![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"but classical liberals are less suspicious of big government than conservatives"
What kind of nonsense is that ?? Libertarians are not suspicious of big government? This website's a joke 201.212.90.185 ( talk) 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What? Your point makes no sense. Assume Good Faith, yes, but are you confusing Liberals and Libertarians? This page is a reference to conservatism as the right-leaning portions of the political spectrum, including Libertarianism, and to a more extreme extent, Fascism. In the same vein, the page on Liberalism is indicative of the left-leaning political spectrum, including Socialism and to a more extreme extent Communism.
Please read more into the goal of an article before you incorrectly complain about its contents. Pmo22 ( talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK... Whoever is writing all of this about less suspicion... just stop alright?... Liberals think that government should control everybody's lives and in that the entire nation to the point that nobody actually has an identity... can anybody see the connection to Communism... thought so. Mistinis ( talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Mistinis
Liberals DO NOT belive that the govermant should control everyone's lives. Liberalism has to do with extensive human rights and equality not to control everyones lives. (Some people are crazy) Hungaryboy1 ( talk) 00:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, actually that's your opinion of what liberals want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.128.191 ( talk) 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this from the article because whoever added it had misunderstood what Disraeli meant. To give the quote its context and why it has been misinterpreted, I'll give the peroration of the speech addressed to Sir Robert Peel:
"There is no doubt a difference in the right hon. gentleman's demeanour as leader of the Opposition and as Minister of the Crown. But that's the old story; you must not contrast too strongly the hours of courtship with the years of possession. 'Tis very true that the right hon. gentleman's conduct is different. I remember him making his protection speeches. They were the best speeches I ever heard. It was a great thing to hear the right hon. gentleman say: "I would rather be the leader of the gentlemen of England than possess the confidence of Sovereigns". That was a grand thing. We don't hear much of "the gentlemen of England" now. But what of that? They have the pleasures of memory—the charms of reminiscence. They were his first love, and, though he may not kneel to them now as in the hour of passion, still they can recall the past; and nothing is more useless or unwise than these scenes of crimination and reproach, for we know that in all these cases, when the beloved object has ceased to charm, it is in vain to appeal to the feelings. You know that this is true. Every man almost has gone through it. My hon. gentleman does what he can to keep them quiet; he sometimes takes refuge in arrogant silence, and sometimes he treats them with haughty frigidity; and if they knew anything of human nature they would take the hint and shut their mouths. But they won't. And what then happens? What happens under all such circumstances? The right hon. gentleman, being compelled to interfere, sends down his valet, who says in the genteelest manner: "We can have no whining here". And that, sir, is exactly the case of the great agricultural interest—that beauty which everybody wooed and one deluded. There is a fatality in such charms, and we now seem to approach the catastrophe of her career. Protection appears to be in about the same condition that Protestantism was in 1828. The country will draw its moral. For my part, if we are to have free trade, I, who honour genius, prefer that such measures should be proposed by the hon. member for Stockport than by one who through skilful Parliamentary manoeuvres has tampered with the generous confidence of a great people and a great party. For myself, I care not what may be the result. Dissolve, if you please, the Parliament you have betrayed. For me there remains this at least—the opportunity of expressing thus publicly my belief that a Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy". (Buckle & Monypenny, Life of Disraeli. Volume I (1928), pp. 718-19.)
Disraeli was saying that Peel, elected to uphold the Corn Laws but repealed them a few years later, had betrayed the people who elected him. It was not who "personally profit from the repeal of the corn laws". Disraeli would later be the head of a Conservative Government.-- Johnbull 03:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact, many MPs were voting their own financial interests. However, I have no objection to your formulation of the quote. Let's have it with your words to explain it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the observation of Disraeli, a major conservative, of the relationship between conservative ideology and self-interest is of major importance. It is one example of many. Since the article on patriotism mentions jingoism, I think the article on conservatism should at least mention the relationship between conservative government and the self-interest of the upper class, not only in England, but in many times and places.-- Rick Norwood, 14:17, December 16, 2007.
If I wanted to include that in the article, I would of course quote sources. What I suggested was including the quote with your own explanation of it. Since the quote is important enough to appear in Bartlett's, it is certainly important enough to appear in this article. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
For any historical quote, context is incredibly important. In this case, the context is very specific - Disraeli, a conservative, was condemning a particular conservative government for betraying the interests of the rich landed interests that had arrested it, and comparing it to a previous conservative government of a decade or so before which had done a similar thing to anti-catholic interests which had similarly supported it. The statement has little relevance to any general discussion of conservatism. As far as Bartlett's goes, it's purpose is close to the opposite of ours - its purpose is to strip quotes of their context and present them as general maxims. We should not be doing this. john k ( talk) 17:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I was correcting the punctuation and word order of the following quotation of G. K. Chesterton: "'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" In doing so I paid closer attention to the statement it's used to demonstrate, i.e. that some conservatives wish to "expose the hypocrisy of an existing regime." Although there are situations in which this is true, isn't it a patent characteristic of liberalism? The article's example is the Chesterton quotation. According to Wikipedia, his ideas "were far too nuanced to fit comfortably under the " liberal" or " conservative" banner." I believe this point is in need of elaboration and evidence. 66.251.27.98 ( talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Political Conservatism does not mean the favor of slow, gradual change. It means small or "conservative" government interference, where as liberal means much or liberal government interference. I don't know why this definition is spread around and regurgitated. This definition is often associted with the GOP in the U.S. It's simply not true. For instance, the GOP's favor of Second Amendment rights is a conservative political stance, but the GOP's pro-life stance is a liberal stance because it involves government interference. The Democratic Party favors the legalization of drugs, which is a conservative stance, but endorses the limiting of Second Amendment rights, which is a liberal stance. Libertarianism is the most conservative political ideology (except for, perhaps, anarchism) and fascism (and, hence totalitarinism) is the most liberal. Chenzo23 ( talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Chenzo23, you've gotten a couple of good answers, but since you ask for my thoughts on the subject: the word's "liberal" and "conservative" as they are bandied about in the current political debate are meaningless or, rather, just mean "my side" and "your side". On the other hand, if you read books written before, say, 1960, or serious scholarly books, you discover that the meaning of the words is much closer to the dictionary meaning. Liberals favor freedom, conservatives favor the status quo or the status quo ante.
The ideas that you have picked up, that liberals favor big government and conservatives favor small government, go back to the time when FDR was president. The class structure at that time was as strong as it has ever been in America. Both New York City and the state of California had police lines that only upper class people were allowed to cross. FDR was called, explicitly, "a traitor to his class". The wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few, who conspired to fix wages and prices, to bust unions and to use government power to restrict the rights of workers, people of color, and women. People in America were starving, living in "shanty towns", wandering from place to place looking for work. It was in this context that the government, under FDR, began to offer very limited help to ordinary Americans. He was called every dirty name in the book, including "Jew" and "communist".
It was never a question of "big government" vs. "small government". It was a question of big government helping the rich vs. big government helping the poor.
The political movement that actually favors small government is the libertarian movement. The Republican party in the United States wooed the libertarians, by promising small government, and by portraying the Democrats as in favor of big government. In fact, the federal government has grown in power under both parties, so that no American president in my lifetime has ever paid more than lip service to "small government" conservatism.
And political propaganda has done its best to destroy the meaning of words, in order to increase the power of government.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The link to Fiscal Conservatism basically argues that the way it is used here (i.e. limited taxes) is wrong. So which one is it, limited government involvement or balanced budget ? 63.241.31.130 ( talk) 00:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Johnbull and Chenzo you have it right... you would not believe some people... some actually think that Conservatism is anarchy... :P right?
The use of the word 'Conservatism' in British politics was firmly attached, originally, to the preservation of the link between the state and the Church of England: more specifically, the retention of laws preventing Catholic Succession. As this is fundamentally based on a belief that protestantism represents progress and independence, whereas Roman Catholiicism represents loss of national independence and regression, Britain's original Conservatives were therefore, in their own view, actually conservators of revolution/progress achieved, progressives opposing a certain type of conservatism, their use of the word therefore in some ways verging on the cryptic/ironic/colourful/'tongue-in-cheek.' No doubt the Party has attracted hordes of following, and even leading active members, totally ignorant of this original history and meaning, resulting in a deeply misleading and confusing state of affairs, historically, and in terms of fundamental character, but one which Wikipedia surely need not add to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.230 ( talk) 10:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
well the father of conservative thought, Edmund Burke wrote his seminol work railing against the revolution in france.
the Tory party has always been about preserving the status quo in Britain, be it Irish Home Rule, or the right of heredity peers to sit in the lords it has traditionally stood as an opponent of change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.61 ( talk) 09:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why a recent edit removed references to older conservatives. It is standard to use the word in discussing history, especially the history of Greece, Rome, and China. It seems that some people want to change the meaning of the word. This seems counterproductive. In every culture, there are people who support the old ways, the traditions, the old religion, and the importance of family. In all times and places, modern historians identify such people as conservatives. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What a strange response. I'm certainly aware of the Huguenots. I'm also aware that they were slaughtered, and that, as I said, France remained Catholic. You have not offered any evidence for your claim that "protestant reformation lead to French Revolution." And to suggest that, because I know what "Conservative Christians" mean when they so identify themselves, that makes me a radical fundamentalist is absurd. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The article has been edited so many times that I can no longer tell which parts I wrote and which parts other people wrote. I don't think I ever said that conservatism was a 'bias' or that conservative propaganda tries to 'lure' libertarians. That doesn't sound like me. But that is not important, the only important thing is that the article be correct.
One strand of conservatism, modern political conservatism, can be traced back to Burke and to reaction to the French Revolution. But the word is commonly used in other ways. If one reads history, one finds the word often applied to Cicero, Confucius, and many others who valued family and stability above individualism and freedom. Burke's ideas were not original with him -- few ideas can be traced to a single source.
Of course Martin Luther was not a conservative -- he was a revolutionary -- but the people who currently identify themselves as "conservative Christians" (not only in the US, but also in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia and many other places) consider themselves to be followers of Martin Luther. Thus the revolutionary ideas of one generation become the conservative ideas of later generations.
I tend to place a great value on the dictionary meaning of words -- standard dictionaries, especially the Oxford English Dictionary -- are the only defense against propagandists spinning words to mean anything they want them to mean. Without common meaning, communication becomes impossible. I don't have an OED handy, but Webster's Seventh New Collegiat Dictionary defines conservative as "1 a: an adherent or advocate of political conservatism b cap: a member or supporter of a conservative political party 2 a: one who adheres to traditional methods or views b: a cautious or discreet person." This article places its greatest emphasis on definition 1, but should also include definition 2. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You are correct -- I withdraw the view expressed in my final paragraph. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe it is inappropriate to trace conservative Christians back to Martin Luther. Martin Luther was not the progenitor of the entire protestant movement! In fact, Methodists would claim that John Wesley was a protestant before Martin Luther was, if I recall correctly.
The largest current Lutheran church in the United States, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), is not a part of the conservative christian movement in the United States, although other Lutheran churches in the United States, including the Missouri Synod, are. The ELCA is in fact considered one of America's more (politically) liberal churches.
The conservative Christian movement is more frequently identified with the Southern Baptist or Presbyterian churches in the United States than it is with the Lutheran church. It would be more appropriate to trace their history and theology back to John Calvin. 205.175.123.26 ( talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article focuses almost exclusively on social values. What about the economic values of conservatism?
Dont centre around America there is conservatism elsewhere in the world as well. Hungaryboy1 ( talk) 00:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is RWA and SDO discussed here? They don't seem like legitimate topics under this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.240.130 ( talk) 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Wherever this section is placed, I think there's something missing in this sentence:
"some groups"? "minority groups"? Because right now it seems like it's saying: "All groups are subordinated and of lesser status than others." Ileanadu ( talk) 03:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The entire section "psychological research" does not belong in this article, since the subjects of these studies were present day Americans, and this article is about conservatism as a general political philosophy. If the section belongs anywhere, it is in Conservatism in the United States. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that it does not belong. It's amazing to see that "impartial" Wikipedia considers conservatives to basically have psychological deficiencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 ( talk) 12:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Rick Norwood,
1) The psychological section contains the following sentence: “For instance, a meta-analysis by Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway in 2003 analyzed 88 studies, from 12 countries, with over 22,000 subjects, …” I understand the sentence to mean that conservatives from other countries have also been studied. How did you reach the conclusion that only Americans participated in all the studies?
2) You state, “…the subjects of these studies were present day Americans,…” How do you know the 88 studies only included “present day” research? Could some of the studies used in the meta-analysis come from decades ago?
3) What do you mean by the term “political philosophy”?
a. We are in agreement that this article is about conservatism as a political philosophy, as long as you are using the second meaning and understandings found in wikipedia. The second wikipedia meaning states that a political philosophy is “a general view, or specific ethic, belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy.” The fields of knowledge that studies world-views, beliefs, or attitudes are cultural studies, psychology, and sociology.
b. The first meaning for “political philosophy” in wikipedia states a, “Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority in a given system: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever.” If you meant this by the term “political philosophy,” then you believe that political philosophy died out in the late 1970s. The last conservative political philosophers were Friedrich Hayek and Leo Strauss. If this is your position then I have a question. How do you explain the changes in conservatism over the last 30 years?
4) Perhaps this article should change the word “political philosophy” to “ideology.” From my perspective, the word ideology describes this article better than political philosophy. Ideology would remove any confusion caused by difference in meaning between the older and newer usage of the term “political philosophy”.
5) Psychology has studied conservatism (and liberalism) for well over 100 years. In the United States, Wolfe wrote about the difference between conservatism, radicalism and the scientific method.(1) At this time, conservatism was associated with anti-science and anti-intellectualism.(2) After WWII, the study of the psychological factors that contribute to fascism began with the work of Theodor Adorno. Adorno developed the F-Scale that identified authoritarian personality characteristics, which subsequent scientists have confirmed, refined, expanded over the last 50 years, in many different countries. Adorno’s F-scale identified several characteristics linked to conservative cognition and behavior. Santo F. Camilleri applied factor analysis to the F-Scale in 1959. The Milgram experiment confirmed authoritarian submission in conservatives, and some liberals. In the 1960s, the term used in psychology to identify characteristics highlighted in the F-Scale changed to “authoritarian personality,” which gained popularity outside personality psychology. Diane Baumrind’s child development parenting styles identifies an “authoritarian” parenting-childrearing style. F-Scale also correlates with racism through of stereotyping. Moreover, Neurobiology has also identified differences in between how liberal and conservative brains work. Indeed, a recent neurocognitive study correlated between conservatism and liberalism, supported through brain imaging that “conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty.”
Daniel Oneofshibumi ( talk) 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sources:
1) Wolfe, A.B. (1923) Conservatism, Radicalism, and Scientific Method: An Essay on Social Attitudes. New York: Macmillan.
2) Hofstadter, R. (1966). Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (Paperback). New York: Vintage Books.
Your points are well taken. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
IF this section is appropriate for the Conservatism article, then why is there not a analogous section for the Liberalism article? - especially in light of Daniel's point (5) above (although citing half-century old articles would seem to be rather selective, given the changes in the "science" of psychology, the "intellectual" basis of conservatism (in the US), and the population of conservatives being studied). Surely there are illuminating psychological insights about those who hold to the views of Liberalism. Looked at across articles, the whole thing suggests selection bias and is very "Wiki-not" (intended as a horrible intellectual criticism which should evoke shame).
BD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.90.240 ( talk) 15:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I am in full agreement that this section does not belong in the article on Conservatism. It fails Wikipedia's rules in several ways.
First, the studies cited border on Pseudoscience. Had the subject of these studies been "African-Americans" "Buddhists" "Arabic people" or "vegitarians" the outcry would be enormous and the researchers would have been pilloried and accused of racial or ethnic bias -- and justly so. Further, the value indexes inherent in the research demonstrate an underlying bias in the studies themselves. For instance, what is "closure" in this context? What does "death anxiety" have to do with political philosophy? If not pseudoscience, this is definately junk science.
Second, the examples above also show that the section itself is an example of bias. This is nothing more than a not-to-subtle attempt to portray conservatives as mentally deranged individuals, and conservatism as the product of diseased minds. I would refer you to the subject of Lysenkoism. The fact that there is no corresponding Psychology of Liberalism, or for that matter, Psychology of ANY other political philosophy is a damning indictment.
Third, the entire section is patronizing and patently offensive to conservatives. But hey, who cares about *those people* anyway? Substitute ANY other random group in the place of "conservatives" and ask if the section would be permitted.
Fourth, As a side issue, I feel that several sections display an inherent confusion between conservatism and the Republican party, and believe that they are in need of disambiguation. I freely confess my own bias in this matter -- I am a non-Republican, non-Libertarian conservative.
Full disclosure: I am the party secretary of the American Conservative Party, founded in 2008, with chapters in 8 states across the nation. I signed up today in order to open this debate in the accepted Wikipedial idiom. I look forward to this issue being resolved amicably through that process.
Thank you, Crimsonsplat 204.235.227.134 ( talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC) (sorry, thought I was logged in, and had to add my username manually)
PRODUCTIVITY LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE
"Arthur Brooks and Peter Schweizer independently found evidence suggesting that American conservatives are, on average, substantially happier and more productive than American liberals"
This statement seemed to me quite important so I had a look on the references and it appears that on the wikipedia article on Arthur Brooks : "One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals."
Maybe my understanding of productivity is limited, but in my opinion if you earn more you product more. So one of these two articles should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Suffit ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
As an "American Liberal" and someone who majored in Social Psychology, I agree that the psychological research belongs in a separate section. These studies say as much about Liberals as it does about conservatives. Therefore, it should be in a separate article with links from the main articles. I found this discussion interesting, but I don't have any expertise in this area, so I can't say anything about its accuracy. Ileanadu ( talk) 03:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a cristism part on the liberalism page some one should make one for this page. Hungaryboy1 ( talk) 00:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the recent POV flag could have either of two meanings. It could be a claim that the way in which the research is reported is biased, that the research does not in fact make the claims made here. Or it could mean that the research is invalid because the researchers themselves were biased, even though what they said is accurately reported here. How to respond to the flag depends on which meaning is intended. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I cannot help but contrast the two comments above. First, 63.230.79.208 says "there's simply no way to know" but, discovering that Felicia Pratto is a woman, he concludes she is "someone with a prejudiced agenda". Would he be as quick to accuse a Black researcher writing on civil rights of having a "prejudiced agenda"? Also, he has moved from the reasonable "important to actually look at original studies" to a thought experiment about an "unverifiable study".
We need input from a sociologist, who has read the original article and confirm or deny the existence of follow up studies. Science consists of what is replicable. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving the discussion from the top of the page to the bottom.
There have been any number of follow-up studies, all confirming the original results. Here is a recent book on the subject, from a major university press, which has had good reviews. It is international in scope, and has a quite good discussion of the relationship between political conservatism and the patronage system. I'll add it to the references.
Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto
Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Studies like this can certainly be used to play "gotcha!". Most liberals I know (which means American liberals, because those are the ones I talk to) are baffled about how conservatives can still believe the things they believe (creationism, global warming is a hoax, Sadam Hussain masterminded 911, George Bush is a great president who cut government spending and decreased the power of the federal government, the war in Iraq fights terrorism and we are winning). Social Dom theories provide one explanation. But that has nothing at all to do with the question we should ask: is the theory correct?
For that, we need comments from a professional sociologist, who keeps up with the journals and with current research. In short, we need an expert. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is the key distinction as I understand it. If a belief is widely held, Scientology being a good example, then in the article on Scientology you report that belief in as neutral manner as possible, while making it clear that the article is about a belief, not a known fact. On the other hand, in the main article religion, you would not go into much detail about the beliefs of Scientologists.
The question, then, is whether Dom Theory is a mainstream belief, in which case it should be reported here, or a minor belief, in which case it should at most be mentioned here and reported in its own article. As best I can tell, only a professional sociologist can tell the difference. All I have to go by is that the most important book on the subject was published by a major university press and got good reviews. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Next go put all the "verfiable" and "notable" research from the Bell Curve on the African-American page while you're having fun with offensive statistics. 75.5.100.86 ( talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
To conservatives, you are very valuable as a fetus. They care most about you before you are actually born. From the moment you are born to the moment you turn 18, military and voting age, they don't give a damn about you. To think all those frozen embryos with all those life saving stem cells are going to waste. Why? Because conservatives have this notion in their minds that they might come back to life. Might as well send the National Guard to the grocery store's frozen section. "Stand back! The clam strips may come back to life any moment!"
Note to conservatives: GET THE FUCKING HELL OUT OF POLITICS. STOP STALLING PROGRESS AND DIE FOR YOU COUNTRY. I MEAN ACTUALLY DIE.
Wikipedia is not a forum
Cretog8 (
talk)
19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I find this entire task daunting. There is far too much POV for anything involving politics and religion. (which is probably why you're never supposed to bring them up in polite company.) Considering that conservatism is about ideas, you're faced with the task of quantifying and organizing ideas. Then others begin to consider "actions" and begin to contribute things they think are conservative simply because people they think are conservative have done them.
Might I suggest separating out the ideas? Start with the basic ideas; I saw a very good list in the talk archives:
Basic principles of conservativism:
* Personal responsibility * Everyone should be treated equally o No one should be discriminated against o No group should have higher rights or special privlidges in government programs, regulation, or judical proceedings * Laws should be enforced * Laws should be enforced equally * Personal freedom should be protected and enhanced * Citizens should be self sufficient except in cases of severe disability * Citizens should obey the law * have a strong military * Not help our enemy * Have limited government
Religious principles of conservativism:
* Moral values of Christanity should be followed
Then, the last item... stay away from connecting it to religion. As a conservative, I have found (I know, POV!) that connecting conservatism to christianity isn't something conservatives do, but it is something liberals do to define-down conservatives. Besides, statistically it doesn't hold up... you can go to the dkospedia (daily kos's reference manual) of all places, and see that christianity (and religion in general) is spread pretty evenly across the parties. Christianity is not a conservative phenomenon.
Fascism. Any connection between fascism and conservatism is not only false, but inflammatory. The use of "Fascist" to smear conservatives in general and the current President in particular is just that - a smear. Fascism in all it classic forms (Mussoulini, Hitler, Stalin) and its current forms (Chavez, Mugabe), has always been a stepchild of the left. Socialism and communism have all bred fascism. The Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. They were anti-smoking, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, nationalized health care, racial quotas, speech codes at universities, holistic medicine etc. Hitler was a strict vegetarian and Himmler was an animal rights activist. There was even an anti-department store movement going on at the time in Germany (think, anti-walmart) These are not people of the right; you would be perpetuating a myth to include references to fascism such as that.
I would also recommend removing those bizarre passages attempting to connect the conservative movement with racism. Trying to scientifically prove conservatives are racists is such a bizarre waste of time. Trying to assign such qualities (racist, bigot, homophobe) is not only a bigoted act itself, but is fundamentally unprovable and will always be in dispute. Why even go there?
And why remove libertarianism? I've always seen the spectrum of the right starting there. The most basic sweep of thought in this entire process is this: conservatives focus on individual identity; liberals focus on collective identity. It starts with fascism on the left and ends with libertarianism on the right. (And don't give me that poly-sci nonsense about the "circle connecting at both ends"; fascism and libertarianism are polar opposites.)
Thank you for your time. I hope I can help.
Wikitfl ( talk) 07:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Which is the problem with this subject: everyone not only will, but has to approach it from their own POV. The more I think about this project, the more impossible it seems. At first I thought stripping it down to simple ideas was the best course... but how to manage the progression through history when event hose ideas have changed? In particular; the whole period in the 20s-30s, when liberals and conservatives pretty much switched places? There's a company that sells an [amazing poster]
http://www.historyshots.com/Parties2/index.cfm... check it out if you get a chance. It actually may provide some kind of roadmap.
We have to start with the universal, no? It seems to me that this topic becomes incredibly complicated when you dwell too much in the specifics. Broad strokes at first, then work in the detail. The definition should start with the ideals, (as expressed through the rhetoric). This is what I meant when I said you can't get into the actions. If a "pure" conservative policy is expressed through an incompetent republican party that compromises and gives backroom deals to democrats in a corrupt government... how can one adequately relate policy/action to whether something is or isn't "conservative". It seems strange, but I think the only way to define either side (conservatism/liberalism) is by sticking to the pure thought and intentions; not the results. (Although that could certainly have its own section)
As for the Nazis... haven't you noticed the "tendency" (being kind) for people to attempt to associate "the right" with the "fascist right wing". It pops up here and there in the entry already, and a lot of the conversation in this area keeps pushing that assumption that the "right" and the "fascist" are close or cousins or related. Its simply not true, 180 degress out of phase, and its a smear. The origin of this began when Americans erroneously applied European political descriptions to American parties in the 1930s. At the time, the national socialists (who became the fascists) and the international socialts (who would've been slightly less fascist?) were fighting it out and the intls succeeded in painting the natls as "further right". Since the late 60s, the left in this country has succeeded in perpetuating this myth... to their own benefit.
I would think that any definition of conservatism would also have to dispel myths about what it is or isn't.
I liked those charts and various ways of describing the liberal/conservative relationship... and all of them recognize the spectrum (individual -> collective) I noted above... so I'm, not sure what the fuss about my comments are all about. I'm less "nuanced"?
What I'm saying, is the problem with these analysis is that they get clouded by too many variables. So why not start with one? Individuality. I'm willing to bet that someone could sit down and see the history of conservatism in America as a movement across that spectrum alone.
I am fully conscious of the switches that have taken place between conservatism and liberalism and democrats and republicans and libertarians in the past 100 years. ([check that poster link I added] http://www.historyshots.com/Parties2/index.cfm ) , I know you can't correlate anything more than a temporary relationship between the parties and the ideas, but that (in a way) is the point: despite all the shifting and morphing... this still remains a "bi-polar" process. There are two sides. There are most definitely two different kinds of thought competing for focus.
The goal, I would think, is to distill this down to its essence, a broadly drawn distinction... and start there. individual -> collective
The only reason I start with conservatism as the "home" of the individual, is that is because where the mantle currently resides. And since people NOW are looking at wikipedia to understand conservatism NOW, that's where we should start, no? This is all completely relativistic ultimately, and that's why there has to be a starting point somewhere. Certainly conservatism today resembles liberalism of the 1900s, etc.
Listen, I'm not a troll and am generally trying to help. I'm not gonna debate Nazi party policy. You can quibble on the details or the eventual implementation... the [Nazi Party platform] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program is largely leftist. And if the Nazis only were pro abortion for non-aryans does that make it better somehow? Does racism trump sexism or leftism? Does caring for animal rights makes paleo-conservatives make them leftist or facist? Yes, I think it does in some ways.
You only prove my point: you can't link any party or idea with fascism... yet the left continually attempts to link fascists and bush and nazis and republicans blah blah blah. All I've been trying to say is, "in the creation of this entry, can't we just please try to avoid that?" Can't we?
When we start to debate the people and the policies and the implementations, we lose sight of what went into the sausage maker in the first place.
If my views on this are "one dimensional", it's because I am attempting to define only one dimension of it in particular. Your views may be multi-dimensional, but to the point of ambivalence... and I suspect you're a bit of relativist; you like to dwell in the "grey" and resent people who do draw black and white distinctions. Apparently like me.
On my scale all of the totalitarian regimes belong on one side; because they all suppress freedom. Libertarianism is a slight notch above anarchy; almost complete freedom. Both conservatism and libertarianism emphasize the individual; (libertarians more so) but you want to separate them for some reason.
This process of creating an entry is a process of discernment and reason; it requires distinctions and assessments. It also requires discussion and thought. The very idea that "my one dimensional view" is not welcome here goes against the entire process of rational thought and open discussion that - presumably - should be going on here. The fear and supression of individual thought could be said to be a leftist/fascist trait.
That is completely fair, but you keep skirting around this realization I'm trying hatch in your head: state sponsored school prayer and supporting "gay conversions" is not individualistic. Then it's not conservative. Let that sink in. Do you see what I'm saying? You have been raised to believe a series of associations with conservatives that are contrary to reality. There are roughly equal numbers of religious people on either side. You have to toss out religion. You have to toss out rich vs poor, gay vs straight, black vs white, jesus vs the devil, patriot vs traitor. All of that has to go. That's social baggage and political hackery.
A better analogy? You keep getting drawn into discussions about why vanilla is sometimes with chocolate chips and sometimes with rocky road and even all by itself sometimes... so you keep redefining "vanilla". What I'm trying to do is get you to examine what the ice cream is.
Individaulism can also conflict with tradition and religion which conservatives embrace. And yes, support for the Civil right and feminists movements came mostly from the progessives not the traditionalists and mainstream anarchists have mostly been on the left.
What I'm saying is that was a period of time in history where the mantle of individualism rested with the liberals. Now, I don't think it does. I think the left has sacrificed its individual liberty to collective security. It passed to the conservatives after that point, but has become difracted through so many different "strains" that its almost unrecognizable. That whole period of time (1900-1935) has been fascinating to me lately. Permit me, if I may, to make a hypothesis:
You have a group of individualists called liberals who are always focused on the proper use of government... they focus on the bill of rights; what the government cannot ever do.
WWI happens, and the one thing it did was change the way we looked at our government. Prior to WWI, the government was trusted, and reasonably functional. Being a "G-Man" was a cool thing. (Now you have to be a G-Unit to get any respect). And during the conflict, in response to the crisis, we nationalized and socialized and the benevolent government did a good job.
But when it came time to dismantle the machine after the war, some of the liberals became "progressives" and they put their liberal idealism "into action". This is how we got all these public works projects, Roosevelt was president for 12 years, and we got grande new things like the income tax, prohibition, Federal Reserve, welfare, the american protection league, etc. All collectivist solutions. The progressives of the time were an American blend of Fabian Socialism.
There was a split in the 30s... liberals who didn't become progressive just kind of drifted; and America started to slide into collectivism. Hitler, Roosevelt and Moussolini were all very popular at the time for the same reasons: this idea that government shouldn't stay out of your life, but make it better. When WWII ended, these people were largely discredited (except roosevelt) and progressives ran for the hills.
Liberals came back into the spotlight again; the fight against communism made them coalesce and the mantle of individualism passed to them. When they became to enmeshed in business interests, it slid back to the liberals for a bit... but those weren't necessarily the democrats -- it was Al Gore's father who philibustered the civil rights act, after all.
Then, back in the 70s-80s, liberals began to drift into collectivism again, and that's why liberal became such a dirty word in the 90s... and very few self identify as such now. They usually use the term progressive. Back to the original big government solution provider.
This strain of individualism keeps switching sides and jumping parties through history, doing whatever it can to oppose collectivism.
It gets more complicated if you look at policy: The Social Security act was largely considered unconstitutional for its time, and Roosevelt had to reduce the size of the Supreme Court to get it passed. Truly a collective, top-down, 1930s government solution.
Fast forward 80 years... individualism has been vindicated -- the program is a leftover from a bygone era that is simply in tatters and proof that government solutions fail. It's corrupt, bloated, and probably going to crash hard one day and hurt a lot of people. But it has become such a part of the fabric of our country, that George Bush will attempt to "indvidualize it" with personal accounts... an individualist spin to a collective solution?
Conservatism is not about individualism; it just happens to be about that right now. If history were a bit different, we could easily be discussing opposite roles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitfl ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Section "Schools of Conservatism," sub-section of "Cultural conservatism," second paragraph reads as follows (with what appears to be non-neutral wording bolded):
"In the subset
social conservatism, the norms may also be moral. For example, in some cultures practices such as
homosexuality are considered "wrong". In other cultures women who expose their faces or limbs in public are considered "immoral", and conservatives in those cultures often support laws to prohibit such practices. Other conservatives take a more positive approach, supporting good samaritan laws, or laws requiring public charity, if their culture considers these acts moral."
My problem with regards to this is that this paragraph (in general, but especially the bolded words) conveys the point of view of a conservative. I'm all for re-working it somewhat (and additionally referencing it), but I would like hear what others think before continuing.
Master&Expert (
talk)
10:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
"Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including
fiscal conservatism,
wildlife conservation,
free market or
economic liberalism,
social conservatism,
[1]
bioconservatism and religious conservatism,Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). as well as support for a strong
military,
[2]
small government, and
states' rights."
Master&Expert (
talk)
19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. NPOV requires that Wikipedia report that conservatives believe what conservatives say they believe, not what liberals claim conservatives believe (and vice versa). What better evidence that modern American conservatives believe something than a statement by a major conservative support site. On the other hand, the claim that there is a major bioconservative movement is doubtful, and in my opinion should be eliminated.
If you do a rewrite about conservative beliefs, then you are going to have to be very careful to report what major conservative organizations and commentators actually say they believe. You are also going to have to take a historical perspective, and not focus too strongly on the passions of the hour. Conservatism started with Burke's "God, King, and Country" conservatism. In America, conservatives have supported a strong military, flag-waving patriotism, and the natural superiority of the White Man and Christian Civilization. As America became more industrial, conservatism became more and more a belief in the natural rights of the upper class, and of big business. As the upper class has done throughout history (read Livy), conservative leaders preached religion as an alternative to social progress, what labor leaders called "pie in the sky by and by" instead of wages and benefits in this world. From the time of the Civil War to the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, the conservative party in America was the Democratic party, which adopted the slogan "The White Man's Party". Democrat Woodrow Wilson invited the Ku Klux Klan to march in Washington. The shift of conservatives from the Democratic party to the Republican party began with FDR, who the upper class called "a traitor to his class" and "the Jew in the White House". By offering relief to Americans made homeless by the great depression, FDR alienated business interests, who shifted from the Democratic party to the Republican party, though in the "solid South" the branch of the Democrats known as Dixiecrats still upheld White Conservatism. By leading us to victory in World War II, Democrat FDR and Republican Dwight David Eisenhower helped to heal the breach between the two parties, and you will find few conservatives today who are openly racist, though of course they still don't admit Jews and Blacks to their country clubs, because "those people are happier with their own kind", so it would be incorrect to report racism as a major theme of modern conservatism. The main branches today are flag waving patriots (Obama is not anathema because he's Black, he's anathema because he doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel), conservative Christians (there is a ruling going through the Department of Health and Human Services right now that will allow employers to fire women who practice birth control), and big business Libertarians, who gave up on the Democratic party for supporting clean air, clean water, and other such "big government", anti free enterprise causes.
I've gone on longer than I intended. Whoever writes anything about politics needs to know all this. On the other hand, keep in mind that few modern conservatives have any sense of history at all. They think conservative means upholding Christian ideals, American ideals, and the integrity of the self-made man. How could anyone who wasn't evil oppose such obvious good?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to do anything except to set forth the facts. The situation is complex, and difficult to boil down to a clear and accurate statement. If you can do better, more power to you, but keep in mind that many before you have tried their best. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've started a personal sandbox that focuses on improvements to this article, which can be found here. Comments are of course welcome. Master&Expert ( talk) 09:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The entire section on Chinese Conservatism has been REMed out. Why? Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No, Chinese conservatism refers to increased nationalism on the part of the mainland Chinese. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:SeretseKhama.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 21:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit has this sentence in the lede: "It is difficult to define the term precisely because different established values and, in consequence, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals." If we remove the clause after the "and" it reads: "It is difficult to define the term precisely because different established values have differing goals." Values can't have goals. Please, please, stop editing so hastily. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Another example of the same problem. Originally, the article had a section on British Conservatism and then on European Conservatism. Somebody moved European ahead of British Conservatism, which makes perfectly good sense, but failed to notice that the European section begins: "In other parts of Europe..." which makes no sense now that it no longer follows the British section. Read what you edit, don't just cut and paste without reading! Rick Norwood ( talk) 17:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone inserted sections that have no references that would indicate they are part of conservative movement. It's ridiculous to claim that Chinese communism is actually part of conservative movement even though they have become a bit more positive toward free market. Please remove them. Valois bourbon ( talk) 23:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There have been dozens of very rapid edits in the past two days. What happens when people edit without reading is that bad edits, even vandalism, stay in the article. Please, before you edit this article, read the changes that have been made since your last edit, and fix those that need fixing, before you add another layer of changes.
I've been trying to repair some of the damage, but the section on Nationalism, for example, is a hodge podge of fragments left over from previous edits, and there's not much I could do to fix it. Also, I have not restored the section on China, because it needs is references.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
My request for careful editing has been ignored. For example, the first sentence now reads: "Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that believes in gradual change; they appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic."
"...political philosophies that believes..."
If you do not see the problem with that, please learn grammar before editing Wikipedia.
The section now titled "Ideological interaction and influence" is so badly written that I can't fix it. If you like it, fix it. If not, I will just delete it." Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I added a "dubious" tag to the lead sentence because it is opinionated, and because the only reference is Encyclopedia Britannica 2007, without any link, quote, page number or author name. The claim that conservatives all "appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic" is an innacurate generalization. Spylab ( talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I like your definition, Lycurgus. Can you reference it? If you can, we can use it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I took out the Abraham Lincoln quote. First, the reference attached to it seems to belong to the previous quote by Russel. But more importantly, Lincoln does not try to define conservativism, he uses the question as a rhetoric device to prove that the anti-slavery republicans are the real conservatives, while the so-called conservative slave holders are deviating from the wise ways of the founding fathers. It's a great speech, but its a not a serious definition. See the quote in context at [1]. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the lede has returned to stating categorically that conservatism means Libertarianism.
The lede also quotes one R. J. White. I like the quote, but the only R. J. White I can discover was a famous murderer.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Every day, Valois bourbon edits this and many other pages to reflect the dogmatic Libertarian POV. It would be fairly easy for the three of us, all of whom have mainstream views, to revert his edits. But we've been trying to work with Valois bourbon, keep some parts, fix other things that need fixing. He, on the other hand, has no hesitation reverting anything that disagrees with Libertarian dogma. Thus, when I come to these pages each morning -- and I'm sure there are other pages he edits that are not on my watchlist -- I find a mixture of good edits and bad. I don't want to revert the good edits. And so I try to read all of the dozens of changes that have happened overnight and then do a rewrite that keeps the good but cuts the Libertarian POV. After all, Libertarianism is, at best, a minor viewpoint, held by relatively few students of politics. But since Valois bourbon simply reverts everything, my work is wasted, and his POV is waiting for me every morning, essentially unchanged, or with a few additions, such as the Ronald Reagan quote. Now, Ronald Reagan is America's most beloved president, but he is not a scholar and his political views are not universally subscribed to. Any suggestions as to how we can end this seemingly endless reversion of any non-Libertarian material would be appreciated. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I made a brief comment on the NPOV page, but I've dealt with people with strong POV before, and all that is needed to keep them under control is a coordinated effort by those editors who want a serious encyclopedia article rather than propaganda. There is, after all, a scholarly consensus about liberalism and conservatism that can be found in, for example, the OED or the Britannica. The articles should reflect that. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we should not use another encyclopedia as a reference, but it is a starting point. As a reference, I suggest we turn to any respected text on World Political Science.
I am willing to work through the articles, and restore to them an encyclopedic tone. But I would much rather share the workload. Maybe Bobisbob2 would pick three articles, Skylab pick three articles, and I pick three from what's left. We stabilize the lede in those articles, being very careful not to let our frustration or our own point of view intrude. Then, we agree to revert any attempt to change the lede without first discussing the change in talk. That would at least get the situation under control for the time being. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we should work these problems out ourselves. Working through Wikipedia administrators is a long, arduous, time-consuming, and often frustrating process. I've tried it, and it is a court of last resort. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The current lede, as written by Skylab, expresses what most educated people understand by "conservative". He has also removed a lot of extraneous material that has no place in this article. I support what he has written, and strongly suggest that any changes be discussed here first. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is our current lede. I will not make any changes without discussing them here first.
Here are the changes I suggest. 1) Either remove the redlink R. J. White or someone write an article about him. 2) I find it easier to read if the quotes are indented. 3) The quote by Ronald Reagan rather breaks the flow, first because it is out of chronological order, second because it is a quote by a politician where the other two writers are scholars. I think it belongs further down in the article. 4) I think Burke should be mentioned in the lede.
Comments? Rick Norwood ( talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
In lieu of edit warring with Soxwon, I propose that the a sentence be added to the lede that explains that the origin of the word conservatism comes from the latin, conservare, which means to preserve or protect. Ejnogarb ( talk) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The article should separate different concepts with the word "conservative" in them.
Any objections? Valois bourbon ( talk) 12:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Conservatism by Jerry Z. Muller is an excellent book, and Merriam-Webster is a pretty good dictionary. I would welcome edits in the spirit of either. Please discuss edits here first. Rick Norwood ( talk) 22:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note that in supplying references, references should be to the original source.
For example, if you read in the daily paper that Joe Smith wrote a book saying that "food tastes good," you should reference the book, not the daily paper that reviewed the book.
I mention this because I've just had to change two references to articles about what somebody said in another source. In both cases, the original source was easy to find and reference.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
In the section on psychological research, a distinction should be made between research -- statistic studies published in refereed journals -- and popular books, which can, after all, say anything and support every point of view people are willing to pay money to read. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I know this has been brought up before, but with no citation and making incredibly strong accusations, is it right to keep the SDO bit? Soxwon ( talk) 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
What isn't cited? Sooner016 ( talk) 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the relevancy of this? It's an entire paragraph about Fox News, it really serves no purpose and would be better served on the Fox News controversies page. 72.201.222.236 ( talk) 06:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I would really love to use my individual power to improve Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia a lot and want to see it succeed. With that said, the psychological section that tries to prove conservatives are mentally deficient is completely inappropriate. Being a conservative has nothing to do with being scared of change or any other irrational fears or such. Being a conservative just means questioning whether new ideas are good, or if they have already been implemented and failed. It is not again resistance to change, but about creating a barrier against unnecessary change.
As it stands now I believe it defiles the page. If little things like this aren't going to be taken care of, I am fearful that Wikipedia will deteriorate in quality indefinitely. To rationalize this idea, let me suggest that a reader who comes across a political wikipedia page and is confused by the particulars of the partial information given, will simply turn to another, more trustworthy source. This will slowly happen until Wikipedia loses all credibility. Please help me prevent this and delete the ridiculous section. If you really think that it matters just make it a new page, but don't link it, because it has nothing to do with this.
PS. I know what the reply to this will consist of already, and so let me take the preemptive strike here and suggest a mental deficiency section under progressive liberalism. 71.204.61.136 ( talk) 23:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This link: "A Conservative, Independent, and Unitarian Communion of Saints" -- is to a website espousing some far right views and conspiracy theories. I propose it be deleted, but be prepared for it to pop up again.
Shouldn't the advisory about discussing things before making changes also appear at the top of the main article.
Ileanadu (
talk)
04:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The other links (except the one to the university article) are also fringe, and I will delete them too. The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the study by Lichter with this.
Fox News has been accused of having a conservative bias. (see: Criticism of Fox News Channel)
The article linked has the Lichter study as well as studies that contradict it. Putting the studies here will take the article of topic. This is not the place for a debate on the fairness or bias of FNC. 69.179.60.252 ( talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I am in full agreement that this section does not belong in the article on Conservatism. It fails Wikipedia's rules in several ways.
First, the studies cited border on Pseudoscience. Had the subject of these studies been "African-Americans" "Buddhists" "Arabic people" or "vegitarians" the outcry would be enormous and the researchers would have been pilloried and accused of racial or ethnic bias -- and justly so. Further, the value indexes inherent in the research demonstrate an underlying bias in the studies themselves. For instance, what is "closure" in this context? What does "death anxiety" have to do with political philosophy? If not pseudoscience, this is definately junk science. The terms and criteria are irrelevant to the subject, and clearly chosen to create the desired conclusion.
Second, the examples above also show that the section itself is an example of bias. This is nothing more than a not-to-subtle attempt to portray conservatives as mentally deranged individuals, and conservatism as the product of diseased minds. I would refer you to the subject of Lysenkoism. The fact that there is no corresponding Psychology of Liberalism, or for that matter, Psychology of ANY other political philosophy is a damning indictment. Reading through this entire debate, it appears that the consistant reversion, and indeed, accentuation of the negative aspects of this section are largely the work of one or two editor/admins, using solipsistic arguments and red herrings to justify their own Social Dominance within the context of Wikipedia. It is time for the nonsense to stop.
Third, the entire section is patronizing and patently offensive to conservatives. But hey, who cares about *those people* anyway? Substitute ANY other random group in the place of "conservatives" and ask if the section would be permitted.
Fourth, As a side issue, I feel that several sections display an inherent confusion between conservatism and the Republican party, and believe that they are in need of disambiguation. I freely confess my own bias in this matter -- I am a non-Republican, non-Libertarian conservative.
Full disclosure: I am the party secretary of the American Conservative Party, founded in 2008, with chapters in 8 states across the nation. I signed up specifically in order to open this debate in the accepted Wikipedial idiom. I look forward to this issue being resolved amicably through that process. The original of this message was eroneously posted under point #11 as I missed the request to bottom post.
Thank you, 204.235.227.134 ( talk) 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Rick, it has become terribly obvious that you are singlehandedly keeping this section of the article alive to perpetuate your own bias. It has been challenged again and again, yet you engage in solipsistic arguments and assumptions to justify rentention of the offensive text. You have yet to answer any of the charges made in favor of removal.
By your own biography, you have admitted zero expertise in the area of politics, government, psychology or any other area relating to your vociferous defense of these highly questionable "studies." You can't even accurately cite your reference, whereas a simple search of the Wikipedia itself shows that Watson's comments were attributed to him by others, and not directly a part of any formal study.
Whereas the very inclusion of the term "Right Wing Authoritarianism" in any purportedly scientific study begs the very question it claims to be researching and demonstrates an unscientific point of view on the part of the researcher, these "studies" are anything but.
Finally, the only other person I found supporting the inclusion this section in the entire thread above is a single poster who is a transparent apologist for Cuban human rights violations.
Given the above, and your months-long crusade to ensure the inclusion of this section on such weak grounds, I feel that there is no alternative but to ask for the intervention of a senior administrator on the grounds that you are not acting impartially within the scope of this article.
Crimsonsplat ( talk) 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Rudeness has no place in Wikipedia. No user should insult any other. Discussions should weigh objective evidence.
I agree that the psychological research section is too large. As for "balance", balance is a virtue in some cases, but is a flaw in science. Science should not (and is not) "balanced" between astrology and astronomy, for example. Astronomy is right, astrology is wrong. That's not balanced, but that is the finding of science. So, the psychological research section should be shorter, and only the most important and well-documented studies should be included. But we should not strive for "balance" by including a weak study that supports one side to balance a strong study that supports the other. What is, is. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me quote this critique of Altmeyer's question selection -- (quote) "In a recent Usenet thread, the question was raised of whether authoritarian personality types were more likely to be on the political right than on the political left. One contributor offered a link to a webbed book by Professor Robert Altmeyer which, the poster claimed, described scientific research that showed that the right was much more authoritarian than the left. I read the beginning of the book and concluded that it was indeed interesting--as an example of how to load the dice in order to get the results you want out of supposedly objective research.
The book starts off by defining "right wing authoritarian" (RWA) in a way which purports to be politically neutral; the author offers an implausible explanation of his entirely non-political reasons for labelling it "right wing." There follows the set of twenty questions (plus two that don't get scored) used to test subjects to see how RWA they are. On each question, the responder is supposed to express a view from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The grading is simple--on some questions you count as more authoritarian the more strongly you agree, on the rest you count as more authoritarian the more strongly you disagree.
What is almost immediately obvious if you read the questions is that they aren't testing for RWA as the author defines it but for a combination of that and right/left political views. When the question is of the form "people who campaigned for unpopular causes X, Y and Z were good," X, Y and Z just happen to be causes more popular on the left than on the right. When the question is of the form "We should follow authority X," X just happens to be a source of authority, such as the church, more popular on the right than on the left. No questions about people who campaigned for unpopular right wing causes or about deferring to sources of authority popular on the left.
Perhaps the worst question of all was:
6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly." (end quote)
In the commments comes this tidbit: (quote)And I'd like to know why the question on astrology affects the social scale: accepting astrology makes you less libertarian, somehow. (end quote)
The often irrelevant and loaded nature of such questions, and the inherent bias of such work renders them unsuitable for use; I note that all of his studies are published through his university, and none of them are in major peer-reviewed journals. This renders him unusuitable as an authority. Crimsonsplat ( talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The research was conducted in accordance with academic standards and any judgment on its validity should come from other peer-reviewed sources. It is different from a study from a think tank, which often is junk science. I would keep it. And to the contributor from the American Conservative Party - this information could actually help you in building up the party. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
My humble suggestion to people who dislike this section is that they talk to people who understand political psychology, get them to read the academic literature on the relationship between conservatism and beliefs, find out what studies have followed Altemeyer and whether he has altered his interpretations. Then amend the section to make it "fair and balanced", giving proper weight to studies as they have been accepted. The Altemeyer study is I believe considered important as the first major study linking conservatism (1981) to personality and is therefore important if for that reason only. (It should appear at the beginning of the section.) I am surprised that the opponents of this report appear to have not even bothered to click on the hyperlinks for the study or they would have found this: Right-wing authoritarianism#Criticism, showing at least reasoned criticism of Altemeyer. For those people who want to censor science without bothering to check scientific sources or knowing anything about the subject, let me ask this: Where do you think you would be on the Right-wing authoritarianism scale? The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
None of these studies were conducted in accordence with scientific rigor; they are inherently biased and that is why they did not appear in peer-review journals.
I also utterly fail to see where my POV is authoritarian and that of other editors violating the NPOV policy is not. The appearance of criticism in an obscure link does nothing to excuse the excess of the main article. Crimsonsplat ( talk) 14:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Self correction: Pratto and Sidanius were in a peer-reviewed journal. However, these are but TWO articles, 14 years ago, with no follow-up in journals of equal (or even close) reputation. Citing Wikipedia's own rules regarding this section:
Specific NPOV faults are as follows:
WIKIPEDIA #1: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses.
(I am not entirely certain of the regard in which the University of Manitoba is held, in the field of Psychology. Its Wikipedia article mentions a college of medicine, but nothing about pshychological research.)
WIKIPEDIA #2: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.
(Two peer-reivewed studies out of how many thousands? Altmeyer's work was published by a Canadian university of no note in his field, and hasn't been followed up in over twenty-five years? And the rest of the cites are two from less-reputable journals at the best, the remainder being a hodgepodge of magazine articles, internet pages, and even a press release cited as a source for "Research has also suggested that conservatives tend to be less flexible in their thinking than liberals.")
WIKIPEDIA #3: Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
("It is said that conservatives are more likely to stick to a position and have less tolerance for ambiguity as opposed to liberals who are more likely to think in gray areas." Combined with the above quote, the authors appear to be engaging in "mass effect" presentations, attempting to portray consensus where none exists.)
WIKIPEDIA #4 ...it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it.
(Let me repeat that: "verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it." That rather succinctly explodes the rationale for keeping any of this nonsense.) Crimsonsplat ( talk) 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
First note: The University of Manitoba's overall ranking does not imply that it's prestige in the field of psychology is equally high. Can you clarify this?
Second note: As for consulting textbooks and citing articles, no, that is your job. Given the nature of Wikipedia as I understand it, it is the job of the proponent to prove that the view is worthy of inclusion.
Third note: Even if it is, the matter is clearly presented in a biased fashion, including the use of weasel words, yet all past attempts to fix these problems appear to have been reverted.
Fourth: Altmeyer's theories are highly regarded... by whom? Cite please.
Fifth: "his research is cited extensively in most university textbooks on political psychology. Cite please. Supporters of this shoddy research continue to make assertations without cites, yet demand cites of others.
Sixth: references and journal articles -- a study this controversial and involving such a loaded term as "Right-Wing Authoritarianism," minority view or not, is going to incite comment. Your statement as worded implies that _all_ of the references support his work. Again, cite. You state there are no contradicting studies -- that is not itself conclusive. The key question in science is: has anyone else duplicated his results? (Preferably without such loaded and arbitary questions.) If his results cannot be duplicated, it is no more scientific than cold fusion, regardless of who pushes his viewpoint. (Clearly my dislike of ambiguity has been on display here.)
Throughout this debate, the burden of proof is being thrown at the challengers. This is incorrect. Given the controversial nature of the assertations by a mere half-dozen research psychologists (out of how many thousands?), the biased way the statements have been presented, and continuing objections to the content, the burden of proof is clearly on its proponents that it should remain -- especially without the dispute/controversy tag. Given that one of the cites for a rather inflammatory statement is an online copy of a media release (!), the proponents clearly felt pressure to meet such a burden.
Let's take the last assertation. "However, "conservatives" are less likely to see gray areas. For example, hey are more likely to support mandatory sentences and abolition of the insanity plea, less likely to pursue diplomatic options in foreign policy, and more likely to support fundamentalist interpretations of religion."
The problem is that the article is clearly written as if there's something _wrong_ with that. It's a circular argument that assumes itself: all the items cited by the study are conservative positions. Conservatives are likely to have conservative positions. What? Of course they are! Which raises the question of why anyone would bother with such a study, and in turn, that suggests that the point is being made for another reason, and the article is clearly written to follow that point.
A value judgement has been inserted. I disagree with that judgement, and so have the prior challengers. (However, any debate on _value_ would clearly get us into the realm of political disagreements, which are outside the scope of the dispute, not to mention Wikipedia. Which, I remind you, enshrines NPOV.)
Editors supporting the inclusion continue to support these texts/articles/studies as legitimate science -- so let's address it as a question in logic. If "conservative minds" are all *this,* it imples that liberal minds are the *opposite.* Indeed, that claim is briefly made...here. Not so much in the article on Liberalism, or anywhere else in Wikipedia.
I've already asked for cites that duplicate Altmeyer's research. But in the interests of balance, can you _or anyone else_ reading this discussion point me to a comparable body of work regarding the liberal mind -- as a question completely apart from whether anyone's bothered to include it in Wikipedia. If neither you, nor anyone else can point to an equivilent body of such work, then the research presented here (mostly as if it were _fact_) is itself highly suspect, and likely to be of fringe stature, regarless of other arguments here.
Finally, psychology and politics are separate subjects. They may be related, which is the underlying argument of Altmeyer, Pratto, et.al. (and at that basic of a level, I agree with them), but they are still very separate subjects. Politics might legitimately be a minor area under the Psychology subject, but it wouldn't be a major section; nor should Psychology be such a major section under any political subject. They are separate fields with only tangental involvement.
Even if supporting editors _are 100% correct_ about the studies, the entire section should be no more than a one or two sentence neutral reference to the SDO and RWA articles. There is little or no justification for an extended psychological discourse within a political article. NPOV: UNDUE
Therefore I repeat the call for removal of the section in question.
Crimsonsplat ( talk) 20:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
One thing I suggest is trimming or possibly removing the first paragraph, a fairly general commentary. It also seems that Pratto, Altemeyer, and the others highlight some of the same things (homosexuality, lack of gray areas etc.) perhaps these could be grouped? Soxwon ( talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If everyone agrees that at the very least, this section is too long, the paragraph beginning with "Scores on the RWA" could be removed, and those wishing to read more about RWA can follow the appropriate link. This paragraph seems too long when there's another page completely devoted to it. Ejnogarb ( talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the second para should be moved to first because it is the earliest research mentioned. Also, I think the wording could be re-phrased. It currently reads:
It would be more accurate to say:
The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion comment was that we need someone who has expertise in the area to ensure that Altemeyer's findings are correctly presented. If RWA types are excluded from the conservative population do the remaining conservatives score higher in the RWA scale than non-conservatives? Altemeyer found e.g. that Libertarian Party members scored average. The article also fails to mention how wealth, religion and ethnicity relate to conservaism. Historically conservative voters have tended to be wealthier, belong to mainstream churches in their area, and were under-represented by minorities. In Quebec for example, French Catholics historically voted conservative provincially but liberal federally, because the provincial conservative party was ultramontanist while the federal party was Protestant. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I still think that the information here duplicates the pages on SDO and RWA and should be replaced by links to those articles -- however they are in significant need of balancing themselves. The recent edits have restored a great deal of the missing neutrality, and I'm much happier with the current version. I want to thank everyone for their hard work and patience with my SDO and RWA traits. :) This has been quite the learning experience.
I remain deeply suspicious of Altmeyer's work, but will let the challenge go for now, as I don't have time to build a proper case for his being a biased flake (and it appears that, flake or not, he meets WP standards for notability). At a later time, when I'm not busy building a Conservative Party, I may solicit professional evaluation of the research as reqeusted by Four Deuces and Rick Norwood, but for now I don't have the time to do Wikipedia's standards justice.
Again, thank you all. Crimsonsplat ( talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
the search term Ultra-conservatism links here, but there is no mention of it in the article, I think this should be rectified, as some information on this topic should be at least somewhere on wikipedia.
Excellent edit, Spylab. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this sentence, in the Development of Western conservatism section: "Some conservatives are friendly toward the idea of nation..." I figured most or all conservatives are friendly toward the idea of nation, so I think the intended meaning is something else. Can anyone clarify the sentence? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"Some conservatives are friendly toward the idea of nation, such the liberal conservative New-Flemish Alliance, which has sought peaceful secession of Flanders from Belgium."
There doesn't seem to be a conservatism portal. Somebody should fix that. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
"According to Robert Altemeyer and other researchers, individuals who are politically conservative tend to rank high on right-wing authoritarianism, as measured by Altemeyer's RWA scale."
Now, regardless of whatever jib jab you'll throw at me you cannot deny that liberals, like Obama who voted 97% liberal, are the Democrat party that are for bigger government. Conservatives are for smaller gov't. I know Wikipedia doesn't straight up list stances for reasons but the stances of liberals are national (gov't) health care, against school vouchers (or in other words, for gov't monopolized education), and for wealth redistribution (this includes welfare for people "not well-off" ie smoking crack with my money). These stances create BIGGER gov't. Conservative stances mirror those, so no monopolized gov't health care, nor education, nor taking conservatives' voters' money and putting it in liberals' voters' pockets.
Question: How the something do you justify putting that conservatives are the ones typically for "authoritarianism" when it is actually the liberals who praise the nanny state (see: Obama's campaign promises)?
Answer: You can't. All you can do is pile a bunch of words strung into pure nothingness on the defiers. Want an example? Whichever editor replies to me to contradict me will mention nothing of the simple truth in my second paragraph, and will instead say things like "this research is cited" or something else to distract from the facts. This more of a call to action than a question. Please admit that the sentence is stupid, inappropriate, and, honestly, makes Wikipedia look like a shit encyclopedia. There I said it. I acknoewledge the rule to be civil, and this I'm being. There is nothing uncivil in pointing out the truth. Just because the prominent editors don't admit to it (most of them) doesn't mean the readers don't realize, even if not right away, that this is not where you get your information from. 71.204.61.136 ( talk) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The president proposes a federal budget, congress then votes on that budget. For six of the eight years Bush was president, he had a Republican congress to work with, and every year he was president, he proposed a budget with a big deficit.
Now, as to small government conservatives, as best I can tell a small government conservative is a conservative who is not in power. All conservative presidents talk about small government; none to date has kept that promise.
In any case, today such a large percentage of the US economy is fueled by federal spending that if we ever did elect a fiscal conservative to office, someone who would actually drastically cut the size of the federal budget, the entire economy go bankrupt. That's not libral nor is it conservative -- just pragmatic. People who talk about small government are talking about what never was and never will be. Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You can't dismiss liberal beliefs by saying just saying most liberals don't believe what all the liberals in power are doing. Since you are voting for them, it's only reasonable to believe that, although possibly on accident, you do believe in bigger gov't. Everything Obama wants to do when he says "I will [action]" translates into "The government will use your money to [action]." I mean that's the difference between the two parties. One wants the gov't to do everything. Look at any issue to prove this: welfare, health care, housing, lending, education, and anything else where the two choices are gov't vs private sector, liberals are for gov't. This includes Obama. Saying conservatives are for authoritarian gov't makes no sense. If anyone is then it's liberals.
No, it has nothing to do with capitalism. It is just human nature. People in power seldom act to reduce their own power. It has happened. In ancient Rome, Sulla did it. But I can't think of a case in the last two thousand years. There are probably a few, but it's rare. John Adams maybe? After all, when Tom Jefferson won the election, Adams could have had him shot, but instead he handed over power peacefully. But both of these examples are of people who gave up power and retired. I can't think of someone who had power and voluntarily limited his own power while still exercising it. Can you? Rick Norwood ( talk) 01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The connection is this. If we accept that "small government" is unlikely, then the government is either going to spend its money helping the rich or helping the poor. For the past eight years, the government primarily helped the rich, and now -- I forget the figures but you can look them up -- 90% of the wealth is in the hands of 10% of the people (roughly). Businesses are going bankrupt, because many of their customers are broke. This puts more people out of work, leading to a descending spiral. President Obama is spending money to help the working class. That means putting money in the hands of people who will go out and spend it, which means more customers for the businesses that are hurting, fewer bankruptcies, fewer people out of work. The only question is, will it be enough? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Both of you enough, this discussion ended in March. It's now June. Let's just let it drop, plz. Soxwon ( talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It's true that US and Japan have the highest taxes on corporations, and among the lowest taxes on individuals. Isn't it interesting that they also have the world's strongest economies. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted the final section of this article ie., "Psychological Research." In addition to its extremely questionable relevance, it struck me as highly non-NPOV, in that it consisted almost entirely of apparent attempts to label political conservatism as a sort of mental pathology. Perhaps someone might like to visit this article's History page, retrieve the text I just deleted, and use it in order to create a new article on that subject, but it frankly seems out of place here. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 19:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reversed your change which was made without discussion. If you look at the sections above in this discussion page, there has been detailed discussion of this topic. May I request that you read them and if you are in disagreement to present your arguments for discussion. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The section "Psychological Research" reports information about the subject of the article, published in reputable refereed journals. This does not violate NPOV, any more than it violates NPOV to report, in the William Jefferson Clinton article, that the president had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to report facts.
This is a subject that has come up time and again, in article after article. People who are uncomfortable with certain facts try to delete them, claiming that the facts support a certain point of view. Facts do that. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to try to balance information with misinformation. We can leave that to television. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It is hard for me to follow your reasoning.
Evidently, because the article psychoanalysis has a "criticism" section, and because that criticism section mentions that Popper considers psychoanalysis a "pseudoscience", to you suggests that Wikipedia says that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. No. Wikipedia says that Popper says that psychoanalysis is a psuedoscience. That's an important distinction.
Then you suggest that if the article has a few hundred carefully referenced words about conservative psychology, it follows that the article should have a few hundred thousand words by you about notable conservatives. That doesn't follow either.
As I said, it is hard for me to follow your reasoning. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The research attributes characteristics to conservatives based on statistical studies of a large number of subjects, studies published in peer reviewed journals. The studies are psychological in nature, not "psychoanalytical". Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The quote from Kenneth Minogue has again been inserted without discussion. I suggest its deletion because it is from a tertiary source (The Social Science Encyclopedia) (See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources). Also, it was not written by a psychologist and there is no reference to any research that led to these conclusions. While I am happy to see various points of view presented, they should be from peer-reviewed secondary sources. I also take issue with the assertion that conservatives "respect prejudice".
I also notice the name of the section has been changed to "Psychology" again without discussion. As Collect reminded me just weeks ago: "Change a heading only after careful consideration, because this will break section links to it within the same article and from other articles. If changing a heading, try to locate and fix broken links." ( Talk:Fascism#political spectrum heading) The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sort of split on this section. I would hope that our articles on ideologies are uniform and standardized. To that end, I can see how a conservative would feel slighted by a section discussing the psychological tendencies of conservatives when no corresponding section exists for similar articles. On the other hand, a liberal might feel perplexed about why this article has no criticism section and the article on liberalism does. Comparisons are generally dangerous on Wikipedia, however, and we should probably ignore them here. Does this section deserve to remain in this article on its own merits? I would argue no based on the following line of thought. The information contained in the section is well-cited and researched, but it is not appropriate material for an article such as this one. Articles on ideologies should focus significantly on political history, intellectual history, and various philosophical issues. Psychology should not constitute a major part of these articles, much less a whole section! My primary concerns are related to length. Good articles usually describe their subjects quickly and efficiently. We lose that efficiency when we focus so heavily on an important, but not decisive, issue. I don't mean to suggest that we banish psychological studies entirely, but they don't deserve their own section. UberCryxic ( talk) 02:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I favor shortening the section, but not deleting it entirely. The studies that are kept should be those that are specifically multinational. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Clearly some people around here do not understand NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. If you are creating an Encyclopedia with that concept, then your moderation of the articles cannot only be concerned with "does this viewpoint have footnotes that point to academic research, if so then it is fine regardless of any other considerations".
If you asked people for an example of a fiercely partisan topic, "conservative vs. liberal" would probably be at the top of the list. NPOV would have to be far more carefully balanced than we see here.
As a non-partisan Independent, and a strong advocate of Evolutionary Psychology, I was struck by the fact that "Conservatism" has an elaborate section called "Psychology" which implied that one could only be a conservative if you were descended from Neanderthals and abused in childhood. Yes, that is an exaggeration of the content, but that "Psychology" section is a clear "plant" by movement liberals to discredit conservative concepts as being due to emotional reactions, rather than rational and academic thought. In actuality, I have seen much more emphasis in political literature on the "psychology of liberals", with the idea of "liberal guilt" being used to explain the preponderance of liberalism amongst wealthy celebrities who have been the beneficiaries of lucky breaks. I am not proposing that any of the above concepts - of either side - are accurate, just that the Wikipedia presentation seems surprisingly slanted, especially given that the "criticism" section of Liberalism is astonishingly short, consisting of one obscure and difficult reference, which seems to be present simply so that someone can claim that "yes there is a criticism section". This is quite amazing, considering that biographies of minor pop stars or sports stars, whose lives have no impact on society other than entertaining people, have big Wikipedia stamps " THIS ARTICLE APPEARS TO BE SLANTED ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.239.113 ( talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
(removed) ( talk) 02:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I really don't want to insert the statement They have been supported in these claims by other studies back in, is there any other way to make use of these sources: [6] [7]? Are they really needed? Soxwon ( talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
My inclination was to leave it, since both Brooks and Schweizer have good academic credentials, and also because it seemed to add balance to the article. But I'll defer to Soxwon and The Four Deuces on this one. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion came up at the US Conservatism article. Brooks wrote two books explaining the motivation for charitable giving Gifts of Time and Money (2005) and Who Really Cares (2006), which used the same data to come to different conclusions. In the first book he uses a table that shows the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Malta are well ahead in first place in volunteering. [8](p. 5) In the second book, the same table is used but Canada, Australia, NZ and Malta are omitted, [9] so the US clearly leads the table, and concludes the European welfare state makes people less generous (my italics). No explanation why it does not have that effect in the three countries most similar to the US. So I would accept him as an expert but only for his academic work. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've become sensitized to the divergent uses of the words "liberal" and "conservative" in the popular press. Here is my latest observation. Time, June 8, 2009, "Four Myths About The Supreme Court".
"And Roberts has become more hard-edged and divisive as his views on issues of race and Executive power have repeatedly clashed with those of the court's liberal wing."
Roberts argued in favor of George Bush's "signing statements" which said, in effect, that the President of the United States is above the law. This view is certainly anti-liberal. But it is also anti-conservative. Where does that leave Roberts?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following:
Contemporary American conservatism traces its heritage back to Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke, who developed his views in response to the French Revolution. US President Abraham Lincoln wrote, that conservatism is "the adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried."
The first sentence from Russell Kirk represents a minority opinion. The quote from Lincoln is entirely out of context and implies that he considered himself a conservative.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Collect, I have not heard that theory and the links seem to just go to summaries. What exactly do these writers say?
You have to beware of accepting new theories as fact. Lots of people have written convincing books about who wrote Shakespeare's plays or the real identity of Jack the Ripper. So do you have any mainstream sources that identify Lincoln as a conservative?
The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) We need older opinions about Lincoln? (the cites given are absolutely mainstream and clear)
[13] Charnwood 1917 should suffice. Nicolay from 1890 quotes Lincoln, and is given above, so I am unsure how that can qualify as a "new theory" at all.
Collect (
talk)
18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
In this article (in contrast with Conservatism in the United States) we need to show in the subsection on the United States that US conservatism has some common roots with the use of the word in other countries, or else state flatly that in the US "conservative" has an entirely different meaning from the use of the word on other countries. In fact, as best I can tell, only Libertarians want to change the meaning of "conservative" to make it a synonym for "Libertarian" and what they call "Classical Liberal". In every respect but one, Libertarianism is a form of liberalism. The one common ground between Libertarians and Conservatives is that Libertarians loath taxes, and Conservatives are willing to cut taxes, at least for the very rich, even if it means going deep in debt. But the theory of taxation is, at its heart, neither Liberal nor Conservative, and theory is in any case moot, since proverbially nothing is more sure than taxes except death. If we get into "big government" vs. "small government", then we are going to have to rewrite this article every four years, saying that Conservatives always favor big government if the Republicans are in power and that Conservatives always favor small government if the Democrats are in power. In sort, instead of both sides trying to claim Abraham Lincoln for political gain, we should eschew the flood of political propaganda and stick to what the word really means, according to standard reference works. "Conservatism: disposition to keep to established ways: opposition to change." - The New Mirriam-Webster Dictionary. Lincoln was willing to be conservative if that would preserve the union. He was also willing to do away with established slavery, the biggest change in America since 1776, if that would preserve the union. One thing you can say with certainty: Lincoln was not in favor of State's Rights! Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind leaving off Burke, since he is covered in the lede, and certainly the Lincoln quote is pulled out of context, but you say, "American conservatism can trace its roots to the American Revolution" and then edit the subsection to begin with Ronald Reagan. There is a big gap there! Whether Kirk, Buckley, and Goldwater were right, or just Right, is moot -- they were important voices in the American Conservative movement and need to be mentioned. I'm happy if you want to write that paragraph -- and it doesn't need more than a few sentences -- but somebody has to. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This section of the article, as it stands, is nonsense. It contradicts itself. Is there really a difference between liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism, and if so are these two the most important "forms of conservatism"? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This section should be purged with extreme prejudice. It is based on ultra-Marxist concepts, such as that of Theodor Adorno (whom the section mentions) of the Frankfurt School - a radical organisation, which set out expilicity to subvert and level Western Civilisation. This movement does not come from a NPOV on the subject of this article. Opposing political theories are dressed up in this section, under terminology such as "study" in a subversive Freudian manner in an attempt to give them more "legitimacy". If we are going to have a section on Marxian opposition to Conservatism, lets make a real, out in the open section on it, instead of having it hidden behind very thinly veiled newspeak which levels ad hominem attacks. - Yorkshirian ( talk)
Judging from the archives, the majority of people seem to be against the inclusion of this section. It seems to be a very small but persistent group, who want to keep it in. Yet the issue keeps getting raised again and again. A list of users who have presented rationale opposed to its inclusion;
It only seems to have remained through shere persistance, though the issue keeps getting raised. Adornoite/Frankfurt School popaganda doesn't belong on a serious encyclopedia article covering the topic of general Conservatism. If anywhere it belongs in an article on conservatism in the United States, or on those theorists articles. Other than the fact that it is a violation of WP:NPOV, I can find no other example of a serious encyclopedia which includes such a section within its article. Nor am I convinced that this particular Marxist sophist movement is notable outside of North America and the United States inparticular after Adorno migrated there from Germany. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 06:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) Please see WP:RS#Scholarship:
All of these criteria have been met. Google Scholar for example returns 2,530 hits for "right-wing authoritarianism". [17]
The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll remove Adorno, but Rick, this was the accepted version and the studies match what was said. The way you tried to present it is extremely POV. Soxwon ( talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I've discovered several misquotes, incorrectly cited quotes, and even quotes out of context that attempt to make an article say exactly the opposite of what it really says. I'm still not certain about the quote below, however. I've followed the link, searched there, searched google scholar, searched The Journal of Social Psychology. None of them have yielded the quote given below. But it is cited so often in the conservative press, that I would like someone else to double check for me. Does this article exist?
< http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>. (end reference)
Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon: Let's take the citations one at a time.
Your version refers to "a study by Kathleen Maclay. There is no such study. Maclay is the author of a press release. The quote in that paragraph is by Glaser et. al., not by Maclay. The quote is also taken out of context. I've provided the context.
The Crowson citation fails to use the capitalization used in the title of the paper, and mangles the quote. I've provided the correct quote.
The Schneider paper confirms rather than refutes Crowson's claims. The appearence that he refuted Crowson's claim comes by taking a sentence fragment out of context. I've provided the entire sentence. Also, I've again corrected the format and capitalization in the citation.
The Kenneth Minogue citation quotes Jessica Kuper quoting Kenneth Minoque. It should be replaced with a citation from the original source.
The Sidanius study found that there is a correlation between racism and conervatism, mediated by social dominance orientation, and that the correlation increases with the educational level of the person studied. You have changed that finding by taking words and sentence fragments out of context. I have restored the context and again corrected the citation format.
I hope this detailed explanation is helpful.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Although it would be a serious mistake to assume that White's opposition to redistributive policies such as affirmative action are primarily driven by either racism or group dominance motives, assuming that racism and group dominance motives become less important as intellectual sophistication among Whites increases, would be equally mistaken. I thought that was what the text said, which is why I made it reflect that. I'm not sure why you keep saying that racism is the primary force when it clearly is not.
Please get authors, titles, and quotes right. For example, your version still claims that there is a "study" by Kathleen Maclay and fails to use correct capitalization in titles. Yes, I make mistakes, too. But they are not hasty mistakes, and I do not use the revert feature to restore a version that I know has mistakes in it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There are several problems with the two sentences below, from paragraph two. RWA is a personality trait, not a "conservative position", and therefore cannot be compared with "positions".
The first conclusion in the paper is that there is a correlation between RWA and conservatism, and also a correlation between cognitive regidity and conservatism. In other words, conservatives tend to believe what their leaders tell them, and are slow to change their minds. The second conclusion is that this correlation is not 100% (conservatism is not synonymous with RWA). In other words, not all conservatives are right-wing authoritarians. Which conservatives are less like to display RWA? Those who are less cognitively rigid. When they authors only looked at the correlation between RWA and conservatism among those subjects who scored low on tests of cognitive regidity, the correlation between RWA and conservatism was less.
As an example, this explains why, when Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, conservatives tended to believe him (a lot of liberals also believed him -- the correlation of RWA and conservatism is not 100%). Conservatives tend to believe what their leaders tell them. But then Bush admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. And yet, some conservatives continued to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This is an example of cognitive regidity, a disinclination to change your mind when presented with new evidence. Now, how about the conservatives who displayed less cognitive regidity, and accepted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction? These conservatives also showed less RWA. They were less apt to believe what their leaders told them.
The paragraph above is, of course, original research, and has no place in the article. I'm just trying to make the conclusion in the paper clearer by use of an example.
So, how can we best summerize the conclusions of the paper in a few words, without adding anything to those conclusions or leaving out anything important. I suggest the following:
I don't really think the quote is necessary, but I am willing to leave the quote in if anyone wants it there.
Comments?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Still sounds pseudoscience and newspeaky. George Bush's neocons come from Trotskyite roots and again, what the United States calls "conservatism" (outside of the likes of Buchanan) is absolutely nothing like in the rest of the world. The United States has no traditionalist culture or aristocratic heritage, while that is what conservatism is closely linked to in the rest of the world. Hardly representative. Wikipedia covers the entire world its not an insular US exclusive project.
1) not a single example has been given that shows it features in any other respected encyclopedia article on a general topic of conservatism. Making it WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and non notable. Just one example of it featuring in a Britannica or something along those lines please. You won't find it.
2) no evidence provided that this Marxist neckbeardry is relevent to anything outside of North America (there is a Conservatism in the United States article). Their pseudocentific, pseudoacademic mubojumbo seems to be specifically about attempting to subert what evangelicals regard as "their culture" and "their values" in the United States, through a process of critical theory and psychoanalysis. Manipulating words in an attempt to blacklist in an (ironically) authoritarian manner rival philosophies which they wish to eliminate. This is by definition Orwellian newspeak, in no way WP:NPOV and that is why it is in no serious encyclopedia covering a general article on conservatism.
- Yorkshirian ( talk) 06:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The report mentioned in the first sentence by Jost et al (2003) [20] provides a very good outline of all the psychological analyses like C-scale, RWA and SDO, explaining how the concepts were developed and tested, before they discuss their own research. This might be a good source for the entire section as it is recent and reliable. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The Conservatism sidebar has been broken for months now. Does anyone know how to fix it? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposed merger of Conservatism in North America into Conservatism. The article Conservatism in North America was created as an article that discussed conservatism both in the United States and in Canada. Several years ago following discussion it was decided to split the article and Conservatism in North America became a redirect page to Conservatism in the United States. However the old article has now been revived. There is no reason why conservatism should have separate articles for each continent and there is no common element for North American conservatism. Canadian conservatives are called Tories while most American conservatives are Republicans. There is no North American conservative association. I suggest that any worthwhile text be copied into articles about the respective countries and the page redirect to this article. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
R. J. White is quoted in the introduction. He edited an out-of-print book titled "The Conservative Tradition". Used copies are sold on amazon.com, but there are no reviews and I have not been able to find any information about him. It's a nice quote, but it would be good to identify the author. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Reginald James White was a professor who wrote a number of books on history and literature. [22] [23] The problem I see with the quote, besides the fact that a similar statement could be found from a more recent better known writer, is that it represents how conservatives see themselves and White was writing about conservatism in the UK c. 1950. I came across a brief but interesting article by Ron Dart who describes the difference between what he calls Tory conservatism and Republican conservatism. [24] The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If you can have a further reading section, what about a section for documentaries and other sources of information about the topic? Simsimian ( talk) 17:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has tagged this article for showing a US perspective. Could they please explain this and suggest any changes could address this perceived imbalance. The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is Iran the only Moslem country listed? Does the fact that the arch enemy of the Western Conservatives, the Moslems, the fact that they are also conservative, does that make dealing with Conservatism in moslem countries problematic? I mean, as an American, few conservatives that I know would like to dwell on the fact that the Taliban and Al Queda are fellow conservatives, and would not think to or be very motivated to include them in the article. (Then again, the fact that Iran IS included does stand as evidence against this theory.) (Then again again, the Iran section seems comparatively underdeveloped). Do you all see this as a problem? If so, how should it be dealt with? If not, why not? Chrisrus ( talk) 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(out) Some of the US allies ,likefor example Karzai are ex-Taliban. But the major ally in the US invasion was the
Northern Alliance, which was largely dominated by Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks. The insurgents are largely Pashtun or Baloch.
This map shows the division in Afghanistan between the side the US backs (white and green) and the insurgents (blue and yellow).
The Four Deuces (
talk)
23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
After reading the arguments (not evidence) regarding POV, I fail to see any good reason to maintain the neutrality tag up. In order for such tag to be put up, one must prove with more than just claims that their is bias or non-neutrality, so they are welcome to provide it. Briholt ( talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Yorkshirian has added a POV tag to the Psychology section and stated: Nobody has presented a single example of this been included in any other encyclopedia covering an article on conservatism yet. Until they do so then it is still POV and fringe. That is an invalid argument. There is nothing in WP:POV that mentions this criterion. If you have any valid reason to explain why it might be considered POV, then please explain them. In the meantime I am removing the tag because no reasons have been presented to include it. You may wish to read the literature referred to in the section and ensure that this has been presented in a neutral manner. The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As John Stewart observed, reality has a liberal bias. These papers were published in refereed journals. The results have been consistent, across many cultures. Yorkshirian offers no evidence to the contrary, turning instead to ad hominem attacks on the authors. Obviously an atheist can't be a good scientist! I do think it would be a good idea to add some secondary sources. Surely there are books on the subject. Rick Norwood ( talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There are two big problems with the "psychology" section as I see it:
1. Possible Confirmation Bias on the part of researchers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
2. Very small sample sizes. As I recall, the Prato study for example was of only a few dozen individuals. Maybe they just got an unusual sample, and if their measurements aren't terribly precise that could scatter the results to show conclusions that aren't statistically significant. I think we need a broader study in order to justify including the "psychology" section in the "conservatism" entry. 207.224.8.251 ( talk) 02:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of this article is to help people understand conservatism. You would limit that understanding to understanding what conservatives believe, and reject any discussion of why they believe what they do. Can you point to any Wikipedia guideline that says Wikipedia only includes the what and never the why? Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Greenberg et al do not in fact support the connection between conservatism and psychology. John J. Ray's views on this and other topics are fringe, and have gained no acceptance in the academic world. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone mentioned it is the doctrine of "white trash", while this may by and large be true; it has no place in an encyclopedic article and I removed it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.241.250.106 ( talk) 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
1) I have no idea what you're talking about. 2) It is easier for people to find your comments at the bottom of the page. 3) Sign comments with four tildes. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Additional response posted at the bottom...thanks for moving it there, Rick. RPuzo ( talk) 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Researchers have searched for psychological motivation for other ideologies, but the studies have yielded null results. That is, to date nobody has found a personality trait that has a strong correlation to a political belief other than the one reported here. If, in the future, such a correlation is discovered, it should and will be reported. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
People who discuss the relationship between conservatism and right-wing authoritarianism are not necessarily trying to attack conservatism. For example, Barry Goldwater expressed his concern about the right-wing authoritarians in his own party, and William F. Buckley, Jr.'s son quit his job at National Review because of that magazine's right-wing authoritarian stance. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, your theories are very interesting, as are mine and everyone else's on this topic. Now read this page, and maybe this one, and maybe this one as well. This WP article is about Conservatism (capital 'C'), the theories of Locke, Burke, and other philosophers, and as those philosophies exist today. The article is not about people who writers of certain psychology studies claim to be conservative. The articles cited in the 'Psycology' section are not about the political field of Conservatism (neither for nor against), but rather the supposed mental state of people the articles authors label as 'conservative', whom they attack and attach various negative labels to. It appears that the only reason this 'Psychology' section remains is to attack Conservatism, as it contains only negative talk about conservative people, and no discussion on Conservatism. The 'Psychology' section has no place in a WP article about Conservatism, and should be removed. RPuzo ( talk) 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1) NOR Papers published in refereed journals are not considered original research.
2) Reputable sources. Refereed journals are considered reputable sources.
3) Fringe Theories. Ideas published in refereed journals are not considered fringe.
The articles in question do not "attack" anybody. Facts are neutral, even if you don't like them.
I'm from the American South, and have a certain amount of pride in my region, but I would not expect an article on the American South to suppress the history of racist attitudes on the part of many Southerners just because it was "negative". Similarly, this article should not supress the authoritarian attitudes of many conservatives, just because it is "negative".
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The section in question is very highly cited and detailed. The content, in other words, is pretty solid and I don't have much desire to change it. The real problem seems to be an issue of encyclopedic judgment, not content, which makes this entire problem far more difficult to resolve. Although I believe the content is worthy, I don't think it's worthy enough to occupy an entire section in Wikipedia's flagship article on conservatism. There is something to be said about giving this particular topic undue weight. Conservatism is a complicated movement and mentality stretching back through the ages, and to give so much attention to what seems like a trivial point is mystifying. I propose that the section be removed and that some, not all, of its content be integrated into the rest of the article. I'll wait a few days to see what people think of my proposal, and if no one responds in time, I'll go ahead and make the necessary changes myself. UberCryxic ( talk) 17:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This section appears to be original research. There is no source that discusses conservatism in different countries that groups the different parties listed. I think this section should be deleted. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not follow Bobisbob2's reasoning. Conservatism in Saudi Arabia may be trivial to someone living in the US, but Wikipedia tries to be international, not Americentric. I'm going to restore those sections for now. They may, in fact, be trivial, but I would rather keep information about many nations until it can be combined into the comprehensive summary suggested by UberCryxix. If Wikipedia can have an entire article about the Klingon language, it can afford a paragraph about conservatism in Botswana.
On another subject, I think the two paragraphs combined by UberCryxix are on substantially different topics, and should remain separate.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I will not object to the removal of sections that both Bobisbob2 and The Four Deuces agree are off-topic. There is a big difference between being off-topic and being "trivial". Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"but classical liberals are less suspicious of big government than conservatives"
What kind of nonsense is that ?? Libertarians are not suspicious of big government? This website's a joke 201.212.90.185 ( talk) 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What? Your point makes no sense. Assume Good Faith, yes, but are you confusing Liberals and Libertarians? This page is a reference to conservatism as the right-leaning portions of the political spectrum, including Libertarianism, and to a more extreme extent, Fascism. In the same vein, the page on Liberalism is indicative of the left-leaning political spectrum, including Socialism and to a more extreme extent Communism.
Please read more into the goal of an article before you incorrectly complain about its contents. Pmo22 ( talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK... Whoever is writing all of this about less suspicion... just stop alright?... Liberals think that government should control everybody's lives and in that the entire nation to the point that nobody actually has an identity... can anybody see the connection to Communism... thought so. Mistinis ( talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Mistinis
Liberals DO NOT belive that the govermant should control everyone's lives. Liberalism has to do with extensive human rights and equality not to control everyones lives. (Some people are crazy) Hungaryboy1 ( talk) 00:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, actually that's your opinion of what liberals want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.128.191 ( talk) 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this from the article because whoever added it had misunderstood what Disraeli meant. To give the quote its context and why it has been misinterpreted, I'll give the peroration of the speech addressed to Sir Robert Peel:
"There is no doubt a difference in the right hon. gentleman's demeanour as leader of the Opposition and as Minister of the Crown. But that's the old story; you must not contrast too strongly the hours of courtship with the years of possession. 'Tis very true that the right hon. gentleman's conduct is different. I remember him making his protection speeches. They were the best speeches I ever heard. It was a great thing to hear the right hon. gentleman say: "I would rather be the leader of the gentlemen of England than possess the confidence of Sovereigns". That was a grand thing. We don't hear much of "the gentlemen of England" now. But what of that? They have the pleasures of memory—the charms of reminiscence. They were his first love, and, though he may not kneel to them now as in the hour of passion, still they can recall the past; and nothing is more useless or unwise than these scenes of crimination and reproach, for we know that in all these cases, when the beloved object has ceased to charm, it is in vain to appeal to the feelings. You know that this is true. Every man almost has gone through it. My hon. gentleman does what he can to keep them quiet; he sometimes takes refuge in arrogant silence, and sometimes he treats them with haughty frigidity; and if they knew anything of human nature they would take the hint and shut their mouths. But they won't. And what then happens? What happens under all such circumstances? The right hon. gentleman, being compelled to interfere, sends down his valet, who says in the genteelest manner: "We can have no whining here". And that, sir, is exactly the case of the great agricultural interest—that beauty which everybody wooed and one deluded. There is a fatality in such charms, and we now seem to approach the catastrophe of her career. Protection appears to be in about the same condition that Protestantism was in 1828. The country will draw its moral. For my part, if we are to have free trade, I, who honour genius, prefer that such measures should be proposed by the hon. member for Stockport than by one who through skilful Parliamentary manoeuvres has tampered with the generous confidence of a great people and a great party. For myself, I care not what may be the result. Dissolve, if you please, the Parliament you have betrayed. For me there remains this at least—the opportunity of expressing thus publicly my belief that a Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy". (Buckle & Monypenny, Life of Disraeli. Volume I (1928), pp. 718-19.)
Disraeli was saying that Peel, elected to uphold the Corn Laws but repealed them a few years later, had betrayed the people who elected him. It was not who "personally profit from the repeal of the corn laws". Disraeli would later be the head of a Conservative Government.-- Johnbull 03:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact, many MPs were voting their own financial interests. However, I have no objection to your formulation of the quote. Let's have it with your words to explain it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the observation of Disraeli, a major conservative, of the relationship between conservative ideology and self-interest is of major importance. It is one example of many. Since the article on patriotism mentions jingoism, I think the article on conservatism should at least mention the relationship between conservative government and the self-interest of the upper class, not only in England, but in many times and places.-- Rick Norwood, 14:17, December 16, 2007.
If I wanted to include that in the article, I would of course quote sources. What I suggested was including the quote with your own explanation of it. Since the quote is important enough to appear in Bartlett's, it is certainly important enough to appear in this article. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
For any historical quote, context is incredibly important. In this case, the context is very specific - Disraeli, a conservative, was condemning a particular conservative government for betraying the interests of the rich landed interests that had arrested it, and comparing it to a previous conservative government of a decade or so before which had done a similar thing to anti-catholic interests which had similarly supported it. The statement has little relevance to any general discussion of conservatism. As far as Bartlett's goes, it's purpose is close to the opposite of ours - its purpose is to strip quotes of their context and present them as general maxims. We should not be doing this. john k ( talk) 17:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I was correcting the punctuation and word order of the following quotation of G. K. Chesterton: "'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" In doing so I paid closer attention to the statement it's used to demonstrate, i.e. that some conservatives wish to "expose the hypocrisy of an existing regime." Although there are situations in which this is true, isn't it a patent characteristic of liberalism? The article's example is the Chesterton quotation. According to Wikipedia, his ideas "were far too nuanced to fit comfortably under the " liberal" or " conservative" banner." I believe this point is in need of elaboration and evidence. 66.251.27.98 ( talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Political Conservatism does not mean the favor of slow, gradual change. It means small or "conservative" government interference, where as liberal means much or liberal government interference. I don't know why this definition is spread around and regurgitated. This definition is often associted with the GOP in the U.S. It's simply not true. For instance, the GOP's favor of Second Amendment rights is a conservative political stance, but the GOP's pro-life stance is a liberal stance because it involves government interference. The Democratic Party favors the legalization of drugs, which is a conservative stance, but endorses the limiting of Second Amendment rights, which is a liberal stance. Libertarianism is the most conservative political ideology (except for, perhaps, anarchism) and fascism (and, hence totalitarinism) is the most liberal. Chenzo23 ( talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Chenzo23, you've gotten a couple of good answers, but since you ask for my thoughts on the subject: the word's "liberal" and "conservative" as they are bandied about in the current political debate are meaningless or, rather, just mean "my side" and "your side". On the other hand, if you read books written before, say, 1960, or serious scholarly books, you discover that the meaning of the words is much closer to the dictionary meaning. Liberals favor freedom, conservatives favor the status quo or the status quo ante.
The ideas that you have picked up, that liberals favor big government and conservatives favor small government, go back to the time when FDR was president. The class structure at that time was as strong as it has ever been in America. Both New York City and the state of California had police lines that only upper class people were allowed to cross. FDR was called, explicitly, "a traitor to his class". The wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few, who conspired to fix wages and prices, to bust unions and to use government power to restrict the rights of workers, people of color, and women. People in America were starving, living in "shanty towns", wandering from place to place looking for work. It was in this context that the government, under FDR, began to offer very limited help to ordinary Americans. He was called every dirty name in the book, including "Jew" and "communist".
It was never a question of "big government" vs. "small government". It was a question of big government helping the rich vs. big government helping the poor.
The political movement that actually favors small government is the libertarian movement. The Republican party in the United States wooed the libertarians, by promising small government, and by portraying the Democrats as in favor of big government. In fact, the federal government has grown in power under both parties, so that no American president in my lifetime has ever paid more than lip service to "small government" conservatism.
And political propaganda has done its best to destroy the meaning of words, in order to increase the power of government.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The link to Fiscal Conservatism basically argues that the way it is used here (i.e. limited taxes) is wrong. So which one is it, limited government involvement or balanced budget ? 63.241.31.130 ( talk) 00:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Johnbull and Chenzo you have it right... you would not believe some people... some actually think that Conservatism is anarchy... :P right?
The use of the word 'Conservatism' in British politics was firmly attached, originally, to the preservation of the link between the state and the Church of England: more specifically, the retention of laws preventing Catholic Succession. As this is fundamentally based on a belief that protestantism represents progress and independence, whereas Roman Catholiicism represents loss of national independence and regression, Britain's original Conservatives were therefore, in their own view, actually conservators of revolution/progress achieved, progressives opposing a certain type of conservatism, their use of the word therefore in some ways verging on the cryptic/ironic/colourful/'tongue-in-cheek.' No doubt the Party has attracted hordes of following, and even leading active members, totally ignorant of this original history and meaning, resulting in a deeply misleading and confusing state of affairs, historically, and in terms of fundamental character, but one which Wikipedia surely need not add to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.230 ( talk) 10:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
well the father of conservative thought, Edmund Burke wrote his seminol work railing against the revolution in france.
the Tory party has always been about preserving the status quo in Britain, be it Irish Home Rule, or the right of heredity peers to sit in the lords it has traditionally stood as an opponent of change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.61 ( talk) 09:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why a recent edit removed references to older conservatives. It is standard to use the word in discussing history, especially the history of Greece, Rome, and China. It seems that some people want to change the meaning of the word. This seems counterproductive. In every culture, there are people who support the old ways, the traditions, the old religion, and the importance of family. In all times and places, modern historians identify such people as conservatives. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What a strange response. I'm certainly aware of the Huguenots. I'm also aware that they were slaughtered, and that, as I said, France remained Catholic. You have not offered any evidence for your claim that "protestant reformation lead to French Revolution." And to suggest that, because I know what "Conservative Christians" mean when they so identify themselves, that makes me a radical fundamentalist is absurd. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The article has been edited so many times that I can no longer tell which parts I wrote and which parts other people wrote. I don't think I ever said that conservatism was a 'bias' or that conservative propaganda tries to 'lure' libertarians. That doesn't sound like me. But that is not important, the only important thing is that the article be correct.
One strand of conservatism, modern political conservatism, can be traced back to Burke and to reaction to the French Revolution. But the word is commonly used in other ways. If one reads history, one finds the word often applied to Cicero, Confucius, and many others who valued family and stability above individualism and freedom. Burke's ideas were not original with him -- few ideas can be traced to a single source.
Of course Martin Luther was not a conservative -- he was a revolutionary -- but the people who currently identify themselves as "conservative Christians" (not only in the US, but also in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia and many other places) consider themselves to be followers of Martin Luther. Thus the revolutionary ideas of one generation become the conservative ideas of later generations.
I tend to place a great value on the dictionary meaning of words -- standard dictionaries, especially the Oxford English Dictionary -- are the only defense against propagandists spinning words to mean anything they want them to mean. Without common meaning, communication becomes impossible. I don't have an OED handy, but Webster's Seventh New Collegiat Dictionary defines conservative as "1 a: an adherent or advocate of political conservatism b cap: a member or supporter of a conservative political party 2 a: one who adheres to traditional methods or views b: a cautious or discreet person." This article places its greatest emphasis on definition 1, but should also include definition 2. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You are correct -- I withdraw the view expressed in my final paragraph. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe it is inappropriate to trace conservative Christians back to Martin Luther. Martin Luther was not the progenitor of the entire protestant movement! In fact, Methodists would claim that John Wesley was a protestant before Martin Luther was, if I recall correctly.
The largest current Lutheran church in the United States, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), is not a part of the conservative christian movement in the United States, although other Lutheran churches in the United States, including the Missouri Synod, are. The ELCA is in fact considered one of America's more (politically) liberal churches.
The conservative Christian movement is more frequently identified with the Southern Baptist or Presbyterian churches in the United States than it is with the Lutheran church. It would be more appropriate to trace their history and theology back to John Calvin. 205.175.123.26 ( talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article focuses almost exclusively on social values. What about the economic values of conservatism?
Dont centre around America there is conservatism elsewhere in the world as well. Hungaryboy1 ( talk) 00:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is RWA and SDO discussed here? They don't seem like legitimate topics under this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.240.130 ( talk) 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Wherever this section is placed, I think there's something missing in this sentence:
"some groups"? "minority groups"? Because right now it seems like it's saying: "All groups are subordinated and of lesser status than others." Ileanadu ( talk) 03:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The entire section "psychological research" does not belong in this article, since the subjects of these studies were present day Americans, and this article is about conservatism as a general political philosophy. If the section belongs anywhere, it is in Conservatism in the United States. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that it does not belong. It's amazing to see that "impartial" Wikipedia considers conservatives to basically have psychological deficiencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 ( talk) 12:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Rick Norwood,
1) The psychological section contains the following sentence: “For instance, a meta-analysis by Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway in 2003 analyzed 88 studies, from 12 countries, with over 22,000 subjects, …” I understand the sentence to mean that conservatives from other countries have also been studied. How did you reach the conclusion that only Americans participated in all the studies?
2) You state, “…the subjects of these studies were present day Americans,…” How do you know the 88 studies only included “present day” research? Could some of the studies used in the meta-analysis come from decades ago?
3) What do you mean by the term “political philosophy”?
a. We are in agreement that this article is about conservatism as a political philosophy, as long as you are using the second meaning and understandings found in wikipedia. The second wikipedia meaning states that a political philosophy is “a general view, or specific ethic, belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy.” The fields of knowledge that studies world-views, beliefs, or attitudes are cultural studies, psychology, and sociology.
b. The first meaning for “political philosophy” in wikipedia states a, “Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority in a given system: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever.” If you meant this by the term “political philosophy,” then you believe that political philosophy died out in the late 1970s. The last conservative political philosophers were Friedrich Hayek and Leo Strauss. If this is your position then I have a question. How do you explain the changes in conservatism over the last 30 years?
4) Perhaps this article should change the word “political philosophy” to “ideology.” From my perspective, the word ideology describes this article better than political philosophy. Ideology would remove any confusion caused by difference in meaning between the older and newer usage of the term “political philosophy”.
5) Psychology has studied conservatism (and liberalism) for well over 100 years. In the United States, Wolfe wrote about the difference between conservatism, radicalism and the scientific method.(1) At this time, conservatism was associated with anti-science and anti-intellectualism.(2) After WWII, the study of the psychological factors that contribute to fascism began with the work of Theodor Adorno. Adorno developed the F-Scale that identified authoritarian personality characteristics, which subsequent scientists have confirmed, refined, expanded over the last 50 years, in many different countries. Adorno’s F-scale identified several characteristics linked to conservative cognition and behavior. Santo F. Camilleri applied factor analysis to the F-Scale in 1959. The Milgram experiment confirmed authoritarian submission in conservatives, and some liberals. In the 1960s, the term used in psychology to identify characteristics highlighted in the F-Scale changed to “authoritarian personality,” which gained popularity outside personality psychology. Diane Baumrind’s child development parenting styles identifies an “authoritarian” parenting-childrearing style. F-Scale also correlates with racism through of stereotyping. Moreover, Neurobiology has also identified differences in between how liberal and conservative brains work. Indeed, a recent neurocognitive study correlated between conservatism and liberalism, supported through brain imaging that “conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty.”
Daniel Oneofshibumi ( talk) 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sources:
1) Wolfe, A.B. (1923) Conservatism, Radicalism, and Scientific Method: An Essay on Social Attitudes. New York: Macmillan.
2) Hofstadter, R. (1966). Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (Paperback). New York: Vintage Books.
Your points are well taken. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
IF this section is appropriate for the Conservatism article, then why is there not a analogous section for the Liberalism article? - especially in light of Daniel's point (5) above (although citing half-century old articles would seem to be rather selective, given the changes in the "science" of psychology, the "intellectual" basis of conservatism (in the US), and the population of conservatives being studied). Surely there are illuminating psychological insights about those who hold to the views of Liberalism. Looked at across articles, the whole thing suggests selection bias and is very "Wiki-not" (intended as a horrible intellectual criticism which should evoke shame).
BD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.90.240 ( talk) 15:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I am in full agreement that this section does not belong in the article on Conservatism. It fails Wikipedia's rules in several ways.
First, the studies cited border on Pseudoscience. Had the subject of these studies been "African-Americans" "Buddhists" "Arabic people" or "vegitarians" the outcry would be enormous and the researchers would have been pilloried and accused of racial or ethnic bias -- and justly so. Further, the value indexes inherent in the research demonstrate an underlying bias in the studies themselves. For instance, what is "closure" in this context? What does "death anxiety" have to do with political philosophy? If not pseudoscience, this is definately junk science.
Second, the examples above also show that the section itself is an example of bias. This is nothing more than a not-to-subtle attempt to portray conservatives as mentally deranged individuals, and conservatism as the product of diseased minds. I would refer you to the subject of Lysenkoism. The fact that there is no corresponding Psychology of Liberalism, or for that matter, Psychology of ANY other political philosophy is a damning indictment.
Third, the entire section is patronizing and patently offensive to conservatives. But hey, who cares about *those people* anyway? Substitute ANY other random group in the place of "conservatives" and ask if the section would be permitted.
Fourth, As a side issue, I feel that several sections display an inherent confusion between conservatism and the Republican party, and believe that they are in need of disambiguation. I freely confess my own bias in this matter -- I am a non-Republican, non-Libertarian conservative.
Full disclosure: I am the party secretary of the American Conservative Party, founded in 2008, with chapters in 8 states across the nation. I signed up today in order to open this debate in the accepted Wikipedial idiom. I look forward to this issue being resolved amicably through that process.
Thank you, Crimsonsplat 204.235.227.134 ( talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC) (sorry, thought I was logged in, and had to add my username manually)
PRODUCTIVITY LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE
"Arthur Brooks and Peter Schweizer independently found evidence suggesting that American conservatives are, on average, substantially happier and more productive than American liberals"
This statement seemed to me quite important so I had a look on the references and it appears that on the wikipedia article on Arthur Brooks : "One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals."
Maybe my understanding of productivity is limited, but in my opinion if you earn more you product more. So one of these two articles should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Suffit ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
As an "American Liberal" and someone who majored in Social Psychology, I agree that the psychological research belongs in a separate section. These studies say as much about Liberals as it does about conservatives. Therefore, it should be in a separate article with links from the main articles. I found this discussion interesting, but I don't have any expertise in this area, so I can't say anything about its accuracy. Ileanadu ( talk) 03:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a cristism part on the liberalism page some one should make one for this page. Hungaryboy1 ( talk) 00:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the recent POV flag could have either of two meanings. It could be a claim that the way in which the research is reported is biased, that the research does not in fact make the claims made here. Or it could mean that the research is invalid because the researchers themselves were biased, even though what they said is accurately reported here. How to respond to the flag depends on which meaning is intended. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I cannot help but contrast the two comments above. First, 63.230.79.208 says "there's simply no way to know" but, discovering that Felicia Pratto is a woman, he concludes she is "someone with a prejudiced agenda". Would he be as quick to accuse a Black researcher writing on civil rights of having a "prejudiced agenda"? Also, he has moved from the reasonable "important to actually look at original studies" to a thought experiment about an "unverifiable study".
We need input from a sociologist, who has read the original article and confirm or deny the existence of follow up studies. Science consists of what is replicable. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving the discussion from the top of the page to the bottom.
There have been any number of follow-up studies, all confirming the original results. Here is a recent book on the subject, from a major university press, which has had good reviews. It is international in scope, and has a quite good discussion of the relationship between political conservatism and the patronage system. I'll add it to the references.
Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto
Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Studies like this can certainly be used to play "gotcha!". Most liberals I know (which means American liberals, because those are the ones I talk to) are baffled about how conservatives can still believe the things they believe (creationism, global warming is a hoax, Sadam Hussain masterminded 911, George Bush is a great president who cut government spending and decreased the power of the federal government, the war in Iraq fights terrorism and we are winning). Social Dom theories provide one explanation. But that has nothing at all to do with the question we should ask: is the theory correct?
For that, we need comments from a professional sociologist, who keeps up with the journals and with current research. In short, we need an expert. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is the key distinction as I understand it. If a belief is widely held, Scientology being a good example, then in the article on Scientology you report that belief in as neutral manner as possible, while making it clear that the article is about a belief, not a known fact. On the other hand, in the main article religion, you would not go into much detail about the beliefs of Scientologists.
The question, then, is whether Dom Theory is a mainstream belief, in which case it should be reported here, or a minor belief, in which case it should at most be mentioned here and reported in its own article. As best I can tell, only a professional sociologist can tell the difference. All I have to go by is that the most important book on the subject was published by a major university press and got good reviews. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Next go put all the "verfiable" and "notable" research from the Bell Curve on the African-American page while you're having fun with offensive statistics. 75.5.100.86 ( talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
To conservatives, you are very valuable as a fetus. They care most about you before you are actually born. From the moment you are born to the moment you turn 18, military and voting age, they don't give a damn about you. To think all those frozen embryos with all those life saving stem cells are going to waste. Why? Because conservatives have this notion in their minds that they might come back to life. Might as well send the National Guard to the grocery store's frozen section. "Stand back! The clam strips may come back to life any moment!"
Note to conservatives: GET THE FUCKING HELL OUT OF POLITICS. STOP STALLING PROGRESS AND DIE FOR YOU COUNTRY. I MEAN ACTUALLY DIE.
Wikipedia is not a forum
Cretog8 (
talk)
19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I find this entire task daunting. There is far too much POV for anything involving politics and religion. (which is probably why you're never supposed to bring them up in polite company.) Considering that conservatism is about ideas, you're faced with the task of quantifying and organizing ideas. Then others begin to consider "actions" and begin to contribute things they think are conservative simply because people they think are conservative have done them.
Might I suggest separating out the ideas? Start with the basic ideas; I saw a very good list in the talk archives:
Basic principles of conservativism:
* Personal responsibility * Everyone should be treated equally o No one should be discriminated against o No group should have higher rights or special privlidges in government programs, regulation, or judical proceedings * Laws should be enforced * Laws should be enforced equally * Personal freedom should be protected and enhanced * Citizens should be self sufficient except in cases of severe disability * Citizens should obey the law * have a strong military * Not help our enemy * Have limited government
Religious principles of conservativism:
* Moral values of Christanity should be followed
Then, the last item... stay away from connecting it to religion. As a conservative, I have found (I know, POV!) that connecting conservatism to christianity isn't something conservatives do, but it is something liberals do to define-down conservatives. Besides, statistically it doesn't hold up... you can go to the dkospedia (daily kos's reference manual) of all places, and see that christianity (and religion in general) is spread pretty evenly across the parties. Christianity is not a conservative phenomenon.
Fascism. Any connection between fascism and conservatism is not only false, but inflammatory. The use of "Fascist" to smear conservatives in general and the current President in particular is just that - a smear. Fascism in all it classic forms (Mussoulini, Hitler, Stalin) and its current forms (Chavez, Mugabe), has always been a stepchild of the left. Socialism and communism have all bred fascism. The Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. They were anti-smoking, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, nationalized health care, racial quotas, speech codes at universities, holistic medicine etc. Hitler was a strict vegetarian and Himmler was an animal rights activist. There was even an anti-department store movement going on at the time in Germany (think, anti-walmart) These are not people of the right; you would be perpetuating a myth to include references to fascism such as that.
I would also recommend removing those bizarre passages attempting to connect the conservative movement with racism. Trying to scientifically prove conservatives are racists is such a bizarre waste of time. Trying to assign such qualities (racist, bigot, homophobe) is not only a bigoted act itself, but is fundamentally unprovable and will always be in dispute. Why even go there?
And why remove libertarianism? I've always seen the spectrum of the right starting there. The most basic sweep of thought in this entire process is this: conservatives focus on individual identity; liberals focus on collective identity. It starts with fascism on the left and ends with libertarianism on the right. (And don't give me that poly-sci nonsense about the "circle connecting at both ends"; fascism and libertarianism are polar opposites.)
Thank you for your time. I hope I can help.
Wikitfl ( talk) 07:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Which is the problem with this subject: everyone not only will, but has to approach it from their own POV. The more I think about this project, the more impossible it seems. At first I thought stripping it down to simple ideas was the best course... but how to manage the progression through history when event hose ideas have changed? In particular; the whole period in the 20s-30s, when liberals and conservatives pretty much switched places? There's a company that sells an [amazing poster]
http://www.historyshots.com/Parties2/index.cfm... check it out if you get a chance. It actually may provide some kind of roadmap.
We have to start with the universal, no? It seems to me that this topic becomes incredibly complicated when you dwell too much in the specifics. Broad strokes at first, then work in the detail. The definition should start with the ideals, (as expressed through the rhetoric). This is what I meant when I said you can't get into the actions. If a "pure" conservative policy is expressed through an incompetent republican party that compromises and gives backroom deals to democrats in a corrupt government... how can one adequately relate policy/action to whether something is or isn't "conservative". It seems strange, but I think the only way to define either side (conservatism/liberalism) is by sticking to the pure thought and intentions; not the results. (Although that could certainly have its own section)
As for the Nazis... haven't you noticed the "tendency" (being kind) for people to attempt to associate "the right" with the "fascist right wing". It pops up here and there in the entry already, and a lot of the conversation in this area keeps pushing that assumption that the "right" and the "fascist" are close or cousins or related. Its simply not true, 180 degress out of phase, and its a smear. The origin of this began when Americans erroneously applied European political descriptions to American parties in the 1930s. At the time, the national socialists (who became the fascists) and the international socialts (who would've been slightly less fascist?) were fighting it out and the intls succeeded in painting the natls as "further right". Since the late 60s, the left in this country has succeeded in perpetuating this myth... to their own benefit.
I would think that any definition of conservatism would also have to dispel myths about what it is or isn't.
I liked those charts and various ways of describing the liberal/conservative relationship... and all of them recognize the spectrum (individual -> collective) I noted above... so I'm, not sure what the fuss about my comments are all about. I'm less "nuanced"?
What I'm saying, is the problem with these analysis is that they get clouded by too many variables. So why not start with one? Individuality. I'm willing to bet that someone could sit down and see the history of conservatism in America as a movement across that spectrum alone.
I am fully conscious of the switches that have taken place between conservatism and liberalism and democrats and republicans and libertarians in the past 100 years. ([check that poster link I added] http://www.historyshots.com/Parties2/index.cfm ) , I know you can't correlate anything more than a temporary relationship between the parties and the ideas, but that (in a way) is the point: despite all the shifting and morphing... this still remains a "bi-polar" process. There are two sides. There are most definitely two different kinds of thought competing for focus.
The goal, I would think, is to distill this down to its essence, a broadly drawn distinction... and start there. individual -> collective
The only reason I start with conservatism as the "home" of the individual, is that is because where the mantle currently resides. And since people NOW are looking at wikipedia to understand conservatism NOW, that's where we should start, no? This is all completely relativistic ultimately, and that's why there has to be a starting point somewhere. Certainly conservatism today resembles liberalism of the 1900s, etc.
Listen, I'm not a troll and am generally trying to help. I'm not gonna debate Nazi party policy. You can quibble on the details or the eventual implementation... the [Nazi Party platform] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program is largely leftist. And if the Nazis only were pro abortion for non-aryans does that make it better somehow? Does racism trump sexism or leftism? Does caring for animal rights makes paleo-conservatives make them leftist or facist? Yes, I think it does in some ways.
You only prove my point: you can't link any party or idea with fascism... yet the left continually attempts to link fascists and bush and nazis and republicans blah blah blah. All I've been trying to say is, "in the creation of this entry, can't we just please try to avoid that?" Can't we?
When we start to debate the people and the policies and the implementations, we lose sight of what went into the sausage maker in the first place.
If my views on this are "one dimensional", it's because I am attempting to define only one dimension of it in particular. Your views may be multi-dimensional, but to the point of ambivalence... and I suspect you're a bit of relativist; you like to dwell in the "grey" and resent people who do draw black and white distinctions. Apparently like me.
On my scale all of the totalitarian regimes belong on one side; because they all suppress freedom. Libertarianism is a slight notch above anarchy; almost complete freedom. Both conservatism and libertarianism emphasize the individual; (libertarians more so) but you want to separate them for some reason.
This process of creating an entry is a process of discernment and reason; it requires distinctions and assessments. It also requires discussion and thought. The very idea that "my one dimensional view" is not welcome here goes against the entire process of rational thought and open discussion that - presumably - should be going on here. The fear and supression of individual thought could be said to be a leftist/fascist trait.
That is completely fair, but you keep skirting around this realization I'm trying hatch in your head: state sponsored school prayer and supporting "gay conversions" is not individualistic. Then it's not conservative. Let that sink in. Do you see what I'm saying? You have been raised to believe a series of associations with conservatives that are contrary to reality. There are roughly equal numbers of religious people on either side. You have to toss out religion. You have to toss out rich vs poor, gay vs straight, black vs white, jesus vs the devil, patriot vs traitor. All of that has to go. That's social baggage and political hackery.
A better analogy? You keep getting drawn into discussions about why vanilla is sometimes with chocolate chips and sometimes with rocky road and even all by itself sometimes... so you keep redefining "vanilla". What I'm trying to do is get you to examine what the ice cream is.
Individaulism can also conflict with tradition and religion which conservatives embrace. And yes, support for the Civil right and feminists movements came mostly from the progessives not the traditionalists and mainstream anarchists have mostly been on the left.
What I'm saying is that was a period of time in history where the mantle of individualism rested with the liberals. Now, I don't think it does. I think the left has sacrificed its individual liberty to collective security. It passed to the conservatives after that point, but has become difracted through so many different "strains" that its almost unrecognizable. That whole period of time (1900-1935) has been fascinating to me lately. Permit me, if I may, to make a hypothesis:
You have a group of individualists called liberals who are always focused on the proper use of government... they focus on the bill of rights; what the government cannot ever do.
WWI happens, and the one thing it did was change the way we looked at our government. Prior to WWI, the government was trusted, and reasonably functional. Being a "G-Man" was a cool thing. (Now you have to be a G-Unit to get any respect). And during the conflict, in response to the crisis, we nationalized and socialized and the benevolent government did a good job.
But when it came time to dismantle the machine after the war, some of the liberals became "progressives" and they put their liberal idealism "into action". This is how we got all these public works projects, Roosevelt was president for 12 years, and we got grande new things like the income tax, prohibition, Federal Reserve, welfare, the american protection league, etc. All collectivist solutions. The progressives of the time were an American blend of Fabian Socialism.
There was a split in the 30s... liberals who didn't become progressive just kind of drifted; and America started to slide into collectivism. Hitler, Roosevelt and Moussolini were all very popular at the time for the same reasons: this idea that government shouldn't stay out of your life, but make it better. When WWII ended, these people were largely discredited (except roosevelt) and progressives ran for the hills.
Liberals came back into the spotlight again; the fight against communism made them coalesce and the mantle of individualism passed to them. When they became to enmeshed in business interests, it slid back to the liberals for a bit... but those weren't necessarily the democrats -- it was Al Gore's father who philibustered the civil rights act, after all.
Then, back in the 70s-80s, liberals began to drift into collectivism again, and that's why liberal became such a dirty word in the 90s... and very few self identify as such now. They usually use the term progressive. Back to the original big government solution provider.
This strain of individualism keeps switching sides and jumping parties through history, doing whatever it can to oppose collectivism.
It gets more complicated if you look at policy: The Social Security act was largely considered unconstitutional for its time, and Roosevelt had to reduce the size of the Supreme Court to get it passed. Truly a collective, top-down, 1930s government solution.
Fast forward 80 years... individualism has been vindicated -- the program is a leftover from a bygone era that is simply in tatters and proof that government solutions fail. It's corrupt, bloated, and probably going to crash hard one day and hurt a lot of people. But it has become such a part of the fabric of our country, that George Bush will attempt to "indvidualize it" with personal accounts... an individualist spin to a collective solution?
Conservatism is not about individualism; it just happens to be about that right now. If history were a bit different, we could easily be discussing opposite roles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitfl ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Section "Schools of Conservatism," sub-section of "Cultural conservatism," second paragraph reads as follows (with what appears to be non-neutral wording bolded):
"In the subset
social conservatism, the norms may also be moral. For example, in some cultures practices such as
homosexuality are considered "wrong". In other cultures women who expose their faces or limbs in public are considered "immoral", and conservatives in those cultures often support laws to prohibit such practices. Other conservatives take a more positive approach, supporting good samaritan laws, or laws requiring public charity, if their culture considers these acts moral."
My problem with regards to this is that this paragraph (in general, but especially the bolded words) conveys the point of view of a conservative. I'm all for re-working it somewhat (and additionally referencing it), but I would like hear what others think before continuing.
Master&Expert (
talk)
10:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
"Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including
fiscal conservatism,
wildlife conservation,
free market or
economic liberalism,
social conservatism,
[1]
bioconservatism and religious conservatism,Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). as well as support for a strong
military,
[2]
small government, and
states' rights."
Master&Expert (
talk)
19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. NPOV requires that Wikipedia report that conservatives believe what conservatives say they believe, not what liberals claim conservatives believe (and vice versa). What better evidence that modern American conservatives believe something than a statement by a major conservative support site. On the other hand, the claim that there is a major bioconservative movement is doubtful, and in my opinion should be eliminated.
If you do a rewrite about conservative beliefs, then you are going to have to be very careful to report what major conservative organizations and commentators actually say they believe. You are also going to have to take a historical perspective, and not focus too strongly on the passions of the hour. Conservatism started with Burke's "God, King, and Country" conservatism. In America, conservatives have supported a strong military, flag-waving patriotism, and the natural superiority of the White Man and Christian Civilization. As America became more industrial, conservatism became more and more a belief in the natural rights of the upper class, and of big business. As the upper class has done throughout history (read Livy), conservative leaders preached religion as an alternative to social progress, what labor leaders called "pie in the sky by and by" instead of wages and benefits in this world. From the time of the Civil War to the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, the conservative party in America was the Democratic party, which adopted the slogan "The White Man's Party". Democrat Woodrow Wilson invited the Ku Klux Klan to march in Washington. The shift of conservatives from the Democratic party to the Republican party began with FDR, who the upper class called "a traitor to his class" and "the Jew in the White House". By offering relief to Americans made homeless by the great depression, FDR alienated business interests, who shifted from the Democratic party to the Republican party, though in the "solid South" the branch of the Democrats known as Dixiecrats still upheld White Conservatism. By leading us to victory in World War II, Democrat FDR and Republican Dwight David Eisenhower helped to heal the breach between the two parties, and you will find few conservatives today who are openly racist, though of course they still don't admit Jews and Blacks to their country clubs, because "those people are happier with their own kind", so it would be incorrect to report racism as a major theme of modern conservatism. The main branches today are flag waving patriots (Obama is not anathema because he's Black, he's anathema because he doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel), conservative Christians (there is a ruling going through the Department of Health and Human Services right now that will allow employers to fire women who practice birth control), and big business Libertarians, who gave up on the Democratic party for supporting clean air, clean water, and other such "big government", anti free enterprise causes.
I've gone on longer than I intended. Whoever writes anything about politics needs to know all this. On the other hand, keep in mind that few modern conservatives have any sense of history at all. They think conservative means upholding Christian ideals, American ideals, and the integrity of the self-made man. How could anyone who wasn't evil oppose such obvious good?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to do anything except to set forth the facts. The situation is complex, and difficult to boil down to a clear and accurate statement. If you can do better, more power to you, but keep in mind that many before you have tried their best. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've started a personal sandbox that focuses on improvements to this article, which can be found here. Comments are of course welcome. Master&Expert ( talk) 09:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The entire section on Chinese Conservatism has been REMed out. Why? Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No, Chinese conservatism refers to increased nationalism on the part of the mainland Chinese. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:SeretseKhama.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 21:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit has this sentence in the lede: "It is difficult to define the term precisely because different established values and, in consequence, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals." If we remove the clause after the "and" it reads: "It is difficult to define the term precisely because different established values have differing goals." Values can't have goals. Please, please, stop editing so hastily. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Another example of the same problem. Originally, the article had a section on British Conservatism and then on European Conservatism. Somebody moved European ahead of British Conservatism, which makes perfectly good sense, but failed to notice that the European section begins: "In other parts of Europe..." which makes no sense now that it no longer follows the British section. Read what you edit, don't just cut and paste without reading! Rick Norwood ( talk) 17:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone inserted sections that have no references that would indicate they are part of conservative movement. It's ridiculous to claim that Chinese communism is actually part of conservative movement even though they have become a bit more positive toward free market. Please remove them. Valois bourbon ( talk) 23:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There have been dozens of very rapid edits in the past two days. What happens when people edit without reading is that bad edits, even vandalism, stay in the article. Please, before you edit this article, read the changes that have been made since your last edit, and fix those that need fixing, before you add another layer of changes.
I've been trying to repair some of the damage, but the section on Nationalism, for example, is a hodge podge of fragments left over from previous edits, and there's not much I could do to fix it. Also, I have not restored the section on China, because it needs is references.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
My request for careful editing has been ignored. For example, the first sentence now reads: "Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that believes in gradual change; they appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic."
"...political philosophies that believes..."
If you do not see the problem with that, please learn grammar before editing Wikipedia.
The section now titled "Ideological interaction and influence" is so badly written that I can't fix it. If you like it, fix it. If not, I will just delete it." Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I added a "dubious" tag to the lead sentence because it is opinionated, and because the only reference is Encyclopedia Britannica 2007, without any link, quote, page number or author name. The claim that conservatives all "appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic" is an innacurate generalization. Spylab ( talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I like your definition, Lycurgus. Can you reference it? If you can, we can use it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I took out the Abraham Lincoln quote. First, the reference attached to it seems to belong to the previous quote by Russel. But more importantly, Lincoln does not try to define conservativism, he uses the question as a rhetoric device to prove that the anti-slavery republicans are the real conservatives, while the so-called conservative slave holders are deviating from the wise ways of the founding fathers. It's a great speech, but its a not a serious definition. See the quote in context at [1]. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the lede has returned to stating categorically that conservatism means Libertarianism.
The lede also quotes one R. J. White. I like the quote, but the only R. J. White I can discover was a famous murderer.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Every day, Valois bourbon edits this and many other pages to reflect the dogmatic Libertarian POV. It would be fairly easy for the three of us, all of whom have mainstream views, to revert his edits. But we've been trying to work with Valois bourbon, keep some parts, fix other things that need fixing. He, on the other hand, has no hesitation reverting anything that disagrees with Libertarian dogma. Thus, when I come to these pages each morning -- and I'm sure there are other pages he edits that are not on my watchlist -- I find a mixture of good edits and bad. I don't want to revert the good edits. And so I try to read all of the dozens of changes that have happened overnight and then do a rewrite that keeps the good but cuts the Libertarian POV. After all, Libertarianism is, at best, a minor viewpoint, held by relatively few students of politics. But since Valois bourbon simply reverts everything, my work is wasted, and his POV is waiting for me every morning, essentially unchanged, or with a few additions, such as the Ronald Reagan quote. Now, Ronald Reagan is America's most beloved president, but he is not a scholar and his political views are not universally subscribed to. Any suggestions as to how we can end this seemingly endless reversion of any non-Libertarian material would be appreciated. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I made a brief comment on the NPOV page, but I've dealt with people with strong POV before, and all that is needed to keep them under control is a coordinated effort by those editors who want a serious encyclopedia article rather than propaganda. There is, after all, a scholarly consensus about liberalism and conservatism that can be found in, for example, the OED or the Britannica. The articles should reflect that. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we should not use another encyclopedia as a reference, but it is a starting point. As a reference, I suggest we turn to any respected text on World Political Science.
I am willing to work through the articles, and restore to them an encyclopedic tone. But I would much rather share the workload. Maybe Bobisbob2 would pick three articles, Skylab pick three articles, and I pick three from what's left. We stabilize the lede in those articles, being very careful not to let our frustration or our own point of view intrude. Then, we agree to revert any attempt to change the lede without first discussing the change in talk. That would at least get the situation under control for the time being. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we should work these problems out ourselves. Working through Wikipedia administrators is a long, arduous, time-consuming, and often frustrating process. I've tried it, and it is a court of last resort. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The current lede, as written by Skylab, expresses what most educated people understand by "conservative". He has also removed a lot of extraneous material that has no place in this article. I support what he has written, and strongly suggest that any changes be discussed here first. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is our current lede. I will not make any changes without discussing them here first.
Here are the changes I suggest. 1) Either remove the redlink R. J. White or someone write an article about him. 2) I find it easier to read if the quotes are indented. 3) The quote by Ronald Reagan rather breaks the flow, first because it is out of chronological order, second because it is a quote by a politician where the other two writers are scholars. I think it belongs further down in the article. 4) I think Burke should be mentioned in the lede.
Comments? Rick Norwood ( talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
In lieu of edit warring with Soxwon, I propose that the a sentence be added to the lede that explains that the origin of the word conservatism comes from the latin, conservare, which means to preserve or protect. Ejnogarb ( talk) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The article should separate different concepts with the word "conservative" in them.
Any objections? Valois bourbon ( talk) 12:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Conservatism by Jerry Z. Muller is an excellent book, and Merriam-Webster is a pretty good dictionary. I would welcome edits in the spirit of either. Please discuss edits here first. Rick Norwood ( talk) 22:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note that in supplying references, references should be to the original source.
For example, if you read in the daily paper that Joe Smith wrote a book saying that "food tastes good," you should reference the book, not the daily paper that reviewed the book.
I mention this because I've just had to change two references to articles about what somebody said in another source. In both cases, the original source was easy to find and reference.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
In the section on psychological research, a distinction should be made between research -- statistic studies published in refereed journals -- and popular books, which can, after all, say anything and support every point of view people are willing to pay money to read. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I know this has been brought up before, but with no citation and making incredibly strong accusations, is it right to keep the SDO bit? Soxwon ( talk) 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
What isn't cited? Sooner016 ( talk) 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the relevancy of this? It's an entire paragraph about Fox News, it really serves no purpose and would be better served on the Fox News controversies page. 72.201.222.236 ( talk) 06:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I would really love to use my individual power to improve Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia a lot and want to see it succeed. With that said, the psychological section that tries to prove conservatives are mentally deficient is completely inappropriate. Being a conservative has nothing to do with being scared of change or any other irrational fears or such. Being a conservative just means questioning whether new ideas are good, or if they have already been implemented and failed. It is not again resistance to change, but about creating a barrier against unnecessary change.
As it stands now I believe it defiles the page. If little things like this aren't going to be taken care of, I am fearful that Wikipedia will deteriorate in quality indefinitely. To rationalize this idea, let me suggest that a reader who comes across a political wikipedia page and is confused by the particulars of the partial information given, will simply turn to another, more trustworthy source. This will slowly happen until Wikipedia loses all credibility. Please help me prevent this and delete the ridiculous section. If you really think that it matters just make it a new page, but don't link it, because it has nothing to do with this.
PS. I know what the reply to this will consist of already, and so let me take the preemptive strike here and suggest a mental deficiency section under progressive liberalism. 71.204.61.136 ( talk) 23:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This link: "A Conservative, Independent, and Unitarian Communion of Saints" -- is to a website espousing some far right views and conspiracy theories. I propose it be deleted, but be prepared for it to pop up again.
Shouldn't the advisory about discussing things before making changes also appear at the top of the main article.
Ileanadu (
talk)
04:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The other links (except the one to the university article) are also fringe, and I will delete them too. The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the study by Lichter with this.
Fox News has been accused of having a conservative bias. (see: Criticism of Fox News Channel)
The article linked has the Lichter study as well as studies that contradict it. Putting the studies here will take the article of topic. This is not the place for a debate on the fairness or bias of FNC. 69.179.60.252 ( talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I am in full agreement that this section does not belong in the article on Conservatism. It fails Wikipedia's rules in several ways.
First, the studies cited border on Pseudoscience. Had the subject of these studies been "African-Americans" "Buddhists" "Arabic people" or "vegitarians" the outcry would be enormous and the researchers would have been pilloried and accused of racial or ethnic bias -- and justly so. Further, the value indexes inherent in the research demonstrate an underlying bias in the studies themselves. For instance, what is "closure" in this context? What does "death anxiety" have to do with political philosophy? If not pseudoscience, this is definately junk science. The terms and criteria are irrelevant to the subject, and clearly chosen to create the desired conclusion.
Second, the examples above also show that the section itself is an example of bias. This is nothing more than a not-to-subtle attempt to portray conservatives as mentally deranged individuals, and conservatism as the product of diseased minds. I would refer you to the subject of Lysenkoism. The fact that there is no corresponding Psychology of Liberalism, or for that matter, Psychology of ANY other political philosophy is a damning indictment. Reading through this entire debate, it appears that the consistant reversion, and indeed, accentuation of the negative aspects of this section are largely the work of one or two editor/admins, using solipsistic arguments and red herrings to justify their own Social Dominance within the context of Wikipedia. It is time for the nonsense to stop.
Third, the entire section is patronizing and patently offensive to conservatives. But hey, who cares about *those people* anyway? Substitute ANY other random group in the place of "conservatives" and ask if the section would be permitted.
Fourth, As a side issue, I feel that several sections display an inherent confusion between conservatism and the Republican party, and believe that they are in need of disambiguation. I freely confess my own bias in this matter -- I am a non-Republican, non-Libertarian conservative.
Full disclosure: I am the party secretary of the American Conservative Party, founded in 2008, with chapters in 8 states across the nation. I signed up specifically in order to open this debate in the accepted Wikipedial idiom. I look forward to this issue being resolved amicably through that process. The original of this message was eroneously posted under point #11 as I missed the request to bottom post.
Thank you, 204.235.227.134 ( talk) 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Rick, it has become terribly obvious that you are singlehandedly keeping this section of the article alive to perpetuate your own bias. It has been challenged again and again, yet you engage in solipsistic arguments and assumptions to justify rentention of the offensive text. You have yet to answer any of the charges made in favor of removal.
By your own biography, you have admitted zero expertise in the area of politics, government, psychology or any other area relating to your vociferous defense of these highly questionable "studies." You can't even accurately cite your reference, whereas a simple search of the Wikipedia itself shows that Watson's comments were attributed to him by others, and not directly a part of any formal study.
Whereas the very inclusion of the term "Right Wing Authoritarianism" in any purportedly scientific study begs the very question it claims to be researching and demonstrates an unscientific point of view on the part of the researcher, these "studies" are anything but.
Finally, the only other person I found supporting the inclusion this section in the entire thread above is a single poster who is a transparent apologist for Cuban human rights violations.
Given the above, and your months-long crusade to ensure the inclusion of this section on such weak grounds, I feel that there is no alternative but to ask for the intervention of a senior administrator on the grounds that you are not acting impartially within the scope of this article.
Crimsonsplat ( talk) 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Rudeness has no place in Wikipedia. No user should insult any other. Discussions should weigh objective evidence.
I agree that the psychological research section is too large. As for "balance", balance is a virtue in some cases, but is a flaw in science. Science should not (and is not) "balanced" between astrology and astronomy, for example. Astronomy is right, astrology is wrong. That's not balanced, but that is the finding of science. So, the psychological research section should be shorter, and only the most important and well-documented studies should be included. But we should not strive for "balance" by including a weak study that supports one side to balance a strong study that supports the other. What is, is. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me quote this critique of Altmeyer's question selection -- (quote) "In a recent Usenet thread, the question was raised of whether authoritarian personality types were more likely to be on the political right than on the political left. One contributor offered a link to a webbed book by Professor Robert Altmeyer which, the poster claimed, described scientific research that showed that the right was much more authoritarian than the left. I read the beginning of the book and concluded that it was indeed interesting--as an example of how to load the dice in order to get the results you want out of supposedly objective research.
The book starts off by defining "right wing authoritarian" (RWA) in a way which purports to be politically neutral; the author offers an implausible explanation of his entirely non-political reasons for labelling it "right wing." There follows the set of twenty questions (plus two that don't get scored) used to test subjects to see how RWA they are. On each question, the responder is supposed to express a view from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The grading is simple--on some questions you count as more authoritarian the more strongly you agree, on the rest you count as more authoritarian the more strongly you disagree.
What is almost immediately obvious if you read the questions is that they aren't testing for RWA as the author defines it but for a combination of that and right/left political views. When the question is of the form "people who campaigned for unpopular causes X, Y and Z were good," X, Y and Z just happen to be causes more popular on the left than on the right. When the question is of the form "We should follow authority X," X just happens to be a source of authority, such as the church, more popular on the right than on the left. No questions about people who campaigned for unpopular right wing causes or about deferring to sources of authority popular on the left.
Perhaps the worst question of all was:
6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly." (end quote)
In the commments comes this tidbit: (quote)And I'd like to know why the question on astrology affects the social scale: accepting astrology makes you less libertarian, somehow. (end quote)
The often irrelevant and loaded nature of such questions, and the inherent bias of such work renders them unsuitable for use; I note that all of his studies are published through his university, and none of them are in major peer-reviewed journals. This renders him unusuitable as an authority. Crimsonsplat ( talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The research was conducted in accordance with academic standards and any judgment on its validity should come from other peer-reviewed sources. It is different from a study from a think tank, which often is junk science. I would keep it. And to the contributor from the American Conservative Party - this information could actually help you in building up the party. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
My humble suggestion to people who dislike this section is that they talk to people who understand political psychology, get them to read the academic literature on the relationship between conservatism and beliefs, find out what studies have followed Altemeyer and whether he has altered his interpretations. Then amend the section to make it "fair and balanced", giving proper weight to studies as they have been accepted. The Altemeyer study is I believe considered important as the first major study linking conservatism (1981) to personality and is therefore important if for that reason only. (It should appear at the beginning of the section.) I am surprised that the opponents of this report appear to have not even bothered to click on the hyperlinks for the study or they would have found this: Right-wing authoritarianism#Criticism, showing at least reasoned criticism of Altemeyer. For those people who want to censor science without bothering to check scientific sources or knowing anything about the subject, let me ask this: Where do you think you would be on the Right-wing authoritarianism scale? The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
None of these studies were conducted in accordence with scientific rigor; they are inherently biased and that is why they did not appear in peer-review journals.
I also utterly fail to see where my POV is authoritarian and that of other editors violating the NPOV policy is not. The appearance of criticism in an obscure link does nothing to excuse the excess of the main article. Crimsonsplat ( talk) 14:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Self correction: Pratto and Sidanius were in a peer-reviewed journal. However, these are but TWO articles, 14 years ago, with no follow-up in journals of equal (or even close) reputation. Citing Wikipedia's own rules regarding this section:
Specific NPOV faults are as follows:
WIKIPEDIA #1: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses.
(I am not entirely certain of the regard in which the University of Manitoba is held, in the field of Psychology. Its Wikipedia article mentions a college of medicine, but nothing about pshychological research.)
WIKIPEDIA #2: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.
(Two peer-reivewed studies out of how many thousands? Altmeyer's work was published by a Canadian university of no note in his field, and hasn't been followed up in over twenty-five years? And the rest of the cites are two from less-reputable journals at the best, the remainder being a hodgepodge of magazine articles, internet pages, and even a press release cited as a source for "Research has also suggested that conservatives tend to be less flexible in their thinking than liberals.")
WIKIPEDIA #3: Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
("It is said that conservatives are more likely to stick to a position and have less tolerance for ambiguity as opposed to liberals who are more likely to think in gray areas." Combined with the above quote, the authors appear to be engaging in "mass effect" presentations, attempting to portray consensus where none exists.)
WIKIPEDIA #4 ...it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it.
(Let me repeat that: "verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it." That rather succinctly explodes the rationale for keeping any of this nonsense.) Crimsonsplat ( talk) 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
First note: The University of Manitoba's overall ranking does not imply that it's prestige in the field of psychology is equally high. Can you clarify this?
Second note: As for consulting textbooks and citing articles, no, that is your job. Given the nature of Wikipedia as I understand it, it is the job of the proponent to prove that the view is worthy of inclusion.
Third note: Even if it is, the matter is clearly presented in a biased fashion, including the use of weasel words, yet all past attempts to fix these problems appear to have been reverted.
Fourth: Altmeyer's theories are highly regarded... by whom? Cite please.
Fifth: "his research is cited extensively in most university textbooks on political psychology. Cite please. Supporters of this shoddy research continue to make assertations without cites, yet demand cites of others.
Sixth: references and journal articles -- a study this controversial and involving such a loaded term as "Right-Wing Authoritarianism," minority view or not, is going to incite comment. Your statement as worded implies that _all_ of the references support his work. Again, cite. You state there are no contradicting studies -- that is not itself conclusive. The key question in science is: has anyone else duplicated his results? (Preferably without such loaded and arbitary questions.) If his results cannot be duplicated, it is no more scientific than cold fusion, regardless of who pushes his viewpoint. (Clearly my dislike of ambiguity has been on display here.)
Throughout this debate, the burden of proof is being thrown at the challengers. This is incorrect. Given the controversial nature of the assertations by a mere half-dozen research psychologists (out of how many thousands?), the biased way the statements have been presented, and continuing objections to the content, the burden of proof is clearly on its proponents that it should remain -- especially without the dispute/controversy tag. Given that one of the cites for a rather inflammatory statement is an online copy of a media release (!), the proponents clearly felt pressure to meet such a burden.
Let's take the last assertation. "However, "conservatives" are less likely to see gray areas. For example, hey are more likely to support mandatory sentences and abolition of the insanity plea, less likely to pursue diplomatic options in foreign policy, and more likely to support fundamentalist interpretations of religion."
The problem is that the article is clearly written as if there's something _wrong_ with that. It's a circular argument that assumes itself: all the items cited by the study are conservative positions. Conservatives are likely to have conservative positions. What? Of course they are! Which raises the question of why anyone would bother with such a study, and in turn, that suggests that the point is being made for another reason, and the article is clearly written to follow that point.
A value judgement has been inserted. I disagree with that judgement, and so have the prior challengers. (However, any debate on _value_ would clearly get us into the realm of political disagreements, which are outside the scope of the dispute, not to mention Wikipedia. Which, I remind you, enshrines NPOV.)
Editors supporting the inclusion continue to support these texts/articles/studies as legitimate science -- so let's address it as a question in logic. If "conservative minds" are all *this,* it imples that liberal minds are the *opposite.* Indeed, that claim is briefly made...here. Not so much in the article on Liberalism, or anywhere else in Wikipedia.
I've already asked for cites that duplicate Altmeyer's research. But in the interests of balance, can you _or anyone else_ reading this discussion point me to a comparable body of work regarding the liberal mind -- as a question completely apart from whether anyone's bothered to include it in Wikipedia. If neither you, nor anyone else can point to an equivilent body of such work, then the research presented here (mostly as if it were _fact_) is itself highly suspect, and likely to be of fringe stature, regarless of other arguments here.
Finally, psychology and politics are separate subjects. They may be related, which is the underlying argument of Altmeyer, Pratto, et.al. (and at that basic of a level, I agree with them), but they are still very separate subjects. Politics might legitimately be a minor area under the Psychology subject, but it wouldn't be a major section; nor should Psychology be such a major section under any political subject. They are separate fields with only tangental involvement.
Even if supporting editors _are 100% correct_ about the studies, the entire section should be no more than a one or two sentence neutral reference to the SDO and RWA articles. There is little or no justification for an extended psychological discourse within a political article. NPOV: UNDUE
Therefore I repeat the call for removal of the section in question.
Crimsonsplat ( talk) 20:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
One thing I suggest is trimming or possibly removing the first paragraph, a fairly general commentary. It also seems that Pratto, Altemeyer, and the others highlight some of the same things (homosexuality, lack of gray areas etc.) perhaps these could be grouped? Soxwon ( talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If everyone agrees that at the very least, this section is too long, the paragraph beginning with "Scores on the RWA" could be removed, and those wishing to read more about RWA can follow the appropriate link. This paragraph seems too long when there's another page completely devoted to it. Ejnogarb ( talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the second para should be moved to first because it is the earliest research mentioned. Also, I think the wording could be re-phrased. It currently reads:
It would be more accurate to say:
The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion comment was that we need someone who has expertise in the area to ensure that Altemeyer's findings are correctly presented. If RWA types are excluded from the conservative population do the remaining conservatives score higher in the RWA scale than non-conservatives? Altemeyer found e.g. that Libertarian Party members scored average. The article also fails to mention how wealth, religion and ethnicity relate to conservaism. Historically conservative voters have tended to be wealthier, belong to mainstream churches in their area, and were under-represented by minorities. In Quebec for example, French Catholics historically voted conservative provincially but liberal federally, because the provincial conservative party was ultramontanist while the federal party was Protestant. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I still think that the information here duplicates the pages on SDO and RWA and should be replaced by links to those articles -- however they are in significant need of balancing themselves. The recent edits have restored a great deal of the missing neutrality, and I'm much happier with the current version. I want to thank everyone for their hard work and patience with my SDO and RWA traits. :) This has been quite the learning experience.
I remain deeply suspicious of Altmeyer's work, but will let the challenge go for now, as I don't have time to build a proper case for his being a biased flake (and it appears that, flake or not, he meets WP standards for notability). At a later time, when I'm not busy building a Conservative Party, I may solicit professional evaluation of the research as reqeusted by Four Deuces and Rick Norwood, but for now I don't have the time to do Wikipedia's standards justice.
Again, thank you all. Crimsonsplat ( talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
the search term Ultra-conservatism links here, but there is no mention of it in the article, I think this should be rectified, as some information on this topic should be at least somewhere on wikipedia.
Excellent edit, Spylab. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this sentence, in the Development of Western conservatism section: "Some conservatives are friendly toward the idea of nation..." I figured most or all conservatives are friendly toward the idea of nation, so I think the intended meaning is something else. Can anyone clarify the sentence? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"Some conservatives are friendly toward the idea of nation, such the liberal conservative New-Flemish Alliance, which has sought peaceful secession of Flanders from Belgium."
There doesn't seem to be a conservatism portal. Somebody should fix that. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
"According to Robert Altemeyer and other researchers, individuals who are politically conservative tend to rank high on right-wing authoritarianism, as measured by Altemeyer's RWA scale."
Now, regardless of whatever jib jab you'll throw at me you cannot deny that liberals, like Obama who voted 97% liberal, are the Democrat party that are for bigger government. Conservatives are for smaller gov't. I know Wikipedia doesn't straight up list stances for reasons but the stances of liberals are national (gov't) health care, against school vouchers (or in other words, for gov't monopolized education), and for wealth redistribution (this includes welfare for people "not well-off" ie smoking crack with my money). These stances create BIGGER gov't. Conservative stances mirror those, so no monopolized gov't health care, nor education, nor taking conservatives' voters' money and putting it in liberals' voters' pockets.
Question: How the something do you justify putting that conservatives are the ones typically for "authoritarianism" when it is actually the liberals who praise the nanny state (see: Obama's campaign promises)?
Answer: You can't. All you can do is pile a bunch of words strung into pure nothingness on the defiers. Want an example? Whichever editor replies to me to contradict me will mention nothing of the simple truth in my second paragraph, and will instead say things like "this research is cited" or something else to distract from the facts. This more of a call to action than a question. Please admit that the sentence is stupid, inappropriate, and, honestly, makes Wikipedia look like a shit encyclopedia. There I said it. I acknoewledge the rule to be civil, and this I'm being. There is nothing uncivil in pointing out the truth. Just because the prominent editors don't admit to it (most of them) doesn't mean the readers don't realize, even if not right away, that this is not where you get your information from. 71.204.61.136 ( talk) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The president proposes a federal budget, congress then votes on that budget. For six of the eight years Bush was president, he had a Republican congress to work with, and every year he was president, he proposed a budget with a big deficit.
Now, as to small government conservatives, as best I can tell a small government conservative is a conservative who is not in power. All conservative presidents talk about small government; none to date has kept that promise.
In any case, today such a large percentage of the US economy is fueled by federal spending that if we ever did elect a fiscal conservative to office, someone who would actually drastically cut the size of the federal budget, the entire economy go bankrupt. That's not libral nor is it conservative -- just pragmatic. People who talk about small government are talking about what never was and never will be. Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You can't dismiss liberal beliefs by saying just saying most liberals don't believe what all the liberals in power are doing. Since you are voting for them, it's only reasonable to believe that, although possibly on accident, you do believe in bigger gov't. Everything Obama wants to do when he says "I will [action]" translates into "The government will use your money to [action]." I mean that's the difference between the two parties. One wants the gov't to do everything. Look at any issue to prove this: welfare, health care, housing, lending, education, and anything else where the two choices are gov't vs private sector, liberals are for gov't. This includes Obama. Saying conservatives are for authoritarian gov't makes no sense. If anyone is then it's liberals.
No, it has nothing to do with capitalism. It is just human nature. People in power seldom act to reduce their own power. It has happened. In ancient Rome, Sulla did it. But I can't think of a case in the last two thousand years. There are probably a few, but it's rare. John Adams maybe? After all, when Tom Jefferson won the election, Adams could have had him shot, but instead he handed over power peacefully. But both of these examples are of people who gave up power and retired. I can't think of someone who had power and voluntarily limited his own power while still exercising it. Can you? Rick Norwood ( talk) 01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The connection is this. If we accept that "small government" is unlikely, then the government is either going to spend its money helping the rich or helping the poor. For the past eight years, the government primarily helped the rich, and now -- I forget the figures but you can look them up -- 90% of the wealth is in the hands of 10% of the people (roughly). Businesses are going bankrupt, because many of their customers are broke. This puts more people out of work, leading to a descending spiral. President Obama is spending money to help the working class. That means putting money in the hands of people who will go out and spend it, which means more customers for the businesses that are hurting, fewer bankruptcies, fewer people out of work. The only question is, will it be enough? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Both of you enough, this discussion ended in March. It's now June. Let's just let it drop, plz. Soxwon ( talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It's true that US and Japan have the highest taxes on corporations, and among the lowest taxes on individuals. Isn't it interesting that they also have the world's strongest economies. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted the final section of this article ie., "Psychological Research." In addition to its extremely questionable relevance, it struck me as highly non-NPOV, in that it consisted almost entirely of apparent attempts to label political conservatism as a sort of mental pathology. Perhaps someone might like to visit this article's History page, retrieve the text I just deleted, and use it in order to create a new article on that subject, but it frankly seems out of place here. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 19:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reversed your change which was made without discussion. If you look at the sections above in this discussion page, there has been detailed discussion of this topic. May I request that you read them and if you are in disagreement to present your arguments for discussion. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The section "Psychological Research" reports information about the subject of the article, published in reputable refereed journals. This does not violate NPOV, any more than it violates NPOV to report, in the William Jefferson Clinton article, that the president had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to report facts.
This is a subject that has come up time and again, in article after article. People who are uncomfortable with certain facts try to delete them, claiming that the facts support a certain point of view. Facts do that. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to try to balance information with misinformation. We can leave that to television. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It is hard for me to follow your reasoning.
Evidently, because the article psychoanalysis has a "criticism" section, and because that criticism section mentions that Popper considers psychoanalysis a "pseudoscience", to you suggests that Wikipedia says that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. No. Wikipedia says that Popper says that psychoanalysis is a psuedoscience. That's an important distinction.
Then you suggest that if the article has a few hundred carefully referenced words about conservative psychology, it follows that the article should have a few hundred thousand words by you about notable conservatives. That doesn't follow either.
As I said, it is hard for me to follow your reasoning. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The research attributes characteristics to conservatives based on statistical studies of a large number of subjects, studies published in peer reviewed journals. The studies are psychological in nature, not "psychoanalytical". Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The quote from Kenneth Minogue has again been inserted without discussion. I suggest its deletion because it is from a tertiary source (The Social Science Encyclopedia) (See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources). Also, it was not written by a psychologist and there is no reference to any research that led to these conclusions. While I am happy to see various points of view presented, they should be from peer-reviewed secondary sources. I also take issue with the assertion that conservatives "respect prejudice".
I also notice the name of the section has been changed to "Psychology" again without discussion. As Collect reminded me just weeks ago: "Change a heading only after careful consideration, because this will break section links to it within the same article and from other articles. If changing a heading, try to locate and fix broken links." ( Talk:Fascism#political spectrum heading) The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sort of split on this section. I would hope that our articles on ideologies are uniform and standardized. To that end, I can see how a conservative would feel slighted by a section discussing the psychological tendencies of conservatives when no corresponding section exists for similar articles. On the other hand, a liberal might feel perplexed about why this article has no criticism section and the article on liberalism does. Comparisons are generally dangerous on Wikipedia, however, and we should probably ignore them here. Does this section deserve to remain in this article on its own merits? I would argue no based on the following line of thought. The information contained in the section is well-cited and researched, but it is not appropriate material for an article such as this one. Articles on ideologies should focus significantly on political history, intellectual history, and various philosophical issues. Psychology should not constitute a major part of these articles, much less a whole section! My primary concerns are related to length. Good articles usually describe their subjects quickly and efficiently. We lose that efficiency when we focus so heavily on an important, but not decisive, issue. I don't mean to suggest that we banish psychological studies entirely, but they don't deserve their own section. UberCryxic ( talk) 02:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I favor shortening the section, but not deleting it entirely. The studies that are kept should be those that are specifically multinational. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Clearly some people around here do not understand NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. If you are creating an Encyclopedia with that concept, then your moderation of the articles cannot only be concerned with "does this viewpoint have footnotes that point to academic research, if so then it is fine regardless of any other considerations".
If you asked people for an example of a fiercely partisan topic, "conservative vs. liberal" would probably be at the top of the list. NPOV would have to be far more carefully balanced than we see here.
As a non-partisan Independent, and a strong advocate of Evolutionary Psychology, I was struck by the fact that "Conservatism" has an elaborate section called "Psychology" which implied that one could only be a conservative if you were descended from Neanderthals and abused in childhood. Yes, that is an exaggeration of the content, but that "Psychology" section is a clear "plant" by movement liberals to discredit conservative concepts as being due to emotional reactions, rather than rational and academic thought. In actuality, I have seen much more emphasis in political literature on the "psychology of liberals", with the idea of "liberal guilt" being used to explain the preponderance of liberalism amongst wealthy celebrities who have been the beneficiaries of lucky breaks. I am not proposing that any of the above concepts - of either side - are accurate, just that the Wikipedia presentation seems surprisingly slanted, especially given that the "criticism" section of Liberalism is astonishingly short, consisting of one obscure and difficult reference, which seems to be present simply so that someone can claim that "yes there is a criticism section". This is quite amazing, considering that biographies of minor pop stars or sports stars, whose lives have no impact on society other than entertaining people, have big Wikipedia stamps " THIS ARTICLE APPEARS TO BE SLANTED ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.239.113 ( talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
(removed) ( talk) 02:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I really don't want to insert the statement They have been supported in these claims by other studies back in, is there any other way to make use of these sources: [6] [7]? Are they really needed? Soxwon ( talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
My inclination was to leave it, since both Brooks and Schweizer have good academic credentials, and also because it seemed to add balance to the article. But I'll defer to Soxwon and The Four Deuces on this one. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion came up at the US Conservatism article. Brooks wrote two books explaining the motivation for charitable giving Gifts of Time and Money (2005) and Who Really Cares (2006), which used the same data to come to different conclusions. In the first book he uses a table that shows the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Malta are well ahead in first place in volunteering. [8](p. 5) In the second book, the same table is used but Canada, Australia, NZ and Malta are omitted, [9] so the US clearly leads the table, and concludes the European welfare state makes people less generous (my italics). No explanation why it does not have that effect in the three countries most similar to the US. So I would accept him as an expert but only for his academic work. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've become sensitized to the divergent uses of the words "liberal" and "conservative" in the popular press. Here is my latest observation. Time, June 8, 2009, "Four Myths About The Supreme Court".
"And Roberts has become more hard-edged and divisive as his views on issues of race and Executive power have repeatedly clashed with those of the court's liberal wing."
Roberts argued in favor of George Bush's "signing statements" which said, in effect, that the President of the United States is above the law. This view is certainly anti-liberal. But it is also anti-conservative. Where does that leave Roberts?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following:
Contemporary American conservatism traces its heritage back to Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke, who developed his views in response to the French Revolution. US President Abraham Lincoln wrote, that conservatism is "the adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried."
The first sentence from Russell Kirk represents a minority opinion. The quote from Lincoln is entirely out of context and implies that he considered himself a conservative.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Collect, I have not heard that theory and the links seem to just go to summaries. What exactly do these writers say?
You have to beware of accepting new theories as fact. Lots of people have written convincing books about who wrote Shakespeare's plays or the real identity of Jack the Ripper. So do you have any mainstream sources that identify Lincoln as a conservative?
The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) We need older opinions about Lincoln? (the cites given are absolutely mainstream and clear)
[13] Charnwood 1917 should suffice. Nicolay from 1890 quotes Lincoln, and is given above, so I am unsure how that can qualify as a "new theory" at all.
Collect (
talk)
18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
In this article (in contrast with Conservatism in the United States) we need to show in the subsection on the United States that US conservatism has some common roots with the use of the word in other countries, or else state flatly that in the US "conservative" has an entirely different meaning from the use of the word on other countries. In fact, as best I can tell, only Libertarians want to change the meaning of "conservative" to make it a synonym for "Libertarian" and what they call "Classical Liberal". In every respect but one, Libertarianism is a form of liberalism. The one common ground between Libertarians and Conservatives is that Libertarians loath taxes, and Conservatives are willing to cut taxes, at least for the very rich, even if it means going deep in debt. But the theory of taxation is, at its heart, neither Liberal nor Conservative, and theory is in any case moot, since proverbially nothing is more sure than taxes except death. If we get into "big government" vs. "small government", then we are going to have to rewrite this article every four years, saying that Conservatives always favor big government if the Republicans are in power and that Conservatives always favor small government if the Democrats are in power. In sort, instead of both sides trying to claim Abraham Lincoln for political gain, we should eschew the flood of political propaganda and stick to what the word really means, according to standard reference works. "Conservatism: disposition to keep to established ways: opposition to change." - The New Mirriam-Webster Dictionary. Lincoln was willing to be conservative if that would preserve the union. He was also willing to do away with established slavery, the biggest change in America since 1776, if that would preserve the union. One thing you can say with certainty: Lincoln was not in favor of State's Rights! Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind leaving off Burke, since he is covered in the lede, and certainly the Lincoln quote is pulled out of context, but you say, "American conservatism can trace its roots to the American Revolution" and then edit the subsection to begin with Ronald Reagan. There is a big gap there! Whether Kirk, Buckley, and Goldwater were right, or just Right, is moot -- they were important voices in the American Conservative movement and need to be mentioned. I'm happy if you want to write that paragraph -- and it doesn't need more than a few sentences -- but somebody has to. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This section of the article, as it stands, is nonsense. It contradicts itself. Is there really a difference between liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism, and if so are these two the most important "forms of conservatism"? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This section should be purged with extreme prejudice. It is based on ultra-Marxist concepts, such as that of Theodor Adorno (whom the section mentions) of the Frankfurt School - a radical organisation, which set out expilicity to subvert and level Western Civilisation. This movement does not come from a NPOV on the subject of this article. Opposing political theories are dressed up in this section, under terminology such as "study" in a subversive Freudian manner in an attempt to give them more "legitimacy". If we are going to have a section on Marxian opposition to Conservatism, lets make a real, out in the open section on it, instead of having it hidden behind very thinly veiled newspeak which levels ad hominem attacks. - Yorkshirian ( talk)
Judging from the archives, the majority of people seem to be against the inclusion of this section. It seems to be a very small but persistent group, who want to keep it in. Yet the issue keeps getting raised again and again. A list of users who have presented rationale opposed to its inclusion;
It only seems to have remained through shere persistance, though the issue keeps getting raised. Adornoite/Frankfurt School popaganda doesn't belong on a serious encyclopedia article covering the topic of general Conservatism. If anywhere it belongs in an article on conservatism in the United States, or on those theorists articles. Other than the fact that it is a violation of WP:NPOV, I can find no other example of a serious encyclopedia which includes such a section within its article. Nor am I convinced that this particular Marxist sophist movement is notable outside of North America and the United States inparticular after Adorno migrated there from Germany. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 06:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) Please see WP:RS#Scholarship:
All of these criteria have been met. Google Scholar for example returns 2,530 hits for "right-wing authoritarianism". [17]
The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll remove Adorno, but Rick, this was the accepted version and the studies match what was said. The way you tried to present it is extremely POV. Soxwon ( talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I've discovered several misquotes, incorrectly cited quotes, and even quotes out of context that attempt to make an article say exactly the opposite of what it really says. I'm still not certain about the quote below, however. I've followed the link, searched there, searched google scholar, searched The Journal of Social Psychology. None of them have yielded the quote given below. But it is cited so often in the conservative press, that I would like someone else to double check for me. Does this article exist?
< http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>. (end reference)
Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon: Let's take the citations one at a time.
Your version refers to "a study by Kathleen Maclay. There is no such study. Maclay is the author of a press release. The quote in that paragraph is by Glaser et. al., not by Maclay. The quote is also taken out of context. I've provided the context.
The Crowson citation fails to use the capitalization used in the title of the paper, and mangles the quote. I've provided the correct quote.
The Schneider paper confirms rather than refutes Crowson's claims. The appearence that he refuted Crowson's claim comes by taking a sentence fragment out of context. I've provided the entire sentence. Also, I've again corrected the format and capitalization in the citation.
The Kenneth Minogue citation quotes Jessica Kuper quoting Kenneth Minoque. It should be replaced with a citation from the original source.
The Sidanius study found that there is a correlation between racism and conervatism, mediated by social dominance orientation, and that the correlation increases with the educational level of the person studied. You have changed that finding by taking words and sentence fragments out of context. I have restored the context and again corrected the citation format.
I hope this detailed explanation is helpful.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Although it would be a serious mistake to assume that White's opposition to redistributive policies such as affirmative action are primarily driven by either racism or group dominance motives, assuming that racism and group dominance motives become less important as intellectual sophistication among Whites increases, would be equally mistaken. I thought that was what the text said, which is why I made it reflect that. I'm not sure why you keep saying that racism is the primary force when it clearly is not.
Please get authors, titles, and quotes right. For example, your version still claims that there is a "study" by Kathleen Maclay and fails to use correct capitalization in titles. Yes, I make mistakes, too. But they are not hasty mistakes, and I do not use the revert feature to restore a version that I know has mistakes in it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There are several problems with the two sentences below, from paragraph two. RWA is a personality trait, not a "conservative position", and therefore cannot be compared with "positions".
The first conclusion in the paper is that there is a correlation between RWA and conservatism, and also a correlation between cognitive regidity and conservatism. In other words, conservatives tend to believe what their leaders tell them, and are slow to change their minds. The second conclusion is that this correlation is not 100% (conservatism is not synonymous with RWA). In other words, not all conservatives are right-wing authoritarians. Which conservatives are less like to display RWA? Those who are less cognitively rigid. When they authors only looked at the correlation between RWA and conservatism among those subjects who scored low on tests of cognitive regidity, the correlation between RWA and conservatism was less.
As an example, this explains why, when Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, conservatives tended to believe him (a lot of liberals also believed him -- the correlation of RWA and conservatism is not 100%). Conservatives tend to believe what their leaders tell them. But then Bush admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. And yet, some conservatives continued to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This is an example of cognitive regidity, a disinclination to change your mind when presented with new evidence. Now, how about the conservatives who displayed less cognitive regidity, and accepted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction? These conservatives also showed less RWA. They were less apt to believe what their leaders told them.
The paragraph above is, of course, original research, and has no place in the article. I'm just trying to make the conclusion in the paper clearer by use of an example.
So, how can we best summerize the conclusions of the paper in a few words, without adding anything to those conclusions or leaving out anything important. I suggest the following:
I don't really think the quote is necessary, but I am willing to leave the quote in if anyone wants it there.
Comments?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Still sounds pseudoscience and newspeaky. George Bush's neocons come from Trotskyite roots and again, what the United States calls "conservatism" (outside of the likes of Buchanan) is absolutely nothing like in the rest of the world. The United States has no traditionalist culture or aristocratic heritage, while that is what conservatism is closely linked to in the rest of the world. Hardly representative. Wikipedia covers the entire world its not an insular US exclusive project.
1) not a single example has been given that shows it features in any other respected encyclopedia article on a general topic of conservatism. Making it WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and non notable. Just one example of it featuring in a Britannica or something along those lines please. You won't find it.
2) no evidence provided that this Marxist neckbeardry is relevent to anything outside of North America (there is a Conservatism in the United States article). Their pseudocentific, pseudoacademic mubojumbo seems to be specifically about attempting to subert what evangelicals regard as "their culture" and "their values" in the United States, through a process of critical theory and psychoanalysis. Manipulating words in an attempt to blacklist in an (ironically) authoritarian manner rival philosophies which they wish to eliminate. This is by definition Orwellian newspeak, in no way WP:NPOV and that is why it is in no serious encyclopedia covering a general article on conservatism.
- Yorkshirian ( talk) 06:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The report mentioned in the first sentence by Jost et al (2003) [20] provides a very good outline of all the psychological analyses like C-scale, RWA and SDO, explaining how the concepts were developed and tested, before they discuss their own research. This might be a good source for the entire section as it is recent and reliable. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The Conservatism sidebar has been broken for months now. Does anyone know how to fix it? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposed merger of Conservatism in North America into Conservatism. The article Conservatism in North America was created as an article that discussed conservatism both in the United States and in Canada. Several years ago following discussion it was decided to split the article and Conservatism in North America became a redirect page to Conservatism in the United States. However the old article has now been revived. There is no reason why conservatism should have separate articles for each continent and there is no common element for North American conservatism. Canadian conservatives are called Tories while most American conservatives are Republicans. There is no North American conservative association. I suggest that any worthwhile text be copied into articles about the respective countries and the page redirect to this article. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
R. J. White is quoted in the introduction. He edited an out-of-print book titled "The Conservative Tradition". Used copies are sold on amazon.com, but there are no reviews and I have not been able to find any information about him. It's a nice quote, but it would be good to identify the author. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Reginald James White was a professor who wrote a number of books on history and literature. [22] [23] The problem I see with the quote, besides the fact that a similar statement could be found from a more recent better known writer, is that it represents how conservatives see themselves and White was writing about conservatism in the UK c. 1950. I came across a brief but interesting article by Ron Dart who describes the difference between what he calls Tory conservatism and Republican conservatism. [24] The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If you can have a further reading section, what about a section for documentaries and other sources of information about the topic? Simsimian ( talk) 17:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has tagged this article for showing a US perspective. Could they please explain this and suggest any changes could address this perceived imbalance. The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is Iran the only Moslem country listed? Does the fact that the arch enemy of the Western Conservatives, the Moslems, the fact that they are also conservative, does that make dealing with Conservatism in moslem countries problematic? I mean, as an American, few conservatives that I know would like to dwell on the fact that the Taliban and Al Queda are fellow conservatives, and would not think to or be very motivated to include them in the article. (Then again, the fact that Iran IS included does stand as evidence against this theory.) (Then again again, the Iran section seems comparatively underdeveloped). Do you all see this as a problem? If so, how should it be dealt with? If not, why not? Chrisrus ( talk) 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(out) Some of the US allies ,likefor example Karzai are ex-Taliban. But the major ally in the US invasion was the
Northern Alliance, which was largely dominated by Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks. The insurgents are largely Pashtun or Baloch.
This map shows the division in Afghanistan between the side the US backs (white and green) and the insurgents (blue and yellow).
The Four Deuces (
talk)
23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
After reading the arguments (not evidence) regarding POV, I fail to see any good reason to maintain the neutrality tag up. In order for such tag to be put up, one must prove with more than just claims that their is bias or non-neutrality, so they are welcome to provide it. Briholt ( talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Yorkshirian has added a POV tag to the Psychology section and stated: Nobody has presented a single example of this been included in any other encyclopedia covering an article on conservatism yet. Until they do so then it is still POV and fringe. That is an invalid argument. There is nothing in WP:POV that mentions this criterion. If you have any valid reason to explain why it might be considered POV, then please explain them. In the meantime I am removing the tag because no reasons have been presented to include it. You may wish to read the literature referred to in the section and ensure that this has been presented in a neutral manner. The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As John Stewart observed, reality has a liberal bias. These papers were published in refereed journals. The results have been consistent, across many cultures. Yorkshirian offers no evidence to the contrary, turning instead to ad hominem attacks on the authors. Obviously an atheist can't be a good scientist! I do think it would be a good idea to add some secondary sources. Surely there are books on the subject. Rick Norwood ( talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There are two big problems with the "psychology" section as I see it:
1. Possible Confirmation Bias on the part of researchers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
2. Very small sample sizes. As I recall, the Prato study for example was of only a few dozen individuals. Maybe they just got an unusual sample, and if their measurements aren't terribly precise that could scatter the results to show conclusions that aren't statistically significant. I think we need a broader study in order to justify including the "psychology" section in the "conservatism" entry. 207.224.8.251 ( talk) 02:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of this article is to help people understand conservatism. You would limit that understanding to understanding what conservatives believe, and reject any discussion of why they believe what they do. Can you point to any Wikipedia guideline that says Wikipedia only includes the what and never the why? Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Greenberg et al do not in fact support the connection between conservatism and psychology. John J. Ray's views on this and other topics are fringe, and have gained no acceptance in the academic world. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone mentioned it is the doctrine of "white trash", while this may by and large be true; it has no place in an encyclopedic article and I removed it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.241.250.106 ( talk) 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
1) I have no idea what you're talking about. 2) It is easier for people to find your comments at the bottom of the page. 3) Sign comments with four tildes. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Additional response posted at the bottom...thanks for moving it there, Rick. RPuzo ( talk) 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Researchers have searched for psychological motivation for other ideologies, but the studies have yielded null results. That is, to date nobody has found a personality trait that has a strong correlation to a political belief other than the one reported here. If, in the future, such a correlation is discovered, it should and will be reported. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
People who discuss the relationship between conservatism and right-wing authoritarianism are not necessarily trying to attack conservatism. For example, Barry Goldwater expressed his concern about the right-wing authoritarians in his own party, and William F. Buckley, Jr.'s son quit his job at National Review because of that magazine's right-wing authoritarian stance. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, your theories are very interesting, as are mine and everyone else's on this topic. Now read this page, and maybe this one, and maybe this one as well. This WP article is about Conservatism (capital 'C'), the theories of Locke, Burke, and other philosophers, and as those philosophies exist today. The article is not about people who writers of certain psychology studies claim to be conservative. The articles cited in the 'Psycology' section are not about the political field of Conservatism (neither for nor against), but rather the supposed mental state of people the articles authors label as 'conservative', whom they attack and attach various negative labels to. It appears that the only reason this 'Psychology' section remains is to attack Conservatism, as it contains only negative talk about conservative people, and no discussion on Conservatism. The 'Psychology' section has no place in a WP article about Conservatism, and should be removed. RPuzo ( talk) 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1) NOR Papers published in refereed journals are not considered original research.
2) Reputable sources. Refereed journals are considered reputable sources.
3) Fringe Theories. Ideas published in refereed journals are not considered fringe.
The articles in question do not "attack" anybody. Facts are neutral, even if you don't like them.
I'm from the American South, and have a certain amount of pride in my region, but I would not expect an article on the American South to suppress the history of racist attitudes on the part of many Southerners just because it was "negative". Similarly, this article should not supress the authoritarian attitudes of many conservatives, just because it is "negative".
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The section in question is very highly cited and detailed. The content, in other words, is pretty solid and I don't have much desire to change it. The real problem seems to be an issue of encyclopedic judgment, not content, which makes this entire problem far more difficult to resolve. Although I believe the content is worthy, I don't think it's worthy enough to occupy an entire section in Wikipedia's flagship article on conservatism. There is something to be said about giving this particular topic undue weight. Conservatism is a complicated movement and mentality stretching back through the ages, and to give so much attention to what seems like a trivial point is mystifying. I propose that the section be removed and that some, not all, of its content be integrated into the rest of the article. I'll wait a few days to see what people think of my proposal, and if no one responds in time, I'll go ahead and make the necessary changes myself. UberCryxic ( talk) 17:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This section appears to be original research. There is no source that discusses conservatism in different countries that groups the different parties listed. I think this section should be deleted. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not follow Bobisbob2's reasoning. Conservatism in Saudi Arabia may be trivial to someone living in the US, but Wikipedia tries to be international, not Americentric. I'm going to restore those sections for now. They may, in fact, be trivial, but I would rather keep information about many nations until it can be combined into the comprehensive summary suggested by UberCryxix. If Wikipedia can have an entire article about the Klingon language, it can afford a paragraph about conservatism in Botswana.
On another subject, I think the two paragraphs combined by UberCryxix are on substantially different topics, and should remain separate.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I will not object to the removal of sections that both Bobisbob2 and The Four Deuces agree are off-topic. There is a big difference between being off-topic and being "trivial". Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)