Understanding Conservatism.

[Wessexman]

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.

 

[Morality Games]

That describes theoretical, intellectual conservatism, which has some appeal but which also has its shortcomings. Conservative movements as they tend to exist in reality are very different.

 

[Joe1991]

That describes theoretical, intellectual conservatism, which has some appeal but which also has its shortcomings. Conservative movements as they tend to exist in reality are very different.

Indeed, the old style Goldwater conservatives have little in common with the Glenn Beck crazies.

 

[Agent_Grey]

I think Conservatism is a perfectly valid and defensible phillosophy, I just happen to disagree with some of its core principles.

 

[apdst]

Indeed, the old style Goldwater conservatives have little in common with the Glenn Beck crazies.

Not nearly as big as the distance between JFK Liberals and the Libbos we have to listen to, now.

 

[Joe1991]

Not nearly as big as the distance between JFK Liberals and the Libbos we have to listen to, now.

"...if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

~JFK September 14, 1960

 

[Taylor]

"...if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

~JFK September 14, 1960

Wow I never heard that before, I guess it shows that lots can change in 50 years, lol! Thanks for posting that joe! :2razz:

Nowadays politicians only care about themselves.

 

[creation]

Wow I never heard that before, I guess it shows that lots can change in 50 years, lol! Thanks for posting that joe! :2razz:

Nowadays politicians only care about themselves.

What has changed? That is exactly the same liberal platform as today.

 

[creation]

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.

Wonderful thread topic Sir.

In effect conservatives value inequality. They prefer the devil they know etc etc.

This Sir is why conservatives cannot be trusted with the welfare and betterment of mankind, for they are in the end fearful, complacent and indulged.

They are in fact the reason for man's slow progress over the years. Your thoughts?

 

[The silenced majority]

That describes theoretical, intellectual conservatism, which has some appeal but which also has its shortcomings. Conservative movements as they tend to exist in reality are very different.

That's because Conservative movements only exist when ideology threatens to hastily push society in a direction without a deep contemplation about what the end results will be or the true need for the change.

 

[PeteEU]

That's because Conservative movements only exist when ideology threatens to hastily push society in a direction without a deep contemplation about what the end results will be or the true need for the change.

Hell no.

Conservative movements have always existed..

its called old white guys in power who refuse to give up power.

 

[Zyphlin]

My own views on this

Wonderful thread topic Sir.

In effect conservatives value inequality. They prefer the devil they know etc etc.

This Sir is why conservatives cannot be trusted with the welfare and betterment of mankind, for they are in the end fearful, complacent and indulged.

They are in fact the reason for man's slow progress over the years. Your thoughts?

Well, that's one entirely one sided, "I look through a liberal viewpoint at all times and have no desire for intellectually honest" way of lookin at it.

Here's another.

Conservatives value possability, potential. This, mixed with their views of freedom and self reliance, comes together to form this issue of "equality" or "inequality".

It is not that conservatives STRIVE for inequality. Conservative ideology does not set out specifically with the stated goal "lets make things unequal" simply on the basis that they WANT people to have less, as you seem to imply.

More so they believe that to allow individuals to reach the highest peaks of success...be it financial, mental, scientifically, etc....one must potentially be able to fall into the lowest valleys. In essence, without the fear and potential of failure there will not be the great urge and push for great success.

Essentially the difference between the two general ideologies in America would be thus. Liberal ideology strives to make everyone on roughly equal footing, keeping the variation from that middle ground low so that there aren't many far under the average but not a ton far over either, and they feel the government can facilitate this by transfers of wealth and welfare (the word, not the service) type programs. Conservative ideology strives to allow for a higher highs, which conversly allows for lower lows, so the mid point isn't too far off from the other side, but the amount there is less, with far more variation up and down on the scale. They feel the government can facilitating this by removing barriers from success and failure and allowing individuals the most control over their own life as possible.

In talking with my liberal happy hour buddy, this was the best analogy we could come up with off the top of our heads. Think of a tight rope performer.

Liberals would want these people always doing the tight rope with a safety net suspended 30 feet under the rope. They want their performers to be able to put on the show, but never truly feel like they're in danger of anything more than a minor injury going into the net, even though part of what makes the performance exciting is the potential danger of it.

Conservatives would want these people doing it without the safety net. This means that the performers that fall are going to be hurt more, but those that pull it off are going to put on a much more exciting show due to the danger of it.

Or, to attempt to be a bit less wordy, conservatives do not want to artificially create equality as it would remove many of the incentives for striving for greatness.

Conservatives, in the mind of a libreal, should not be put in charge of welfare type issues is, at the heart, no different than liberals, in the mind of conservatives, should not be put in it. Its because their ideologies conflict. The poster above would not want conservatives put in power of it because he thinks they'd ruin it, taking it away or scaling back on it, thus hurting people. He says it out of a pure, blindly, unthinking, liberal mindset. An equal comment could be that Conservatives don't want liberals controlling it because they would be expanding it, further causing people to become reliant on it and removing human exceptionalism.

Both are simply born from their own ideological stand point. Its the heart of the difference between liberalism and conservatism...do we empower or do we protect, do we set free or do we nurture. The fallacy that blind hyper partisans have is the belief that somehow the ideology itselfs entire purpose is to punish, hurt, or ruin people...on either side. No, its not the case. You may disagree that the ideology succeeds at what it strives for...but both conservatism and liberalism strive to make life better for people, they just disagree on how to go about it.

The poster above stated "They are in fact the reason for man's slow progress over the years." Really? To say "in fact" one would need facts, you have simply opinion. An equally compelling argument could be made that by removing safety nets and crutches from people more of the cream will rise to the top spurring forth advancement and progress.

This is why the sad state of discussion on this forum exists somewhat now. You have people like this who come in refusing to actually have a discussion but simply wants to get on top of a pulpit screaming bad bad conservative. You have people foolishly coming in not for legitimate, honest, intelligent discussion but to make idiotic quips about "old white men" that is nothing but unthinking, stereotypical talking points, hogwash. If you disagree with parts of the ideology, why not actually try to address it in an intellectual manner rather than attempting to score pathetic politcal points by stating nothing but pure on spin in attempt to ridicule and mislead.

 

[Ahlevah]

In effect conservatives value inequality.

I consider myself to be a "classical liberal." I value equality in the sense that I don't think one person is intrinsically more valuable than another. If one considers equality as stemming from the natural rights of man, the lowliest slave Lincoln sought to free was worth just as much as the richest man on the planet. But I don't think people who acquire property legitimately--who work for it and earn it--should be required to give it to others who did not simply because some people have more or less property than others.

 

[Joe1991]

Conservatives want to live in some magical world where everything is in place for them to get ahead and have a good life, but where they don't have to pay anything back.



:doh

 

[Alex]

I define Conservative by the most fundamental concept there is to maintain in the United States, freedom from government intrusion. That is what is to be conserved.

My definition of Conservative is simple: liberty.

 

[OxymoronP]

Conservatives want to live in some magical world where everything is in place for them to get ahead and have a good life, but where they don't have to pay anything back.



:doh

Anything back to who?

 

[Joe1991]

Anything back to who?

Society. ...you know that whole "We the people" thing.

 

[OxymoronP]

Society. ...you know that whole "We the people" thing.

Society?

So for success that you gained mostly through personal hard work, you should support a section eight baby momma with 8 kids?

 

[Ahlevah]

Society. ...you know that whole "We the people" thing.

"We the people... " believe in charity, not grand theft.

 

[The silenced majority]

Hell no.

Conservative movements have always existed..

its called old white guys in power who refuse to give up power.

My educational response goes in one ear and out the other for those who have their mind made up to be retarded.

 

[creation]

My own views on this



Well, that's one entirely one sided, "I look through a liberal viewpoint at all times and have no desire for intellectually honest" way of lookin at it.

Here's another.

Conservatives value possability, potential. This, mixed with their views of freedom and self reliance, comes together to form this issue of "equality" or "inequality".

Thank you for an extensive answer.

However I'm simply taking from the words given that conservatives do indeed see the value in inequality.
For them, for you, inequality, suffering even, exist to make the good things in life more sweet and they consider that with indeed that with more people better off most people less motivated they will be to achieve great things.

It is not that conservatives STRIVE for inequality. Conservative ideology does not set out specifically with the stated goal "lets make things unequal" simply on the basis that they WANT people to have less, as you seem to imply.

Indeed, instead they look upon the inequality around them, the few rich people on one side, the middle class in between, the working poor and the wretched underclass. Then they sigh, and consider that all is in order, because humans as a race, as a nation, need some people to live in wretchedness, depression and depravity in order to present an example for better off people to avoid. Thus there is value in inequality.

Surely we are in agreement here.

More so they believe that to allow individuals to reach the highest peaks of success...be it financial, mental, scientifically, etc....one must potentially be able to fall into the lowest valleys. In essence, without the fear and potential of failure there will not be the great urge and push for great success.

Yes. In fact they, you and others consider that only when the lowest valley exists to fall into will one strive to reach greater heights. In effect as if everyone is clinging on to a mountain, and only the sight of some people falling off the mountain into the depths can encourage those who have the strength to cling on to continue climbing for the very top.

Obviously one could build platforms on the mountain, or raise the base level of the mountain, but that would be expensive and take the fun out of clinging on to and climbing the mountain.

or perhaps its like a tree, from our chimpanzee days, where as we both know from our childhoods, one of the best parts of tree climbing is to get up high and look down at how high your are - but if everyone could climb this tree, it wouldn't be nearly so worthwhile.

Essentially the difference between the two general ideologies in America would be thus. Liberal ideology strives to make everyone on roughly equal footing, keeping the variation from that middle ground low so that there aren't many far under the average but not a ton far over either, and they feel the government can facilitate this by transfers of wealth and welfare (the word, not the service) type programs. Conservative ideology strives to allow for a higher highs, which conversly allows for lower lows, so the mid point isn't too far off from the other side, but the amount there is less, with far more variation up and down on the scale. They feel the government can facilitating this by removing barriers from success and failure and allowing individuals the most control over their own life as possible.

I suppose the difference is that liberals dont believe that higher highs require lower lows. That in fact better progress is made by all when all are enabled.


I

n talking with my liberal happy hour buddy, this was the best analogy we could come up with off the top of our heads. Think of a tight rope performer.

Liberals would want these people always doing the tight rope with a safety net suspended 30 feet under the rope. They want their performers to be able to put on the show, but never truly feel like they're in danger of anything more than a minor injury going into the net, even though part of what makes the performance exciting is the potential danger of it.

Conservatives would want these people doing it without the safety net. This means that the performers that fall are going to be hurt more, but those that pull it off are going to put on a much more exciting show due to the danger of it.

Indeed, the trouble is liberals don't believe life is a show. In fact that tight rope has to be lived on and one has to create a family life on that tightrope. If this truly how conservatives see it, then my assertion that conservative philosophy isnt fit for mankind gains credibility.

Or, to attempt to be a bit less wordy, conservatives do not want to artificially create equality as it would remove many of the incentives for striving for greatness.

Yes. The problem is however, while the welfare state has de-incentivised some over time. Society at large has benefited greatly from efforts to build up the education, housing, transport, worker protection and health of the less well off while at the same time people have gotten richer and richer.

Conservatives, in the mind of a libreal, should not be put in charge of welfare type issues is, at the heart, no different than liberals, in the mind of conservatives, should not be put in it. Its because their ideologies conflict. The poster above would not want conservatives put in power of it because he thinks they'd ruin it, taking it away or scaling back on it, thus hurting people. He says it out of a pure, blindly, unthinking, liberal mindset. An equal comment could be that Conservatives don't want liberals controlling it because they would be expanding it, further causing people to become reliant on it and removing human exceptionalism.

Actually, to prevent abuse of welfare, I could see conservatives put in charge of these programmes.

Both are simply born from their own ideological stand point. Its the heart of the difference between liberalism and conservatism...do we empower or do we protect, do we set free or do we nurture. The fallacy that blind hyper partisans have is the belief that somehow the ideology itselfs entire purpose is to punish, hurt, or ruin people...on either side. No, its not the case. You may disagree that the ideology succeeds at what it strives for...but both conservatism and liberalism strive to make life better for people, they just disagree on how to go about it.

True. However, the reason I can not lend myself to conservatism is simple. Their philosophy lends itself readily to the interests and desires of society's by far most powerful group, the wealthy investor class - who are continually able to use conservative beliefs to corrupt conservatism in their interests, which are - lower personal taxes, higher spending on private contracts.
Although liberals recognise that lower taxes are a nice thing to have, they also recognise that this is no way to run an economy, that it serves their interests first and foremost and merely makes them even more powerful to affect politics than ever.

The poster above stated "They are in fact the reason for man's slow progress over the years." Really? To say "in fact" one would need facts, you have simply opinion. An equally compelling argument could be made that by removing safety nets and crutches from people more of the cream will rise to the top spurring forth advancement and progress.

Yes really. Conservatives were at the forefront of all the efforts to restrain the progress that you see around you. They resisted independence of the USA, democracy in Britain, universal suffrage, public works programmes, medicaid, the NHS in Britain, worker protection legislation, the minimum wage, civil rights. All to preserve their own base interests. Each time they have had to then recognise the benefits of these changes.

During their reign in the 1980s and 90s, under the era of Reagan and Thatcher, their economic policies presided over the loss of millions of jobs, mass sell offs of state assets at bargain prices, and the gap between the CEO and average worker pay stretching from 10x to some 7000x. All during a period of real wage decline and social chaos that we still deal with today.

As for the equally compelling argument you make, a historical example would be most welcome at this time that we may discuss.

This is why the sad state of discussion on this forum exists somewhat now. You have people like this who come in refusing to actually have a discussion but simply wants to get on top of a pulpit screaming bad bad conservative. You have people foolishly coming in not for legitimate, honest, intelligent discussion but to make idiotic quips about "old white men" that is nothing but unthinking, stereotypical talking points, hogwash. If you disagree with parts of the ideology, why not actually try to address it in an intellectual manner rather than attempting to score pathetic politcal points by stating nothing but pure on spin in attempt to ridicule and mislead.

As said above, Im not really that far off, you may not strive for inequality but you certainly see the value in it. Im sure we can agree in that.

A better question for you is, have you ever considered that liberals also wrestle with the question of incentives also? We do recognise the deadening effect of welfare on some people. However, if somehow that was the whole story then previous generations in the 19th century or early 20th, without any kind of state support or planning or services would have done just fine, in fact they would have done tremendously - being exceptional as you would put it. But they didnt.

 

[Taylor]

What has changed? That is exactly the same liberal platform as today.

-------someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions
liberals only welcome their new ideas, conservatives only welcome their new ideas, so this is really a pile of doo-doo

-------someone who cares about the welfare of the people
most regular people care about the welfare of people no matter what their political party is. Politicians these days only pretend to care. there programs aren't designed for maximum effect but maximum potential for reelection

 

[liblady]

with freedom should come opportunity, which has never been equal in our country.

 

[Cephus]

with freedom should come opportunity, which has never been equal in our country.

There is plenty of opportunity but it should be equal opportunity for equal effort and frankly, a lot of the people you see complaining that they're not getting their fair share are the people who won't get off the couch or stop watching Oprah. Two equally-qualified candidates, regardless of color, ought to be equally considered for the same job. One highly-qualified candidate ought to win out over a lesser-qualified one regardless of color. Unfortunately, that's not what a lot of the whiny left-wing want.

 

[other]

Burke's ideas were largely impacted by what he saw in France, a liberal revolution that started with promise and then went horribly wrong relatively quickly. He supported American independence but saw how radical political ideologies could easily lead to tyranny and misery. Smart man.

Conservatism is about balance; how to best create and MAINTAIN a free and just society.