Conservatism By Definition

[saysmydoctor]

Has the definition of conservatism been skewed by the American brand of conservatism?

Perhaps it's my idea of conservatism or maybe the ideology as a whole, but it doesn't seem to be a universal concept like more left or liberal schools of thought. I always saw conservatism as being devoid of big government and things that would go along with it, also being against very nationalist ideas, promoting self-responsibility in all aspects of life--defense, health, etc, etc. Hence why I would expect conservatives to shun big national-security platforms--which they don't in the US.

What are others' thoughts?

[loveisdead]

Add in low taxes and you've hit the nail on the head.

[xshady121]

Has the definition of conservatism been skewed by the American brand of conservatism?

Perhaps it's my idea of conservatism or maybe the ideology as a whole, but it doesn't seem to be a universal concept like more left or liberal schools of thought. I always saw conservatism as being devoid of big government and things that would go along with it, also being against very nationalist ideas, promoting self-responsibility in all aspects of life--defense, health, etc, etc. Hence why I would expect conservatives to shun big national-security platforms--which they don't in the US.

What are others' thoughts?

I brought up this point a while back, and I agree with you 100%. I don't understand why american conservatives are okay with big govt when it's in the name of national security.

[saysmydoctor]

Add in low taxes and you've hit the nail on the head.
Yeah, this as well.
I brought up this point a while back, and I agree with you 100%. I don't understand why american conservatives are okay with big govt when it's in the name of national security.
It's definitely the neconservative movement that promotes the national security policy. That is my main beef with the conservative movement, it's not that I dislike the ideology--I don't agree with it at all, though---it's just that these politicians have altered from what it truly is, it's a small government everything but the military and that doesn't seem conservative at all--that just seems to trend towards totalitarianism/authoritarianism.

Is it the Cold War that created this shift? I'd assume it is but I guess that begs the question--it's 2009. What was their excuse from 1990 to 2001 when terrorism wasn't nearly at the forefront as it is now?

I respect Ron Paul for being a true conservative--I think he is fucking crazy ideologically, but I respect him. He is the kind of opposition we (the left) need. The opposition is vital, but I just see that the right's idea of opposing is to scare us and to belittle us, which isn't helpful.

[bung]

I don't understand the whole want to preserve "traditional values" and limit change thing about conservatism. Because it, like, doesn't work.

[saysmydoctor]

I think that is where libertarian conservatism comes into play.

Offtopic: Awesome avatar.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I would say all Conservatives in liberal democracies have these sort of base principles:
-Individual freedoms should be maximized possible so long as it does not prove harmful to society and should only be restricted or extended when the existing state of things is being threatened.
-The government should not interefere heavily in the market unless it is absolutley necessary and only to better the nation's economy.
-The government should look out for its own nation's interests and always strive to better their country, even if it sometimes requires military force.
-When change is necessary, it must come slowly and practically, without doing damage to existing traditions.

Since conservatism is so different in many countries, as is Socialism or Liberalism it was hard to come up with this. I think it is safe to say that all conservatism is traditional, patriotic, and believes in moderation.

[saysmydoctor]

See, I don't agree. While there are definitely some slight variations to liberalism and socialism--they are pretty static around the world.

Not to mention, I don't see conservatism as promoting patriotism--I think that is distinctly american brand of conservatism. Conservatives wouldn't want to empower the state with nationalistic arguments, it would be counterproductive.

[GuitarR0cker1]

You don't think that conservatives are more patriotic/nationalistic than socialists or liberals? I think that is a pretty basic fact in developed nations. I mean sure America is the exception where we have an ultra-right brand of conservatism in general but it doesn't change the fact that nationalism is still a very conservative tenet.

I think the differences between socialists around the world are more defined than people think. In some countries a social democratic party will be the force for social liberalism, while in others there are still defined liberal movements that promote social liberalism. At the same time some social democratic parties really have no socialist tenets left, besides supporting a social safety net.

[saysmydoctor]

Nationalism is a distinctly a more left, totalitarian concept, I always thought.

[macabre]

Nationalism is a distinctly a more left, totalitarian concept, I always thought.

The left-right spectrum is supposed to measure government involvement in a certain context but the meaning has changed dramatically over time. Nationalistic parties are on the right because they usually favor more government intervention in social aspects whereas parties on the left favor less government intervention. I think the grouping of parties into a left-right spectrum is way too fuzzy; you have parties like the Republicans who are on the "left" economically but on the "right" socially, so where do they fall? I prefer the political compass approach better as it uses the left-right to measure economic interventionism and an added north-south dimension to measure government intervention into social aspects.

Check it out here:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

[saysmydoctor]

The left-right spectrum is supposed to measure government involvement in a certain context but the meaning has changed dramatically over time. Nationalistic parties are on the right because they usually favor more government intervention in social aspects whereas parties on the left favor less government intervention. I think the grouping of parties into a left-right spectrum is way too fuzzy; you have parties like the Republicans who are on the "left" economically but on the "right" socially, so where do they fall? I prefer the political compass approach better as it uses the left-right to measure economic interventionism and an added north-south dimension to measure government intervention into social aspects.

Check it out here:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Republicans aren't left economically.

[Love As Arson]

See, I don't agree. While there are definitely some slight variations to liberalism and socialism--they are pretty static around the world.

Not to mention, I don't see conservatism as promoting patriotism--I think that is distinctly american brand of conservatism. Conservatives wouldn't want to empower the state with nationalistic arguments, it would be counterproductive.
"By the beginning of the 20th century the system had developed to a point where the world was divided between the major capitalist countries, which competed with each other over resources, workforces and the control of weaker, more economically backward countries. These less developed countries were conquered economically, militarily and socially by the more advanced capitalist nations, creating oppressed and oppressor nations. This dynamic is imperialism and it means there is a difference between the nationalism of the oppressor nation and the nationalism of the oppressed.

The nationalism which justified the British conquest and control of Ireland or India, its adulation of the Queen, its homage to itself as a civilising force around the world, simply became a way of justifying capitalism's brutal and bloody expansion across the globe. It was (and is) an ideology of pure reaction.

The nationalism of the Irish or the Indians, who desired their own nation state free from the yoke of their British oppressors, is not. It has an anti- imperialist edge to it, which makes it progressive. So while both are forms of nationalism, they have a different dynamic."

Within the mechanics of the capitalism, there can be no proper metric for liberal or conservative; all are distorted by a reactionary system.

[saysmydoctor]

What's that quoted from? It reads like Noam Chomsky, kind of. Very interesting, I never looked at nationalism that way--I've always just shunned it in its entirety.

[Love As Arson]

http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1522&Itemid=106
http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/marxism_nationalism_part1.shtml
http://www.isreview.org/issues/14/marxism_nationalism_part2.shtml

[macabre]

Republicans aren't left economically.

In modern usage, that's obviously not the case and that's why I put the left in quotations because the meaning has changed over time. The left-right spectrum originally measured less government involvement on the left and more government involvement on the right so you actually had classical liberals like Adam Smith falling on the left whereas people who supported the Ancien Regime and the monarchy falling on the right. Somewhere the definition got fuzzy and now the left stands for socialism/anarchism while the right stands for conservativism/capitalism/nationalism. My point was that parties don't always fit neatly into a left-right spectrum. For example, you have the Christian Democrats in Europe who are progressive on economic issues but conservative on social issues. Where do they fall?

[bung]

Offtopic: Awesome avatar.

Thank you. :-)

In modern usage, that's obviously not the case and that's why I put the left in quotations because the meaning has changed over time. The left-right spectrum originally measured less government involvement on the left and more government involvement on the right so you actually had classical liberals like Adam Smith falling on the left whereas people who supported the Ancien Regime and the monarchy falling on the right. Somewhere the definition got fuzzy and now the left stands for socialism/anarchism while the right stands for conservativism/capitalism/nationalism. My point was that parties don't always fit neatly into a left-right spectrum. For example, you have the Christian Democrats in Europe who are progressive on economic issues but conservative on social issues. Where do they fall?

Wouldn't someone who is on the left economically and the right socially be a populist? By definition, anyway.

[xshady121]

In modern usage, that's obviously not the case and that's why I put the left in quotations because the meaning has changed over time. The left-right spectrum originally measured less government involvement on the left and more government involvement on the right so you actually had classical liberals like Adam Smith falling on the left whereas people who supported the Ancien Regime and the monarchy falling on the right. Somewhere the definition got fuzzy and now the left stands for socialism/anarchism while the right stands for conservativism/capitalism/nationalism. My point was that parties don't always fit neatly into a left-right spectrum. For example, you have the Christian Democrats in Europe who are progressive on economic issues but conservative on social issues. Where do they fall?


they would be populist. just like how if you're conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues you generally are a libertarian.

[macabre]

Thank you. :-)
Wouldn't someone who is on the left economically and the right socially be a populist? By definition, anyway.


Not necessarily, populist parties can take any shape or form depending on the country that they are in. There are populistic right-wing parties like the Swiss People's party who are pro-business and populistic left-wing parties like the democratic socialists in Venezuela who are pro-collectivization.

[macabre]

they would be populist. just like how if you're conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues you generally are a libertarian.

Populist parties can be on the left or right economically. I was asking where the party would fall on a left-right spectrum, if you were to actually plot them, not what you would call them. Also, the Christian Democrats aren't a populist party because they don't seek to reinvent the power structure in favor of the people; they see social hierarchies as natural, unlike populist parties.

[Siren Silently]

I would say all Conservatives in liberal democracies have these sort of base principles:
-Individual freedoms should be maximized possible so long as it does not prove harmful to society and should only be restricted or extended when the existing state of things is being threatened.
-The government should not interefere heavily in the market unless it is absolutley necessary and only to better the nation's economy.
-The government should look out for its own nation's interests and always strive to better their country, even if it sometimes requires military force.
-When change is necessary, it must come slowly and practically, without doing damage to existing traditions.


The term you are looking for is Libertarian (not in the nutty, big L party sense, but a classic liberal).

[GuitarR0cker1]

The term you are looking for is Libertarian (not in the nutty, big L party sense, but a classic liberal).
Now that I look back on it, that is a good definition for Liberal Conservatism, which most European conservative parties are.

[splitsecond]

Has the definition of conservatism been skewed by the American brand of conservatism?

Perhaps it's my idea of conservatism or maybe the ideology as a whole, but it doesn't seem to be a universal concept like more left or liberal schools of thought. I always saw conservatism as being devoid of big government and things that would go along with it, also being against very nationalist ideas, promoting self-responsibility in all aspects of life--defense, health, etc, etc. Hence why I would expect conservatives to shun big national-security platforms--which they don't in the US.

What are others' thoughts?

To answer your question, true "conservatism" cannot exist in a globalized world unless everyone is on board. Much like just about any political system. National security is required to protect the country from outside attackers/influence, and it is in theory more effective than having each state form their own militias.

But yes, there are very few "true conservatives" nowadays, mainly because of the grip special interests have on pretty much every aspect of government, and nearly every politician.