• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For CONSERVATIVES: What is conservatism?

What is conservatism?

  • It's about being reactionary and authoritarian with a social agenda.

    Votes: 4 14.8%

  • It's about smaller government and/or lower taxes.

    Votes: 19 70.4%

  • It's about individual liberty.

    Votes: 19 70.4%

  • It's about capitalism.

    Votes: 17 63.0%

  • It's (also?) about something else which I will explain.

    Votes: 8 29.6%
  • Total voters
    27
Harshaw

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I was recently informed that an ideology is what the majority of its adherents say it is.

So, conservatives, what do you say it is? Pick all which apply.

If you're not a conservative, this isn't for you, and while, obviously, the thread mechanism will allow you to participate, sorry, you don't actually have anything fruitful to add. It isn't about what you think about conservatives. It's about what conservatives think about themselves.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
I was recently informed that an ideology is what the majority of its adherents say it is.
Click to expand...

Can't answer your poll since I am not a conservative, but I think it is truer to say that if you vote for conservatives, you are partially responsible for the laws they enact. I feel that way about democrats, which as you can imagine is frustrating at times.
 
I guess I don't get to vote, but the middle three choices are more along the line of libertarianism. The top one I would say is the current state of the conservative platform.
 
The middle three and the last. The last choice being the preservation/conservation of the middle three against reckless/unnecessary infringement. This allows for stability, which is key in any free society. I would also add: Strict contructionism--this pretty much sums up all four. Modern liberal ideology is, in fact, reactionary in nature.

I will concede that many politicians who claim to be conservative fall very short. But that doesn't change the ideology. I don't agree that an ideology is what the sum of its adherents thinks it is. Ideologies are set in stone, variations of said ideology are different ideologies, and people who call themselves conservatives may not adhere to all conservative principles, that doesn't make the principles any less a part of what conservatism is.
 
Last edited:
If we need a poll to define what Conservatism is, how do we decide which posters are Conservatives? :confused:
 
Call it the honor system.
 
I don't like the options. They basically imply that conservativism is either libertarian in nature or authoritarian in nature... where's the middle ground?

As for my answer, to quote Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it". Other than that I have no idea what conservatism or liberalism are all about.
 
Last edited:
I thought conservatism was supposed to be along the lines of an old definition: Conserving what is good, seeking to redress what is not working, and not clinging to ideas b/c they are tradition.


But, I didn't vote b/c I'm not a conservative.
 
Dav said:
I don't like the options. They basically imply that conservativism is either libertarian in nature or authoritarian in nature... where's the middle ground?

As for my answer, to quote Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it". Other than that I have no idea what conservatism or liberalism are all about.
Click to expand...

It's about what conservatives think conservatism is, so whatever you think, lay it out.
 
2, 3, 4 and personal responsibility
 
jackalope said:
I thought conservatism was supposed to be along the lines of an old definition: Conserving what is good, seeking to redress what is not working, and not clinging to ideas b/c they are tradition.


But, I didn't vote b/c I'm not a conservative.
Click to expand...

well that explains alot, most liberals and "conservatives" also believe this...

conservatism is the belief that:
- people shold be free, only bound by moral values
- government should be limited and molded by those it effects
- balance can only be obtained by variety (rich and poor, many oposing views on subjects ect.)
-this also applies to a strong belief in a "chain of command" authority system, apprentice to master, student to teacher, parents to child.
-That hasty change is a reckless path to destruction, and all change should be carefully thought out before executed
-that we must consider the past and all men of our past, for their thier acumulative knowlage far exceeds that which any modern man would ever have

in a nutshell, there is so much more
 
That list is not very useful. It doesn't have a decent entry for social conservatism, a key part of any conservatism.

Conservatism is not necessarily in favour of capitalism or corporate-capitalism, though it is not in favour of socialism either. It certainly is not individualist in the atomistic way of classical liberals like J.S Mill either. So while I think it is about individual liberty I won't check it because it seems to have the connotations of that corrosive, anti-conservatism ideology of absolute individualism. It could be said to be somewhat about smaller gov't, though that is a very one-dimensional way of putting it.
 
Last edited:
MikeVFF said:
well that explains alot, most liberals and "conservatives" also believe this...

conservatism is the belief that:
- people shold be free, only bound by moral values
- government should be limited and molded by those it effects
- balance can only be obtained by variety (rich and poor, many oposing views on subjects ect.)
-this also applies to a strong belief in a "chain of command" authority system, apprentice to master, student to teacher, parents to child.
-That hasty change is a reckless path to destruction, and all change should be carefully thought out before executed
-that we must consider the past and all men of our past, for their thier acumulative knowlage far exceeds that which any modern man would ever have

in a nutshell, there is so much more
Click to expand...

Good lord, I am a conservative...
 
I made a thread on this recently, here is my OP which is a good indicator of my views:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/55211-understanding-conservatism.html

The way i see it many people simply do not understand what conservatism is about particularly political and social conservatism.

So I thought I'd start a thread focusing on social and political conservatism, despite my laziness on thread making, so as to highlight what those who walk in the tradition of Burke actually believe. Three great explanatory works are these:

The Kirk Center - Ten
Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk

Conservatives and Libertarians: Uneasy Cousins

Edmund Burke: Reflections on the Revolution in France

The first two at least are readable quite quickly. They explain the conservative view of society quite well.

Certain interesting selections include Kirk's explanation of the importance of custom, tradition and convention --- a frequently misunderstood part of conservatism.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

He also interestingly shows a common conservative point on inequality, uniformity and diversity:

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Also Nisbet explains the conservative view on authority and its relationship with liberty as well as the necessary restraint that a social order must place on the individual for a prosperous and free society.

The conservative philosophy of liberty proceeds from the conservative philosophy of authority. It is the existence of authority in the social order that staves off encroachments of power from the political sphere. Conservatism, from Burke on, has perceived society as a plurality of authorities. There is the authority of parent over the small child, of the priest over the communicant, the teacher over the pupil, the master over the apprentice, and so on. Society as we actually observe it, is a network or tissue of such authorities; they are really numberless when we think of the kinds of authority which lie within even the smallest of human groups and relationships. Such authority may be loose, gentle, protective, and designed to produce individuality, but it is authority nevertheless. For the conservative, individual freedom lies in the interstices of social and moral authority. Only because of the restraining and guiding efforts of such authority does it become possible for human beings to sustain so liberal a political government as that which the Founding Fathers designed in this country and which flourished in England from the late seventeenth century on. Remove the social bonds, as the more zealous and uncompromising of libertarian individualists have proposed ever since William Godwin, and you emerge with, not a free but a chaotic people, not with creative but impotent individuals. Human nature, Balzac correctly wrote, cannot endure a moral vacuum.

Anyway I hope that is enough to educate and start debate because as I said I'm a little lazy when it comes to starting threads.

Note: Kirk mentions a divine order and such several times, the purpose of this thread is not a debate over the existence of god or anything similar. It is not necessary for this discussion so let's avoid that area please.
 
Last edited:
MikeVFF said:
well that explains alot, most liberals and "conservatives" also believe this...

conservatism is the belief that:
- people shold be free, only bound by moral values
- government should be limited and molded by those it effects
- balance can only be obtained by variety (rich and poor, many oposing views on subjects ect.)
-this also applies to a strong belief in a "chain of command" authority system, apprentice to master, student to teacher, parents to child.
-That hasty change is a reckless path to destruction, and all change should be carefully thought out before executed
-that we must consider the past and all men of our past, for their thier acumulative knowlage far exceeds that which any modern man would ever have

in a nutshell, there is so much more
Click to expand...

Always nice to see another Kirkian. :2wave:
 
Social conservatism is related to the preservation of traditional social mores and principles, which accounts for perceptions of the regressive nature of the social platform of rightist legislative candidates. This is usually paired with fiscal conservatism, which has had little consistent practical implementation, and involves spending reductions in favored areas while self-described fiscally conservative policymakers have utilized Military Keynesianism and the like in other areas.
 
Redress said:
Good lord, I am a conservative...
Click to expand...

You very well might be. The real test is if you observe these values in your natural behaviors and beliefs, rather than just attaching yourself to and ideology for the heck of it.

Agnapostate said:
Social conservatism is related to the preservation of traditional social mores and principles, which accounts for perceptions of the regressive nature of the social platform of rightist legislative candidates. This is usually paired with fiscal conservatism, which has had little consistent practical implementation, and involves spending reductions in favored areas while self-described fiscally conservative policymakers have utilized Military Keynesianism and the like in other areas.
Click to expand...

this is assuming that rightist candidates are proper representatives of "social" conservatism, and arguing these people utilize Military Keynesiznism is a ridiculous accusation.

I also find it ironic that a self-proclaimed "Libertarian" would state fiscal conservatism has little consistent practical implementation.
 
MikeVFF said:
this is assuming that rightist candidates are proper representatives of "social" conservatism, and arguing these people utilize Military Keynesiznism is a ridiculous accusation.
Click to expand...

I see no reason to believe why traditionalist rightist candidates aren't social conservatives, and I also didn't claim that they utilized Military Keynesianism. I claimed that Military Keynesianism has been a rightist-accepted element of alleged fiscal conservatism, particularly during the Reagan administration.

I also find it ironic that a self-proclaimed "Libertarian" would state fiscal conservatism has little consistent practical implementation.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be a Libertarian, which would imply party membership. I only adhere to small 'l' libertarianism, though the legitimate sort and not the capitalist fraud so prevalent in this country.
 
Agnapostate said:
I see no reason to believe why traditionalist rightist candidates aren't social conservatives,
Click to expand...

ignorance in no ground to back your statement.

and I also didn't claim that they utilized Military Keynesianism. I claimed that Military Keynesianism has been a rightist-accepted element of alleged fiscal conservatism, particularly during the Reagan administration.
Click to expand...

Which would, again, imply rightists are properly representing fiscal conservatism. Why do you force me to redundancy?

I never claimed to be a Libertarian, which would imply party membership. I only adhere to small 'l' libertarianism, though the legitimate sort and not the capitalist fraud so prevalent in this country.
Click to expand...

So you are denying you share views with the libertarian ideology?
 
I'm not a conservative, but if they hired me to write a catchy slogan for them it would be: "conserving government power in favor of individual liberty".

And it would be a lie.
 
MikeVFF said:
ignorance in no ground to back your statement.
Click to expand...

Are you planning on making some kind of point, or will you merely repeat baseless assertions?

MikeVFF said:
Which would, again, imply rightists are properly representing fiscal conservatism. Why do you force me to redundancy?
Click to expand...

There's no redundancy there, as you did not make a sound point to begin with. As any ideology is only as valuable as its actually existing manifestation, there's little basis for claiming that rightist elected officials have not striven to implement fiscal conservatism, especially considering the role of fiscally conservative commentators in supporting the policy agenda that was implemented (which included Military Keynesianism).

MikeVFF said:
So you are denying you share views with the libertarian ideology?
Click to expand...

No, as an anarchist, I represent the most principled variant of the libertarian ideology. Modern capitalists who falsely claim libertarianism are those most disconnected with the historical roots and logical applications of that ideology.
 
Agnapostate said:
Are you planning on making some kind of point, or will you merely repeat baseless assertions?

There's no redundancy there, as you did not make a sound point to begin with. As any ideology is only as valuable as its actually existing manifestation, there's little basis for claiming that rightist elected officials have not striven to implement fiscal conservatism, especially considering the role of fiscally conservative commentators in supporting the policy agenda that was implemented (which included Military Keynesianism).
Click to expand...

Once again your attempts to criticize my accepted points by attacking the legitimacy of the statements themselves is baseless and takes away from the subject of the thread.

Reading comprehension; YOU force ME to redundancy because you fail to accept my sound criticism of your baseless and irrelevant statements.

And If you knew the definition and meaning of the terms you carelessly throw around you would understand my justification of claiming your criticism to be baseless.



No, as an anarchist,
Click to expand...

Explains QUITE a bit...

I represent the most principled variant of the libertarian ideology. Modern capitalists who falsely claim libertarianism are those most disconnected with the historical roots and logical applications of that ideology.
Click to expand...

And you are hurting its image.

Please remove yourself from the conversation unless you have something constructive to bring to the table. FYI the topic is Conservatism.
 
Alex Libman said:
I'm not a conservative, but if they hired me to write a catchy slogan for them it would be: "conserving government power in favor of individual liberty".

And it would be a lie.
Click to expand...

Explain please.

Your accusations seem to criticize the republican party, not conservatism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom