What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

[jemelanson]

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

My Sister sent me the link to this article. It is a bit on the long side however it has a lot of information and information that you may find interesting and informative. Especially if you get into a discussion with someone who claims to be a conservative. Do they even know what a conservative is and what it means? Points to ponder. I know I will.


What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?


Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

[SDuderstadt]

1. With all due respect...

that is a pretty skewed definition of conservatism.

[datasuspect]

30. I absolutely doubt that you read the article

or if you did, you simply lack the critical reading skills to understand the material.

[LiberalLoner]

2. K&R because I think this really IS an accurate definition of today's conservatives.

I don't feel conservative was always like this, but I think this definition really does match what I feel I am seeing these days around me. I would also add that I personally am seeing a lot of eliminationist rhetoric from the conservatives, and calls for violence against whatever enemy is the enemy of the day.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Sorry...

I know a lot of conservatives (who I, nonetheless, disagree with vehemently) who don't remotely embrace that view.

This is as silly as letting conservatives caricature liberalism.

[LiberalLoner]

4. I respect your point of view and your knowledge. My experiences with

the conservatives I have met are different from the experiences you have had. We each write according to our own experiences and perceptions and hopefully each of our voices is valuable to the community and helps to form a picture of the whole. Thank you for your comments on this thread.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Every conservative you know embraces that view?

I rather doubt that.

There are many more intelligent approaches to defeating conservatism.

[LiberalLoner]

7. I find your reply to be a bit offensive. I am not a liar. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

9. Show me where I called you a liar n/t

[TheKentuckian]

12. If they didn't embrace it then they'd cease and desist with electing and supporting people and

policies that demonstrably lead to certain outcomes.

We are not responsible for their lack of intellectual honesty, subservience to institutions or authority figures, religious indoctrination, greed, acceptance of propaganda, or inability to process apparent information or whatever excuse more reasonable family, friends, neighbors, and various associates make for their anti-social and dangerous ideology and the wicked politicians and kooks they go to the mat for over and over.

[SDuderstadt]

15. So, tell me something...

is everyone who votes GOP evil, or is it possible that some people honestly see it differently than our viewpoint?

I don't think overly simplistic analysis serves us very well.

[TheKentuckian]

20. No, they aren't all evil but they all willfully enable it.

You only get to play the "difference of opinion" card when you have not seen outcomes.

I also don't buy the idea that natural rights are up for votes or the whims of an opinion. Only a comfortable member of an advantaged majority would ever accept such a concept.

You put your rights and prosperity on the block and then you get to fiddle with such nuance as seems so critical to you.

Of course since you see actual real life outcomes as "strawmen", it is very difficult to get a handle on if anything is actually right or wrong, in your opinion.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Point to where I have ever called...

real life outcomes a strawman, dude.

Do you even know the definition of a strawman?

[TheKentuckian]

27. In this subject, your evasions and red herring distractions are textbook.

You simply will not even allow for personal responsibility for empowering know poor outcomes from people who in all effect promise to ensure the train goes off the tracks.

Nor will you at any time address how minority rights and disenfranchisement are not a "difference of opinion" but malignant.

There is a difference between evil actions as there is between encouraging such actions just as there is another distinction for turning a blind eye to the evil action but you can only ride those various lines for so long without raising some not very unreasonable questions about what the hell is going on with folks.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Dude...

your reply is totally incoherent.

Could you try again? And, BTW, could you point to one of my "red herring"? Be specific.

[SpiralHawk]

22. Then the so-called 'conservatives' you know are the SuckerPuppets

the regal fatcat republicons have been manipulating for decades through their corporate media spigots...

[SDuderstadt]

23. Yes, dude...

black and white overgeneralizations are so helpful.

[Wait Wut]

24. +1

I grew up in Chicago and had very few Republican/Conservative friends or acquaintences so my opinions were based solely on their politicians. Now I live in Arizona where the majority of my friends are Republican/Conservative and even the occasional tea person. The majority of those I know aren't out to destroy the middle class. Most of them are a longshot from even qualifying for middle class. They hate big money as much as we do. They honestly don't understand how society works and can't seem to think in 21st century terms. They see only as far as their own backyard and love fences. They don't hate the poor. None of my friends are even remotely racist or bigoted. They're pretty much a live and let live crowd as long as they don't have to pay for it. Sadly, that includes not wanting to pay for education, healthcare, or anything else that benefits society as a whole.

I'm fairly certain none of us likes being judged unfairly. I prefer not to be lumped in with the far left just as the majority of Rs/Cs don't like to be lumped in with the far right.

[nxylas]

29. American conservatism wasn't like it

The OP's definition has always been the definition of conservatism in Europe, but until recently, it had been PoliSci 101 that America differed from Europe in that it had never had either a major socialist party or a European-style Tory party. That is now changing, with Amercan conservatism seemingly mutating into European-style Toryism before our eyes. The process naturally took a few generations, because America didn't have a European-style aristocracy at first. The original American "aristocrats" were entrepeneurs who earned their fortunes, whereas today's aristocrats are largely their children and grandchildren, who inherited their wealth. Why do you think the "death tax" is so hated by conservatives?

[bpcmxr]

5. I've always liked this contribution from John Kenneth Galbraith:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Source

[LiberalLoner]

8. +1

[sufrommich]

10. That's a much better description. nt

[Democrats_win]

11. Awesome! Modern conservatism is not your great-grandfather's conservatism.

Your great-grandfather might have been all about the ideas from Ben Franklin: a penney saved is a penny earned. But the "modern" conservatives are just rotten thieves.

[reformist2]

13. True conservativism is a reluctance to change, not in itself a bad thing.

But all today's GOP want to do is roll things back, to try to turn back the clock. They may call themselves conservatives, but they are actually reactionaries.

[CJCRANE]

14. Strictly speaking "right wing" originally meant a defender of the aristocracy.

The terms left and right wing were based on the seating arrangements in the French parliament around the time of the French revolution.

Those on the right supported the old system of the church, monarchy and aristocracy and those on the left supported social change and egalitarianism.

[pansypoo53219]

16. i have an old card that has-why i am a republican.

i think it's from the 50's or 60's. the fux gnews/limbaugh republikkklans have destroyed what republicans used to stand for. i have sort of convinced a moderate republikan that HIS party is gone. now if i can convince him to turn off fux gnews.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

17. Msot people who call themselves conservatives...

...are Capitalists. There is a difference. It is just the righter winged version of Communism. Sort of like polar opposites. In capitalism, the businesses and corporations are unregulated and in charge. In communism (in theory, not in practice in, say, China or Russia), the workers are in charge and control everything equally, including the money. I'm WAY over simplifying, but you guys get my drift.
Duckie

[houstonintc]

18. Conservatism is about Social Order....

At the end of the day Conservatism as envisioned by Edmund Burke was the ideal that you limit some of peoples liberties so that social order and cultural continuity is maintained. Admittedly conservatism and the preservation of Social Order will be of course hurt those on the margins or at the bottom of society.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

An excellent TED talk on the subject exists actually.

Conservatism ultimately speaks for institutions, traditions and the preservation of Order even at some cost to those at the fringes of a Social group. To an extent the Conservatives are right, or conservatism has a correct insight. Social Order tends to decay and it's easily lost. If it is lost then civilization and societies can not function. One issue in the culture war is the tendency of some in the new left to be willing to create social chaos and even uproot old traditions and institutions for new ideas and attempts at social engineering... heck even old tradition and culture is often denigrated and mocked. This creates a huge conflict with those who wish to preserve and defend their original cultural group.

[Jackpine Radical]

19. This is in accord with conservatism's philosophical roots--

e.g. Thomas Hobbes:

"His main concern is the problem of social and political order: how human beings can live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict. He poses stark alternatives: we should give our obedience to an unaccountable sovereign (a person or group empowered to decide every social and political issue). Otherwise what awaits us is a “state of nature” that closely resembles civil war – a situation of universal insecurity, where all have reason to fear violent death and where rewarding human cooperation is all but impossible."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/


Plato's Republic.

An ideal society consists of three main classes of people—producers (craftsmen, farmers, artisans, etc.), auxiliaries (warriors), and guardians (rulers); a society is just when relations between these three classes are right. Each group must perform its appropriate function, and only that function, and each must be in the right position of power in relation to the others. Rulers must rule, auxiliaries must uphold rulers’ convictions, and producers must limit themselves to exercising whatever skills nature granted them (farming, blacksmithing, painting, etc.) Justice is a principle of specialization: a principle that requires that each person fulfill the societal role to which nature fitted him and not interfere in any other business.

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/republic/summary.html

[Taitertots]

25. 1. Remove regulations, cut taxes, cut spending, spend money on war, and remove social safety nets

2.???????????????
3.Profit

It is wrong because it creates unfavorable outcomes.

What are unfavorable outcomes?
Lots of poor people
Lower production overall
Less efficient resource usage
Shortages in health care coverage
Shortages in retirement....

[TBF]

28. Actually No. 1 is profit - the rest come along with ... nt

[Taitertots]

32. No, profit is ubiquitous to any economic system

The only differences are the ways in which this profit is distributed. Our current system is funneling it to a tiny cabal of wealthy influential people. This is the result of conservative policy.

It was a set up from South Park. Gnomes steal everyone's underwear and that was there plan. 1.steal underpants 2.????? 3.Profit. The Republicans have no concrete explanation as to how their plans will actually make everyone better off.

[Zax2me]

26. The ability to CHANGE

Basically.
Nobody likes change but in life and politically you have to.
The times move on.
Conservatives don't.
All other conservative problems fall under that unbrella.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. Sorry, but no

that's not an accurate definition of conservatism at all in the first place; in the second place, American "conservatives" are not actually conservative in any meaningful sense of the word; they are reactionary right-wing extremists. There is a significant and important difference. Richard Nixon was a conservative; Sarah Palin is not.