The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Conservatism] is not a four letter word.
Nobeard
North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
This thread is for the discussion of conservatism as a political and social philosophy and ideology. That's a pretty broad subject, so I think it's a good idea to try and keep this discussion primarily about modern conservatism, but that's not a hard and fast rule.
This thread is not for bashing conservatives, bashing Republicans, saying or insinuating that conservatives and/or Republicans in general are evil or immoral, or general discussion of the Republican Party.
Of course, this conversation is going to involve current American politics, which is an emotionally charged subject. It should be. However, please do not let your passions get this thread locked. It's good to care strongly about this, but if you feel yourself getting to the point where you are just ranting or looking to pick a fight, take it somewhere else. In addition to all the rules in the politics rules thread, please review Tube's post about political discussion. He really, really means it, I can assure you.
Let's do this!
This thread is not for bashing conservatives, bashing Republicans, saying or insinuating that conservatives and/or Republicans in general are evil or immoral, or general discussion of the Republican Party.
Of course, this conversation is going to involve current American politics, which is an emotionally charged subject. It should be. However, please do not let your passions get this thread locked. It's good to care strongly about this, but if you feel yourself getting to the point where you are just ranting or looking to pick a fight, take it somewhere else. In addition to all the rules in the politics rules thread, please review Tube's post about political discussion. He really, really means it, I can assure you.
Let's do this!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I.e. is libertarianism (part of) conservatism? In the American political environment it is, but I might argue that libertarianism isn't actually a conservative philosophy, but rather an extreme version of classical liberalism in how it elevates the individual and drastically curtails the power of the state.
Both. In fact the relation between them is one of the things I'm most interested in.
Registered Democrat, consider myself non religious, pro tax, pro gun. I'm not exactly sure why it's automatically considered part of the "evil" big C conservative ideology to be pro gun. I imagine the Democrats would see a flood of single issue pro gun voters if they weren't so ideologically bent on seemingly uninformed gun policies like the AWB.
Discussion from a multicultural view point is great. IMO conservatism in America has been mutated and twisted in order to justify some terrible things. What conservatism means to other cultures can shed light on how and why this happened.
Probably because in the wake of school shootings, it's the Republicans that suggest arming the teachers.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Well, I mean, as a superficial response, if "conservatism" generally means a desire to slow progress/maintain traditions of the past, American conservatism and European conservatism (and conservatism in other parts of the world, mostly) descend from different points. At the time of the Enlightenment, the US is a bunch of frontier colonies, with minimal local governance. In contrast, Europe is a complex web of interrelated dynasties, increasingly trending towards absolute monarchies, "L'etat, c'est moi." So libertarianism, imo, "fits" with American conservatism, but not with European conservatism, which, I think, actually promotes a more powerful central government with more reach.
(Only surface-level ideas here.)
I'm not sure how we are supposed to square these two paragraphs. How does one discuss something when we are pre-emptively trying to remove half the possible positions on the subject?
Conservatism as a political force is radical, reactionary and regressive. Even when we move beyond just the US to embrace a global view of political conservatism, say, across the western world what we get is political movements that are racist, bigoted, xenophobic, sexist, socially regressive, anti-labour, anti-intellectual and about fucking over the lower classes in the service of big business and big money.
Conservatism as some sort of a platonic political ideology can exist in other forms. One can I'm sure forward some sort of political philosophy and platform on the subject. But it's applicability to politics as actually practiced is essentially nothing. At best those kind of conservatives exist in some centrist parties as the right-side of the spectrum. More realistically they are simply the veneer thrown over some nasty fucking policies to make it seem intellectually palatable to dismantle the modern welfare state and keep the rich and those of the correct race and class on top.
To swing back just to America, there were plenty of outfits in DC and the like who believed themselves the torch bearers of this enlightened intellectual conservatism (a joke in it's own right, but that was at least the whole idea). And ultimately they proved themselves out of touch with how the actual conservative-voting masses felt and incapable of exercising any sort of power over the conservative political movement. And when push came to shove, as always happens, they capitulated to the regressive bigots and stepped in line behind them. Because they care about getting the power to push their radical agenda more then they care about not being anywhere from "just" the supporters of bigots to bigots themselves.
You want another example, take a gander at what's going on in the UK right now as the Tories go full xenophobe to fight off UKIP stealing their voters.
Yes, Republicans can and do say stupid shit about gun policy. And Democrats (including a candidate for POTUS) are quick to attack existing policies like the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in a misleading way, whether through ignorance or malice.
My point is that there seems to be a misunderstanding of what actually constitutes solely "Big C Conservative" ideology. I don't think being pro gun is unique to Republicans, Libertarians, or others who would be considered within the realm of conservatism or Conservatives.
Not terribly surprisingly, those of a conservative bent favoured the "loyalty" end of the axis (i.e. even if you do the dumbest of dummy things, I'll stick by you no matter what), whereas liberals favoured the "intervention" end of the axis (i.e. I'll try and stop you, even if it means losing your friendship).
Of course, there are the various psychology coping mechanisms that are associated with those (the most prominent on the conservative side being cognitive dissonance from supporting your friend despite an action which you recognize as "wrong"), but there's no objective value judgement in terms of which perspective is "better".
I wish I could remember how the study was actually phrased - would help me google it (and also validate if I'm reading more into it than was actually there
My experience as a human interacting with humans tells me that I should question the veracity of those who would answer number 2. It seems like one of those things people claim they would actually want when they really don't want it. I've tried to intervene on the behalf of friends who are doing things that are stupid or even possibly ruinous and it seems like generally people aren't going to be as receptive to it in reality when they claim to want that. And I've been in the same position where I've disregarded advice that would have prevented a shitty situation or dumb action.
But that depends on how the actual questionnaire is constructed. If it's literally asking just that one question with those two answers I would have to question it.
I would go as far as to state that conservatism has always been about maintaining the status quo. This leads to it being a power play, because it supports those in power already.
This seems to squarely be opposed to the conservative position on religion. It's the whole "If you're driving and see a pothole, do I let you hit it, or tell you to avoid it?" example that goes for the religious beliefs.
In fact, my experience in the US with the Republican party tells me that they want more government, they are just very good at not selling it as more government. Instead, it becomes more police to keep our children safe, or the war on drugs, or any other number of policies. Those same police, that same concern for drugs, etc, is also used to enforce voter disenfranchisement, racial profiling, and the like.
To apply the policy brakes. To demand reflection and curb the desire to jump without looking. To respond, when someone cries that we must do something right now, by asking why must we, and is the something in question really any better?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
And if we're going to be discussing modern American Conservatism, we must address its ties to racism and sexism. The ideology would be unrecognizable without the Southern Strategy, which effectively amounts to an effort to restore the Jim Crow status quo.
-a focus on private solutions to problems, rather than public
-respect for the traditions and mores of the group in power
-loyalty to the ingroup
-deference to authority
-resistance to societal change in most forms
-a "don't rock the boat" mentality
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Without it, conservatism becomes more like libertarianism.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
It is not so designed. It's very possible to have a conversation about a topic that's more academic and less likely to veer into folks raging about current events.
Firstly, is it cognitive or non-cognitive? For example, conservatives wouldn't describe their political beliefs as attempting to conserve their privilege. Would the diagnosis be that they are doing so unwittingly or they are concealing their intentions when they describe them?
Secondly, is there a distinction between an ideology and the motivations and unifying forces for some particular group and their chosen or applied political designation?
Unwittingly in most cases.
I think there's an authoritarian attitude that cuts across political philosophies.
It is mostly an observed phenomenon from outsiders.
im not sure how to answer the second question. What exactly do you mean by "chosen or applied political designation"?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I get where you're headed there, but in this case I think the distinction we are making is that conservatism, as opposed to libertarianism, distinctly does defer to authority. Mainly because it specifically strives to continue the current power structures that exist.
I'd call that more a deference to the status quo that to authority. Conservatism strongly wishes to limit the scope and power of authority to within its pre-defined scope.
Ex: taking over the government and massively restricting the second amendment, and forcing folks to interact with people they have no wish to interact with.
Conservatives defer to current authority because they think the current authority is doing well enough.
They certainly aren't offering to tear anything the Fuck down.
Again, I would note, that's just American conservatism. European conservatism favours authoritative governments. South American conservatism favours autocracy. Japanese conservatism favours big government.
Edit: Hell, honestly it's debatable whether American conservatism actually wishes to limit the scope and power of authority. American conservatives are pretty on-board with the government and its police forces having unprecedented search and seizure powers.
It doesn't have to mean government.
I'm thinking more in terms of religious authority, or corporate authority, or even patriarchal authority within the home.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
But for conservatism, what defines that pre defined scope?
Like our current society is way the fuck off from where it started, what with all the free minorities and voting women.
What's the pre-defined scope, and which expansions of that scope, in say the last 3 decades, are conservatives against, outside of regulations upon businesses?
Edit: questing revised no group is universally for or against things.
The former is more legitimate on its face, because the latter is always harder to capture, because for reactionary policies to be successful you have to isolate exactly why things were better in the past. Sometimes this is easy (like when the US ended prohibition), most of the time it's very misguided, like American reactionaries thinking that the postwar prosperity had something to do with a lack of civil rights/feminism uproar whereas the truth involves superstrong unions and the historical peculiarity of the US being the only major industrial power that didn't have its infrastructure gutted by WWII.
Big-C American Conservatism is definitely reactionary in nature, and the only variable is what year they think we should return to, which depends on which faction of GOP you're talking to and which issue you're talking about.
Now, in some other countries, conservatism actually is just that, like in Germany where the Christian Democrats aren't really pushing backwards at all, unlike the Tories or the French Republicans. So it is possible to have proper conservatism. I'd argue that the GOP was also a "true" conservative party from the 50s through 1980, and only with Reagan and the dawn of Movement Conservatism did the reactionary parts of the party take over.
My overall opinion of the ideological evolution of the current GOP goes back to Hamilton and the Federalists, so the Authoritarian federalists begat the Elitist National Republicans, who begat the Corporatist Whigs, who begat the classical-liberal Lincoln Republicans, who begat the Corporatists (from Hayes through Ben Harrison), who begat a sort of progressive-corporatist party from TR through Thomas Dewey, then True Conservatives from Eisenhower through Ford, then Reactionaries from Reagan onward.
Yeah, I think it's an independent factor. Like, you would find correlation with party alignment, but I think it's because of other factors.
As to small-c conservatism, I view it as somewhere on the middle of a line between reactionary and liberal. One end wants to undo change, the other wants to accelerate it. There is merit to both conservative and liberal positions on that spectrum (but fuck reactionaries). I suppose it could be somewhat summarized by when they think things are good - conservatives think things are going good now, liberals focus on things will be better tomorrow (and reactionaries are all about things were better in the past). This at least is where you get the terms in relation to political axes (social and economic being the common ones, though I wonder if economically conservative/liberal is a misapplication of the term compared to the social axes).
I think the modern GOP is squarely in the reactionary camp at the moment, or at least those elements have become ascendant in the party. They are also infuriatingly good at messaging though, and have distorted the meaning of "conservative" in the public consciousness (also socialism, but that's another topic).
Although I do think you could make a case that today's conservative is tomorrow's reactionary (as they go from clinging to the present to clinging to the past in the wake of a change. This would also go for liberal>conservative as they achieve a change and decide things are now great). I'm wondering if there may just be a general tendency to slide that way as human nature.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
However, I think we get into the murky territory that is the american political terminology wherein liberal is opposed to conservative and encompasses a big range of broadly left political schools. Classical liberalism is indeed anti-authoritarian in both practice and philosophy - but a whole range of the other things under the american "liberal" umbrella are most assuredly showing authoritarian tendencies even if there isn't a particular authority they respect (except maybe tumblr, lols). But under classical terminology 'progressives' and 'liberals' are not the synonyms..
I think there is definitely a "No true Scotsman" problem, in that many conservatives, as commonly denoted in politics, do not actually subscribe to the definition of conservatism that spool32 gives:
If we were to take that as the definition of conservatism, I would question, then, how it is that so many self-proclaimed conservatives tote around smartphones to surf the Web on their 4G networks. I would question why American conservatives are so eager to reopen policies and relitigate laws that date back decades, why British conservatives are so eager to upheave their entire nation with Brexit, why Japanese conservatives want to reinstate their 70-year defunct military. What spool32 describes as conservatism seems to me the sort of conservatism that might exist behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, springing from some deep cynicism or skepticism about societal progress or some belief about the propriety of a slower rate of progress.
In practice, I find that Mancingtom's description of conservatism is a more practical description of how conservatism actually manifests worldwide:
It explains why conservatives in various nations will oppose one 30-year old policy but not another 10-year old policy. It encompasses small-government American conservatives, big-government European conservatives, theocratic Middle Eastern conservatives, autocratic South American conservatives, tribal African conservatives, and paternalistic Asian conservatives. It explains why conservatives worldwide are willing to accept some utterly transformational changes (see: cell phone technology, Brexit, tearing up NAFTA), because they consider those unthreatening to/beneficial to themselves.
Of course, again, this wanders into "No true Scotsman" territory, because how reasonable can it be to expect conservatives to hold political positions that are of detriment to themselves? If our/my expectation is that in order to be conservative, one has to uniformly resist all change, to the extent that one must act against one's self-interest, that's an extremely rare level of ideological consistency. One could not expect the practical manifestation of conservative politics to be self-harming in that manner.
I suspect, then, that real-world conservative politics is the convergence of the two, or thereabouts. Take those whose self-interests are best-served by opposition to change, and then tilt the position slightly based on demographics so that some things fall out while others fall in, and that's practically speaking where you'll find conservatives. That's how conservatives pick to which point in their national histories they wish to return to. So you get small-government American conservatives opposed to wealth redistribution and big-government Japanese conservatives who are for wealth redistribution, and how you get South American conservatives who wish to return to military dictatorship and British conservatives who wish to seize back their country from the "undemocratic" EU. This is how, practically speaking, conservative movements pick which points in history they wish to hearken back to, which parts of history they're willing to let go and which parts they wish to fight for. It's why Iranian conservatives support the Ayatollah, rather than wish for a return to the Pahlavi dynasty.
This is, of course, not to say there aren't ideologically consistent conservatives who subscribe to a theoretical Rawlsian conservatism, as spool32 describes, but I would say that, by and large, these individuals are rare and out-of-sync with conservative political movements, unsurprisingly. It's just a matter of political reality, of how power flows, and of how human psychologies work.
I'd argue that the current GOP is largely dominated by a reactionary faction and a decent chunk of the conservatives it used to claim, have since moved to the democratic party or out of elected politics altogether.
Though Conservatives, in that definition tend to steer towards the status quo of the current times, so they are more resistant to changing current policies be that going back to old polices in a reactionary fashion or implementing new policies that could be in the liberal or radical molds, depending on how far they depart from the current policies (it's been awhile since I've last looked at the definition, so apologies if I'm a bit off).