Goat and I are trying to use the word conservatism in the way commonly and popularly understood, as posted earlier. Conservative policies in different societies will differ, but there is still an underlying phrase one can apply to all those people or theories that fall under the definition "conservative." There are, for example, conservatives in Iran right now, and they don't believe much in popular sovereignty.No, it doesn’t. You continue to try to redefine “right” as “everything I like” and “left” as “everything else.” It’s stupid. That’s not what conservatism and liberalism are. You don’t get to just take over words to make you feel superior about your own opinions.
Having thought about this (and a similar point made by @bradstevens) for a day, there is much more to say.
First of all, of course I see conservatism as something I like. I agree with much of it and generally accept its tenants.
Since the 60’s, Conservatism has seen many decades of unrelenting derision and falsehoods from academia, the media, and the general commentariat. (McCarthyism and “conservative” officials brought this on) This has resulted in substantial misunderstandings if not outright misrepresentations of conservatism. The academic and media elite see conservatism as something morally and intellectually inferior to liberalism. My posts are intended to bust this false paradigm. Instead of me defining conservatism as something I like, I think the fairer view is your tendency to view conservatism as something you dislike.
The epicenter of conservatism, as explained by Burke and others, is that any society is its own organism to evolve and change as conditions demand. This is the right wing for those who wish to think about politics in those terms.
Opposite is fascism, communism, socialism and other isms which see society as a body to be engineered, molded and shaped to conform to beliefs and objectives imposed by sovereign authority. All of this would be left wing.
The founding fathers gave us a decidedly conservatively-designed national government. The people are sovereign with inalienable rights. The government is only given specific and limited authority. This is a good thing right? This is the good part of conservatism— as Burke frequently pointed out.
You are pulling a Humpty Dumpty and trying to make the word "conservative" mean what you personally want it to mean through a series of No True Scotsman arguments. As a result, it's not productive to argue theory with you.
So let me shift to an example: political liberals in the USA in the late 20th and early 21st century were the ones pushing for legalization of gay marriage and the elimination of laws that made homosexual sex illegal. Political conservatives were the ones most opposed to those changes. Do you deny this?
Goat and I are trying to use the word conservatism in the way commonly and popularly understood, as posted earlier.
Exactly! Conservatism as popularly understood is not usually conservative. A large part of the reason is academia and the media constantly telling us conservatives are intellectually and morally beneath liberals and progressives.
There are, for example, conservatives in Iran right now, and they don’t believe much in popular sovereignty.
A person who doesn’t believe in popular sovereignty cannot be conservative.
As a result, it’s not productive to argue theory with you.
I think I’m the only one arguing theory
political liberals in the USA in the late 20th and early 21st century were the ones pushing for legalization of gay marriage and the elimination of laws that made homosexual sex illegal. Political conservatives were the ones most opposed to those changes. Do you deny this?
Like laws banning interracial marriage, laws banning same sex marriage are not conservative ( even though I oppose it) Along those lines I think Gorsuch’s opinion about workplace gay discrimination is a brilliant conservative opinion. I think the Kelo eminent domain opinion is a great conservative opinion even though conservatives strongly criticize it.
Conservatism as popularly understood is not usually conservative. A large part of the reason is academia and the media constantly telling us conservatives are intellectually and morally beneath liberals and progressives.
We can't have a conversation if we can't have agreed meanings for words. That's why this discussion doesn't go anywhere with you (see also previous reference to the No True Scottsman fallacy).
I haven't made any argument that conservatives are intellectually and morally beneath liberals and progressives and I don't believe that. You're importing that in based on prior bad experiences. I'd rather leave that kind of emotional reaction out of an argument on theory.
You previously claimed to follow most closely Kirk, yet you contradict him at every turn:There are, for example, conservatives in Iran right now, and they don’t believe much in popular sovereignty.
A person who doesn’t believe in popular sovereignty cannot be conservative.
"Conservatives, then, in essence are the defenders of moral and social permanence. In this sense, conservatives have existed in every culture, in all ages. To be more specific, however, the body of convictions that are called “conservatism” today are some two centuries old, as a school of political thought.
Historically considered, political conservatism has been a protest against the delusions and excesses of the modern revolutionary impulse (described somberly by D. W. Brogan in his book The Price of Revolution). It is an error to look upon the American War of Independence as the first of the terrible revolutions of the modern era: for America’s “Revolution” was a movement intended to preserve the institutions of American society against the intended innovations of George III. The French Revolution, instead, with its contempt for social continuity and its exaltation of abstract doctrines, ushered in the disorder which has brought destruction upon most of the modern world. “Conservatism” was not a term of politics until the early years of the nineteenth century, when Continental thinkers, and presently British writers and politicians, began to employ the word to describe those principles of social and moral order which Edmund Burke had expounded in his later writings."
So Kirk states that conservatives have existed in every culture, in all ages including Continental thinkers in the early 19th century opposed to the French Revolution. Guess who that includes? Monarchists and people opposed to the notion of popular sovereignty.
https://kirkcenter.org/kirk-essays/kirk-essay-permanence-and-change/
Kirk also discusses the difference between intelligent and dumb conservatives in that essay. You want to define out of the term conservatives the dumb ones or the unsophisticated ones, though,--contra Kirk--and in so doing commit the logical fallacy I've been talking about.
I haven’t made any argument that conservatives are intellectually and morally beneath liberals and progressives and I don’t believe that. You’re importing that in based on prior bad experiences. I’d rather leave that kind of emotional reaction out of an argument on theory.
No you haven’t. But that is the obvious implication of the current “definition” of conservatism you rely on and which definition is an obstacle.
I think you are cherry picking. Kirk recognizes Burke as the father of modern conservative thought as do I.
While conservative people no doubt existed for centuries, it was never seen as a political principle before Burke. Burke brought things together.
See, now you're delineating between types of conservatives, something you said before you couldn't even understand.I think you are cherry picking. Kirk recognizes Burke as the father of modern conservative thought as do I.
While conservative people no doubt existed for centuries, it was never seen as a political principle before Burke. Burke brought things together.
If you read that essay fully, you'll see that Kirk is admitting there is an organizing principle around the term conservative found in the opening, but that there are all types of conservatives--intelligent, stupid, crass, vulgar, sophisticated, historical, present-day, American, etc., and he wants to outline what a "thinking conservative" should believe--which by the way, ends up being a mix of conservative and liberal thought that has contradictions with libertarians and laissez-faire capitalists (who are the right wing versions of the radical leftists of past eras). Nowhere, though, in that essay do you find reference to a necessary belief in popular sovereignty.
By the way, pre-French Revolution, Burke was considered a liberal because he championed liberal causes (per Kirk). You, though, would refer to them as conservative causes, I think, because you like them.
I find a lot of common ground with classical liberalism.
Conservative does not always mean the polar opposite of liberalism. That idea is mostly a product of the last several decades.
A conservative by definition is one that is against change. Or the change of cultural norms at a point in time.
A conservative at one point in time might very well be different than a conservative at another point in time.
It’s why a young liberal often becomes an old conservative
A conservative by definition is one that is against change. Or the change of cultural norms at a point in time.
A conservative at one point in time might very well be different than a conservative at another point in time.
It’s why a young liberal often becomes an old conservative
I know you do. And yes, classical liberals today overlap with conservatives. But the conservative tradition and philosophy is in tension with classic liberalism in some instances--most notably where the emphasis on free markets, individualism, and limited govt end up causing drastic and quick social and economic change that might destroy or fundamentally alter long-standing culture, tradition, or institutions.I find a lot of common ground with classical liberalism.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. To be continued. Now I have to spend time with my good friend Rodion Raskolnikov
Latest Post: Hegseth takes another scalp Our newest member: Donna Lubeck Recent Posts Unread Posts
