I have been intrigued by some comments on the board regarding the republican party, who is 'REALLY CONSERVATIVE" and how to distinguish the two-

For instance, how can you be socially conservative and consider yourself conservative at all? Socially conservative demands big goverment to intervene into poeples personal lives force the will upon them, and takes literally billions of dollars to enforce and punish- for instance, the DEA, the ATF,the FDA to some degree, the FBI, and the prison system, plus all kinds of regulations on various things- such as gambling commisions, vice squads etc.

So the question is simple-

Is the term "socially conservative" a misnomer in the discussion of "being conservative"?

Is being "socially conservative" the opposite of being "fiscally conservative?

Can you be pro-big goverment and conservative at the same time?

Is the term "socially conservative" a misnomer in the discussion of "being conservative"?

Conservatism in the tradition of Burke, Hume, and Oakeshott is quite different than the conservatism that we discuss today in American politics. The philosophical conservative prefers pragmatism and is suspect of centralized government power. I do think that being socially conservative is an aspect of conservatism, even in the philosophical tradition. Conservatives value culture and tradition higher than other ideologies. They see the present as a consequence of the past and if the present is favorable, then what got us to the present must also be favorable. Conservatism is an anti-rational approach to politics. Not irrational, anti-rational. This means that the true conservative questions the ability for reason to govern the affairs of men. This recognition of the limits of reason rejects the view that a centralized authority can be an effective entity.

Is being "socially conservative" the opposite of being "fiscally conservative?

I do not think that it is necessarily the opposite. One can be socially conservative but also believe that their views should not be imposed on others. But when social conservatism outranks fiscal conservatism in a person's ideology, then i see a recipe for problems. That is because a strong social conservative believes in government intervention in private and pretty much irrelevant matters such as marriage. To me, fiscal conservatism isnt so much conservative as it is common sense. You spend money that you have and you don't spend much you don't have.

Can you be pro-big goverment and conservative at the same time?

Its a resounding no. Conservatism is a reaction to statist ideology. As I mentioned, it rejects rationalism in politics. If reason is not able to handle the conduct of human affairs, then obviously conservatives would not see a centralized government as being preferable. Conservatives support classical liberal economics which calls for a decentralization of the economy.

But conservatism in the US is very different from the philosophical tradition. Today, conservatism has become synonymous with religious and cultural exaltation. They support neoclassical, Keynesian, and supply-side economics...which are exist under a different premise than classical economics. The conservative of today is alright with big government to achieve conservative ends. A large example is the NCLBA. Never before have conservatives claimed to support a national standard for education. Hell, they wanted to dismantle the Dept of Ed. But things have changed. Right now we have two statist parties who want to increase the size of the federal government in order to control different aspects of our lives. Old conservatives who supported limited government and non-intervention have been brainwashed into believing that the statist positions are what they have supported all along. Our country is in a sorry state and it looks unlikely to let up as patriots such as Ron Paul are called cooks. The Constitution is no longer seen as a document worth anything, it is merely a ball of clay that can be molded by politicians to fit their own interests.

Is the term "socially conservative" a misnomer in the discussion of "being conservative"?

I would agree that it is a misnomer. Conservatism as lederupdepac pointed out, as a reaction against the state. Individuals are of the prime concern in conservative philosophy and they should be left alone to make their own decisions. fiscal conservatives live that philosophy in advocating a laissez-faire approach along the lines of Milton Friedman. Social conservatives do not fit the bill of being for small government when they want the government helping to determine the personal(moral) lives of the citizenry. On every social issue-abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization, sex education, creationism, prayer in school, and pornography-social conservatives are for more government, not less.

Good thread, CR!

would tend to second most of Leduruvdapac's comments, except for the following:



I see where Ledur is coming from here, and probably agree with the concept, but I wanted to point out that I would phrase this differently. I believe, and I think most conservatives (ie, small government-minded) people believe that it is irrational to expect government to be able to control the lives of individuals better than they can control it themselves. It is not anti-rational, but rather an application of rationality itself. The conservative mindset, IMHO, believes anti-rationality is actually present in the belief that government can manage our lives for us better than we can ourselves. I also dislike the term because I believe that conservatism is in fact applying rationality to government, as opposed to idealism. If you look at many of the issues that separate conservatism from liberalism, they center on liberals having a good idea (we should take care of our old people, for example) vs. conservatives feeling that while that is a worthy goal, it has issues in its application (we simply don't have the money for that). Rationalism vs. Idealism.

Is the term "socially conservative" a misnomer in the discussion of "being conservative"?

In general, I would say yes. Conservatism would want to minimize the control government has on individuals, whereas social conservatism tends to want government to impose its will on them. These are somewhat (well, a lot, actually )) mutually exclusive. Social conservatives and conservatives might have many similar mindsets and viewpoints, but I think they disagree on this very core issue, and it is one that goes completely against conservative philosophy.

Is being "socially conservative" the opposite of being "fiscally conservative?

Not necessarily. Only in the sense that fiscal conservatism has its roots in minimizing government, whereas social conservatism would use government to achieve certain aims. There are many similarities in the philosophies, though, and they both stem from the same base.

Can you be pro-big goverment and conservative at the same time?

Nope. The MOST fundamental belief in conservatism is minimization of governmental involvement in our lives, and hence in small government--especially federal government. Almost any 'big-government' movement then is anti-conservative. I suppose if there were a 'big' government movement towards reducing taxing and spending... (ya, like that will happen ) ).

This is where liberalism (idealism) tends to take swipes at conservativism, IMHO. "Oh, you don't want to do anything to help these people!". Again, as I expressed above, it's not that conservatives don't want to help, it's just that we tend to believe that the government is not the proper mechanism for doing so. This is why we sometimes don't seem to offer minorities, etc. much in the way of programs...we are against such programs from the get-go, regardless of who they help. Welfare reform is perhaps the best example of this in action. Conservatives believed that creating a large governmental program to help these people was not, in the long run, really going to help them. Welfare reform, then, rolled back many of these programs in the interest of the very people they were designed to assist...with the result being that most of these people ended up better off (and less tax dollars spent on the problem to boot).

Is the term "socially conservative" a misnomer in the discussion of "being conservative"?

This is something of a twist on the "Chicken or the Egg" question.

There has been an underlying assumption here that the fiscal conservatism or the philosophical conservatism of Burke, Hume, and the like somehow lays claim to the "authentic" meaning of the term.

This despite the fact that social conservatism is older and (especially in America) far more popular.

Social conservatism has always been the heart and soul of conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is the Johnny-come-lately.

So no I think these are similar, easily confused terms but neither is more legitimate than the other.

Is being "socially conservative" the opposite of being "fiscally conservative?

No, but it does run in opposition to much of the philosophical conservatism of the classical liberals like Hayek and the like.

Can you be pro-big goverment and conservative at the same time?
Yes, as conservatism is commonly defined.

Social conservatism counts as conservatism.

This is an interesting take Hobbes, but I do not know if I can agree. I think the problem stems from the difference between conservatism and liberalism in the philosophical tradition and the modern usage of the terms. In this thread I attempted to analyze the origins of liberalism from a philosophical view (and with no replies, it goes down IMO as the most overlooked thread in AD history ). The truth is that conservatism and [classical] liberalism are not that different at all in terms of philosophy. They have a lot in common. Friedrich Hayek wrote an excellent essay on the difference: Why I Am Not A Conservative. The main difference stems from the conservative's pragmatic resistance to change while the classical liberal believes that the market (in a sense) will determine the most favorable conditions.

To clarify your position, conservatives are not so much anti-rational, but rather applying their reason to acknowledge that reason has limits. It's an interesting take on it, I know Oakeshott didn't articulate it in such a way. The true conservative and the true liberal are anti-statist or anti-collectivist. The basis of collectivist attitudes, like socialism, is that a government or an economy can be rationally planned. The liberal and conservative would reject this as impossible. Because conservatism and liberalism came about as a reaction to statism, I think anti-rational is a better adjective, although I see your point and think it makes sense. I need some more though on it

I would disagree with this assessment. First, lets look at the established definition of the term:



I would emphasize the bolded section: distrust of government activism. Consider why most people came to the colonies to begin with---to escape governmental intervention into their ability to practice religion as they saw fit. The Revolutionary War was further fought to eliminate governmental oversight of their activities (and, I would add to avoid paying excessive taxes to them as well). The Constitution itself was written to restrict the role of government. This aspect of conservatism definitely predates that of social conservatism, IMHO

That's a bit of an urban myth. Most people came to the colonies to make a living. A number of splinter religious groups being oppressed in Britain found a home as well, Puritans, Pilgrims, Quakers and the like....

...but most were not religiously motivated.

That said the point is valid it just doesn't cover the whole picture.


There are a couple of definitions listed and the very first is that of social conservatism.

This fits with the experience of conservatism in America.

What we would call principled fiscal conservatism only became an organized movement in the US around the time of FDR and the Great Depression.

Philosophical conservatism is as old as Jamestown (and older), I agree, but it was more to do with human natural rights than limiting governmental scope of action.

Jefferson himself pushed for public schooling.