What is Conservatism?
I'm not looking for flippant answers; I mean thins quite seriously.
I know what kind of platforms political parties that call themselves conservative usually campaign on, and what kinds of legislation they usually enact. I know which segments of society usually vote for them and which segments of society their legislation usually benefit. (They're not the same.)
But I don't know the actual philosophy conservatives hold in their own minds. I have asked:
What do conservatives conserve or wish to conserve?
What are "conservative values"? What kind of society do they envisage and how do they believe it can be brought about?
I know these things about socialists, communists and anarchist, but I have never been able to form a clear picttre of the conservative world-view.
I know what kind of platforms political parties that call themselves conservative usually campaign on, and what kinds of legislation they usually enact. I know which segments of society usually vote for them and which segments of society their legislation usually benefit. (They're not the same.)
But I don't know the actual philosophy conservatives hold in their own minds. I have asked:
What do conservatives conserve or wish to conserve?
What are "conservative values"? What kind of society do they envisage and how do they believe it can be brought about?
I know these things about socialists, communists and anarchist, but I have never been able to form a clear picttre of the conservative world-view.
Comments (97)
A conservative is someone who opposes radical change and what they call 'social engineering' and works to maintain institutions and traditions and cultural artefacts (buildings, museums, landscapes, the arts, the rule of law, royalty - in Britain and the Commonwealth). Conservatives often wish to preserve anachronistic social systems and privileges, they tend to believe in high culture and are suspicious of new ideas, technology and immigration. Roger Scruton, the philosopher, was a conservative and wrote a great deal about it.
I think it would help if you named a particular conservative.
A "leave well enough alone"/let sleeping dogs lie attitude. Stranger danger. Naturally that includes distrusting other peoples and cultures (though not automatically out of inferiority/superiority) simply that the less change, the better. "What worked today, will work tomorrow".
Naturally it attracts those with perverse views on other groups of people. Human nature is to take something when it is needed, trust what is familiar, and distrust (think lesser of?) what is not (this is biologically why you exist today). Has a tinge of tribalism but is more political in the sense that it acknowledges at the end of the day everybody is looking out for #1 and the less of other cultures who do not share or have automatic bonds of familiarity or customs, the safer one or a given society or civilization will be.
I suppose to compare and contrast with being a liberal a conservative would disfavor, ignore or perhaps ostracize one who does not conform or share their given worldviews and customs or way of life.
"There's a way things are supposed to be and if you don't follow it, just don't talk to me!" :razz:
It would help to name one if I knew how to recognize one. In politics, it seems to me that people who call themselves conservative in some way, e.g. fiscal responsibility or individual liberty, actually do the opposite when they're in office: cut government revenue while spending borrowed money on arms contracts and subsidies; curtail civil rights and freedoms.
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't exactly know what that is when it's at home, either. I have a definition for 'liberal' and I have one for 'new', but when they're put together, it becomes a political portmanteau of bad policy. Unless the liberalism referred-to is laissez-faire libertarian, which is quite different from social liberalism.
Okay, so the money-oriented, deregulating, privatizing conservatives are not, in fact, conservative.
Quoting Tom Storm
I can't tell what counts as 'radical' change in the age of over 8000 satellites and every politician sounding off on social media like teenagers. And again: trade unions are a well established institution and tearing them down is - to me - a radical change brought about conservative administrations. So contracting "corrections" out to private enterprise: a state monopoly on law enforcement and retribution is a very deeply rooted tradition in all civilizations. (neoliberal?)
That's another one of those terms I don't quite grasp. God made things a certain way, and nobody should change it. But every king and aristocracy and economic elite - the conservatives of their era - did change the order that prevailed before they took over. I understand that some Americans want their women back in the kitchen, pregnant, barefoot and illitarate, and their slaves back in the fields, singing sweetly from dawn to dusk. But that state of affairs, like every other, had also been brought about by human intervention - the pair God made was naked and unencumbered by possessions.
Some institutions. Some traditions. cultural artefacts, buildings and the arts, not so much. At least in the US
Quoting Tom Storm
Not that I have ever seen in the US or Canada. Certainly not among their voter base, and not conspicuously among their elite. Unless C&W&G are "high" culture, compared to symphony, ballet and opera - the despised province of the east coast liberal elite.
Quoting Tom Storm
This is the one part that rings true and corresponds to my own observation of conservative political behaviour. It doesn't tell me about values,though; only about holding on to power and depriving minority groups of rights and freedoms - while screaming about rights and freedom.
I don't think that's a true conservative position, either. I have kind of a nebulous idea what it is - at least, I have a memory of attitudes among elders I once respected. But they're all dead now.
That wouldn't look out of place on a socialist agenda.
We don't hear that 'position', ever. We hear: no gun control, defunding social services and public broadcast media, lowering taxes on the rich, interference in public school curricula by special interest groups, and making war on some small foreign countries while exploiting others for natural resources.
'Conservatives' themselves seem to bifurcate the world by tribe / sect such that they tend to be very pessimistic about "Them" (i.e. much less cosmopolitan, urban & prospective) and yet not quite optimistic about "Us" (i.e. much more parochial, rural & retrospecttive); therefore, as history of the modern era amply shows, 'conservatives' are just as, or more, comfortable with autocracy (i.e. centralized minority rule 'political Right' (i.e. "Us & Them" trumps Right & Wrong / True & False)) than they are with democracy (i.e. agonistic majority rule 'political Center').
This has been my observation, as well. The political right does tend to pull toward conformity, hierarchy and the imposition of order by force from above; it might well support an American ruling dynasty, but has not yet cast up a family equal to the role.
Nothing is hard and fast.
I do not think the political right is identical to the Conservative position. What counts as Right wing? If its authoritarianism, suppression of opposing voices and minority groups then are there not Leftist groups who do all this?
Maybe categories like this are approximate positions only.
That's not my version; that's the version I see under the political label that identifiable parties, their public spokespeople and their supporters wear. I can't tell who a real conservative is and who is a neoliberal calling him or herself conservative. That's why I asked.
Quoting Tom Storm
Those are the values I'm trying to identify. I'm not even asking for hard and fast; I'd settle for casually ambling Jello; I can't seem to find anything solid or positive enough to identify. I hear a lot of stuff that self-professed conservatives are against, - mostly other people being allowed to do something that doesn't affect them - but there, too, the substance eludes definition, and when you ask what they're for, it fades into smoke dissipates in neoliberal policy.
I understand wanting to keep the monarchy... even though they hate the present monarch. That happens, and the resolution has usually been bloody and costly, but I don't think it's a danger this time.
I understand the idea of patriotism, but not "my country right or wrong, unless the other party is in power, in which case, burn it down."
I get wanting to hang on to power all just for "us", but self-identified conservatives rarely admit that. And they elect such prats and twits and mountebanks, it's hard to respect even that desire.
Quoting Tom Storm
I suppose there must be, though the leftist groups I've been associated with were a lot more like a herd of cats than a phalanx. When that happens, though, are they still socialists and liberals? Or is there a leftward equivalent of 'neoliberal'? All labels can be abused and perverted.
But I do expect people of conviction to be able to articulate, clearly and consistently, their own values: what they believe, what they consider important personally and as a society; what they think is a desirable state of affairs.
I keep harking back to Archie Bunker's theme song. They may have been deluded, that generation of conservatives, but they had a picture in their heads of how things should be.
Youre pointing to the fact that political categories are blurred and inexact.
Quoting Vera Mont
I would expect that of few people, theorists maybe. In my experience, people with conviction often have convictions in place of knowledge.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes - as you described them earlier. Not yours personally.
Quoting Vera Mont
Fair point. Labels are twisted. I think most Western governments are neo-liberal. They do not rock the boat of the corporate interest groups - Obama bailing out Wall Street; Tony Blair's "New Labour" were about conserving the status quo. Here in Australia, Labor's Hawke/Keating deregulated the markets, floated the dollar and embraced neo-liberalism fulsomely. My socialist friends have always considered Democrat and Labor to be virtually equivalent to Republican and Tory. In this vein we get philosopher Cornel West's observation that Obama was "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats."
I entered the above into chat GBT for an AI answer, and got:
[b]"Conservative values" are principles and beliefs that emphasize traditional social, cultural, and political practices and institutions, and a cautious approach to change. These values are often associated with the political ideology of conservatism.
Conservative values typically include a belief in limited government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, free markets, and the importance of preserving traditional cultural and social institutions. Conservatives often believe in the importance of a strong national defense, law and order, and respect for authority.
Conservatives generally envision a society that is stable, secure, and prosperous, with a strong emphasis on family, community, and individual responsibility. They believe that this kind of society can be brought about through a combination of policies that promote economic growth, individual liberty, and the preservation of traditional values.
Conservatives also tend to view government intervention as a potential threat to individual freedom and a source of inefficiency and waste. They prefer a smaller, more limited government that focuses on core functions like national defense, law enforcement, and infrastructure.
In terms of social policy, conservatives tend to oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, and other social practices they see as undermining traditional family values. They also tend to support school choice, religious freedom, and the protection of individual rights.
Overall, the conservative vision of society emphasizes individual liberty, limited government, traditional values, and strong communities. They believe that these values are the key to creating a prosperous, stable, and free society.[/b]
This is the key to understanding conservatism. A conservative government is against public intervention, but they agree with the free market, the agglomeration of companies, and the reduction of taxes. One of the main aspects of a conservative culture is the financial idea that, if you reduce taxes, you will allow the rich companies to create more employment. Another characteristic is the promotion and defense of private property.
To be honest, I think that modern conservatism is more focused on economic modes than on traditional familiar values or strong communities when these have already disappeared due to globalization.
I don't think there is one. There is a great deal of conceptual drift. Some appeal to tradition, but not always the same tradition. It might be some form of Liberalism, or some religious group, but the identity of these is not fixed.
Some tie it to the notion of limited government, but many who call themselves conservative are in favor of the government deciding reproductive rights, or transgender rights, or what books are permissible in public schools. Some who call themselves conservatives claim that the US is a Christian nation founded on Christian values. As such the limits of government extend to what goes on in the bedroom behind closed doors as well as what is permissible to say and do in public.
Except in making and enforcing laws that curtail personal freedom.
This is what I can't come to grips with: the logical contradictions.
Quoting javi2541997
This is not borne out by documented evidence from the past. If they value the past, why do they have such short memories?
Quoting universeness
There they are again! What does that mean??? There are many conflicting traditions. Which do conservatives prefer? Abraham's domestic arrangements? Thomas Jefferson's? And how do they see more marriages undermining the institution of marriage? How do they see the practical, logistical aspects of a strong community? What makes a community strong?
I've heard all the general descriptions and desiderata, but they don't correspond to the actions of any conservative government I've seen. The individuals I have met who identify as conservative by nature, temperament do seem to imagine
Quoting universeness
and yet the political parties they keep voting for keep making more people poor and insecure.
I do understand the vision, the magical vision of a 1950's American small town. Picket fences, lace curtains, friendly neighbourhood shops, Officer Mike strolling down Main street, women with shopping baskets, red-cheeked youngsters cannonballing into the river, whale-shaped cars parked along the street, having come in on a perfectly maintained highway; ice cream parlour with wholesome teenagers exchanging shy glances over gold-flecked formica tabletops, all present at Sunday service in their best clothes and scrubbed faces, then stopping for a little gossip before hurrying home to roast chicken. All white, all middle class, all busy, faithful, happy and law abiding.
And I know what's under the bile-green linoleum in those kitchens. They choose not to.
As I previously explained, I only see conservatism in an economic model. Reducing taxes + allowing the rich to expand their wealth + not intervention from the state = more employment.
At least, that was the formula used by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
On the other hand, we have interventionism or social democracy where the rich must to pay the most to redistribute the wealth among the citizens.
As we can see both models crash because of monetary interests, not because of moral/familiar values.
But I'm told that's actually neoliberalism. Still can't quitewrap my head around how the word 'liberal' - which means 'broad-minded, tolerant, inclusive, generous' got mixed in there.
Anyway, there is this very strong religious element - different religions in each place a powerful 'conservative' faction takes over: it also means suppression of other religions, secular, humanist values, science and diversity.
They represented a departure from conservatism, and some conservatives doubt that they were conservative at all. Thatcher was a radical. She rocked the boat. The conservatives went along with it, because conservatism is adaptable and she was not threatening many of their interests, even though she was not really a friend of the aristocracy.
Conservatives created the first welfare state and were quite happy to go along with a mixed economy in the UK from the end of the Second World War until Thatcher.
Conservatism is not essentially pro-free-market, but this might be because it has little in the way of essenceit defends hierarchy and power, and that takes different forms. Traditionally, conservatives are pragmatic, not doctrinal.
Generally, what you are describing is the popular, very modern use of the term conservatism, but because it is also a political philosophy thats a couple of centuries old, one which is still influential, its worth looking at that too. Veras questions pertain to the discrepancies between the two.
Someone mentioned Roger Scruton. He was one of the most prominent conservative philosophers until he died recently, following on from Michael Oakeshott and going back ultimately to Edmund Burke. I see this as the main conservative tradition and the modern use of the term as hopelessly confused. There must be a book about what has happened to conservatism in the past fifty years, and no doubt its a strange and interesting story. And unfortunately I cant just say that what is referred to now as conservatism has absolutely nothing to do with conservatismits more complicated than that.
The SEP article might help sort out some of the confusing uses of the word:
[quote=Conservatism, SEP;https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/]It is contested both what conservatism is, and what it could or ought to beboth among the public and politicians, and among the philosophers and political theorists that this article focuses on. Popularly, conservative is a generic term for right-wing viewpoint occupying the political spectrum between liberalism and fascism. Philosophical commentators offer a more distinctive characterisation. Many treat it as a standpoint that is sceptical of abstract reasoning in politics, and that appeals instead to living tradition, allowing for the possibility of limited political reform. On this view, conservatism is neither dogmatic reaction, nor the right-wing radicalism of Margaret Thatcher or contemporary American neo-conservatives.[/quote]
On neoliberalism, libertarianism, etc:
[quote=Conservatism, SEP;https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/]Conservatism is popularly conflated with neo-conservatism and with libertarianism. But right libertarians and neo-conservatives, unlike Burkean conservatives, reject state planning for doctrinaire reasons. Making anti-planning into a principle, or economic liberalism into an ideology, offends the conservatives pragmatic, sceptical temper, which could admit a role for state planning and economic intervention were such things shown to be effective. Conservatives reject ideologies, of which neo-liberalism is one. [/quote]
For me, if there is a core of conservatism its a basic suspicion of Utopianism and of the idea of the perfectibility of man; a resultant pragmatic attitude to politics that aims to maintain a harmonious community in which change happens only slowly and organically on the basis of experience rather than on the basis of doctrines and principles. Of course, this is to represent it in its best light, according to its self-image, and I can also describe it differently: a pragmatic attitude to politics that aims to maintain traditional hierarchies and relations of power, which are regarded as natural. This last point is crucial I think: class and war and inequality are naturalized in conservatism, and particular social formations dehistoricized.
There are dozens.
But I wasn't asking about books or philosophers. I was asking about what conservative people value; what, specifically, they want to conserve. The confusion seems to enter when several incompatible ideas are introduced as part of a single vision: it becomes incoherent.
This comes very close to the feelings I noticed in sincere conservatives of my politically aware youth:
Quoting Jamal
Thank you.
Youre welcome, but the bit that came after that is crucial.
I really find this attitude needlessly combative. I wrote what I though about, pretty much off the top of my head, in response to your questions, and because I dont have all the answers to those questions I figured it might be a contribution to the discussion to mention the philosophers who can help answer them. That you didnt want replies to mention philosophers or booksthis is weird to me but fair enoughis of no concern to me. Just ignore that stuff if youre not interested.
There are obviously conservatives who support the movement simply because they see it as the most self-interested political means to secure more wealth for themselves. But that's no different to any movement. For those on the left, for whom social capital is worth more than financial capital, they may only support left-wing or progressive political positions because they think doing so maximises that social capital.
If you're asking why some people engage in politics for selfish, rather than ideological, reasons, then your question has nothing to do with conservatism, but just social psychology in general.
If you want to ask about the coherence of conservatism as an ideology, then you need to disregard that which is cynically done in its name just to gain a core of political support. The same is true of the left.
I think it depends on each state we are talking about. Despite I understand that conservatism goes beyond than just reduce taxes and support powerful groups/lobbies, the main subject for modern democracies (as mine) is among those. Countries with a solid middle class such as UK, USA, Sweden, Germany, Japan, etc... Doesn't seem to be a big issue the matter of collecting money from the rich or raising the salaries up. But here is different. IBEX 35 says that it will be impossible for the companies to raise the incomes up if they pay a lot of taxes. This view is a 1980's/1990's model of neo-liberalism supported by conservative/Christian democracy politicians.
Some countries surpassed this conservatism of their enterprise sector, others don't. There is a clear fight on social democracy (those who defend working class) and enterprises (conservative by nature). So, it is more a struggle of a group of persons against a group of enterprises. I am aware that this already happened in the UK in Thatcher's era, but here, this issue is recent.
Those are key notes on "What is conservatism?"
Yes indeed, and this is an example of the relativism of conservatism. Conservatisms in different places and different times dont share much beyond their basic defence of the status quo, whatever that status quo is. Its interesting to think that conservatism is historically and geographically relative even though conservatives often complain about relativism.
Is that an inconsistency or are they just different kinds of relativism? I think its probably an inconsistency, sort of: you cannot, qua representative of conservatism, uphold values as absolute if conservatism in different times and places has defended different, opposing values.
If none of that makes sense its because Im thinking on the fly.
:up:
Yes, I was aware of that, though the process by which this happens is less clear, given that the personal perspective is a desire for peace, prosperity, security and continuity. I understand the tribalism and its strongest political expression: isolationism. But that should lead to wall-building and exclusion, not international warfare.
So, there seems to be a dissonance between the individual and collective expressions of the conservative mind-set, which makes it less comprehensible, not more; a discrepancy between the local and the state-level application of policy. Of course the Abrahams are willing to sacrifice their sons if God wants them, but it's not their own idea - or they claim that is isn't; they're just following orders. That makes it even more confusing to me.
Quoting Jamal
I apologize. That was not my intention; I was only trying to make the same distinction as above: to separate personal conviction from general perception, professional analysis and political platform. Those perspective strike me as each markedly at variance with the others.
My on the fly thought is that throughout human history there's been an steady increase the rate of change and it's now moving to the vertical part of an exponential curve so that generation gaps are widening.
What that means for conservatism is that one generation's conservatism was the progressive view of the previous generation. The result is that everything is getting scrambled.
Yes, that! Maybe I'm not supposed to understand....
I'm old and have always been a progressive socialist. The last conservatives I understood and respected were old when I was young.
It irks me when I keep hearing that old people tend to be more conservative, and everything will be better, once we die off. On the other hand, I'm reading things like this:
If I'm confused, at least I'm not alone.
No worries, I see where youre coming from better now :cool:
You raise interesting questions that revolve around nationalism. I think there is definitely a tension between the modern nation-state and individual conservatism (and traditional conservatism, the philosophical position). The nation-state was in many ways, at least in some places, a liberal and ideological project, and thus not something that conservatives should have been very happy about. If conservatives as representing the -ism of conservatism were able to recalibrate their political positions and take the liberal nation-state as the new status quo, that doesnt necessarily mean ordinary conservative people did the same.
And yet, they did: the First World War was initially hugely popular, for example, and nationalism, even aggressive adventurous nationalism, has at times been associated with conservatives.
But if its true that conservatism is supremely adaptable and anti-doctrinal, lacking in dogma, perhaps this actually frees it to be inconsistent and sometimes embrace dogmas as and when it suits them.
The reason we dont know much about conservatism is because intellectual conservatives are rare and academia and the press are mostly captured by the opposition.
I read Roger Scrutons How to be a conservative a while back due to the same interest. According to him, he watched as the communists and socialists rioted in France in '68, and all he knew was he opposed everything they believed in. So he spent the rest of his life trying to articulate his beliefs.
What I remember most is the notion of inheritance. Since it is much easier to destroy but not so easy to create, we owe it everyone to pass on the Good to the future, as a sort of bond between the past, the present, and posterity. Even if these things and institutions are useless, like royalty, they are forged through generations, are often beautiful, and indicate this inheritance.
In any case, everyone is conservative about what they know and value.
In America, blue collar workers, feeling completely abandoned by the supposed progressive party, are now devoted conservatives. Weird times.
That resonates. It sounds like the conservatism of Premier Bill Davis and federal Conservative leader John Diefenbaker, to whom Doug Ford and Pierre Poilievre are a stark and horrific contrast. At the pivot point in between were Mike Harris and Brian Mulroney. Other English-speaking countries experienced a similar shift in their conservative governance style.
Quoting Vera Mont
My problem here Vera is that you kind of shut my type down, in your OP with:
Quoting Vera Mont
As a socialist, I don't have much to offer regarding my true opinion of conservatism and what I think such is actually trying to conserve, if I can't be flippant about it. I will try a little but will probably fail.
Conservatives want to conserve everything, that they care about, exclusively, and they are convinced, that those who they REALLY DO see, as 'less deserving' than themselves, want what they have and are furiously trying to achieve that goal. They don't mind being charitable to some causes they favour, but
most conservatives are nimby (Not In My Back Yard).
'Other peoples problems,' are not what most conservatives want to be bothered by.
Their 'humanism,' often does not extend much past those they consider their 'ain folks.'
I tend to judge conservatives on a person by person basis who choose to employ the label.
They certainly do vary, but I can usually place each 'conservative,' somewhere on a line between liberal and fascist.
Nice summary.
Would you perhaps say that 'conservatism' these days is one of the minor strands within the broader categories of (another imprecise term) 'right-wing' thought? And like 'socialism' the term is often used with magnificent imprecision.
Quoting NOS4A2
Probably. Scruton makes this point too. Conservatism is more of a disposition and not as prone to generating theory as the left seems to be. Edmund Burke was a key philosophical influence on Scruton.
Quoting Vera Mont
I think this refers to the well-known phenomena of those radical in youth who often later become obedient members of the bourgeoisie. I know I have become more conservative in age. My choices and my political orientation is less radical today then it was 35 years ago. I'd say the same for my comrades who have moved from wanting revolution and blood on the streets, to sending their kids to good schools and worrying about risotto recipes and cooking with coriander.
But I've never changed my basic principles, converted to a punitive religion, supported miltarizing the police, rewriting history, denying the efficacy of vaccines or letting the mega-rich off paying taxes. I've never changed my my mind about what personal liberty ought to entail or what citizens owe the state and vice versa.
Of course, I never was a revolutionary, but a staunch believer in subversion, if democratic process fails and gradual improvement proves impossible. I have always believed in conserving nature and culture and heritage; I even found the British monarchy picturesque than annoying. (Didn't mind a major thoroughfare being shut for a royal visit, did for a papal one - but that's just my little prejudice: I wouldn't advocate hurling a bomb at either.) I do recall a time when Canadian conservative, liberal and soft socialist parties conducted civil public discourse regarding their agendas.
Quoting Vera Mont
I've known quite a few people who have changed principles and done just these things. The question I often wonder about is how serious were their radical ideas when young?
Quoting Vera Mont
Here in Australia too. I suspect the Murdoch influence and cultivation of the 'culture wars' has been inimical throughout the English speaking world
Traditions.
Selectively. Quoting Tom Storm
Germany, Poland, India, Brazil, France, even the most progressive countries
It's all over the world. It's the politics of fear.
To some extent, my family is in Holland, my point was the English language version.
You mean the Murdoch influence? I completely agree that his outlets were instrumental in shaping this version, but not unique; the same sentiments and ideas can be, and are, expressed in every language.
Same here. Since my late teens I've opposed all forms of autocracy (e.g. theocracy, plutocracy, mobocracy) and especially laissez-faire (democracy-in-name-only (DINO)) republicanism. Four decades on, I have lived through enough American history to harden my 'green economic democratism' into a dogmatic progressive ideology (both anti-authoritarian and anti-utopian). My chief regret is that my activism has fallen off considerably since the mid-90s due to fatalistic pique (depressive realism?), I suspect, more than due to bourgeois cooption or regressive conditions of aging. Almost sixty, I'm still a culturally conservative, socio-economic progressive anti-fascist.
Quoting Jamal
:100:
:grin: This caused three faces to pop up again, in my head.
Three of the socialist hero's of my youth.
Two 'red Clydesiders,' Manny Shinwell and Jimmy Reid, and the wonderful Tony Benn.
Manny fought very hard for union rights in his youth and was involved in protests in the centre of Glasgow (George Square). These often turned violent, due to the 'beat every protester up,' approach of the police in 1919. I could not believe it, when he became BARON Shinwell in 1970, (I was only 6, so it was much later, when I exclaimed 'HE BECAME WHAT???????) and became a life peer in the house of lords. He lived till he was 101!
Jimmy Reid was a working class hero of the shipyard workers. He ended up employed by the devil himself, Rupert Murdoch, writing a crap column in the Sun newspaper. :scream:
Tony Benn! Well, thank goodness, I still have him! :lol: A pity his son 'Hilary Benn,' is such a ineffectual MP and a political let down! imo.
Irving Kristol, often described as the father of neoconservatism, was once a Trotskyist. He said a neocon is 'a liberal who's been mugged by reality'. Humorist PJ O'Rourke said much the same about his move from the left to the right.
I read some of his early stuff and some of his post-conversion stuff and found both unconvincing, leading me to wonder whether he had any convictions, or was merely striking poses for effect.
This, OTOH, I don't find so shocking.
Quoting universeness
Especially in those days, but even now, I think you could be a determined socialist without turning on the monarchy. Robin Hood was utterly loyal to Richard - gods know why...Well, it's the oldest constitutional one (in the modern world), isn't it? I don't know that much about how people in then-united kingdom were thinking, but in more recent times, quite radical artists, scientists, performers and reformers have been given OBE's as a mark of recognition for their contribution to the nation - not of a political stand.
I don't think people of that generation, from either end of the legitimate political spectrum, would see a contradiction in disagreeing on what's best for one's country and agreeing on respect for the king. And for ERII, pretty much everyone did.
That's another indication of the shift in perception over the past century.
Would you not agree that our individual, personal experience, of living as a human being, along with the historical legacy we have, and can consume, almost as a 'believe it or not' offering, causes us to at some point in our lives, plant our flag in one camp or another?
Then as we get older, and we see how things change around us locally and then we compare and contrast that with national, international and global events, WE EACH decide what we feel is NOW vital to 'protect' or 'conserve?' Many of us will also muse over what we think needs to be changed for the betterment of all. I think the extent to which an individual is personally tied, to either of my previous two sentences, will dictate a persons level of 'conservatism,' today.
I am much more interested in what has to be changed, than I am to what has to be protected or conserved.
I do not type that lightly in anyway. There are ways of thinking that I am very fond of indeed.
My own 86 year old mother keeps stating how much she disapproves of what's happening now, and how much better things were in her day.
I hesitate to bombard her with evidence about the fact that things were very bad in her day as well, but I do on occasion, which does upset her at times, so I try to redress by talking about what I think was 'the good stuff,' that was contributed from her generation.
There is no sense of security or tradition or culture that I am so tied to conserving, that it becomes almost 'sacred' and is non-negotiable.
If I was quite sure that the result of compromising it, would improve the lives of a significant number of people without also having a negative affect on another significantly large number of people, then, I would compromise. So, I remain of the opinion that conservatism is backwards and stifling.
Political conservatism remains a stalwart supporter of capitalism, and promotes the idea that we are all better under the control of a tiny minority of people, who claim they have a meritocratic right to rule, due to dynasty or entrepreneurial prowess. Neither of which qualify such people to hold the power and influence they currently wield over the lives of the majority of the people, flora and fauna on this planet.
I remain fully committed, to combat any political group, associated with the words conservative or capitalist or 'right wing.' I will however, 'compromise,' if and only if, they will.
But you were not born in the 19th century. Socialism has changed; attitudes have changed; the basis of the economy and British identity have all changed. Just sayn', cut the old guy some slack!
Quoting universeness
This is true. But as a casual student of history, I can also understand that a person living in another time and having a very different experience may perceive their options and possibilities differently from us; that the borders of their "camps" may have been drawn along different rivers. Remember, too, that your historical heritage andmine are dissimilar, though both to some degree include the life work of Manny Shinwell - while his historical heritage was absent us, but very much present the shadow of the War to End All Wars - which, from our perspective, has been eclipsed by intervening events.
Quoting universeness
Yes, but I will not condemn dead people who - I believe - acted on their best conscience.
Or anyone who does now, even if they disagree with me on ways and means.
True, I was born in the 20th century, but how can we learn the mistakes of history if we keep blowing fresh air, on the residual embers of vile systems such as monarchy or aristocracy?
I think ending the UK monarchy, replacing the embarrassing house of lords, with a citizen based second tier of authority, getting rid of the civil list and ending the embarrassing yearly joke, that is the current UK honours list, would all be about consolidating the multi-culture, that IS the current UK population. This would be a beginning to the UK cleaning itself up a great deal. Britain or more precisely the four nations of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales could become what they need to become. Four nations who have conquered the old traditions and conserved imbalances that used to infect them and hold down/back the majority of their population. Instead, they could truly unite in common cause with the rest of Europe towards creating a better future for all.
So no, I will not cut the old guy some slack. Britain should return all the plunder it stole from nations it invaded and should start to pay reparations for it's role in slavery. It needs to start new traditions and a new culture not conserve the old vile ones.
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't make such condemnations either, especially in the case of those who remained true to their principles. I do however, condemn ALL historical and current gangsters, since we came out of the wilds, be they monarchs and aristos/messiahs and prophets/billionaires and multi-millionaires/self-aggrandising politicians and generals/rich cults of celebrity/profiteering capitalists and plutocrats, all the way down to local mobsters and street thugs.
Maybe so; I'm not partial to the idea of aristocracy or monarchy. But given how well the US republic is doing just now, that may not be an ideal to strive for. Every large organization, however its tenets are laid out at its inception, tends to stratify over time. I don't see much difference between a landed aristocracy and a broadcast-media-owning one -- how bad they depends on whether they have any sense of noblesse oblige.
Any form of government works, as long as the people in it adhere to the rules and take responsibility. No form of government works they don't.
I honestly can't envision how you'd go about consolidating the population and I'm not sure it's good idea to .... social-engineer, to let my inner conservative come up for air .... such an outcome. If the economy, law-enforcement and social services are adequate to the needs of all the people, they will naturally mix anyway; interest blocs do not necessarily correspond to ethnic ones.
Quoting universeness
Could work. If that's what they unanimously think is best for them. Is it, really? What kind of clout would Wales have in EU decision-making, compared to France and Germany? (keeping in mind that those countries are themselves not entirely strife-free) What about Cornwall?
What will you do with all your conservatives? I can't speak for Australia, but we sure don't want them!
Quoting universeness
Quoting universeness
I don't think Sir Manny had much to do with looting the empire, or was consulted in whether to abolish it.
Quoting universeness
A scorched-earth radical? OK. I'll just wait for the whole ball of wax to melt in climate change.
Obviously "conservative values" depend on the society and history where the conservative party exists. Conservatives in an islamic country or in an non-permissive Western country are quite different. Even Social democracy is more uniform.
The Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán set out in a speech of 2014 his vision of the future form of the state as 'a workfare state':
Quoting Viktor Orbán
He specifies that this 'community' is not necessarily bound by borders. The Hungarian state remains interested in the interests of 'Hungarians' in other countries: Ukraine, for example, enforced the teaching of 'Hungarian' children (and the children of Russian speakers, for instance) in the Ukrainian language in 2017 and provoked inter-state disagreement.
This notion of Orbán's is of course shared by many other countries with different ideologies, from Xi's China, or Modi's India, to the US or Britain and their beliefs in 'American interests' or 'British interests'.
Orbán's views tap into 'blue-collar conservatism' that many countries are experiencing. There is a sense of loss, a need for community, and a view/feeling that metropolitan liberalism is profoundly hypocritical.
I'm a British Green and encounter these 'values' on the doorstep. They seem to me to represent a point of view every bit as coherent as, if not more so than, the baffling values our current social democrats espouse (Put more people in jail! Maximise economic growth! Oh yes, every eco-socialist agrees with that, right?). Of course, in my country the 'Conservatives' are an organisational shambles, but I expect they'll be back.
The USA was born with a great number of disabilities that it inherited from it's many global parents.
Irrational theism, embedded racism, angry refugee status, 'mother country syndrome,' etc etc.
They are still trying to figure out who they are. America is still a very young country, compared to the countries of Europe.
Quoting Vera Mont
A dynastic aristocracy IS much more dangerous than a celebrity/economic based elite, as an aristocracy has much more direct military control. I agree that the American elite, do demonstrate aristocratic tendencies but I place the responsibility for that, squarely on the American population that allows such to continue. Just like I blame the British people (including me) for allowing the nefarious, to currently control this country.
Quoting Vera Mont
Quoting Vera Mont
Your first quote above claims you can't envision, what your second quote above ENVISIONS!
That's why I do what I can, to help make your second quote become true for the population of the UK or at least for the population of an independent Scotland.
Quoting Vera Mont
Luxembourg does ok within the EU imo and it's 8 times smaller than Wales. The diaspora of most countries is global today. I think that IS an important influence on the notion of the EU.
There are many examples of 'separate identities' all over Britain. Liverpudlians are very different in cultural traditions, compared to London Cockney's or Viking based 'Scottish' Orcadian Islanders.
The Cornish will be as they have always been but I assume they would remain part of England, unless the majority of Cornish people have other plans they are very serious about.
Quoting Vera Mont
Aw! I thought they would be welcomed in Florida, Texas and West Virginia!
Quoting Vera Mont
Manny was not offered a knighthood, he was awarded a barony. He betrayed every socialist principle he stood for by accepting it. He soiled his own legacy forever imo.
Quoting Vera Mont
No, I am not a particular fan of shock tactics. I am just an advocate for bringing in the 'new' that I am convinced, will change peoples lives for the better, even if the pace of change, remains very slow. I also advocate for getting rid of old bad traditions and backwards cultural norms.
That's an excellent example! Of values?? More of fang-gnashing fear. To me, he represents the rising rabid conservatism that will finally bring down the global house of cards.
Quoting universeness
That, too, shall come to pass.
This is classic nationalism.
Something that actually Vladimir Putin has been also very concerned about: the Russians now "stranded" in other countries and hence Russia has declared itself as a defender of those Russians everywhere.
Quoting mcdoodle
Nationalism is shared in many countries. And then there's the obvious populism also in Orbán's rhetoric as he's against the international elites that try to hinder Hungary. Typical to his rhetoric is to attack the EU elites in Brussels. No surprise the strained relationship that Hungary has with the EU.
This isn't actually something totally normal to conservatism. Conservatism doesn't have to be populist or militant, but it can be as can also leftist parties be. It is more about a political party tapping into the discontent of the population with populist rhetoric. And then there's the fact that Fidesz has a 54% majority in the Hungarian Parliament. It doesn't have to work with a coalition.
Usually conservative parties aren't populist, just like with European Social Democrat parties. The simple fact is that when you are the dominant party in the nations politics, you cannot portray yourself as against the elites and on the side of the ordinary people as populists do.
Hear hear! Down with bad things!
Of course this agenda, in practice, will be, unless it is a totalitarian regime, balanced somewhat by the necessity to maintain the illusion of being populist just enough to try to ensure being re-elected.
What a pity, others can't see the same obvious simplicity that you can!
:clap:
Ya gotta keep a keen eye on dem crazy priesties mate, or else their backwards traditions and cultural norms will keep biting us all on the arse! Long live scientism!! FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM!
Sorry Jamal, but I am sure, as a globetrotter, you experience the odd bout of diasporic mother country syndrome yourself and get bizarre urges to type something like 'freeeeeeeeeedooooooooooom!' or 'Alba da brav!' or 'Naw pal, ah don't think so, I am Scottish by ra way!' without fully having sound, rational, logical reasons for doing so.
Ok, I hear you, let's get back to what needs conserving!
They should reject Christianity as a liberal innovation on the traditional paganism which also valued plurality and syncretism :chin:. Wait a minute
So its special pleading of only preserving the Medieval ideal it seems. Bacchus is older and more traditional. Doesnt seem to fit in that model.
I think my quote sufficiently refuted their purported aims as to indeed be cherry picking. Christianity was the naughty interloper interrupting thousands of years of paganism. Its preference not even for old, just their version of ideology.
In a way I agree with the pessimism of the conservative but I dont reify that into some aim. Procreating itself is social engineering. If liberals want to see X outcome from people. All procreators want to see X outcome from their children. They are literally engineering people to maintain the system.
I wouldn't think that example works, but you might find a better one that does. Radical change from the past is accommodated and becomes the tradition of the future. A conservative doesn't look back throughout history and try to turn back the clock after thousands of years, right? That's not conservatism, that's a belated counterrevolutionary. A conservative isn't going to wear 17th century breaches. He's going to wear the more conservative choice of his time. Probably a traditional suit.
And so this in itself is acknowledging the silliness of reifying what is traditional BECAUSE its simply the holdover from the last major change. It can be a preference but the very fact that that itself was based on a change belies its real nature as what is conserved. Stockings over pants then. Kilts over stockings, togas over kilts or whatnot and so on. Hunting gathering loin cloths are most conservative and traditional then.
This is something they do yes. Im refuting their justification for its rightness and have explained thus.
The point is they don't like sudden, far reaching changes. It's a preference, it's not as simple as right or wrong.
I work in an organisation which has been very stable for a few years. 10 years ago it was in tumult. I disliked that period of chaos greatly. I now value the stability and the people who are in key roles. It's not perfect but it is the best it can be from my perspective. I do not want to see any big changes to this organisation because I don't want stability and predictability to be threatened. I am a conservative in relation to any big change being suggested. Am I aware that this stability can't last forever and that change is inevitable and has been the case in the past? You bet. That has no bearing on my preference for conservative change only.
Yes, only that's been labelled neoliberal.
There is - or there was - a brand of conservative who fits that image, but then adds anotherr dimension in the form of the obligations that go with privilege.
In politics also, there have been conservatives who cling to tradition: ceremony, hierarchy and religion, while also embracing theprinciples of those traditions, rather than just gleaning the benefits: bread as well as circuses. That whole concept appears to have become obsolete.... hijacked by shills who replace patriotism with jingoist xenophobia; christian forbearance with militant religiosity; family and community cohesion with the vilification of minorities - tawdry imitations of conservative values.
Or so it seems to me.
Very well described! I agree wholeheartedly.
I think that's also what Roger Scruton thought. He bemoaned the fact that the conservative tradition had been coopted by corporate statists and cultural philistines, vandals and assorted self-aggrandizing parasites. But we all know that words are changeable things and they are often purloined by the wrong crowd. How often has term democracy been falsely employed by authoritarians and dictators?
Im probably taking this out of context and I havent read your debate with schop, but
The distinction thats usually made is between conservatives and reactionaries, where the latter want to turn the clock back, or at least say they do, appealing to past glory. The interesting thing, and I think you were saying something similar, is that reactionaries can be radical. The Nazis are the best example. And the thing to notice about that is that the German conservatives went along with them, even though they thought them extreme and ridiculous. Disappointed leftists rightfully blame the German communists for ignoring the threat of the Nazis and persisting in their refusal to ally with the social democrats while the Nazis swept to power, but we shouldnt let the conservatives off the hook either.
Quoting Janus
Quoting Vera Mont
I think the point is that the preservation of hierarchy and power is central in both versions of conservatism. I said the same thing as Janus earlier in the discussion:
Quoting Jamal
Here I am not describing two kinds of conservatism; Im describing the same thing in two different ways. What Janus termed the preservation of the existing power and class structures not only characterizes neoliberal conservatism (if indeed this is even conservatism), but pretty much all conservatism. The function of social harmony, resistance to change, and the preservation of tradition is the maintenance of the status quo.
(By the way Vera, Im not assuming you dont agree with this or dont understand it; I just think its interesting to explore)
The nice stuff like philanthropy, charity, a concern for the poor and unfortunate, and the idea that privilege entails responsibility (nobless oblige)these are not separate from or in opposition to the preservation of hierarchy and power. Rather, they are the same thing. They are how traditional conservatism operates.
To care for the poor and unfortunate, to reduce conflicts between the classes, to reduce the abuse of servants and workers by their masters and managersthis is what a person wants if they care about people and about the stability of society while at the same time also believing that hierarchy is natural and that progress towards a more egalitarian society is potentially dangerous and destructive.
The way I think about it is in terms of the personal relationship between a benevolent aristocrat and his valet, his personal male servant. One example is the relationship between Frodo and Sam in The Lord of the Rings, which incidentally reveals better than anything just how very conservative, but also humane and warm-hearted, Tolkien wasand light-years away from anything like a neoliberal conservatism. The relationship is one of love and respect, but there is never any question of who is the senior partner: Sams role is to serve his master. The crux is that everyone should know their place, while this does not (according to the conservative) necessarily mean that the workers, servants, peasants and so on are abused and disrespected.
It seems to me that people want to make a distinction between nice conservatism and nasty conservatism. My view in a nutshell is that the nice version, precisely in its niceness, functions to curtail freedom and protect power.
Whether this is a bad thing or not is the key ideological difference: conservatives do not believe it is possible, advisable, or ethical to attempt to wipe out hierarchy on the basis of principles of egalitarianism. Others, like me, do.
However, I still think we have a lot to learn from intelligent, nice conservatism, and its arguments might be seen to have gained a lot of power since the disastrous and violent attempts at radical change in the twentieth century. So I do think the concerns of traditional conservatism have to be faced up to rather than swept aside.
Absolutely right from where I sit. :up:
And its comical flip-side: Jeeves and Wooster, and its serious exemplar: Wimsey and Bunter.
Yes, I do understand that --- without subscribing to it.
Quoting Jamal
Of course it does. But in the crass populist form, it protects a power that doesn't give a flying fig about the underling's virtues, feelings and needs, but feeds him empty slogans instead of recognition. Make 'em mad; make 'em fight for you; discard 'em.
Quoting Jamal
Yeas. So do I. Principles are difficult to reconcile. When one considers the historical precedent, sincere conservatives may be correct: perhaps hierarchy of some kind will always prevail, and the danger of radical change is that the most destructive kind of hierarchy will form - as in the French and Russian revolutions. It is a legitimate concern.
And yet, society cannot remain static.
So we're down to negotiating terms; plotting strategy; finding ways and means.
A hostile standoff just won't work.
:up: Some good subtle analysis from both of you there!
Quoting Jamal
Quoting Vera Mont
Quoting Vera Mont
These points in particular I strongly agree with. Complete, or even substantial revolution: destruction of the existing order, and starting over again, rebuilding from within the ruins, is not a viable option.
And yet, as a pessimist, what I see as most probable is just that.
Here on the precipice, on the eve of lemmingfall, I don't see any sign of reconciliation or a coherent plan for survival, and there's no time to change course.
Because of regressive conservatism... more accurately: because of the regressive steps taken by those forces which hijacked conservatism... there may be no way back to the negotiating table, and no acceptable options. I don't know about revolutions, but more civil wars are probable. So is economic collapse.
Somebody, sometime, may very well need to rebuild.
Thanks to the ant-people who stored up and preserved seeds and knowledge, their task won't impossible.
You might have better luck if you looked to political commentators/philosophers rather than politicians. I recommend Thomas Hobbes.
Absafragginlootly. Jordan Peterson is almost ad nauseam about the 'natural order' of hierarchy.
Why does a behaviour learned under 'jungle rules,' and 'jungle pressures,' mean it can never be changed, even though we left the freaking jungle thousands of years ago? I accept that the jungle has not yet left some of us but that's no excuse!
I prefer the non-hierarchical system that can be envisaged based on the French goal (not yet realised), of liberté, égalité, fraternité, as long as YOUR personal notion of liberté, does not mean less liberté and égalité for others.
Quoting Jamal
Meh!
Thats fair. I did wonder if I was being too soft there.
It also promotes the unacceptable imagery (aesthetic) of the 'white knight' coming to help the poor underprivileged, unfortunate black people in Africa or brown people in India or red coloured indigenous people in America etc, etc. I despise the 'missionary' label as an utter insult to the people they claim to care about! Look at the damage the evanhellicals are doing in the poorer places of the world.
The poorer places that our Western ancestors, are mainly responsible for creating.
It seems to me that even 'nice' conservatives, don't like to have their world reformatted, so that it becomes more inclusive of those they all often call 'them.'
I don't want to sweep any viewpoint aside, so I understand the last paragraph I quoted from you, but I do want to challenge 'conservative ideology' 'vigorously,' and defeat it 'totally,' in the minds of as many of our species as possible, so that our species can finally understand that 'gated, secured, ideology driven, privileged, conserved, small communities, is not the way for our species to progress in a VAST universe.
The way forward is as one united planet/species.
I think I would make it a law that each of us MUST spend a day a week, following around a white/black/brown/yellow/red/transexual/transgender/disabled/underprivileged/....../..../.... person for a ...... YEAR or something like it, before we are allowed to get married/have children/vote/join .... ANYTHING!.... including TPF.
Perhaps we would then each learn to be open to more change and become less 'conservative.' :halo:
But this just strikes me as unhinged rhetoric. I mean, who are you talking to here? Who are you trying to impress? What do any of these proud declarations on TPF actually achieve?
A fair question. My answer is YOU, I am typing to you, and anyone else who will listen/read, in the true 'soap box'/pamphlet tradition.
Do you not think that's it's important for those whose intent IS to do good, to be as 'messianic' as those who have nefarious intent? I am talking to anyone who will listen but I have no power to force anyone to listen or agree or join with me and others in common cause. A part of me is boosted by the imagery you incite with 'unhinged rhetoric.' Perhaps that is what is needed to get people to consider what you are pointing at. Making loud noises, is good for getting attention, children use it all the time.
I agree with you that after doing so, you have to convince others of the details involved.
I have started singing the 'Internationale,' in my head. I wanted to post a youtube rendition of it below but I don't want some conservative to post 'Jerusalem,' in response. So I thought you might also sing along with me, in your head, will you?
I would have helped Tony kick Rico's arse and gave his diamond to the poor!
Dance Lola dance! I wonder if she was the same Lola that the kinks met? :chin:
He won't answer my emails.
I actually agree with you. There is no captain at the helm of the ship of state, and to rerun the old metaphor, what is presently being done in the name of "preventing disaster" is like rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. Human civilization has become a fossil-fuel driven juggernaut, and it does seem that collapse is inevitable..it's just a question of how soon.
I was speaking more against those who think we need total revolution, and that we could have that and still preserve civilization and a growing population. That is what I think is not a viable option. After collapse I imagine there will be rebuilding, but with a vastly diminished population, and who knows how much of the culture will be preserved?
Apex species who overuse their resources suffer radical decline when the resources are greatly enough diminished, and I believe it is only human ingenuity that has enabled us to stave off that inevitability for as long as we have.
:lol: Pessimism is akin to misery imo Vera, It loves company.
I always liked the words of this song, in some strange way, it always seemed to make my more pessimistic friends smile and 'sit down' for another beer of cheer!
...and another thing... liquor prices just took a wallop in taxation. I have to cut back on beer. An excellent reason to refrain from diluting it with salt water.
Good song, though.
Well, if they don't work very hard to 'conserve' affordable prices on beer, then I will sharpen my pitchfork even more, and persuade the rich people, that we are all coming to drink free beer at their houses, if they don't stop ripping us all off! To secure for the workers, by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their industry and control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.
I like beer.
We always have more room for another sharp pitchfork wielder, in times of unacceptably high beer prices but @Vera Mont might stop us with shouts of Salam. I understand her preference for peace.
The trouble is that that might mean as workers, we can but help make the beer, but under the tough, conservative, tory, unfair, money trick games, we cant afford to pay for any to drink!
But hey, that's the conservative way! :rage: