Talk:Conservatism in the United States: Difference between revisions

BIAS

I dont understand why the first thing you list as conservative beliefs is God. I mean, many do believe in God, but it had nothing to do with conservative politics. I think a more appropriate summary would be conservatives belief in a strong national military, limited government, free market/capitalist economics, and personal freedom. In fact, I would guess that most conservatives would leave God out of it if you asked what their political beliefs are. Only liberals assume we "cling to our bibles and our guns." Baltimore sensi528 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC) baltimore sensi528 Baltimore sensi528 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to Baltimore sensi528: Wikipedians read the last post on a talk page, not the first. New posts, if you want them to be read, should go at the bottom of the page. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the platform of the Republican party, not conservatism. Conservatism is a political philosophy, the negation of ideology. Perhaps Russell Kirk's 10 Principles of Conservatives would be a better foundation for this article.

Conservatism is protean, no doubt, and discussion of its different forms would be good. Discussing particular issues is policy, not philosophy. It's Republican, not conservative. This article is completely off-base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.107.126 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives themselves have never agreed about what it is... In fact, they sometimes gloat about not defining it (Kirk did, Buckley too). Frank Meyer thought this was bad; he was a minority. James Q. Wilson calls conservatism a "mood," and so on. Listing qualities is not definition, either, but it is fair to list here the various positions associated with the various strains of conservatism over time. It may make sense to see libertarianism as one of the basic variants of conservatism, even though Rand and Hayek denied it; Buckley and Meyer disagreed with them. Debates and debates -- the entry needs to reflect them, probably historically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrarius (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Words are only useful in so far as they have a common meaning. If, by conservative, you mean "a cravat" and I mean "a waistcoat", then what we have is a failure to communicate. If this article is to serve any useful purpose, it must define the word the way dictionaries and encyclopedias define the word, and without any exception that I know of they define the word as a preference for traditional values and ways of life. That has to be the starting point. Variant usages can be mentioned, of course. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be kind of important to note somewhere that a poll conducted last week (10/21/09) showed that 40% of americans identify themselves as conservative, 35% moderate, 21% liberal. In an article about conservatism in America, wouldnt it make sense to mention it is the leading political philosophy? And it is a gallup poll, not like Heritage Found or anything like that. heres the link, i might just add it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1) You should sign your posts. 2) Your link doesnt' work. 3) Most people are conservative -- people prefer tradition to change.

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Racism?

Opposition to civil rights laws is standard conservative fare and is not "racism". Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, racists have historically self-identified as conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

some have--but other racists (I think most) have identified on the left--like the agrarians who supported Ben Tillman, Tom Watson and Cole Blease, or the union members in the North in 1964 and 1968 who supported George Wallace. Sheldon Hackney has a good study of this for Alabama, where the conservative businessmen and planters tried to protect "their" blacks from the agrarians; see hackney Populism to Progressivism in Alabama (new edition 2008) Rjensen (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Rjensen's comments were in reply to Default013 removing Randolph from the article. I think it would be more helpful to address a central problem with this article, the definition of American conservatism. Terminology liberal v. conservative is modern and left v. recent even more recent, so there is dispute over who was what going back. I started this discussion in Talk:Conservatism in the United States#Early statesman. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a union member who supported George Wallace who identified himself as a leftist? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

yes the rank and file white union members (autos, steel etc) who voted for Wallace in 1964 and 1972 (in Dem primary) and 1968 (as independent) in places like Detroit, Baltimore and Gary p275 online. They were the core of the New Deal liberal coalition. They were leftist on everything but race. (many turned around and voted for Robert kennedy in 1968 primaries see online p 81 Rjensen (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

John Birch Society

Rjensen's edit left the only reference to the John Birch Society as "By 1962, Buckley and the mainstream conservatives rejected the tenets of the conspiracy-oriented John Birch Society." While WP:Weight means that they do not deserve much space, their early role in modern conservatism is notable and they continued to be part of the fringe of the conservative movement. It is confusing to mention that their tenets were rejected without mentioning that they were originally part of the movement. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the chief historian of the JBS Schoenwald (2001) ch 3 makes what I find is a convincing case that the JBS had very little impact on conservatism--Welch exerted tight control and refused to allow locals to do much besides studying JBS pamphlets that attacked famous people for being tools of a great anti-American conspiracy. On the other hand, 1) many conservatives did join; and 2) liberals intensely criticized the JBS and used it to attack conservatives. So were they part of the movement? I don't think so. Were they a topic of liberal attack? yes indeed, liberals tried to make all conservatives look like JBS types. Rjensen (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That was not my understanding of the Schoenwald's A Time for choosing.[1] "The far-right group had an impact on conservatives of all hues and on American political culture as a whole. Far rightists, like more moderate conservatives, forced the Republican party - and the Democratic party too - to adjust its agenda." (p. 65-66) An of course Welch owned about 15% of the National Review. Willi Schlamm who helped Buckley raise the money for the NR became a prominent Bircher. While they ceased to be part of mainstream conservatism, they continued to have an impact on the fringe. Larry McDonald was head of the JBS and Ron Paul had their support. Of course they were only one of many influences on modern conservatism and lost influence after it became evident that Welch was an extremist. Their influence should not be overstated, but must be mentioned. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with JBS? I suggest explain from viewpoint of 1) JBS members; 2) Welch; 3) Goldwater and other cons. leaders; 4) liberals. I think the JBS suppressed conservative activism because Welch did not allow his 400 chapters to be poltiically active, and used dues money to hire staffers who went from chapter to chapter to enforce Welch's policies. A few locals managed to campaign for local school board candidates, or oppose fluoridation locally, but that's small potatoes.Rjensen (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They played a minor part in modern conservsatism but should be mentioned, that's all I was saying. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Types

Could the types section be reduced? It seems overly long and duplicates information found in other articles. It seems to be more a definition of different terms. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bias in Libertarianism

I edited the description of Libertarianism Conservatism in the types section to remove bias, it stated that libertarian conservatives were often had "disdain and distrust" of the government, and that many were only concerned with a "single issue". This painted the ideology in a negative light. As a liberal I am not very well versed in other forms of conservatism, and do not feel I have the knowledge many forms of conservatism to safely remove the bias without jeopardizing the segments accuracy. But I do feel that the other segments in the types section also contain bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WildBoer (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns: opening paragraph

The opening paragraph currently reads as follows.

Conservatism in the United States is a major American political philosophy. In contemporary American politics, it is often associated with the Republican Party. Conservative principles in America include patriotism, Christianity, capitalism, and a strong military.

Setting aside that the first sentence should be a little more descriptive ...

The last two sentences makes some very bold assertions that are not completely explained in the text nor are their citations that adequately back them up (ideally since these assertions are so significant it is worthwhile to include citations in the introduction itself).

That aside, I am not really convinced these assertions really are NPOV. First, associating Conservatism directly with the Republicans in the second sentence of the first paragraph is not very objective (yes, there is a high degree of truth to this but it is not completely true and should not be given top billing). Besides that, describing patriotism and Christianity as pillars of conservative philosophy IMHO is painting a caricature.

The article in general could use some work for neutrality's sake but at least trying to bring some objectivity to the opening would be good. One thing that should be clarified up front is that Conservatism is not a single well-defined philosophy (i.e. be careful about trying to pigeon-hole it).

The following are a few short descriptions of conservatism that are a little more objective.

• [2]
• [3]

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is how the current lead began when it was first written:

Conservatism in the United States is a political movement whose unifying beliefs are traditional values, free markets and security, and places individual initiative above government action. Major themes of conservatives include protection of freedom of religion, right to life, low taxes, smaller government and strong national defense and law enforcement. Although the term "conservative" was first popularized in 1953 when Russell Kirk wrote The Conservative Mind, a conservative tradition has arguably existed thoughout American history.

Does that sound better? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples of Conservatism

Everyone is fagits.

While I can see the gray over names like Jefferson and Lincoln, I'm not sure how you can argue that Federalists like Madison, Washington, and especially Hamilton were not conservative. They fought for the security of the aristocracy and to preserve the status quo. Soxwon (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly believe these revolutionaries were in favor the status quo, then you should be able to cite a reputable source. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If the Whigs in the Revolution were conservatives, then what would you call the Tories? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

there was no aristocracy (and no bishops) in America and the Patriots fought to keep it that way and preserve their form of government, which Britain tried to abolish (in Massachusetts) with the Intolerable Acts. Historians agree these goals were conservative of American values. The Tories wanted direct rule by London and supported the crushing of local and colonial government in Massachusetts by the Intolerable Acts.Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

.Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Russell Kirk used that explanation to argue that the war was a "conservative revolution", but that is not mainstream historical thought even among serious American conservative writers. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just Kirk, Daniel J. Boorstin argues the point in "The American Revolution: Revolution Without Dogma," Daniel P. Murphy does in "War and Society," and others agree and even Bailyn acknowledges it. Your mischaracterization is rather astounding TFD. Soxwon (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What's even more dumbfounding is that you make the case that at the minimum (barest minimum) that Alexander Hamilton was not considering he argued for a monarch-style executive for the new government. Soxwon (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton's views were entirely consistent with Whig and Girondin ideology of his time and only appear conservative in relation to his colleagues. He clearly supported the development of trade, commerce and industry, unlike Jefferson's vision of a nation of yeomen. An American monarchy was anachronistic, but it would be subject to the law, as in the UK or the Netherlands. If the Federalists had been real conservatives, the US would have developed along the same lines as Mexico. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) It is still a minority view. The mainstream view is that the values of the revolution were liberal, whether they were fighting to change society or to preserve rights that they believed the Crown was infringing upon. However as I said above I believe the article should reflect that there are differing views on this matter. I do not think however that any historians put Jefferson or Madison in the conservative camp, but I may be wrong and would welcome any source showing that they have been considered in this way. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson, I admit, is a stretch, as is Lincoln. However, Rick was removing wholesale Washington, Hamilton, and Madison who each have strong cases for being considered conservative. Soxwon (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm unable to find "The American Revolution: Revolution Without Dogma" online. I did find "War and Society", but since the subtitle is "The United States: 1941-1945", and since the book does not mention George Washington, except to mention things named after him, it seems an unlikely source. Please provide a quote. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

From "War and Society:"

The American Revolution did not spark a vast social upheaval like those associated with the French and Russian Revolutions. The struggle for independence did not pit one class against another. The men who served in Congress or led the Continental army never sought to restructure society.

Although the shape of American government changed, it was always rooted in traditional practice and principles. Because of this, the American Revolution has been described as a conservative revolution, making it unique among the major revolutionary movements of the modern era.

Soxwon (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to a book by American conservatives explaining their history. According to them the Federalists were English-style Conservatives, except for Hamilton who was an authoritarian conservative like De Maistre.[4] Madison began as a conservative but became a liberal. I don't mind using this as a source, as long as it is clear it is not mainstream history. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with listing famous people, without comment, as belonging to this or that cause, is that such a list does not permit the nuances that a mention in the text would allow, e.g. most authorities consider these people to have been on one side, but a few authorities consider these people to have been on the other side, in varying degrees, at various points in their career. Rather it suggests, and seems to be intended to suggest, that all the good people are on my side.

Still, I thank Soxwon for the quote, while noting that it does not say that the various people were conservative, but rather than the American Revolution, uniquely among revolutions, was conservative. But note that the use of conservative in the quoted passage means preserving the class system and the social mores. It does not suggest that the Founding Fathers did not support their new government with tariffs and favor a strong central government over the Articles of Confederation. They also were strongly anti-monarchy, anti-established church, pro freedom of speech, and pro freedom of the press. (The exception to the latter being, of course, the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.) In short, they were the very opposite of conservative in the sense that the word was used at the time, and to some extent is still used today.

In short, a list does not lend itself to answering complex questions. Such a list should be short, and only include unambiguous and major examples. Please only add names to the list of conservatives if the person in question has said, "I am a conservative." or if a major authority includes their names on a list of important conservative thinkers. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

we need to include Americans who are often cited and quoted by conservatives and became icons of conservatism AFTER the Revolution. That covers Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton. Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Jefferson, he would be considered more populist and liberal (along with Patrick Henry) than Washington and Hamilton. In response to Rick:

The trouble with listing famous people, without comment, as belonging to this or that cause, is that such a list does not permit the nuances that a mention in the text would allow, e.g. most authorities consider these people to have been on one side, but a few authorities consider these people to have been on the other side, in varying degrees, at various points in their career. Rather it suggests, and seems to be intended to suggest, that all the good people are on my side.

Then why do you insist on keeping the list on the Modern Liberalism page? I doubt that Washington, Madison, Jefferson, or any of the other white slave-holders belong in that category.

Still, I thank Soxwon for the quote, while noting that it does not say that the various people were conservative, but rather than the American Revolution, uniquely among revolutions, was conservative. But note that the use of conservative in the quoted passage means preserving the class system and the social mores. It does not suggest that the Founding Fathers did not support their new government with tariffs and favor a strong central government over the Articles of Confederation. They also were strongly anti-monarchy, anti-established church, pro freedom of speech, and pro freedom of the press. (The exception to the latter being, of course, the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.) In short, they were the very opposite of conservative in the sense that the word was used at the time, and to some extent is still used today.

In short, a list does not lend itself to answering complex questions. Such a list should be short, and only include unambiguous and major examples. Please only add names to the list of conservatives if the person in question has said, "I am a conservative." or if a major authority includes their names on a list of important conservative thinkers.

Several historians (including Charles A. Beard and, though not as strongly, John P. Roche) contend they merely protected their privilege and prestige by placating the people (the Bill of Rights was added only AFTER the Consitution and after much protest from Democratic-Republicans like Jefferson) An example of this comes from Jonathan Elliot's The Debates in the Several State Constitutions on the Adoption of the Federal Constutition where Elbrdge Gerry was quoted as saying that the people should only be taken into consideration "to inspire them with the necessary confidence." In this same vein Hamilton urged that "all the communities divide themselves into the the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born and the other the mass of the people who seldom judge or determine right." Soxwon (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to the rest, again, why is this same criteria not used for the Modern Liberaliam? It seems there is a double standard (much more rigorous for one) for such lists. Soxwon (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You should discuss that in that article's talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson was the chief spokesman for a small, weak national government and that resonates with libertarians and states-righters. The business wing of the conservative movement, and the pro-military wings, have always admired Hamilton. Rjensen (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

However one interprets the American revolution, the mainstream view is that the leaders supported a liberal republic. It seems obvious to me that American conservatism has more in common with English Puritanism, Whiggery and classical liberalism than it does with Royalism, Toryism and one nation conservatism. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter, "The Giants of American Conservatism," American Heritage 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, names Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Elihu Root, and Theodore Roosevelt for the conservative's hall of fame, with John Adams, in Rossiter’s judgment, as the greatest of American conservatives.Rjensen (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to include this list provided it is sourced, for example with a heading saying something like "From Clinton Rossiter's "The Giants of American Conservatism" (1955). The Four Deuces (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Groups seeking converts often claim that famous people belong to their particular group (though I note that this list does not include Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln). Some people can safely be included in a group because they said they were. Barry Goldwater was proud to say he was a conservative and John Kennedy was proud to say he was a liberal. When people did not publicly state that they were part of a particular group, we turn to the views of people who are well and widely educated, and who at least attempt that hard-to-achieve goal of impartiality. A book titled "The Giants of American Conservatism" does not pretend to impartiality.

The people on Rossiter's list were conservative in some ways and liberal in others. In including Alexander Hamilton, I would assume that Rossiter does not intend to imply that conservatives favor a strong federal government. In including John Adams, he probably does not intend to say that conservatives favor high tarriffs. In including Theodore Roosevelt, he probably does not imply that conservatives support keeping businesses out of the national parks. However, in the spirit of compromise, I will not object to including people on Rossiter's list, provided Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln are not included. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Four Deuces suggestion above, the Rossiter reference could be included as a footnote. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that mainstream academic thinking does not consider any of these people to have been conservatives. See for example, "American liberalism" in Ian Adams' Political ideology today (2001):[5] "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been". TR's policies were close to those of the Liberal Party of the UK of his time. Since all sources identifying pre-1955 conservatives comes from the Conservative movement, it is appropriate that we report how they interpret history. Clinton Rossiter's academic status makes him a good choice as a source. Here is a link to his article: [6]. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the list. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rossiter says of Washington: " four men ...above all other men of their age as models of conservative statesmanship and wellsprings of conservative thought. The first of these, as he is the first of Americans, is George Washington." and in Washington "all the virtues of gentility, integrity, and duty met to form the archetype of the conservative statesman. In his career those great abstractions—service, loyalty, patriotism, morality—came nobly to life. And from him the nation heard, in his Farewell Address, the earnest plea of the true conservative for that firm support of ordered liberty: the unity that overrides petty dissension and selfish faction." Pretty convincing evidence from a leading historian of conservatism. Norwood's personal views belong on his blog, not here.Rjensen (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He wrote later in the article:

Adams, Hamilton, Marshall, Webster, Calhoun, Root, and Roosevelt—these are the giants of American conservatism, and no conservative need ever feel reluctant to stack them up against the giants of American progressivism, especially since he may argue with some conviction that Washington and Lincoln can also be added to his list.

So I think it is incorrect to include Washington, and think it would be better to include Rossiter's arguments in another section of the article. Explanation of the list might be better dealt with by a brief summary or a footnote, rather than as part of the subsection heading. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Rossiter's argument seems to go like this. Since Washington and Lincoln were great men, "he may argue with some conviction" that they must have been conservative. Only conservatives, apparently, display gentility, integrity, and duty. This is hardly an unbiased point of view. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just like Liberals were the only ones to support free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, etc. Soxwon (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"unbiased"? well no, Rossiter favors conservatives. But it's an expert view by a leading historian of conservatism, which is what Wiki rules require. Actually the list drawn up by a liberal would be much the same. Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Which, of course, makes that point that most people are both liberal and conservative. Far from being opposites, as they were in the 18th century, in the modern world the liberal belief in freedom and the conservative belief in tradition only come into conflict in a few areas: censorship, marriage, drugs, and war come to mind. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out Rossiter did not include Washington and Lincoln in his list. Neither by the way did Russell Kirk and modern conservatives have villainized Lincoln and TR. It seems more likely that modern conservatism traces its roots to more radical elements. Of course most historians do not include any of them as conservatives. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you keep getting that from. I have found several sources (and college textbooks) that seem to disagree with this supposed majority. Soxwon (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Political ideology today (2001), Ian Adams, p. 32: "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been."[7]

• "Why I am not a conservative" (1960), F. Hayek: "what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character." [Footnote: 2. B. Crick, "The Strange Quest for an American Conservatism," Review of Politics, XVII (1955), 365, says rightly that "the normal American who calls himself 'A Conservative' is, in fact, a liberal." It would appear that the reluctance of these conservatives to call themselves by the more appropriate name dates only from its abuse during the New Deal era.[8]

• Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America (2003), Rainerp-Olaf Schultze and others, p. 15: Because of these divergent backgrounds, the term "conservatism" came to acquire a different meaning in both countries. Rather than to European notions of conservatism, the American version relates to classical liberalism. George Grant, a prominent Canadian conservative intellectual, has contended that:

"Americans who call themselves 'conservatives' have the right to that title only in a particular sense. [...] Their concentration on freedom of governmental interference has more to do with nineteenth century liberalism than with traditional conservatism, which asserts the right of the community to restrain freedom in the name of the common good."[9]

• Conservatism in America (2007), Paul Gottfried, p. 2: "In this book, I intend to investigate another equally blatant mislabeling, one that pertains to American "conservatives"."[10]

That is the mainstream view even among American conservative writers. Even Kirk wrote that conservatism in America ended in the North in 1800 and the South in 1865. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln, Conservative

The addition of Abraham Lincoln to the list of conservatives is particularly ironic, since in his own time the division was not between liberals and conservatives, but between radicals and conservatives. Those who wanted to free the slaves were called radicals, those who wanted to end the Civil War by allowing the continuation of slavery were called conservatives. In the presidential election of 1864, Lincoln, the Republican candidate, was a radical, while McClellan, the Democratic candidate, was a conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

American conservatives today talk endlessly about human freedom and why slavery is bad. That sounds like Lincoln. The South by 1860 was arguing that slavery was a pretty good deal for the slaves. Rjensen (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems the conservatives are divided on this one. See Lincoln debated. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives are not especially divided on Lincoln--there are some neo-Confederates (like Di Lorenzo) out there who complain that Lincoln saved the Union and abolished slavery, but they're not numerous. The big complaint about Lincoln is that he put anti-Americans in prison, which is the sort of thing conservatives usually cheer about in 2009.Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) You still have not commented on my remark that Rossiter did not include Washington and Lincoln in the hall of fame. What he wrote in the article was:

Adams, Hamilton, Marshall, Webster, Calhoun, Root, and Roosevelt—these are the giants of American conservatism, and no conservative need ever feel reluctant to stack them up against the giants of American progressivism, especially since he may argue with some conviction that Washington and Lincoln can also be added to his list.

The Four Deuces (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Radio hosts

I don't think Glenn Beck and Mark Levin belong here. Sure they're popular but have they really contributed to conservatism that much? At least Limbaugh is notable for bringing conservative ideas to talk radio.174.124.189.253 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy suggestion

following longstanding Wiki policy, I suggest that all nominations of X, Y and Z to the list be accompanied by a citation to a standard reliable source that says X, Y and Z are conservatives.Rjensen (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You should re-write it then, but you still have not replied to my statement that Rossiter did not include Washington and Lincoln as conservatives. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism

An editor insists on changing patriotism to nationalism in the lead because ""Patriotism" is too subjective a term. Nationalism is a more dictionary correct one". However there is no source for this and I have never heard of American conservatives or adherents of any other ideology described as nationalists. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:SuaveArt has replied "patriotism is defined as "love for one's country" - that is completely meaningless here. Nationalism is the closest term, even if people perceive the term as derogatory (it isn't)". The Four Deuces (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all conservatives have either patriotism or nationalism. Some have one or the other. Others have both. Why not include both? Seregain (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the article should not be a catalog of all beliefs held by some conservatives, but rather of the most important conservative beliefs, and in this article specifically American conservative beliefs. It may be that all conservatives believe that water runs downhill, but that doesn't make it a conservative belief. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seregain, which American conservatives do you consider "nationalists"? Which American nationalists reject patriotism? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

George W Bush as one example. Most of the Christian right-wing would also be considered nationalists (not necessarily pro-the existing federal govt, but definitely ideologically nationalistic).

Nationalism generally involves the identification of an ethnic identity with a state.^[1] The subject can include the belief that one's nation is of primary importance.^[2] It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races of cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Patriotism" is not a concrete term. It's an open-ended and opinionated term. If this article is to stay neutral, it will need to reference specific party platforms, not vague sentimental terms like "Christianity" or "Patriotism" which could be argued against just as easily. --SuaveArt (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand how "patriotism" is not a concrete term (whatever that means), as you claim, while "nationalism" apparently is. Look at what is quoted above. Phrases like "generally involves" and "can include." That hardly sounds concrete to me. Seregain (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Patriotism deals with sentiment and is completely subjective. "Love for one's country" can mean anything - conservatives, liberals, libertarians, greens, socialists, etc will all say that their party "loves America" more than the others. ;)

Nationalism deals with specific party platforms and ideologies. Now whether it's the best term or not for this article is a different story, but patriotism is completely POV and I could just as well put that in the American liberalism article.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

SuaveArt, you need a source that connects American conservatism with nationalism. If we make the connection ourselves it is synthesis. By the way, Americans do not have an "ethnic identity". American citizenship is composed of people from various European states, indigenous people and immigrants from other countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity can refer to race, religion, or just culture. Not necessarily race. Religious conservatives do promote a "Christian identity", and conservatives in general promote a strong "American identity" which isn't related to the federal govt, but to the perceived "culture".

An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed.[1][2]

further marked by the researcher Seng Yang in the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness^[3] and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural traits as indicators of contrast to other groups

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, you would have to show that it is generally believed that American conservatives are nationalists. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which conservatives? This article covers all forms of American conservatism. There are subtopics for specific branches of conservativsm (ex. paleoconservatism, fiscal conservatism, neoconservatism, etc). If you have a better term than nationalism, then feel free to add it. But "patriotism" refers to an emotion or personal devotion, not a party platform.--SuaveArt (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you are the one who edited the lead to say, "Conservative principles in America include nationalism....",[11] perhaps you could tell us to which conservatives you were referring. The Four Deuces

(talk) 08:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some paleoconservatives, much of the religious right, some neoconservatives, etc.--SuaveArt (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The contention that some paleoconservatives, much of the religious right, some neoconservatives, etc. are nationalists does not support the statement "Conservative principles in America include nationalism...." The Four Deuces (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In an earlier edit, I made a point to mention that there are multiple "schools" of conservative thought (meaning that not all these principles are held by all forms of conservatism), but this was removed.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter. You cannot generalize from what you say is a minority position to form a description of the majority. You must either explain why "Conservative principles in America include nationalism..." or abandon this idea. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Too many changes, too fast.

American conservatives strongly support specifically Christian beliefs, not just vague religious beliefs, and they strongly disapprove of modern morality, explicitly modern sexual morality, not just a vague decline in religious unity. On the other hand, certainly American conservatives are strongly anti-communist, and the article needs to say that.

The subject of patriotism is more complex. On the one hand, every political party claims that its members are more patriotic than members of the other party, so to list "patriotism" as a specifically conservative belief is meaningless. On the other hand, "nationalism" is unreferenced. How about "American exceptionalism" as a conservative belief?

I'm going to try to put back what is referenced, or can be easily referenced, and remove what is unreferenced and seems to me doubtful.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

First, there are different branches of "American conservatism". Some have no religious agenda at all (such as purely free market conservatives).

Second, your opinion depends on what branch of Christianity you subscribe to. Many Christians would say just the opposite. Saying "American conservatives support Christianity" sounds almost like a GOP slogan.--SuaveArt (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The so-called small government conservatives are the tail trying to wag the dog. Note that small-government conservatives also call themselves small-government liberals, and would like to have Wikipedia represent their belief as beliefs held by a majority of right-thinking people, when in fact they are minority beliefs.

Also, please note that under no circumstances can material inside quotation marks be rewritten (except, of course, to correct typoes). Rick Norwood (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood is right about revising quotes. The quote in question is not appropriate for Wikipedia: it's an unsigned opinion by anon without footnotes copied from another encyclopedia. It does not qualify as a secondary source. So I just dropped it. Rjensen (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

repeated reverts of an obvious fact

Any person who has ever read or listened to the news knows the tremendous influence of the Christian Right on American conservatism but a few references never hurt> Rick Norwood (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that the Christian right and Judeo-Christian-Islamic values are universally considered "Christian" in every denomination of the religion, because they aren't.--SuaveArt (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

in the context of this article, we're talking about an alliance (esp on abortion and moral issues) between Catholics and Fundamentalists/Evangelicals that was created about 1980. Before that the two groups had been hostile to each other (1928, 1960 elections for example). Indeed, before 1970s most of the Christians in politics were liberal--supporting civil rights or the social gospel or pacifism. Thus the religious factor in American conservatism is new in the last 30 years or so. (and there has been a big effort to include Israel and orthodox Jews) Rjensen (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Christian Nation"

The "Christian Nation" theme is often used to attack conservatives, and it is reflected in some Fundamentalist literature. It's not mainstream conservatism. President Reagan for example told Norman Lear in 1984 he was "not aware of any 'Christian Nation movement' and I certainly do not support the notion."(Reagan: A Life in letters p. 642). Conservatives usually speak in terms of Judeao-Christian ethics and values. Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The influence of Christianity on American conservatism is so obvious to everyone that it is hard to understand what you hope to accomplish by removing it from the lede. Certainly, even if you make it go away in Wikipeida, everyone is aware of it. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Note to SuaveArt: you ignore the word "almost" in the quote "almost from the beginning". However, many conservatives make the (false) claim that America is a Christian nation, and that all of the Founding Fathers were Christian. I've avoided including this in the article because the article should be about the mainstream of conservatism, not Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. However, the four nut jobs just named, while not part of the intellectual conservative movement, are far and away the four most famous living conservatives.

Also, just because Catholics and Protestants fight does not mean that they are not, sometimes separately and sometimes in unison, major influences on American conservatism. As the quoted reference notes, most American conservatives are much more interested in Christianity than they are in "small government". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that whoever wrote the article was trying to unequivocally equate conservatism with "Patriotism" and "Christianity".--SuaveArt (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

the term "Christian nation" is a heavily loaded code word used mostly by opponents and is heavily POV. The term in use by conservatives is "Judaeo-Christian values." Rjensen (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead should mention the connection between modern conservatism and religion. Many left-right issues are affected by this: abortion, Israel, teaching of evolution, school prayer, etc. Reagan, George W. Bush and McCain (even Ron Paul) all converted from mainstream churches. But I find both the Christian nation and Judeo-Christian as subject to various meanings. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that "Christian nation" is used mostly by opponents is contradicted by the web sites I've cited as references. I can list a dozen more conservatives who make the same claim, if you like. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Three points. 1) yes there is a major connection between the religious right and conservatism, but 2) that is not what people mean by "Christian nation". There used to be (down to 1960) a very close link between Catholics and the Democratic Party but that did not make Catholicism a policy goal of the Democratic Party. There are indeed some conservatives who preach the "USA is a Christian Nation" theme, so there are a few websites that can be cited. 3) The question here is whether it is a major factor and on that point the statements of the experts are essential. Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism=against gender equality?

The first paragraph suggests Conservatives are against gender equality. Do you mean they're against the modern gender equality movement?Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph suggests that opposition to gender equality is one part of the US conservative movement. For example, conservatives were mobilized to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Source for your example?Bettering the Wiki (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what the Britannica on-line has to say, "Although the ERA gained ratification of 30 states within one year of its Senate approval, mounting intense opposition from conservative religious and political organizations effectively brought ratification to a standstill."

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OBJECTION! It doesn't explicitly say Conservatives are against gender equality, just the ERA. Therefore, to say otherwise is WP:Original Research.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to the ERA, why was it changed back? Soxwon (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We must be careful in writing sections like this. Equality is a cental belief of all mainstream American ideologies (which makes the US exceptional) but there are wide differences in the meaning of equality (e.g., separate but equal). We do not find in American political discussion theorists like Ian Gilmour who argued that people are not equal, but there are sources claiming that US conservatives do not really believe in equality. We should say instead that x says they are against gender equality. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Roosevelt?

It says right on Teddy's page that he was the leader of the progressive movement. That contradicts Conservatism. How can he be both the founder of modern Liberalism and a Conservative at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.249.24 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

because the progressive movement of 1900 is not the same as the progressives of 2010. Two examples: TR was a strong proponent of traditional family values; TR was a strong proponent of an aggressive foreign policy. Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The neutrality tag has been attached to this article for a long time. Does anyone see why it is necessary? The article may need improvement in some areas, but this does not seem to be a problem. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

agreed. Rjensen (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of unsourced generalizations still in the article however. Soxwon (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

the article is based on lots of books in the bibliography; if someone thinks a statement is dubious, then mark just it and we vcan fix it. Rjensen (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, there seems to be a lot of generalizing that would be hard to support. I would prefer a concentrated effort be made to go through and see what we can keep and what we can't. I've not had the time to do so, but I would be willing to make time if anyone else is interested. Soxwon (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. If you think anything is biased then say what it is. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For one there seems to be a distinct lack of libertarian influence on the social conservatism. Secondly, the entire policies section is nothing but uncited generalizations and full of weasel words. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That does not make the article biased. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon: 1) I thought libertarians were economic conservatives but social liberals. 2) There is no "politics" section. Do you mean "Political movements"? If so, I agree it is blather and should be deleted. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

HoF and Famous Conservatives

Like the famous liberals section this section serves no purpose other than to plop together vaguely associated ppl into a group and really is quite useless. Soxwon (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

that is an outlier opinion not shared by the many other editors involved in t article. The purpose it to make concrete the otherwise rather theoretical distinctions among many different varieties and styles and schools of conservatism. The basic point is that conservatism is more an applied approach -- conservatives often say they are dubious about abstract theory--and in real life conservatives spend much more time (compared say to liberals) talking about the models. For example in recent years conservatives talk a great deal about the Reagan model. In other decades they talked about models set by Goldwater, Taft, Webster, Hamilton and Washington. So it's not symmetrical with liberalism. (In recent decades liberals talked a lot about Martin Luther King, but mention few other people as models; I'd suggest liberals are more likely to mention abstractions like "New Deal", "Great Society", "Civil Rights Movement" rather than name people; some liberals indeed ridicule using "Dead white men" as models, while conservatives do not do that.) Rjensen (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A problem with lists are that there are competing views of the use of the term conservatism (e.g., Hartz, Rossiter, Kirk) and the list keeps growing. While it is important to report how different scholars interpret history, I see no purpose in combining these differing views into a list. I would rather see more discussion in the article about what these competing views are. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hartz doesn't get mentioned in the article (he wrote about liberalism). The purpose in naming names is that conservatism focuses more on the concrete than the abstract, and does not reject "dead white men" as many liberals do. The views of Rossiter and Kirk are not very far apart, in my opinion. They emphasize different aspects of conservatism--Kirk is more interested in literature and writers while Rossiter focuses more on politics and the Constitution. Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hartz's view, which has remained influential and should be mentioned, was that there is no conservate tradition in America, hence any historical list would be meaningless. Kirk saw conservatism in the US as something similar to British conservatism and thought it had died out politically with the Federalists and the Civil War. Rossiter saw conservatism as more enduring. There is also the tradition of nativists and extremists, who are arguably also conservatives. Finally a lot of the editors equate conservatism with libertarianism. I don't see how a list could be helpful and it is more likely to be a distraction. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hartz 55 years ago said there is no conservatism in America, so he would erase this whole article. Hardly any expert now agrees with that position. The advantage of a list is that it has focused our editors attention successfully on who the main people are.It let's users jump to the specific biography so they can see for themselves. What usually happens is that one conservative gets aa following and later on experts categorize that position; it's exactly the opposite on the left where ideological positions create factions and the factions, not individuals, become the focus of debate. Rjensen (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Although there is a "conservative" movement in the US that coalesced about 55 years ago and can be distinguished from "liberalism", there is no general agreement on the development of those two traditions before they acquired their current names. the fact that there is a close relation today between the Republican and Conservative Parties can be explained by the move by Liberals into the Conservative Party. Otherwise American conservatism seems closer to English Puritanism, Whiggery and classical liberalism than Toryism. Trying to identify an American liberal tradition that developed in parallel to conservatism presents similar problems. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

the situation has changed dramatically in the last 5 years with a whole shelf of major historical studies. Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that you are more up to date on this than I am. Could you please tell me what some of those studies are. Surely it would be important to include them in the article, The Four Deuces (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)