Talk:Conservatism

	This Politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Primrose Day

As it is, will mention it - see [1]. (Keep for the rest of today :) ) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Right-wing vs Conservative

"Right-wing" redirects to this page but I don't think that's accurate. In Russia the "conservatives" were the old guard Stalinists of the Communist Party who wanted to overthrow Krushchev for implenting more market friendly policies. Conservatives can also be fairly centrist (such as Eisenhower). Perhaps we should create a seperate page on right-wing politics? I always thought of "right-wing" as being more extreme than a conservative, sort of like how "left-wing" tends to be well to the left of a liberal (in academic circles especially this is how the terminology is used).

What a horrendous website

I figured that 'rational wiki' would be above this simple-minded political favoritism. I wanted to use this page to link to on my site but now that won't be happening.^{— Unsigned, by: a disappointed BoN / talk / contribs}

Well, ok then. Do you have any actual complaints about something?--Miekal 20:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Shit/r/shitstatistssaysays

https://www.reddit.com/r/Shitstatistssay/comments/43k8b5/lolbertarians_just_blame_all_their_problems_on/ Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Time for Cleanup?

It seems to me that this page is getting a little long, and might benefit from some reworking. For example, what if we broke out the section on conservatism in different countries into its own page? I think this page should focus on a general overview of conservatism only, but with links to more specific conservative movements or examples (i.e., in different countries, at different points in history, etc.). Jagulard (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I mean, I think the article should be grown from Bronze to Silver to Gold, but not via chopping it out to other articles. I instead we ought to make this article great again! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so how do you propose doing that? Jagulard (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's got major cases of outdatedness. And broadness of brush. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But maybe "broadness of brush" is necessary for such a broad concept? That's why I suggested breaking the page into separate articles: one that covers the general concept, and points to others that discuss specific times and places. Jagulard (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with it being broad? How specific can an umbrella term get? Also, the way to improve it is by adding more sources, more text, polishing up the existing text (cutting/adding/improving)... Relevant images, extensive sources, novel coverage... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If I were conservative, I'd say we don't need more novel coverage, we need more navel coverage. But I am not, so I won't another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it being broad- the problem as I see it is that it does not remain broad, but rather moves from broad to American conservatism and back to broad again, e.g. "supply side economics," "conservative psychology," and "prominent conservatives." Ironically, tucked into the midst of those examples is a section that reminds us the term is hard to define- something that stylistically, the article itself tends to ignore. They are all good points, but they simply don't hang together coherently. To me, the solution would at the very least be to create a new page specifically about American conservatism. Jagulard (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It almost as if the article had been written over several years by very different people who did not know one another and probably did not even share a mother tongue. where else have I seen that? Honestly, though, the article needs a lot of work. And maybe splitting of "American Conservatism" might make sense. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm for that. Some stuff from here can be cut n pasted to start with from here and revised over there. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 03:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's have a roll call. All in favor, say Aye. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Aye; even if it means putting my money where my mouth is, as it were. Jagulard (talk)

Let the record state that Laurogeita voted aye. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

In discussing American conservstivism, snd the Repuhlicsn party, I suggest the article attempts to assume a framework of how conservatives view themselves. This is a matter of priotitization.

1. National security, defense, foreign policy. The GOP was founded on two principles: one, the dignity of the individual, and two, to preserve the Union. The attitude of most conservative Republicans today, as it always has been, if the GOP isn't looking out for these two causes, the Democrats sure as fuck can't be trusted to do it. Time was, there was a big debate between isolationism and internationalism. The internationalists won out, but the isolationists now are making a comeback. The dignity of the individual relates to two important issues today, taxation (which indirectly affects employment prospects) and abortion.
2. Economic issues, budget, taxes, business & regulation. A healthy economy is the only way to meet America's defense needs, and just as Democrats feel Reoublicans don't care about poor people, Republicans feel Democrats don't care about providing for the common defense with a healthy economy.
3. Social issues. Cosmetic and window dressing. However, nothing should undercut conservatives belief in the dignity of the individual. Here, government dependency undermines rugged individualism.

Articles that place the primary interest on domestic and social issues, and downplay, or show scant understanding of the Republican party's role in defense and security matters, and the level of taxation so that business interests are prepared to assist in a national security emergency, obviously are written by people with little understanding of the dynamics within the GOP and conservstive movement. Hey, we all know the Democrats care for poor people more and the Republicans are the party of the rich. All that can be hammered home when you list Social policy is #3 on the list of priotities of party insiders and donors. Maybe the single issue pro-lifers or anti-gay backers will get do offended once their eyes are open, they'll go home. Anyway, there's plenty of room to expand this broad outline that would make an article look more informed and believable rather than just leftist talking points as to why the GOP and conservstives are so evil.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 23:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you make some fine points, and certainly they should b included in the description of conservative attitudes. However, if I were to tackle the issue, I think approaching it from a historical perspective would make more sense. After all, many of the items you list have not always been major concerns of American conservatives, nor have they ever been exclusive to American conservatives. Rather, I think it needs to be stressed that the point of view described above belongs to one very particular flavor of contemporary conservatism, and should not be mistaken for the whole. Jagulard (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. Both American parties are where they are today as the result of a process of evolution and growth, and not as junior high school teschers like to say, "the GOP used to be liberal and the Dems were conservative, then they switched". Both parties and ideologies have followed a path of evolution which has left them, on the whole, not that far off from where they began. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a NYT OpEd from today that says something quite different than what I just posted, yet there's much there I agree with. I think the timing is right for an overhaul.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 07:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So conservatives don't believe in natural hierarchies?

@GeeJayK Specifically in an American context, conservatives tend to support organized religion (namely, Christianity), are distrustful of religions that go against perceived "traditional values" (Islam, neopaganism etc) they distrust social programs that benefit the poor (think Medicaid) but are for policies that benefit the wealthy (like big subsidies for corporations), are strongly for low taxes and strong property rights for corporations, are strongly for "traditional values" that shun social progress.... You know what all of those reinforce? Hierarchies. The hierarchies of rich and poor. Of Christianity and non-Christianity. Of patriarchy. Of cisheteronormative culture.

So please, tell me how conservatism isn't a belief that society can be ordered into natural hierarchies then. Carthage (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Did I say that they don't believe? I said that, according to SEP, there is not a good definition of what conservatism is~, and that your source is garbage. Also, North Korea is probably the most hierarchical society in the world. Are they conservative? I mean, considering that they've been into power since 1950 maybe they are, but they are not right-wing either, and conservatism is right-wing. That's true to pretty much every "communist" country ever. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want to talk about hierarchies and conservatism, write it on the criticism section at least. And use a better source. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say North Korea is socially conservative. You don't understand political science. Also, Youtube has been cited by other editors including Chillpilled. Why you question only my source, and of course you attack the source and not the content. Why is it only a problem here? Carthage (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Two academic sources are not "good enough". Lol. Whatever you say, Gee. Carthage (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I in fact understand it far better than you. Not going to watch your video, but we have a better source (SEP), so I don't see why should we use a fringe YouTube video when another better source is available. The problem is, the best source says that there is no definition of conservatism. I would have reverted anyone using [{Roger Scruton]] or Russell Kirk as a source either. Again, I don't mind the content, but shouldn't be in the article's lede. That's all. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

See? Did it hurt? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If you think that "North Korea is socially conservative" is a gotcha argument, I don't really think you do. Also, if you're not gonna even bother to watch the video, then why are you complaining about it? You don't know what it says, since you refuse to watch it. Whatever, are you happy now? Carthage (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(EC) Read my post again. Anyway, you don't know what gotcha is and I'm not going to keep this discussion. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"Also, North Korea is probably the most hierarchical society in the world. Are they conservative? I mean, considering that they've been into power since 1950 maybe they are, but they are not right-wing either, and conservatism is right-wing." The fact that North Korea has no relevance to this discussion (which is about abstract discussions of conservatism and hierarchy), and you brought it up anyways, is both a red herring and a gotcha argument. So, yes, you don't understand what a gotcha argument is, either. Carthage (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant because the worse society in the world (according to American conservatives, that you were talking about as if they were the same as all conservatives around the world) is hierarchical. You don't know what red herring is either btw. Now I'm gone. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Except I never brought up North Korea. The fact you brought up North Korea and left vs right wing politics in a discussion about conservatism and hierarchy is by definition a red herring, as left-vs-right politics is irrelevant to the premises of my argument. Also asking me if North Korea is conservative "even though it's communist" is the definition of a gotcha argument. You don't understand what a red herring or a gotcha argument is. Carthage (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"According to critics"

Our definition of weasel words:

"Weasel words, also known as anonymous authorities, denote the use of ambiguous words and phrases intended to create the false impression that a vague or meaningless statement is, to the contrary, both specific and informative. "

Yes, adding "according to critics" to "Economic or fiscal conservatism is also very significant politically. Fiscal conservatives support low taxation (trickle-down in particular) and free-market capitalism with minimal regulation. According to critics, this benefits the economic interests of big industries, entrepreneurs, or the ruling class in some countries," is an excellent example of adding weasel words to an otherwise fine sentence.

If this is somehow questionable, then why add "according to critics". It is a fact that these are policies that have significantly been pushed by plutocrats for plutocrats. Why is adding "according to critics" necessary then? It muddles the sentence and adds ambiguities where there are none. Carthage (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not ambiguous, we're talking about a very well-defined group of criticis. Saying that these policies are homogeneous, that didn't work and that all of them were advanced in bad-faith is extremely disingenuous. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Works for who? Who does cutting taxes for the rich and increasing them on the working class or cutting welfare programs hurt and benefit?

The deregulation of healthcare programs in Greece led to the brunt of costs for healthcare being brunted by the patients. Austerity certainly didn't "benefit" those patients.

I'm going to quote from that Amnesty International report:

Structural reforms also shifted a greater proportion of healthcare costs onto patients. Furthermore, the three financial assistance programmes concluded with Greece’s creditors included conditionalities, some of which encouraged, or influenced, the austerity measures that resulted in a debilitated health system.

Who benefited from promoting austerity in Greece that debilitated the Greek healthcare system? Who pushed for those austerity programs? Carthage (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't read my post and that's why you strawmanned me so hard, but I did argue that trickle-down didn't work on the page, while deregulation worked better (despite some trade-offs). In both cases, I was analyzing the American case, so the Greek case is irrelevant here. As Alesina argued, the population ofter supported austerity. People aren't stupid, they often understand the importance of austerity (which doesn't mean that there aren't important trade-offs and yes, people suffer). Austerity means raising taxes too, so you don't even know what the word means. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, you're moving the goalpost since we were debating the "according to critics" phrase. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I brought up austerity as a separate case from supply side. So this "austerity means raising taxes too" is both irrelevant and an unnecessary and condescending dig. The article also mentions austerity in Europe. So clearly by the article's own text the Greek case (which is in Europe) is relevant.

Ok, so it "works." Cool. Who does it work for? Who benefits the most? Who suffers the most? To those people who suffer from austerity programs, do you think they care that deregulation of, say, healthcare improves the figures of some faceless suit in a room? No, they care that they now have to pay out of pocket for their relatives' cancer operation. Carthage (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I also am not moving the goalposts. "Free markets with minimal governmental regulation" is mentioned as one of the things plutocrats benefit from. Carthage (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The European case is analyzed latter in the article, it clearly should be in another paragraph, I'll edit it and make clear that I was talking about the US when I said that trickle-down didn't work and deregulation worked better. The deregulation that happened in the US, according to the studies mentioned on the Brookings working paper resulted in a drastic fall in the prices for consumers. You can check the source. And yes, it is relevant because you conflated deregulation, cutting spending and lowering taxes with austerity. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)