Conservatives are frequently demonized by the left (as Liberals are demonized by the right). You can't describe yourself as a conservative speaker and hope to be allowed to speak your views (without being shouted down) on the majority of America's campuses these days.

Some examples of the attacks claim that Conservatives hate minorities, are heartless, believe women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, feel that only christians should be allowed to worship in America, and don't want clean air or water.

Some examples of attacks on the right from the web:





The problem with the quotes above in my eyes is that conservatives don't wish to abandon environmental regulation, they generally want a cost benefit analysis done prior to enacting new legislation, not all conservatives are social conservatives, and most that advocate the return to the nuclear family are not also belittling those that don't fit the mold.

While Conservative is not as bad a word in washington it is in the mainstream media. Social conservative is certainly considered a negative distinction, and conservative is almost considered profanity on most of America's campuses.

So, taking the lead from Becoming Human I tought we should try to address the issue of what a conservative is, in the same way we are now focusing on what a Liberal is in This Topic.


1)How would you define "Conservative?"
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Conservative?
3)Are the attacks on the term "Conservative" unfair (not just my examples, but the general bent of "attacks" out there), or do they correctly represent the views of the Conservative populous?
4) When examining the politics of extremists on the right or the left are they really all that different?

These seem like remarkably moderate attacks. Let's let the left really clear their throats and say whats really on their minds,shall we?

"Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm. "

Their you have it; they think their opponents should be exterminated. Thats seems like a slam-dunk case for demonization to me.


My definition of conservatism would be something like this. That's probably not the popular understanding of the term though.

My intent was to stick to the regular attacks that distort the positions of Conservatives and to avoid the rabid attacks by both sides and allow for intelligent discourse.

Though I understand the anger that comments like this can cause, you have to remember that there are equally idiotic conservatives who can write equally vile and dishonest commentary about liberals.

Also, that like for your belief of what a conservative is was broken.

Sorry, the link is fixed.

You posed your question as;
3) Are the attacks on the term "Conservative" unfair (not just my examples, but the general bent of "attacks" out there)..

.. which rather seems like an invitation to other people to submit examples.

Your point is well taken, overlandsailor. As I said in my introductory post in the other thread, there have been pretty much the same attacks from the left to the right. However, when you say that conservativism is not a bad word in Washington but "it is in the mainstream media" I would disagree with you. I have seen little or no attacks on Conservativism in the Mainstream media. This coming from someone who has seen Farhenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine, read Al Frankens books, etc. The most I have seen, in terms of conservative, is that icons like Ann Coulter and Limbaugh "Preach to a conservative audience." I have never seen the websites you've listed. I have certainly never heard of anyone accusing the president as being "too-conservative."

Thats not to say that such attacks don't happen. I've heard the term "Christian-right" for a long time now, and it seems to have a negative connotation to it. The reason why I posted a thread on Liberal was that the term has really degenerated to a merely an attack slogan. Its counter-part, conservativism, still has some life kicking in it. I would argue that being a social conservative isn't as bad as you suggest. However, I do think that Neo-con has degenerated to the point of Liberalism (And ultra-conservative, I've heard that one).

Wow, wish I could say the same.

I remember watching the news while the Clinton Impeachment hearing were going on and they were identifying the participants as they came in.

Senator Bond of Missouri, Radical Conservative member of.......committees.

Senator Kennedy, Democrat of Mass.

It went on and on. Everyone one the Republican side was a right-wing Republican, Radical Conservative, Neoconservative, Member of the Christian Right, The Religious right supporter, etc, etc.

All the Democrats were just Democrats.

Now I am sure if I was watching Fox news cover this then the situation would have been reversed, but I was watching broadcast news (can't remember which one anymore).

And if you feel that Al Franken does not attack conservatives, then I can only assume that you feel everything he says is true. "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". He is obnoxious, he does not tell the whole truth, and he is rather conceited. But an idiot? Hardly. Personally I can't stand the man, but he is certainly no idiot. I can't imagine how someone can look at what Al Franken has to say about the right in America and not see it as an attack. Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh are the same people just of different political leanings.

I had the displeasure of listening to Air America on the Web one day. THe attacks on the Right were vile. No real difference between that and the attack on the left in other talk radio.

Oh, Al Franken does attack many well known conservatives. He is obviously biased, and I know that the facts he presents are slanted. The word conservative, however, was never attacked. To my knowledge, he has never said something like "Conservatives are trying to segregate American society." His book, Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them, zings well known conservatives, but not the word conservative.

On the other hand, you have a Jihad against Liberalism by well known Conservative commentators. For instance, Ann Coulters new book is titled something like "How to talk to a Liberal if you have to." On Hardball, she claimed that the democratic party was functionally treasonous. This is in stark contrast to Franken, who bashes many right-wingers, but never demonizes the right wing.

Moore really belongs to his own political party. But even so, I haven't heard him say that conservatives are functionally traitors.

I haven't heard Air America, so I can't really comment on that. However, you have to admit, the term "Liberal" has been more villainized than "conservative" at this point.

Perhaps, but that is really just a matter of semantics.

When right-wing fembots attack
By Charles Taylor

Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth
by: Joe Conason

The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy
by David Brock


These are just a few books I found when doing a quick search. So, it is the Right-Wing that is attacked and not conservatives. However, to most who are not conservative consider the terms are interchangable.

Lets face it. Those on the right that call themselves conservatives are equally under attack by those on the Left as those on the Left are attacked by those on the Right.

It's polarizing, it's non-productive, and it's wrong. But it is reality.



I don't know how many times I have read or seen conservatives or rather the right-wing called racist simply because of it's position on affirmative action,welfare and the like.

Treasonous, Racist, it's all inflammatory language designed to demonize the other side to try to sway those who are paying only marginal attention.


However, this is only part of the topic. I am really curious to hear what you think a conservative is.

As one who actually agrees with many conservative views and is still accused of "attacking" conservatives I feel a need to address this.

1)How would you define "Conservative?"
I would define positive conservative views as favoring small government, self reliance, and individuality. Barry Goldwater is the best representative of conservative ideals I can imagine.

2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Conservative?
I think the religious right, mouthbreathing troglodytic thugs on conservative talk radio, and neo-conservatives have convinced most of America that "conservative" = "bigot".
I think it is up to legitimate conservatives to reclaim the label rather than whining about an accurate description of the people who have hijacked it.

3)Are the attacks on the term "Conservative" unfair (not just my examples, but the general bent of "attacks" out there), or do they correctly represent the views of the Conservative populous?
I see attacks on ideals that have nothing to do with legitimate conservatism being referred to as attacks on conservatism by people who claim to be conservatives themselves. Any time I make a statement against gay bashing or racism, there will be a reaction from the right labelling me a "liberal", I think this says more about modern conservatism than it does about anything else.

4) When examining the politics of extremists on the right or the left are they really all that different?
There are no voices on the left as hateful and extremist as Michael Savage or Ann Coulter. I think Al Franken is a partisan hack, and his personal attacks on Barbara Bush in the book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right were mean spirited and uncalled for, but even he has never sunk as low as Savage.

It is also worth mentioning that liberals do not attack individuals with their legislation: "liberal" groups may oppose religious iconography in government buildings, but they do not propose making religion illegal (many of us who oppose religion mingling with government are religious ourselves). "Conservatives", on the other hand, support laws that wold deny recognition to already existing same sex couples, support reinstating laws that would send same sex couples to jail for having sex.

1)How would you define "Conservative?"
I want to make it simple without being inflammartory. A conservative is a righteous(sometimes zealous) individual-orientated person. They believe in existing norms for the most part. Aconservative does not believe religion is good. A conservative believes his/her religion is good. A conservative believe in good and evil and find themselves always on the side of good. This does not mean that they always think they are right, just good. If a conservative lives in the U.S. U.S. is the greatest nation. It is a good nation. Its war are "good" wars for justice and freedom. If you speak out against or question any of the conservates believed "good" values, then you are the opposite of that good, anti-"you put in the word" I don't think this was a good war for America translates to "Anti -American" I don't think God belongs in public school = "anti-Christian", or "Anti-religion"

2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Conservative?

I'm not sure if I am defining it correct, but I think few would share my belief.

3)Are the attacks on the term "Conservative" unfair (not just my examples, but the general bent of "attacks" out there), or do they correctly represent the views of the Conservative populous?

Sometimes, but not really. They do, but they don't. They don't show conservatives beliefs, but they show in their actions. They may not be against gays, but they are for laws that would keep gays apart. They may not actively think.."I hate the environment", but they are all for chopping down a forest or drilling some oil in Alaska if it keeps the money flowing. They don't want to destroy the earth, but they praise Reagan for helping buckle the the Soviet Union, by(get this) continung to build more Nuclear Weapons. Yet, these weapons like the ability to be selective when it causes mass death. Enemy and Civilians Men women, children and babies. Of course conservatives don't want to do this, but they will if convinced it will save them suffering. Jhonny Depp explained conservatives best. They think they are doing good, but have no idea the damage and suffering they cause others by their policies and beliefs

4) When examining the politics of extremists on the right or the left are they really all that different?

Yes.

1)How would you define "Conservative?"

I took a class in "Modern Ideologies" some years ago, and we discussed two brands of Conservatism, classical and "situational". The classical brand was preached the maintenance of institutions and preservation of the status quo, and was specifically pro-monarchy, pro- aristocracy, and elitist. Situational conservatism was used to refer to movements closer to American Conservatism- maintenance of traditions and institutions here includes being pro-democracy and pro-capitalist, although arguably some degree of elitism is retained.

I generally disdain treating conservative/liberal labels as especially meaningful, because of the complexities of what these words "really" mean in modern common usage. Usually, people just mean "rightist", opposite of "liberal", etc. "Conservative" accurately describes a chunk of the political right, but that people often use the term to refer less to traditionalists than for small government advocates- not necessarily the same constituency. You can also question which is more conservative- making new, unprecedented laws to forcibly preserve tradition, or maintaining the law "as is".

And, of course, as "conservative" has a temporal element to it's definition, it's hard to draw a firm line between centrist and conservative, conservative and reactionary. How long does a law need to be on the books before advocating it's appeal is reactionary, and not conservative? How slowly must one embrace change when it's a "done deal"?

Generally, I think of "conservative" applied as a sub-set of the right as "foot-draggers"- people serving a vital purpose in government by trying to keep things the same, but not really trying to reverse change once it happens (reactionaries). Without any conservatives, gov't would be pretty schizophrenic, always dashing forward without having to justify it's steps. I disagree with their views, but they need to be there to keep the good guys honest.

2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Conservative?

Few. It's applied generally to the Right and specifically to small-gov't advocates and many reactionaries. I'd like to see it make a real resurgence as a guiding philosophy on the Right.

3)Are the attacks on the term "Conservative" unfair (not just my examples, but the general bent of "attacks" out there), or do they correctly represent the views of the Conservative populous?

Depends on the attack. There's plenty of fair and unfair attacks. Criticisms for being unduly "backward looking" are often on, but the same kind of dumb attacks occur on both sides- people who take extreme right-wing views and "pretend" they reflect all Repubs, or people assuming ridiculous, inhuman motives (like destroying the world) to their actions. Even if you conclude that someone's beliefs are stupid, criticizing them shouldn't precede understanding what their beliefs and reasons really are- otherwise, you never really engage their ideas, avoiding any chance to learn from the disagreement. Arguing past one another isn't a very sound basis for a Republic.

4) When examining the politics of extremists on the right or the left are they really all that different?

No, although I'm thinking far-left college students who don't know what they're talking about and far-right militia members who don't know what they're talking about. If we're talking about media attack dogs like Moore and Franken vs. Limbaugh and Coulter, I honestly haven't seen enough of all four or similar types to make a well informed opinion, but I have trouble seeing Moore or Franken being as nasty as Coulter or as childish as Limbaugh. Moore takes a ton of cheap shots, but last I saw Limbaugh's website it was full of so much name-calling, etc. I thought I was on a parody site. And I doubt Franken ever tried to argue that sporadic applause was treason. If the Right wants to continue to harangue the Left as effete liberal Ivory Tower elitists, they can be consistent and admit our favorite attack dogs are of a slightly more reasoned, polite cut.

In many ways, I am a conservative. At least, that's how I would define myself if I could truly accept that the "real" definition of a given viewpoint is the most enlightened one, not the most popular one.

I appreciate the fact that you are all engaging the issue at a very high level, but, following pennDerek's last point, the voice that the Republican party uses to rally their constituents is not that of John D. Rockefeller, but that of Rush Limbaugh.

So I would pose the following question: given your extremely well-educated look at what it means to be a conservative, how comfortable do you all feel sharing that political "space" with those less informed than you? Are they a necessary evil? Are they the true essence of popular conservativism in America?

My point is, the definition of "conservative" that you have constructed here is fundamentally an elite one, created by people who have the intellectual depth to seriously probe the issue. What of those who still consider themselves conservatives but do not engage in such self-examination - how do you relate to them?

-T

Final Point: I don't mean to imply that liberals are free of such people either, but I was interested primarily in the conservative response.

1)How would you define "Conservative?"

This is a good succinct statement of the basic conservative principles:

The Sharon Statement

That was the founding document of Young Americans for Freedom, founded by William F. Buckley, Jr. and other prominent young conservatives of the time. The part about internmational Communism being the greatest single threat is of course obsolete now, but it was true in 1960.

The Russell Kirk article Flenser linked to is even better, though much longer.

Most succinct of all, if somewhat impenetrable, is Richard Weaver's classic defiinition of conservatism: "The paradigm of essences towards which the phenomenology of the world is in continuing approximation."


2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Conservative?

Only a tiny percent. I wouldn't venture to guess a number, but the same is also true of liberalism, libertarianism, socialism and just about any other ideology you could name. Most of the American people are not at all ideolgoically oriented. Such things are pretty much the exclusive province of intellectuals.


3)Are the attacks on the term "Conservative" unfair (not just my examples, but the general bent of "attacks" out there), or do they correctly represent the views of the Conservative populous?

They're insignificant, the braying of donkeys, nothing more. Most such attacks show zero understanding of what conservatism is all about. There have been serious intellectual challenges to conservatism by erudite liberals, libertarians and others,, and only those should be taken seriously in the battle of ideas. The battle of political propaganda is something else though; in that all charges much be answered and swiftly, else the general public will assume them to be true.


4) When examining the politics of extremists on the right or the left are they really all that different?

Oh, definitely. The political left has a very strong tendency to assume that anyone who opposes the "progressive" vision for the improvement of mankind must be doing so out of greed, stupidity or sheer evilness. The right is more apt to grant the sincerity and good intentions of their opponents and just label them misguided.

Savage and Coulter, who can and often do make the left for vitriolic rhetoric and attacks on the motives of opponents, are counter-examples of course, but they're not the norm. The likes of Michael Moore do however seem to the norm amongst the left fringe, and that left fringe is increaslingly and alamingly embraced by mainstream Democrats.

1)How would you define "Conservative?"

Personally, I think that there is more than one definition of "conservative". I will begin by categorizing them. The first are the true conservatives; the second (to borrow a term from Robert Reich in Reason) Radcons. This is somewhat comparable to the excellent distinction between the brands of conservatism offered by pennDerek.

I believe that the true conservatives are much more informed and noble in their goals. The true conservatives believe in an individual-, free-market-centered economy; in the maintenance of a government through a system of checks and balances; in the avoidance of reform by avoiding costly and drastic moves to begin with (this shouldn't be confused with an absolute avoidance of change or reform); in individual rights over collective rights; in the reduction of government waste and government sprawl (compare to the aforementioned avoidance to drastic changes). The true conservative believes that the answer to most problems is not through government intervention; rather through individual reliance on things such as the market. These people are not always necessarily elitist; however their sometimes stubborn avoidance to change and reform can be construed that way.

Contrast this with the Radcons who believe many things in stark opposition to the true conservatives. Radcons believe in a free-market-- but to extremes that hinder business because of rampant corruption; in overriding checks and balances should it serve their purposes; in making costly and drastic moves in order to impose their moral and religious agenda upon others; in overriding individual rights where those rights directly conflict with their moral and religious beliefs (and in some cases to further their own objectives); in ignoring rampant government waste to the ends of bloating the government; in proselytizing vast amounts of the population. Radcons do not hold with the belief that government concentrated in too few hands can lead to corruption and tyranny; in maintaining the status quo in a way that maintains elitist and classist systems and methods; in invading other countries to bring them under an imperialist/colonialist rule. The Radcons are not true conservatives, and they are most certainly not liberals; rather, they are of a breed of their own. Modern politics is filled with people who ascribe to these Radcon principles in whole or in part.

2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Conservative?

I suppose it would depend on which of my definitions you wanted: many people could define the Radcon version, while very few could define true conservatism. This is of course comparable to the fact that very few people could accurately define a true liberal.

3)Are the attacks on the term "Conservative" unfair (not just my examples, but the general bent of "attacks" out there), or do they correctly represent the views of the Conservative populous?

Insofar as the attacks on the term "liberal" are fair: in neither case are the views of either populace accurately represented.

4) When examining the politics of extremists on the right or the left are they really all that different?

Depending on how you define "extremists" (and I assume we're using Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, Moore, Franken, Begala, etc.), I think that, as BecomingHuman pointed out, liberals tend to make far fewer generalized attacks on conservatives-- but don't take that to mean that they don't. The only one of the conservative extremists I can claim to have heard more than ten minutes of is Rush; that ten minutes was full of Rush attacking the liberals as a group. However, I do listen to Air America rather frequently (especially The O'Franken Factor and The Randi Rhodes Show), and although the generalized attacks are on there, there are far fewer than with Rush.

Odd. To me, after watching several political talk shows such as Hardball, Hannity and Colmes, Crossfire, Scarborough country, etc, its clear that the term Liberal is viewed as an insult. I cannot recall the word conservative ever being used as an insult, though conservatives might be verbally assaulted. Rarely, a liberal will stand up and defend the term like Colmes did, retorting to attacks that Kerry and Edwards made such a liberal ticket (Is there such a thing as a too conservative ticket?) Crossfire is pretty much trading insults back and forth, but I have seen some defense of the term.

No doubt, the left wing uses attacks every bit as vicious as conservatives. However, the negative tag for liberals seems to have stuck. As I mentioned before, being called a liberal is considered a bad thing. If a republican was called a conservative on Hardball, it wouldn't make a lot of sense. Thus, I disagree with you when you say:

However, the only word I'm differing on you with is the word "equally." The attacks are not equal in terms of effectiveness. The right has done a much better job at demonizing Liberal than the left has done in demonizing conservative. Or, so it appears to me. Not that the left doesn't try.

In a few words:
Conservatives usually feel that the national government has grown too large, that state and local governments should be able to make their own decisions, and that the private sector needs less interference from the government. They tend to believe that the individual is primarily responsible for their own well being. They are generally less in favor of national government programs that redistribute income, such as welfare, and programs designed to provide assistance to disadvantaged groups.
Socially, conservatives tend to support more government regulation of social values and moral decisions. They are more likely than liberals to accept government attempts to regulate personal behavior and morals.

You make some interesting points, and though the left has failed to demonize the term Conservative, they have certainly done a great job of demonizing the term Right-Wing. Since this term is applied to conservative politicians by liberal politicians as if the term was interchangable (Liberally applied? ) it would appear that liberals have done a pretty good job of demonizing that term, and conservatives by association.

BTW thank you for making the distiction between conservatives and social conservative. To a fiscal conservative, this distiction is as important to them as the distiction between Liberal and Socialist is to many Liberals.

To my ear they both seem to be at around the same rate.

So called conservatives own the radio waves and launch a daily torrent of attacks on the so called liberals. They take examples from the fringe and try to successfully paint all liberals with the same brush. Their claims are often overinflated and purely vicious. They attempt to distance themselves from their own spite with the always present "I don't hate liberals I just think their misguided" or " I'll BBQ with you but I don't want you in power" type of [can't think of the term but means the clause used to distance oneself from the blame by trying to offer a friendly extra extra that allows them to say "Hey you're twisting my words I don't REALLY hate them].
This kind of plausible deniability allows them distance from being labeled as they truly are: hateful bigots.

But lets not forget the so called Liberals. they own most other media forms:music, tv, movies. In almost any tv show, sitcom drama conservatives are the butts of much humor or suddenly dropped derisive comments which seek to add to the stereotype of conservatives as brutish selfish and just short of nazis.

The sad thing IMHO is how many of my fellow human beings are so easily swayed by this garbage and quickly begin to parrot this drivel themselves. Sad to see just how many people are so easily trained like pavlovs dogs to chirp along with the respective chorus. Debate in this country is at the kindergarden level of Uh HUH and Nu UH.

The President’s most important job is to protect and defend the American homeland. Link

Huh, and here I thought it was to defend the Constitution of the United States:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Link

So one thing that can be concluded from the statement taken from the RNC site is that protecting the homeland is seen as the most important thing a conservative President can do. Secondary to that is defending the Constitution. Therefore, civil rights take a backseat to national security. From Nixon on forward, I've noticed this to be a trend in conservative thinking which is now manifested by the Patriot Act.

President Bush announced a growth and jobs plan to strengthen the American economy, and called on Congress to act swiftly to pass it.
The President’s economic agenda has three main goals:

- Encourage consumer spending that will continue to boost the economic recovery.
- Promote investment by individuals and businesses that will lead to economic growth and job creation.
- Deliver critical help to unemployed citizens.

The President’s new proposal would:

- Speed up the 2001 tax cuts to increase the pace of the recovery and job creation.
- Encourage job-creating investment in America’s businesses by ending the double taxation of dividends and giving small businesses incentives to grow.
- Provide help for unemployed Americans, including extending unemployment benefits and creating new re-employment accounts to help displaced workers get back on the job. Link

Conservative thinking seems to go along the lines of tax breaks being the best thing for the economy. The first two things that the above proposal would do is grant tax breaks, with a nod toward extending unemployment bennies (which can be cut by the individual states -- happened in Colorado) and put money into a bonus incentive for people to take work quickly. I suspect that means take whatever comes along -- which isn't the problem. The whatevers are not coming along.

So I can conclude that the conservative answer to all that ails the economy is cutting taxes and that conservatives think people are out of work because they are unwilling to take lower-paying jobs. From personal experience, I'd say that isn't very true. There's some truth to it in that certain high-tech workers I know are holding out for positions similar to what they once had due to having resources (usually a spouse's income) that make ends meet. But most of the unemployed people I've met would take lower paying jobs, and have done so when they are available. It's called scraping for a living.

According to the Department of Education, as of December 11, 2003, a total of nearly $6 billion in Federal education funds remained unspent, waiting to be drawn down by state officials. These funds are from amounts appropriated in 2000 through 2002. Link

Most here know about the No Child Left Behind program. I thought the above quote from the RNC site was interesting. Why isn't the money being used? Are there too many strings attached? If so, has conservative thought gone toward liberal thought regarding the use of federal funds for social engineering? If so, what can be concluded?

That the use of federal funds for social engineering is okay if it's the right kind of social engineering -- those reflecting conservative values. From the other things listed on this site, the three R's along with faith/community-based services are among those values. I doubt the open-school concept has a place among the conservative values.

Energy

Environment

I read these two parts with amazement. Why, the RNC is sounding postitively Green! Which makes me wonder what's wrong here. But, not having the time and not wanting to pad this definition too much, I'll just give it the benefit of the doubt with this conclusion:

Conservative thought seems to be aligned with Green Party thought regarding energy and the environment.

And this doesn't make much sense to me. Guess the devil's in the details.

Healthcare

No surprises here. Give tax breaks to help people afford healthcare (the ultimate solution). Devise another form of HMO (AHP). Promote personal saving to pay healthcare costs. Reduce healthcare provider liability. All in all, this points to the conservative mindset that free enterprise is the only way to do healthcare.

SS

Let's see, there's the lock box idea along with limited investment and no increase in the rates that people pay into SS. Can't scare those AARP voters away, yet the privitization of SS is there (though denied) as part of the solution. Don't think conservative thought can get away from the notion that everything ought to be privitized, from public libraries to SS. This seems to be a touchstone for conservative thought.

There you have it: my definition of conservatism supported with links. Lots of them, directly to the elephant's mouth.



Actually, quite a bit by my estimation. Conservatism as I've defined it above is pretty well understood, starting with Reagan's ideology and extending to the present day. The two parts that gave me pause have been mentioned: energy and environment. Is the RNC actually turning Green or is it just lip service?



I think conservatives are a defensive bunch. It seems to go with the territory. I've even noticed a tendency to construct straw liberals who attack, but when the specifics are looked at, there is no such attack. Rebuttals possibly, and possibly having fun with some of the notions (like it's intolerance to not tolerate intolerance), but the attack description doesn't hold up in the light.

The liberal side has taken to being more aggressive in its criticism of the conservative side. Some of this is unfair, to be fair. It does strike me as a bit whiney for the right side to complain after its decades of ripping liberals new ones.

And I've never witnessed a conservative barred from campus or shouted down. I have witnessed first hand an attempt to shutup a Palestinian scholar and speaker at a local liberal arts campus. So I guess I need some specifics on this type of attack in order to judge if it's unfair or even in existence.



No. If you go far enough either way, you come full circle. That's why most people are moderate, picking and choosing stances to take on particular issues. However, there are some fundamental differences between liberal and conservative thought. I've pointed to these in the definition with the implication that conservative thought tends to see tax cuts as economic panacea and no other way to do things than through the free market. Liberals tend to suspect the motivations behind tax cuts and their effects on the economy. There's also a fairly deep distrust of free markets as actually being free and capable of accomplishing necessary things.

But if you look to the right-wing fascism and left-wing socialism, both have strong central government controls. How those controls are implemented differ, but the net effect is the same.

A.M.,

If you're going to use what the Bush Adminstration does as your standard of what a conservative is, you're going to wind up with a strange blend of neo-conservatism (which is a legitimate strain of conservative thought, but only one of many) and political expediency. You'd be better off referring to flenser's Russell Kirk link early in this thread: Russell Kirk was a real conservative and a heckuva writer too..

I can accept that. Right-wing has been demonized to a large extent. Come to think about it, I don't remember anytime I heard the term "right-wing" used in a positive way.

1)How would you define "Conservative?"

"Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change." -Dictionary.com

I think that this is the surface definition of conservative. However, the conservative 'movement' is multi-faceted, and shares a huge variety of values. For example compare your average log-cabin republican to your garden variety Fort Worth Texan-Christian Right- Republican. and a few differences are clear. Both are considered conservative for reasons relating to the above definition as well as things previously mentioned. Conservatives tend to accept the status quo much more regularly than liberals.

2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Conservative?

As I said in the Libreal Definition thread, on average, Americans are dumber than a box of hair. Thus, I doubt less than forty percent (a uh, conservative estimate) could give an even half-reasonable attempt at defining conservative in relation to modern politics.
3)Are the attacks on the term "Conservative" unfair (not just my examples, but the general bent of "attacks" out there), or do they correctly represent the views of the Conservative populous?

3)Are the attacks on the term "Conservative" unfair (not just my examples, but the general bent of "attacks" out there), or do they correctly represent the views of the Conservative populous?

There are a large variety of attacks directed at a large variety of people coming from a large variety of aggressors. The answer is dependant on the situation. Attacks on Savage, Limbaugh, Colter, OReilly, etc. are generally warranted, often truthful, and rarely near as vicious as the subject of assualt. I think that understanding who to hate in the world is important, and if many of those people carry the same tag (i.e. conservative) it isn't hard to have a biased definiton of the tagword itself. This effect is unfair, but human nature.

Also conservatives are by definition non-progressive, and thus tend to be disliked by anyone who is both politically aware and unhappy with the status quo. The latter trait being far more common than the prior.

Finally from a liberal perspective, or what I'd call a humanist perspective, conservatives have been behind some of the most inhumane legislature. Conservatives with power today tend to favor big business, regard the poor majority as lazy slobs (and thus support welfare 'reform'), use patriotism as a shield of bigotry, and rally behind other things that suck for normal poor people. (Abortion, Privatization, War, Guns). Not to say that these people represent the majority of self defining conservatives, just the loudest voices, and people in power (see George W. Bush for a horrendous example of why liberals and humanists are scared to death of conservatives).

) When examining the politics of extremists on the right or the left are they really all that different?

Yes, as long as I am thinking of the correct extremists. My first thought of a conservative extremest is Pat Robertson. Robertson is evil to the core, I don't care what anyone says, that man hides behind a coy smile and the name of Jee-zuz while pushing a racist, sexist, homophobic and alltogether diabolical agenda upon poor impressional people who were never taught to question what theyre hearing (even from a pastor). Robertson represents all that is sickening about the christian right as a movement. Liberal extremists then are either Micheal Moore or maybe Noam Chomsky. Moore, even with all the fallacy-claims by right-wingers is for the most part wielding the truth. In F9/11 he does so with tact. As mentioned before, Conservative extremists rarely seem to have tact. Chomsky is a die-hard analyst, and his opinions are generally based on enough fact to appear valid. He rarely attacks conservatives, instead he points out policy choices and connects other dots to show you why you should dislike the person. Conservatives seem to be better at the Public Relations game because they claim to represent values that each generation recognizes and is comfortable with.

Izdaari,

Figured I'd get this feedback from someone. This debate can be approached from the intellecual notion of "conservative" (or "liberal" in the sister thread), or it can be approached from the practical notion of who's going to run this country (state, county, city, township). I've simply gone to the practical application of conservative idealism. I'm sure Kirk is a fine thinker and author. Perhaps if ever I'm interested in conservative idealism, I'll check him out. Meanwhile, it's the practical stuff that has my attention.

Perhaps after the election I'll give Kirk a read. Got other irons in the fire for now.

I am having a difficult time defining “conservative”. The problem being that I am a “misguided” conservative; confused because I have liberal tendencies. I found the following helpful in forming my definition of “conservative” and consequently, a better understanding my own political identity disorder.

http://www.historiography101.blogspot.com/...01_archive.html



So…I would define “conservative”: One who follows most traditional values and status-quo, but occasionally displays liberal tendencies such as being open-minded and bucking the system.



Thankfully, there is an American historical reference:

I also identify with many traditional conservative views.


This has traditionally been the definition of conservative.


Nothing has been more detrimental to governmental partisan progress than the hijacking of politics by religious zealots. Religion and politics should not mix. Ever. The continued mixing of these two concepts will serve to keep tempers flaring and compromise at bay.


(empasis mine)

I think TLW makes very good observations illustrating the drastic/conflicting differences between true or traditional conservatives and radical or modern conservatives.

Grendel put it best, illustrating the new radical conservatism as an identity assumed by many religious zealots:

And just to reiterate a very important point he made earlier:

How would you define "Conservative?"
I don't know if he authored this, but a friend gave me this list a few years ago concerning a rough definition of conservative principles in America. True conservative, mind you, not the Bush version.

PIETY (Respect for Tradition). Piety is that respect and honor owed to the venerable institutions and practices of one's homeland. Piety serves a dual purpose: it supports our capacity for continuing inter-generational progress, by acknowledging our connections to the endeavors of our forebears, and it checks the invention of novel forms of evil.

ACCOUNTABILITY (of Rulers to the Ruled). Since human life has a purpose that transcends the activities of any merely human society, and since human beings are, in relation to that purpose, essentially equal, no one person has the right to use others as mere means, or to override the will and judgment of another unconditionally.

FEDERALISM. Whenever there is a choice between assigning a power to an office with a wider jurisdiction or to one with a narrower jurisdiction, the power should always be assigned to the latter, for two reasons. First, the abuse of office is an inherent danger, and where the abuse occurs within a smaller jurisdiction, its victims have a greater chance to seek outside help, to escape or to resist the injustice. Second, human knowledge and compassion are limited, and an officer with smaller jurisdiction is more likely to have the specialized knowledge and empathy needed to make wise decisions.

THE RULE OF LAW. The rule of law is needed to restrain the practice of evil, and to create a stable and predictable social environment within which persons, families and associations may act reasonably.

SEPARATION OF POWERS. The functions of the government are threefold: the codification of the law in its generality, the adjudication of particular cases under the law, and the enforcement of the law against those who would defy it.

MEDIATING INSTITUTIONS. Society must recognize and respect the rights, not only of individual adult members, but also of families, religious congregations, and voluntary associations. The state should respect and support the integrity of marriage and the authority of parents, intervening only when a family has ceased to function as such.

PRIVATE PROPERTY AND FREE MARKETS. The management of families and cultural institutions and the practice of work require the control of land and other natural resources. Individual persons, families and associations must have the power of acquiring property, i.e., specific and well-defined spheres of responsibility and control. The acquisition and disposal of property (including exchange, gift and the use of contract) must be governed by general rules, and owners must be free to exercise their own judgment in whatever is not specifically forbidden.

I would contend that this list contains many of the principles that I would label the "Bush version", or the "modern version", and not the "true" principle of conservatives.


I think a true conservative might entertain some notion of "evil" in his or her own perspective, but would acknowledge that "evil" is not a scientific term, not a quantifiable term, not a term that individuals or society would want defined for them by a government body.


I don't know what that statement is about:
"Since human life has a purpose that transcends the activities of any merely human society."
It sounds religious. I don't believe that any true conservative would like their government dictating to them that 'the purpose of human life is X or Y'. Philosophers have been debating for years about the purpose of life, as does each individual person seek meaning in his life. Surely a government wouldn't be expected (by conservatives) to dictate solutions to problems that have been pondered unsolved for centuries. Neither would any true conservative subscribe to the notion that human society answers to something other than itself, even if that was the tradition of their forefathers - for any true conservative knows that, traditionally, that notion goes hand in hand with overriding the will and judgement of another unconditionally.


Again with the term "evil". No true conservative wants this term defined by a government that is the transient mood of the masses.


A true conservative would be a true advocate of smaller government - a true conservative would detest uncle sam sticking his nose in the STATE'S AFFAIRS, let alone a private citizen's bedroom. A true conservative sees no use in "Mediating Institutions".

edited: wording

This just screams blind following of tradition without question as to whether the tradition was ever worth a damn in the first place or based on some silly beleif of some narrowminded fool back when people thought being outside in a full moon drove you insane or that women should be locked away during their "time" because they are "unclean". Cultural traditions are more often inhibiting factors to growth and freedom.
I am uncomfortable with the constant use of the word evil. I am sure you and I could agree on many things as good or evil, but I am also sure we would also disagree.

1)How would you define "Conservative?"

Authoritarian - controlling and against progressive change. Invasive agendas intent on making the entire country conform to their own standards.

2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Conservative?

80% - about 50% of voters

3)Are the attacks on the term "Conservative" unfair (not just my examples, but the general bent of "attacks" out there), or do they correctly represent the views of the Conservative populous?

No. While many are wrong or misguided - "Unfair" is not a word I would use. "Unsubstantiated" perhaps...

4) When examining the politics of extremists on the right or the left are they really all that different?

No - not "Left vs. Right" they are both Authoritarian and oppose Liberty. In fact, both political partys in this country lean "Right" - but Democrats tend to be "less right". There is no real "Left" in politics here. Although the current conservative movement opposes liberty more often, and more actively.

Current American conservative's by their own definition wish to impose their philosophy on all Americans; this is patently anti-liberty - Based on the current conservative administration's actions, they are a dire threat to liberty and the constitution. This defines them in my eyes - and justifies the level of negative press. In fact, I'd like to see more "conservative" views detailed and exposed for what they are. Fear based, damaging and anti-American.

1)How would you define "Conservative?"

Originally I think conservatism is tied to Sir Edmund Burke, father of the famous 'virtual representation' theory. Burke, a PM from Bristol, told his constituents that they should not expect him to vote as they want him too--rather, he would vote what he thought was the nation's bet interest. His constituents worries were remedied by his consolation that somebody in Parliament would look out for them. As the story goes, he did not get re-elected. If memory serves (it might not--so check up on me...) I believe Burke is considered the father of modern conservatism because of his belief in the wisdom of the elites...

I think this is one aspect of conservatism. I think the traditional American conservative stands for small-government programs, general suspicion of government intrustions into private life, and the belief in the strength of the individual. For some reason, I also relate a fear of ideology with the conservative.

I think the modern conservative movement moving closer and closer to the ideological realm. The movement seems to be more interested in war, nationalism, and the defintion of values and the mainstream.

It is this fundamental shift in worldview that has slowly forced me to find myself a liberal. Meaning that I support little or no government intervention into private life, nor do I support intrustions into freedoms of speech/religion/etc. for ANY reason. I feel that the Left is now, suddenly, more supportive of these views.


3)Are the attacks on the term "Conservative" unfair (not just my examples, but the general bent of "attacks" out there), or do they correctly represent the views of the Conservative populous?

No. I think it goes both ways--and that both sides are attempting to define the 'other'. The notion that liberals hate America is erroneous, as is the idea that conservatives are warmongering, fascist fools. But they both do it--so it's fair.

4) When examining the politics of extremists on the right or the left are they really all that different?

If you are looking at extremists, then no. The wing nuts on both sides have no clue what mainstream America is really about. Both sides attempt to distort issues to dichotimize the United States.

For example, abortion. I believe that there is a near consensus on the issue--I've read that up to 80% feel that abortion should be constrained to out-of-the-ordinary cases (sorry, sorry I cannot cite...my books are at my apartment...). However, it's an issue because the left and right are very, very, very loud and shout their particular views over the mainstream.

That would be great if it were true. Unfortunately, conservative is not exactly that in the US or around the world. I notice you identify yourself as a libertarian. That is good. Libertarians are not exactly conservative, however. Even in the US which has quite skewed views of liberal and conservative definition, a libertarian is only conservative in his economic views, and quite liberal in those of his social views. Deregulation of all things is hardly a view espoused by any self-styled conservative. Sure, economy and business regulations often come up, but where is the individual liberty and freedom from government restraint? Many self-styled conservatives are the first to attack victimless crimes, moral decay, the first to censor things, and otherwise go against that definition. In other nations, a conservative is the one who is strongly in favor of governmental controls over social life (ie banning guns and such) as opposed to the liberals who are for such things as gun rights. Just a couple thoughts for you. By the way, if there are conservatives who espouse social deregulatory views, I would be interested to hear of them so I can vote for them if they are in any of my districts (could be registered in three different ones right now due to school and such).

There is a strong assumption here the conservatives are pro-war:





This is not the case. Conservatives are inherently isolationist, and primarily favor strong defense so as to prevent ever having to go to war. (GWB was very isolationist prior to 9-11). This is true both philosophically, and also historically. Take a look at the major wars this country has been involved in, and who was President leading up to that war:

WWI: Woodrow Wilson
WWII: Franklin Roosevelt
Korean War: Harry Truman
Vietnam War: Lyndon Johnson

I am not trying to paint liberals as pro-war here (and will admit that several of the examples here, while Democrats, were from the conservative wing of the party)--just trying to remove the false stereo-type of conservatives. The New World Order is essentially a progressive, liberal philosophy--conservative philosophy would favor as little involvement in foreign affairs as possible. While I will admit that most hawks are conservative, that doesn't imply that most conservatives are hawks.

The more we debate about the definition of conservatism, the more I am inclined to believe that there are two distinctly different types of conservatism (if not more). Aside from the usual splits (neo-con, etc) I think that there are many different types of people whom define themselves as conservative, and thus all fit under the umbrella. We talk about social conservatism and economic conservatism, as if the two are intertwined. I don't believe they are. The 'peoples conservatism' is a form of social and economic conservatism, that focuses more on the economic aspect. The 'christian-peoples' conservatism focuses more on the social issues, and the economic ones take the backseat. Then I think there is the Powerful-Republican-Christian type conservatism which is what ruins it for everyone else. I guess thats a neo-con, whom focuses heavily on matters of social concern, as well as economic, but the economic concerns do not reflect economic conservative values, instead they favor money... and thats about it. The most superficial and obvious modern conservative tag is greed. I'm not saying it's deserved, just unfortunately true in many cases. (Both greed in a $$$ sense and a social "you can't do this and this and this" sense)

Hello! Yes, I'm new, and hopefully I can get used to the "forum culture" of this board rather quickly. Also, I'm listed as a Republican because that's the party I officially signed up for when I registered to vote, but I consider myself more conservative than Republican since I'm (a) a moderate and ( sometimes disagree with what the official party thinks.

I consider the terms Liberal and Conservative to be something that must be used on a case-by-case basis. For example, because America was founded on the values of the Classical Liberals combined with Christian Morality, being conservative in America usually means small government and the like.

In the USSR under Gorbachev though, the "conservatives" actually supported the preservation of Stalinism, which would have meant bigger government.

Classical Liberals and Conservatives also were kind of split between the size of government, or at least what the size would be under their systems.

Liberals and Conservatives in this sense apply to some questions asked in Old England when Liberal Democracy first developed to eventually phase out absolutist monarchies. These questions include.

Are human beings naturally bad or naturally good?

Do our rights exist because of the state, or does the state merely enumerate them and their source is something else?

http://radicalacademy.com/gegeorgeirbe2.htm

This article, although pretty academic in terms of language, sums up this rather competently.

American Liberals and Conservatives are the opposite of their Classical Counterparts, furthering this issue of those terms not being absolutes.

Most of the time when I hear Conservative, I either think Classical Conservative, American Conservative, Neoconservative, or the numerous other strains of ideologies that have taken up the label, not a universal absolute.