Talk:Conservatism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 13 January 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

This article

This article now needs, at the very least, brief overviews of conservatism as known in other countries or regions. human^{be in} 15:15, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

'facts'

Bohdan added a bunch of 'fact' tags with the comment: "some citations are needed for these claims". A quick scan made me think it ought to be easy to do. ANy help would be appreciated, but I'm going to see if I can ref them up - mostly with "explanations", but links to clear Reagan or Bush quotes (or others) would be even better. human^{be in} 13:20, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I love adding fact tags. Resident vandal

If so inclined, may I occasionally feel free to revert them as being of vandalistic rather than improvement oriented? PS, your wandalism has shown much more effort and quality recently, good work. One more hint - mix it in with about a 3:1 ratio of "good edits" and it will get past the radar for longer! human^{be in} 13:26, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

You can revert any of my vandalism if you choose. I spent all night thinking up new ways to vandalize that would astound everyone. The problem is, what you have seen is all I got. I'll try to concentrate more and come up with something better. 3:1 ratio? I hate math! And what is a "good edit"? Is vandalism an edit? Resident vandal 13:29, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

A "good edit" is one that improves an article, from punctuation/spelling, to a citation, or addition of useful facts or jokes. Anything that would not get reverted ;). Then the vandalism is harder to find. human^{be in} 13:51, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

What happened to the references section? Bohdan did something to it that messed it up, then it vanished. --Kels 13:37, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Negative. I added two more reference sections. It was trashbat who messed it up. Resident vandal

That's what I meant by messed up. What do we need three references sections for? --Kels 13:40, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

We need it to fulfill my vandalism quota. Resident vandal

Quality over quantity, dude. --Kels 13:44, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Re: m/M uslim

yeah (grudgingly) H. I hate to give any religion or deity the privilege of CAPS. It's just the way I am. RojerB^-KtF! 13:39, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

No problem, I know where you're coming from. A certain respect is due in some circumstances, however, in order to appear reasonably authoritative. I think. human^{be in} 13:51, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Goldwater vs. Rockefeller

I'd be slightly hesitant to define Goldwater as defining any aspect of conservatism by today's standards. The current group we have today makes me pine for Goldwater and some of his ideals; those neo-cons left Goldwater in the dust. He never had any use for Falwell and them. While I don't agree with him politically on many issues, he had an integrity that is sorely lacking in today's political arena. DickTurpis 19:05, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

So sadly true. What happened to the US conservative political movement is that for electoral gain, they co-opted and sold their solz to the conservative religious movement. Thus, as the framers of the 1st amendment were concerned about, corrupting both. They also (Nixon's southern strategy) retreated from advancing the cause of human rights in the US by "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" condoning racism. It earned them post-civil right era votes & power, but at such a cost to the republic. Eh, I could go on (and on), but I long for the days of watching WFB Jr. debating radical feminists on TV, with both sides acting "sane". And polite. Oh, and please feel free to improve the article! human^{be in} 19:21, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

See also?

This is a really weird list. McDonald's? Why aren't they in Fun anyway? Or gone... AT the very least, it should list Reagan, Goldwater, Rockefeller, Churchill, Thatcher, Cons. Talk Radio... human^{be in} 13:49, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Color

What do you think is the color that would best describe conservatives? 98.17.14.201

Pink. human 14:48, 13 November 2007 (EST)

A Question

If someone you knew told you he was a Conservative, would you hate him on those grounds? GodBlessAmerica 21:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Nah. I'd begin to hate them if they started spouting racist, ignorant, dominionist rhetoric, and not shutting up about it. --Ζωροάστρης 21:45, 13 November 2007 (EST)

UK Conservatives Liberal?

The fact that the UK Conservative party has many Moslem members is not really relevant to an argument that the party is liberal by U.S. standards. Many immigrants to the U.S. are conservative, and vote Republican, whether they are Vietnamese, Turkish, or Colombian. ^{— Unsigned, by: PoorEd / talk / contribs}

This article gets it wrong (Rockefeller v. Goldwater).

One, I'd be damned if I believe that Rockefeller believed in minimal public intrusion (see Rockefeller drug laws). Furthermore, Goldwater was pro-choice. TheRationalOne 18:01, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

1. Look it up then. 2., Reagan, who was the successful bearer of Goldwater's mantle, was pro-choice too, or apathetic on the issue. However, in order to fold in the socially conservative Christian movement, he became staunchly pro-life - and made GHW Bush swear allegiance to the same credo in order to get the veep candidate nod. human 18:50, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

@human: There isn't (well not at the instant I'm viewing the page), but this will change as soon as the page is reloaded thereby making this edit completely meaningless. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:59, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Rockefeller was more of a social conservative and economic liberal if anything. Given his anti-crime and anti-drug policies. --67.52.221.226 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong on almost everything

This article is as ridiculous and insulting as the article for Atheists on Conservapedia. Seriously, racism, xenophobia, warmongering? Why not just say Conservatives eat babies and poop implements of torture. This looks exactly like an uninformed high school student's paranoid view of conservatism - the version on wikipedia is much better and very well balanced. I suggest either deleting the article for its overwhelming bias or have a conservative write a rebuttal. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.17.131.16 / talk / contribs}

You may have a slight issue with skimming or reading comprehension. What you mention above is from this: "The center of the modern American conservative movement has incestuously been pushed further and further to the "right": with each success, the bar is moved farther to the right; with each failure, it is likewise moved. It now incorporates strong elements of fundamental Christianity[1], xenophobia[2], whatever racism they can get away with[3], warmongering[4], willful ignorance towards science, and a prideful nationalism", which is part of a section describing how the philosophy has been derailed in the US. ħuman 14:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree, I'm not really conservative, but this article seems really biased and unbalanced. It reminds me of the stereotyping against liberals that occurs on Conservapedia.

Well i have to agree with the first person.Just read here this human. That is from conservative activist and former speech writer for George W. Bush. Ghy213 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see at least one active conservative is decrying what I quoted above. Hopefully, one day the article will be able to include a description of the conservative movement in the US returning to sanity. ħuman 20:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, I'm not a conservative but this article is ridiculous

Dutch Lib-Dems

The Dutch Lib-Dems are considered to be Conservative by Dutch standards. In fact, Liberal and Conservative are considered synonyms when talking about politics (over here, that is). I, myself, would never vote for a Liberal/Conservative, as they are way too rightist. InaVegt 16:13, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservatives move left and liberals move left

I don't understand this statement. Both sides move right and left depending on circumstances. For instance in Britain the Conservative party is indeed moving left - but the liberal democrats are moving right. Are you arguing for dialectical materialism here? Totnesmartin 18:41, 8 February 2009 (EST)

What I am saying is that in the 1800's, slavery was a conservative idea. Well, conservatives advocated it, but you get my idea. Now they don't. So they have moved left. The point is that the center moves left, and everybody moves in relation to the center. Well, most people, anyway. --"CUR^talk 18:45, 8 February 2009 (EST)

slavery is only a single issue; conservatives and liberals have moved left and right, and even swapped positions, on a number of issues. sorry to bring up another Brit example but in the 70s the Conservatives were for Britain joining the Common market, and Labour were against. Now it's the other way round. Your side of the pond, the Democrats used to favour segregation, now they oppose it. Positions change all the time. Totnesmartin 18:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

About that: I am not talking about parties. When Democrats favored segregation, they were conservatives. They party position has moved. But what I mean is, over time, liberal policies will become accepted, and liberals will come up with new change ideas. Society will move to be more liberal. --"CUR^talk 18:55, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Yet in terms of things like the distribution of wealth America has been moving inexorably to the right since the election of Reagan--while moving to a somewhat more liberal position on a few identity-based social issues. TheoryOfPractice 18:58, 8 February 2009 (EST)

(EC x 3) Left & right are only general phrases we attach to certain views; they're very interpretive & in reality there isn't a straight continuum (see political spectrum). I can see what CUR is saying to the extent that social progress (during recent centuries) tends to be towards more liberty & tolerance, which are arguably values of the left. But conservatives of any age are only conservatives relative to their contemporaries, not judged against the conservatives of past of future ages. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:59, 8 February 2009 (EST)

that's true - today's liberals would have had no chance of getting elected 100 years ago. Totnesmartin 19:03, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Whoops, I've gone into Monday - goodnight all! Totnesmartin 19:06, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Cut to here to discuss

Tommy added this to the lead:

"Specifically, they tend to regard "holy" texts such as the Bible above intelligence and reasoning and use such texts to justify homophobia and other hateful speech."

Conservatives aren't necessarily religious, at the very least. ħuman 00:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

...look at conservapedia...... Alabama.. The south in general. I realize not ALL conservatives are religious, thats why I italicized tend. Tommy0210 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I know about those things, yes. And many Cs simply aren't religious nutjobs. ħuman 01:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

European 'Librul' dares to edit article about American Conservatives.

Americans please check these edits. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoconservatism?

Historian invokes Burke again, calls American conservatism on its BS. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this an article about conservatism or an article about how much we hate conservatives?

Blue has just deleted a valuable contribution to this article, marking her revision as 'minor' (presumably in order to draw attention away from the fact that she is effectively engaging in vandalism) without any apparent effort to discuss the worth of the edits in question. So I ask the question, is this an article about conservatism or is this an article that bashes conservatives? As far as I can tell, this website doesn't admit any official position on the left/right axis, yet consistently holds partisan and rather ugly views towards people who regard themselves as right of center. ProudTory (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is stuff like blanking the page and replacing with a Goatse picture (we've had that, actually). Reverting an edit because you don't like it is good old edit warring over content.

"This website" is not a monolith with a top-down enforced policy - it's a wiki populated by a community of people with somewhat diverse views. Said community tends to lean left, because the site was originally created to mock a specific site populated by moronic right-wingers. A lot of the people here are American, and their view of what is "conservative" is colored by the people identifying as "conservatives" in their country.

And if you haven't noticed, a lot of the articles here "bash" their subjects. It's one of the points of the wiki.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not an encyclopedia. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

PT's issue

I'm not saying what your writing is wrong, but your edits seem to be under the assumption that this is your blog. Despite the left/liberal bias, these articles are supposed to be politically neutral.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

HA! Politically neutral? Are you actually taking the piss? This article is a hatchet job and it delights in how much you guys loathe conservatives. If it was witty, it would be OK, but its simply factually inaccurate. I only have respect for facts and humour. When an article has neither, it is in dire need of reform. ProudTory (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)