalism would be better if it were shorter. Adding pictures to this article would be a good thing. Rick Norwood 12:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deh.. I don't agree. Adding pictures would be like artificially beefing the subject up to make it appear more equal. There is no need for that, because when compared to liberalism, conservatism is equal. The problem is that most great conservative minds unfortunately aren't looked at in the mainstream as great "thinkers." People who would fit this mold, such as Ronald Regan, Rush Limbaugh and any variety of religious figures fit this example. I still think the economic policies of modern conservatism should be included. Therefore, a lot of great thinkers such as Adam Smith could be included. The problem is that this article is trying to narrow the broad range of conservatism down to traditionalism, when it is much more than that. In the English-speaking world (and other languages can define conservatism by their own guidelines in their own wikipedia article) conservatism encompasses issues of strong national defense, limited government and a free market economy as well as traditionalism. Limiting this article to just traditionalism is only reinforcing the ignorant tendency for people to think conservatives are religious zealots. Perhaps we should use this article to expand into the benefits of limited government, low taxes, etc.HillChris1234 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This article does mention both Adam Smith and Ronald Reagan. It does not mention Rush Limbaugh because he is essentially unknown outside the United States, and belongs in the article Conservatism in the United States. Similarly, the alliance between conservatives and libertarians is relatively recent, and motivated, as best I can tell, by politics rather than ideology, an alliance many libertarians now regret. Rick Norwood 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with HillChris-- conservatism is more than traditionalism. Also-- there have to be more early historic figures than Adam Smith to lay claim to (who by the way is also claimed by 'liberalism').

I'm not sure what your point is. The idea of "conservatism" is very old. The Roman orator Cicero was a conservative, as was the Chinese philosopher Confucius. The conservative movement in the last few centuries, which traces its origin to Burke, is belief in God, king, and country.

As you point out, both conservatives and liberals love Adam Smith, up to a point. Adam Smith advised those who grew wealthy under capitalism to pay their taxes without grumbling, which is where modern "conservatives" diverge from Wealth of Nations.

To say that "conservatism is more than traditionalism" is to say that, to the historical meaning of "conservative" has been added, in America, a new meaning, "low taxes and small government". But this is a political move, not a philosophical move. Traditionally, the "low taxes and small government" people were liberals. Liberals let them down, by favoring social programs to promote equaltiy of oportunity, and so the "low taxes and small government" moved to the conservative party -- which also let them down. Maybe you need to form a "Low taxes and small government party". I wish you luck, because never in the history of the world has a government given up money and power without a fight. Rick Norwood 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be the Libertarian Party. Granola Bars 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

True. Both libertarians and conservatives in the modern Western world want low taxes, small government and individual freedom and responsibility. However, the difference is that libertarianism is a fixed ideology, while conservatism as an ideology varies between time periods and societies; for instance, nineteenth-century conservatism was about preserving monarchical and aristocratic rule and was totally different from modern conservatism. I think the quote I added to the first paragraph sums that up quite well: "who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of modern conservatives such as Margaret Thatcher? Basically, conservatism, when considered across the whole of history, is a term so vague as to be impossible to define - which makes this article inherently fairly impossible to write. Conservative movements need to be considered in the context of their country and their time period - whereas there is a fixed definition of "socialist" and of "libertarian", a fixed definition of "conservative" can't exist. Walton^One 17:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rape as a conservative stance... WTF?

"Conservatism as a political philosophy is notoriously difficult to define, encompassing numerous different movements in various countries and time periods; there may sometimes be contradictions between alternative conceptions of conservatism as the ideology of preserving the past, and the contemporary worldwide conception of rape as a conservative political stance." Wtf? This is a joke, right? Or did I miss something? 1337wesm 20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, vandalism is a fact of life on Wikipedia. I've reverted this. I'm told that vandalism usually gets reverted in about fifteen minutes. Rick Norwood 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for revert, sorry I'm not very familiar with the reverting thing =X. Even as a liberal, I find the subtle vandalism unfair and offensive.

1337wesm 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So do we all. Most of the vandals are kids with nothing better to do. Rick Norwood 12:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

So, there is a criticism section on the Liberal section, shouldn't there be one here? Amamamp (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep Link to Libertarianism?

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

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

Social Dominance Orientation Should be Deleted

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

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

Being able go to a university library and dig up these 15 year-old studies, it is possible to verify the validity of these studies. For example, did they use a large enough sample size to be statistically accurate? Often these psychological studies, especially from that long ago, do not. 

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

On what do you base your claim that studies done 15 years ago are "often" not scientifically or statistically valid? It's my understanding the scientific method and statistical analysis have not changed during that time. Ileanadu (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is a good point; there should be concern for whether this is the most up to date research. Another reason why this psychology/sociology stuff should be in a separate article, flagged for experts in those fields to review. Ileanadu (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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