I’m genuinely interested in points of veiw from ‘conservatives’.
The reason being, is that I don’t think there is such a thing.
I asked my grandfather, who is a Rush/FOX NEWS conservative, what the term even meant to him. He explained that conservatism is the idea that people make it on their own bootstraps without free handouts from those who work.
He articulated that if you divide all the money equally, it’s just not going to stay that way… some work and some don’t, some are brighter and some aren’t. Liberalism makes it so that lazy people will live off of the work of others, without doing any themselves. Then he had to leave.
Do you conservatives agree, is there more you’d like to add? I just cannot for the life of me comprehend what a conservative veiwpoint is…
Conservatism was originally opposed to radicalism in European politics, but since the USA was founded on radical principles, I don’t know what that makes an American conservative. Hmm.
The traditional Euro-centric political definition is that conservatives believed “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and saw radical social and economic change as dangerous and something to be undertaken only very gradually.
Yes, but clearly things are not going to be broke for those in the position to make ‘radical’ decisions one way or the other.
Is the veiw of conservatism then articulated as; “I’m rich, don’t rock the boat.” ? I understand that you aren’t proclaiming a conservative veiw on yourself… I just want to make sense of a term I believe to be non-existant. I think the whole thing is either a mass counter-intelligence structure or that the people pontificating on anything ‘conservative’ are simply uneducated.
I’m sure self-described conservatives would deny that it’s an “I’m alright Jack” philosophy, but certainly in practice there has been a tendency for conservatism to be associated more with people who are comfortable in life. Hence, for example, Disraeli’s push for “One Nation Conservatism” in the UK, which was intended to be a socially inclusive philosophy based on principles such as noblesse oblige.
I’m not sure how relevant that definition is today. It probably makes more sense to differentiate between socially conservative and economically conservative, but even then words like “conservative” and “liberal” are so often used as insults that there are probably a thousand different definitions.
I think you may have trouble nailing down a single definition in any case, basically because at its heart conservatism is a philosophy that believes in pragmatism, historically opposed to any political philosophy that had inflexible overriding principles that encouraged dramatic change. As such it’s almost a “non-philosophy”.
I am not personally a conservative (I would describe myself as liberal or social democrat, but the accepted definitions for those seem to vary wildly too) but I’ve tried to present a “fair” definition.
As was pointed out earlier, conservative means different things depending on the country and era it is being used in. To understand modern american political conservatism I would suggest a some books. Reflections of the French Revolution by Burke, Two Treatises of Government and An essay concerning human understanding by Locke, The Road to Serfdom by Von Heyek,Up from Liberalism by Buckley.
For a quicker understanding of Conservatism read this speech by Ronald Reagan http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1964reagan1.html
and this economic treatise “That which is seen and that which is not seen” http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
For an even quicker understanding there is a joke:
A man goes to dinner at a farmhouse and sees at the end of the table a pig with three medals around it neck and a peg leg. The man asks about the pig and the host tells him that the first medal was from when their youngest son was lost in the woods and pig found him and led him back home. The second medal was from when their daughter fell in the pond and almost drowned before the pig jumped in a saved her. The last medal was from when the elder son was trapped in a barn fire and the pig rushed in and pulled him out. The man is intrigued and asks “How did he get the peg leg?”
The host replies “A pig like that, you don’t eat all at once.”
Many thanks for the thoughts and links!(puddleglum);
Crusoe again:
“conservatism is a philosophy that believes in pragmatism, historically opposed to any political philosophy that had inflexible overriding principles that encouraged dramatic change”
Justhink:
No matter how you word that articulation, it still comes back to:
“Yes, but clearly things are not going to be broke for those in the position to make ‘radical’ decisions one way or the other.”
Crusoe:
“As such it’s almost a “non-philosophy”.”
" words like “conservative” and “liberal” are so often used as insults that there are probably a thousand different definitions."
You have an indefined term by virtue of data flooding. That is a counter-intelligence technique; which by nature, renders lack of ideological accountability to its possessor. (I am of the opinion that ‘liberal’ is the same as ‘conservative’ in this respect - though I consider ‘conservatism’ to possess a greater inherent cluster of logical corruptions and inconsistancies than ‘liberalism’.)
Regardless; until I soak up the materials prescribed, my opinions aren’t worthy of even reasonable respectability. Just some comments I plan to take into the reading.
I have thought of “conservative” and “radical” as relative terms in a political sense. While “radicals” are pushing for very significant change in a relatively short period, “conservatives” resist this change and have a tendency to look back to the “good old days”. It interests me that many people I know who would consider themselves “conservative” have romantic notions of how much better things used to be, in their youth or before their day. The term “conservative” can be used in so many ways a full answer to justhink’s question is beyond me.
I do think it is true “conservatism” is thought to be something for the wealthy. Unfortunately this is not true, I once worked in a warehouse and factory and the workers were mostly what I would describe as, “conservative” in political terms dispite their being uneducated and poor. Of course those who are secure in life have greater incentive to feel society is good enough (for them at least) and thus resist change. While the many “radicals” I have known have come from working class backgrounds, I have met a few activists that did come from wealthy backgrounds and had taken ideological stands on issues that had earned them the “radical” tag from peers and family.