# Conservatism is "based on faith"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2005, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538 "2005-03-02T02:39:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/21 "2005-03-02T20:55:43Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > This description is applicable only to the most trivial definition of “conservatism” (desire to maintain the _status quo_). Since many of the notions generally understood to be “conservative” in modern American politics reject the status quo (shrinking the size and scope of government, enacting new entanglements between marriage and state, etc), it is absurd to characterize conservatism generally as “sloth and quietism”. Well, part of the confusion here is rooted in the fact that modern American “conservatism” – as it has been understood from Goldwater’s 1964 presidential bid to the present day – is something radically different from “conservatism” as it was understood pre-1964 in America, and as it is still understood in Europe. From _The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America,_ by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004): > [@](#): > > The exceptionalism of the American Right is partly a matter of its beliefs. The first two definitions of “conservative” offered by the _Concise Oxford Dictionary_ are “adverse to rapid change” and “moderate, avoiding extremes.” Neither of these seems a particularly good description of what is going on in America at the moment. “Conservatism” – no less than its foes “liberalism” or “communitarianism” – has become one of those words that are now as imprecise as they are emotionally charged. Open a newspaper and you can find the word used to describe Jacques Chirac, Trent Lott, the Mullah Omar and Vladimir Putin. Since time immemorial, conservatives have insisted that their deeply pragmatic creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed. > > But, in philosophical terms at least, classical conservatism does mean something. The creed of Edmund Burke, its most eloquent proponent, might be crudely reduced to six principles: **a deep suspicion of the power of the state; a preference for liberty over equality; patriotism; a belief in established institutions and hierarchies; skepticism about the idea of progress; and elitism.** Winston Churchill happily accepted these principles: he was devoted to nation and empire, disinclined to trust the lower orders with anything, hostile to the welfare state, worried about the diminution of liberty and, as he once remarked ruefully, “preferred the past to the present and the present to the future.” > > To simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its **exaggeration of the first three of Burke’s principles and contradiction of the last three.** The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility towards the state than any other modern conservative party. . . . The American right is also more obsessed with personal liberty than any other conservative party, and prepared to tolerate an infinitely higher level of inequality. (One reason why Burke warmed to the American revolutionaries was that, unlike their dangerous French equivalents, the gentlemen rebels concentrated on freedom, not equality.) On patriotism, nobody can deny that conservatives everywhere tend to be a fairly nationalistic bunch. . . . Yet many European conservatives have accepted the idea that their nationality should be diluted in “schemes and speculations” like the European Union, and they are increasingly reconciled to dealing with national security on a multilateral basis. American conservatives clearly are not. > > If the American Right was merely a more vigorous form of conservatism, then it would be a lot more predictable. In fact, the American Right takes a resolutely liberal approach to Burke’s last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism. The heroes of modern American conservatism are not paternalist squires but rugged individualists who don’t know their place: entrepeneurs who build mighty businesses out of nothing, settlers who move out West, and, of course, the cowboy. There is a frontier spirit to the Right – unsurprisingly, since so much of its heartland is made up of new towns of one sort of another. > > The geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism. In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo. They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities. And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past. By contrast, Burke has been described flatteringly by European conservatives as a “prophet of the past.” Spend any time with a group of Republicans, and their enthusiasm for the future can be positively exhausting. > > As for elitism, rather than dreaming about creating an educated “clerisy” of clever rulers (as Coleridge and T.S. Eliot did), the Republicans ever since the 1960s have played the populist card. Richard Nixon saw himself as the champion of the “silent majority.” In 1988 the aristocratic George H.W. Bush presented himself as a defender of all-American values against the Harvard Yard liberalism of Michael Dukakis. In 2000, George W. Bush, a president’s son who was educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, played up his role as a down-to-earth Texan taking on the might of Washington. As a result, modern American conservatism has flourished not just in country clubs and boardrooms, but at the grass roots – on talk radio and at precinct meetings, and in revolts against high taxes, the regulation of firearms and other invidious attempts by liberal do-gooders to force honest Americans into some predetermined mold. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/22 "2005-03-02T21:15:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, part of the confusion here is rooted in the fact that modern American “conservatism” – as it has been understood from Goldwater’s 1964 presidential bid to the present day – is something radically different from “conservatism” as it was understood pre-1964 in America, and as it is still understood in Europe. From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004): Mostly just lurking in this thread, though its interesting. However, I don’t see how what you cited makes your case that conservatism can be characterized as “sloth and quietism” BG…in fact, to me it kind of makes the opposite case, especially about ‘quietism’ if I understand that english term to mean being quiet. Maybe you can analyze what you posted in your own words and explain how this supports your position? As to the OP (since I’m here I might as well comment :)), is Conservatism based on faith? I think its been answered already, but I’ll put myself in the ‘some of it is’ camp. I think social conservatism IS mostly based on ‘faith’, while economic conservatism is based on other things. American style conservatism therefore would have faith elements in it…and non-faith elements in it, depending on the subject being discussed. I think of myself as a moderate, though I have economic conservative tendencies. And I’m an agnostic, basically just one step away from an athiest…and its a step that gets shorter and shorter every year. 🙂 -XT ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/23 "2005-03-02T21:39:57Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I think social conservatism IS mostly based on ‘faith’, while economic conservatism is based on other things. The adulation of economic conservatives for unrestrainted free markets and the Invisible Hand of Adam Smith all seem fairly faith-based to me. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/24 "2005-03-02T21:50:16Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > The adulation of economic conservatives for unrestrainted free markets and the Invisible Hand of Adam Smith all seem fairly faith-based to me. Just like a creationist saying that evolution is ‘faith based’, ehe? I tend to go with what works. To me, the adulation of economic liberals for government controls and high taxes to the rich and the whole class warfare thing seem faith-based. Different strokes I guess. 🙂 -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/25 "2005-03-02T22:26:43Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I tend to go with what works. But, by most reasonable measures, the welfare states of Europe have generally healthier societies than ours. What’s your definition of “what works”? From “The American Paradox,” an article by Ted Halstead, in _The Atlantic Monthly,_ 2/1/03 – [http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1155:](http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1155:) > [@](#): > > Nothing illustrates America’s profound contradictions more starkly than a comparison with other advanced democracies: among these the United States is either the very best or the very worst performer on a wide range of social and economic criteria. We are simultaneously the leader and the laggard among our peers—almost always exceptional, almost never in the middle. > > Without question we are the richest, most powerful, and most creative nation on the planet. Our economic and military might stems from our embrace of a particularly high-octane brand of capitalism, supported by financial markets that are deeper and broader than any others, labor markets that are more flexible, and a culture of entrepreneurialism that is unparalleled. These attributes have turned America into the world’s unrivaled engine of innovation and wealth creation. We boast more patent applications than the entire European Union; almost three times as many Nobel laureates as Britain, our closest competitor; and more business start-ups per capita than almost every other advanced democracy. One in twelve Americans will start his or her own business, evincing another outstanding American trait—our great tolerance for risk. And our export of movies, television shows, music, and fast-food chains makes us, for better or worse, the dominant cultural force on the globe. > > But like the Roman god Janus, America has two faces. Despite being the richest nation on the planet, we suffer from higher rates of poverty, infant mortality, homicide, and HIV infection, and from greater economic inequality, than other advanced democracies. We have far more uninsured citizens, and a lower life expectancy. On a per capita basis the United States emits considerably more greenhouse gases and produces more solid waste. We spend more per student on K-12 education than almost all other modern democracies, yet our students perform near the bottom on international tests. We have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and among the highest proportions of single parents, and American parents have the least amount of free time to spend with their children; indeed, the average American works nine weeks more each year than the average European. Our performance on many social indicators is so poor, in fact, that an outsider looking at these numbers alone might conclude that we were a developing nation. > > How do we reconcile these two faces of America? To a remarkable degree the United States seems to have exchanged social cohesion and a broad-based middle class for economic dynamism and personal freedom. Have we abandoned what used to be referred to as the common good? > > \ > > THE TWO FACES OF AMERICA > > This list of “bests” and “worsts” is based on a variety of sources—including statistics from the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and a number of other groups and experts—but the basic criteria are consistent. Among advanced democracies, America had to rank in the top three for a category to be listed under “bests” and in the bottom three for a category to be listed under “worsts.” (Where applicable, all rankings were determined on a rate basis or as a percentage of population.) > > Bests-------------------------------------------------Worsts > > Gross domestic product------------------------------Poverty > Productivity---------------------------------------------Economic inequality > Business start-ups------------------------------------Carbon-dioxide emissions > Long-term unemployment---------------------------Life expectancy > Expenditure on education---------------------------Infant mortality > University graduates----------------------------------Homicide > R&D expenditure---------------------------------------Health-care coverage > High-tech exports--------------------------------------HIV infection > Movies exported---------------------------------------Teen pregnancy > Breadth of stock ownership--------------------------Personal savings > Volunteerism--------------------------------------------Voter participation > Charitable giving---------------------------------------Obesity ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/26 "2005-03-03T02:49:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, by most reasonable measures, the welfare states of Europe have generally healthier societies than ours. What’s your definition of “what works”? To me its debatable how stable their economy is in the long term…and I note that much of their recent ecomonic success, especially in the UK, comes from repealing the more radical aspects of their socialism and re-embrassing something curiously resembling a free(er) market than what they had before. But thats neither here nor there…time will tell on whether it will work for them in the long run. Whats my definition of ‘what works’? > [@](#): > > How do we reconcile these two faces of America? To a remarkable degree the United States seems to have exchanged social cohesion and a broad-based middle class for economic dynamism and personal freedom. Have we abandoned what used to be referred to as the common good? Sounds good to me, though I’m sure the author didn’t mean it as a good thing. 🙂 I’m NOT my brothers keeper. Personal freedom and economic dynamism trumps social cohesion (I dispute that we don’t have a broad based middle class…in fact, I’d hazard to guess that we have the BROADEST based middle class out there) IMO, as long as you don’t go completely overboard…we don’t. I wouldn’t WANT to live in Europe with their strangling tax structure and even more nanny government. You might think its a paradise. Different stroke for different folks BG. Do we have problems? Certainly. Guess what? So do they. To get to my point though to rjung (which was mostly a joke btw), it seems that heavy government controls and high taxes a la the liberal dream HAD its day…and pretty much failed to the point where many American’s reach for their wallets whenever a liberal starts talking. Every president (afaik) from Roosevelt to Carter were proponents of a heavily controlled economy and what I consider to be a stock liberal economic model. Now you might disagree with that (I can pretty much guarentee you do disagree in fact :)) but thats how I see it. So, to cut this short, from my perspective liberal economics ARE more ‘faith based’ than conservative (though it really was just a way for me to pull rjungs nose when I made that statement…something I enjoy doing :)), because liberal economics pretty much gave us the 70’s…where conservative economics gave us the 90’s. Before you jump up, I realize Clinton was in the drivers seat then. Two things. The 90’s didn’t just happen full blown due to Clinton alone…it was building to that already (just like the 70’s was an anti-build up culminating in the Malaise). In addition, whatever the rabid right might say, Clinton was a centrist with a pretty conservative economic streak of his own…in fact I think there were many times when Clinton out Republicaned the Republicans. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/27 "2005-03-03T06:39:41Z")
I can’t believe that a fairly established political philosophy such as conservatism is so woefully misunderstood here on the Straight Dope. Conservatism was founded by great and intelligent men. To claim that they would even begin to accept a philosophy that insisted on “little or no change” is ludicrous. When Edmund Burke put pen to paper centuries ago he realized just as we do now that change is inevitable. Great conservative thinkers like Burke (and one of my favorite, Theodore Roosevelt) looked at change as something that can be dealt with both reactively _and_ proactively. Other values besides your political philosophy will determine whether you start trying to initiate change or whether you just react to changes as they happen. For example, if you are a big environmentalist you will try to initiate changes in environmental policies. But you may also at the same time not care at all about personal income taxes, so you will only _react_ to changes in that area (either negatively, positively, or not at all.) “Philosophical” conservatism is just a tool for making decisions. Conservatives often feel that change is necessary, they often _initiate_ change. But the overriding rule is that for a change to occur we must be sure of a few things: 1. Said change has been analyzed, we have _some_ idea as to what may happen when the change is implemented. 2. It must be implemented gradually. Both so that it does not gravely disrupt society but also so that we can monitor its progress, we can decide during the course if the course is truly worth travelling, and we will have more and more experience to help us make decisions as the change progresses. 3. The change must create a better situation than the status quo. For example doing X may be seen as inherently good, but if this good is less than the benefits of remaining at the status quo, there is no legitimate reason to change. Obviously there is a great deal of subjectivity, and that is where conservatism ends and other political philosophies and ideas come in. If you tear liberalism down to it’s _core_ philosophical base it basically has this concept: “We must embrace change, and experiment with change until we find the best result.” No one reflects this better than FDR, he very openly said he had no idea what was going to work in the New Deal, but he was willing to try every thing. That is to me, very reckless. Especially since national level policy changes are huge, expensive, and very time consuming. They aren’t things we should ‘experiment’ with in my opinion. Liberals like to conduct experiments on society. A conservative would prefer to sit back and work in the lab before applying anything to society at large. What I am describing here is classical conservatism. At its root classical conservatism doesn’t make value judgments on matters like socialism, social welfare, war, peace, gay marriage, indecency on television et cetera. The term conservative has in many ways fallen into a great quandry of confusion, as has the term liberal. A good number of people that label themselves “conservative” or that _are_ labelled conservative are actually “reacitonary.” And reactionaryism goes against the very foundations of conservatism. TO me theoretically you can have a conservative Republican, a conservative Democrat, a conservative socialist, a conservative fascist. It is purely a decision making tool. It relies on order and “correct” implementation. Following the rules and analyzing decisions. Theoretically you could have a conservative socialist. But since most socialists want fast and reckless change, you don’t see that very often. I think classical conservatives are hard to find today. You have to look at the _roots_ of the Republican party to find them. You have to strip away the neocons, the Religioust Right, the libertarians (who are sort of pseudo-classical liberals), and even some of the more reactionary fiscal conservatives. When you do that you arrive at the core Republican party of the Gilded age/first half of the 20th century. This is the Republican party that stresses order and discipline. Business and corporate interests stand along with the classical conservatives because stability is good for business. Social change and dramatic experimentation is bad for business. That’s about as simple as it gets. Obviously things in the real world need to be analyzed on a greater level. Classical conservatism isn’t a “catchall” ideology. It’s basicaly just a philosophy you use to make decisions, the actual factual concerns of the decisions are best left to other philosophies. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/28 "2005-03-03T08:01:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But are you a radical centrist? 🙂 Oh, _please_. That’s just silly. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/29 "2005-03-03T16:11:30Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > I can’t believe that a fairly established political philosophy such as conservatism is so woefully misunderstood here on the Straight Dope. > > Conservatism was founded by great and intelligent men. To claim that they would even begin to accept a philosophy that insisted on “little or no change” is ludicrous. When Edmund Burke put pen to paper centuries ago he realized just as we do now that change is inevitable. But Burke’s version of conservatism is **dead** in this country, **Martin.** See post #21. If you tear liberalism down to it’s _core_ philosophical base it basically has this concept: “We must embrace change, and experiment with change until we find the best result.” No one reflects this better than FDR, he very openly said he had no idea what was going to work in the New Deal, but he was willing to try every thing. [/QUOTE] But FDR’s experimental policies **worked.** The let-it-fix-itself policies of his predecessors did not work. You have just stated a pretty cogent argument for the value of what you define as “liberalism.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/30 "2005-03-03T16:22:21Z")
Please provide proof that they worked, or worked with any kind of efficiency. Was it the New Deal that brought America out of the Depression, or was it WWII? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/31 "2005-03-03T16:44:01Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Was it the New Deal that brought America out of the Depression, or was it WWII? Both. That is, the New Deal had some success in acheiving recovery even before the war. But it was WWII that made the full implementation of the New Deal politically possible, in the form of “war socialism.” From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_deal#The\_New\_Deal\_and\_economic\_relief:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal#The_New_Deal_and_economic_relief:) > [@](#): > > **The New Deal and Keynesian economics** > > In the early 1930s, before John Maynard Keynes wrote _The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money,_ he was advocating public works programs and deficits as a way to get the British economy out of the Depression. Although Keynes never mentioned fiscal policy in _The General Theory,_ and instead advocates the need to socialize investments, Keynes ushered in more of a theoretical revolution than a policy one. In order to keep people fully employed, governments would have to run deficits when the economy was slowing because the private sector would not invest enough, according to Keynes. > > Keynes’s visit to the White House in 1934 to urge Roosevelt to do more deficit spending was a debacle. A dazed, overwhelmed Roosevelt complained to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, “He left a whole rigmarole of figures … he must be a mathematician rather than a political economist.” Keynes, equally frustrated with the encounter, later told Secretary Perkins that he had “supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking.” > > As the Depression wore on, Roosevelt tried public works, farm subsidies and other devices to restart the economy, but he never completely gave up trying to balance the budget. As a result, unemployment remained high throughout the New Deal years. > > **The recession of 1937 and recovery** > > The Roosevelt administration came under new assault during his second term, which played host to a new dip in the Great Depression, starting in May of 1937 and continuing through June of 1938, causing unemployment, at 14.3% for 1937, to rise to 19.0% for 1938 (in the United States, monthly jobless figures were not compiled prior to 1948). It was, in the largest measure, a result of a premature effort by the administration to balance the budget by reducing federal spending. The administration reacted by launching a rhetorical campaign against monopoly power, which was cast as the cause of the new dip. The president appointed an aggressive new direction of the antirust division of the Justice Department, but this effort lost its effectiveness once World War II, a far more pressing concern, began. > > The administration’s other response to the deepening of the Great Depression in 1937 had more tangible results. Ignoring the vitriolic pleas of the Treasury Department and responding to the urgings of the converts to Keynesian economics and others in his administration, Roosevelt embarked on an antidote to the depression, reluctantly abandoning his efforts to balance the budget and launching a $5 billion spending program in the spring of 1938, an effort to increase mass purchasing power. In 1938 Roosevelt thus embraced the only new idea he had not yet tried—the program put forward to him by that bewildering British “mathematician.” > > Although few Americans were much aware yet of the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, the economist whose theories would soon transform economic thought throughout much of the world, they were gradually seeing that the spending program of 1938 was yielding results. Roosevelt explained his program in a fireside chat in which he finally acknowledged that it was therefore up to the government to “create an economic upturn” by making “additions to the purchasing power of the nation.” This shift in administration policy was a huge milestone helping to legitimize Keynesian economics. Although the New Dealers themselves did not realize it at the time, the administration helped establish the basis for new forms of federal fiscal policy, which would in the postwar years give the government a series of important tools for promoting and regulating economic growth. > > **World War II and the end of the Great Depression** > > It was not until the U.S. entered World War II, however, did Roosevelt try Keynes’ idea on a scale necessary to pull the nation out of the Great Depression; Roosevelt, of course, had little choice now. Even granted the special circumstances of war mobilization, it seemed to work exactly as Keynes predicted, winning over even many Republicans. When the Great Depression was brought to an end by the Second World War, business had been reinforced by government expenditures. In 1929 federal expenditures accounted for only 3 percent of GNP. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditure tripled, and Roosevelt’s critics charged that he was turning America into a socialist state. However, spending on the New Deal was far smaller than on the war effort. In the first peacetime year of 1946, federal spending still amounted to $62 billion, or 30 percent of GNP. The big surprise was just how productive the U.S had become: spending financially cured the depression. Between 1939 and 1944 (the peak of wartime production), the nation’s output almost doubled. Consequently, unemployment plummeted—from 14 percent in 1940 to less than 2 percent in 1943 as the labor force grew by ten million. The war economy was not so much a triumph of free enterprise as the result of government/business sectionalism, of government bankrolling business. > > It was the deficit spending of World War II, not the New Deal, that finally ended the crisis. Nor did the New Deal substantially alter the distribution of power within U.S. capitalism; and it had only a small impact on the distribution of wealth among the population. To relate this to **Martin’s** post – all this resulted from **experimenting.** For a long time, FDR tried implementing economic-recovery programs within the constraints of a balanced budget. When that failed to end the Depression, he tried more drastic measures, which worked. But the change-averse policies of Coolidge and Hoover could **never** have worked. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/32 "2005-03-03T17:25:14Z")
Wow, there are a lot of strawmen being knocked around in this thread. If you truly want to debate an opponent’s position, it is necessary to understand that position well first. Few in this thread have demonstrated any real understanding of the positions held by the opposite side. Knocking down a mockery of the opposing position is not debating. Conservatism might be generalized as: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Except that, these days, conservatives dislike many pieces of long-standing legislation which, while they were created to fix something, are solutions conservatives have long opposed. So, they now want to change them, because the fixes themselves are viewed by conservatives as broken. Elements of faith: those who feel their politics are guided by the Bible or prayer or whatever, and those who feel that the free market is the best economic system for any society. For the latter, some further examples: that a society can remain stable even if the economic system continues to widen the gaps betweem “haves” and “have-nots” and increasing wealth is controlled in the hands of the few, that business corporations on their own can be trusted to keep society’s best interests at heart, that America’s influence (military, economy, democracy) in the world will have a net long-term benefit to other societies in the world, in other words that the solutions that we prefer are good for everybody. Liberalism might be generalized as: “things are not working out as well as they could, so let’s try to make some changes in hopes of making things better.” Except that, these days, liberals are working hard to protect some long-standing pieces of legislation, which–although problems with them are acknowledged by both sides–they would prefer to see kept as they are, rather than risk alterations they view as worse. A few elements of faith: that a powerful, centralized democratic government can be relied upon to kept society’s best interests at heart, that this government will do better protecting the needs of its societies than any for-profit corporation, and that America will benefit from paying more attention to what other societies have decided is right for them, and by being less arrogant about the superiority of its own ideals. In a nutshell, I don’t think there are any strong, persistent political ideas that don’t take something on faith. One could argue whether one example has stronger evidence for its validity than the other, but it is foolish to pretend there isn’t a lot being taken on faith on both sides. It also foolish to fail to acknowledge that both sides have some things that they get absolutely right. However, I do think it is most regretable that a particular religious sect presently holds such a stong influence, but that is my own personal bias showing. I believe strongly in secular government, because I see no evidence that a theocracy (even a _de facto_ one) is anything other than horrifically repressive. Economic conservatives as well as liberals should be very, very worried about the power of religion in government: both have a lot to lose if zealots increasingly get their way. Religious conservatives are right to fear both. The big puzzle to me these days is how right-wing Christianity and economic conservatives ever got in bed together in the first place. It won’t last; they’re simply wrong for each other. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/33 "2005-03-03T18:17:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Both. That is, the New Deal had some success in acheiving recovery even before the war. But it was WWII that made the full implementation of the New Deal politically possible, in the form of “war socialism.” From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_deal#The\_New\_Deal\_and\_economic\_relief:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal#The_New_Deal_and_economic_relief:) > > To relate this to **Martin’s** post – all this resulted from **experimenting.** For a long time, FDR tried implementing economic-recovery programs within the constraints of a balanced budget. When that failed to end the Depression, he tried more drastic measures, which worked. But the change-averse policies of Coolidge and Hoover could **never** have worked. BG basically the New Deal did little or nothing. The Great Depression was too enormous to be deal with using the measure FDR used. The huge production required to run WWII is the reason the Great Depression ended with WWII. And the fact that the economy had become too dependent on the military production was proven when we had a massive recession after WWII was over. Of course by the late 40s we had turned around and experienced one of the most amazing periods of growth in our country’s history. You say Coolidge and Hoover’s policies could “never” have worked, but we don’t know. All we know is that FDRs really didn’t work either, and that his vast experimentation with little pre-analysis is why we have systems in place 60 years later than FDR intended to only be “temporary” or “transitory.” ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/34 "2005-03-03T18:21:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But Burke’s version of conservatism is **dead** in this country, **Martin.** See post #21. No, Burke’s version of conservatism is not dead. Many “ideological” conservatives still use his method when trying to address problems. It’s about as alive as the “core” of liberalism is. Neither are dead, both have just been saddled with lots of issues that aren’t necessarily related to the philosophies themselves, so as political philosophies they aren’t seriously talked about anymore. And again, FDRs policies sadly did not work. Well, maybe two of his policies did. The creation of regulatory agencies set the groundwork for protection from future debacles (to a degree), and his policies that lead to WWII worked out very well as far as the military aspects go. His other policies designed to alleviate the Great Depression had the same effect as an infant does trying to stop a tidal wave. All of these programs _do_ have significant effects _today_ but most of them were stop-gap measures (and ineffective ones at that) which did little to stop the Great Depression. You are either very old or very unaware BG. Because the old schoolbook story of how FDR stopped the Great Depression has been mostly rejected for decades by serious historians and economists alike. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/35 "2005-03-03T18:27:46Z")
Also trying to summarize conservatism as “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is blatantly wrong. Conservatives believe in continual progress and improvement. Just because one decides reckless experimentation is not the way to go does not mean one says all progress must stop, or that we should only address problems not try to create new ideas. Also liberalism and conservatism as “pure philosophies” aren’t really appropriate subjects to be “denounced” or “praised.” I think both have valid uses and depending on the situation I think there are cases where the liberal approach could bring about a better result. As a conservative, I simply believe that _overall_ if we look at the “big” picture then ultimately conservatism is the “safe bet” the one that will insure we don’t wreck society. Liberalism is too much of a gambler’s game for me. But I _am_ a gambler in real life, and I know the value of going all in, or not worrying about the possible negative consequences. I’ll draw an analogy to Texas Hold’Em. Most serious Texas Hold’Em players know that the bluffing and such that you see on the World Series is _very_ rare. It happens at key moments when players are _forced_ into situations like that (either by high antes or something else.) Virtually every “real” poker player has a conservative game plan. However there are _key moments_ where they will take the big risk, because sometimes those moments become necessary. And because of their conservative gameplan, they won’t typically be in dire straights when it comes time to take that big risk. I’d compare that to society by saying there are times we must experiment, but our overall viewpoint shouldn’t be one that praises constant experimentation and chance taking. We aren’t playing with poker chips in government, we’re playing with people’s lives. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/36 "2005-03-04T20:06:05Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > And again, FDRs policies sadly did not work. Well, maybe two of his policies did. The creation of regulatory agencies set the groundwork for protection from future debacles (to a degree), and his policies that lead to WWII worked out very well as far as the military aspects go. What about Social Security? Perhaps FDR did not foresee the financial strains caused by widespread longevity, and it’s hard to see how he could have; but other than that, doesn’t the program do what it was intended to do – provide basic support for those too old to work? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/37 "2005-03-06T20:11:07Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I used to enjoy reading a perspective that differed from mine but was thought through and expressed firmly but without rhetorical slams. What happened? **Mr. Moto** showed up. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/38 "2005-03-06T20:23:37Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Conservatism might be generalized as: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Except that, these days, conservatives dislike many pieces of long-standing legislation which, while they were created to fix something, are solutions conservatives have long opposed. So, they now want to change them, because the fixes themselves are viewed by conservatives as broken. > … > > Liberalism might be generalized as: “things are not working out as well as they could, so let’s try to make some changes in hopes of making things better.” Except that, these days, liberals are working hard to protect some long-standing pieces of legislation, which–although problems with them are acknowledged by both sides–they would prefer to see kept as they are, rather than risk alterations they view as worse. Rather than abandon the definitions of the words, perhaps it would be easier to consider that if things are a certain way, and then get changed, wanting to change them _back_ to the way they were originally is still conservatism. Even though it’s a change, it’s still a desire to adopt ways from the past. And likewise, if things change, then revert to an older state, wanting to go back to, (or protect, if it’s still in force) the “changed” state is still liberalism. (Actually, isn’t “progressive” more the opposite of “conservative” than “liberal”?) Seems like that would be an easier way to define it, rather than having to rotate the definitions 180 degrees every time a different political party comes to power. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538/39 "2005-03-06T21:53:20Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > OTOH, low tax, low regulation free market has been described as economic liberalism. Maybe it has, but whoever described it as such was a social conservative who was trying to sway a social liberal to his POV on economics. In practice, low regulation free market means letting the wealthy run roughshod over the poor and the middle class, because they invariably use their financial gain to enhance their political power so that their wealth gets codified into law. Free market “liberals” or “conservatives” however you want to call them, always support the status quo and have little interest in the poor and the middle class. I would suggest that the REAL dividing line between conservatives and liberals is the amount of REAL interest they have in the economic health of the poor and the middle class. Both groups FEIGN such support, but general Republicans/conservatives are more prone to support the wealthy vs. the poor and the middle class than the Democrats/liberals. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-is-based-on-faith/292538.md?page=1)