![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I added the word liberal to the sentence about WWII. In the US, Conservatives have generally been opposed to war. If you look at the wars over the past century most of them were started by Democratic presidents. Exceptions are Greneda, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Famously, Bob Dole said in the 1976 debate with Walter Mondale: "I figured it up the other day: If we added up the killed and wounded in Democrat wars in this century, it would be about 1.6 million Americans-enough to fill the city of Detroit." It should also be noted that Kennedy started the Vietnam War, Johnson escalated it, and Nixon ended it. I'm not saying Nixon was a conservative. The guy imposed price controlls and expanded welfare programs in ways much more in keeping with new deal liberals. I only point out that Vietnam was fought by liberal presidents from beginning to end. Other evidence I'd like to offer in support of my insertion of the word liberal is the book Road to Serfdom by the libertarian Icon Friedrich Hayek. In the book, Hayek argues that war is a tool used by those who would strip us of all of the rights Conservatives generally try to conserve. 64.9.237.248 08:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Matt
The tactic of starting a war to consolidate political power at home is at least as old as the Roman Empire and has been used by leaders of all stripes. Rick Norwood 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, guys, but we had troops in Vietnam since early in our participation in the Pacific Theater of World War II. As a matter of fact, during World War II, Ho Chi Minh was the leader of an anti-Japanese organization in Vietnam, and we were supplying him. The Quid Pro Quo was that we would keep the French out after the war. The Pacific Desk of the OSS was doing the supplying. At the same time, the European Desk of the OSS was supplying the French, and telling them that we would secure all of Indochina for them. After the war, when the OSS was allowed to pass into history, the State Department favored the French in this matter, and Minh realized that he was betrayed. That started the whole mess. We kept Observers and Advisors in all of Indochina, and they remained to become the initial group that got involved after 1954. The rest is history. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) ( talk) 11:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I was disappointed to find so little discussion of the adherence of American Conservatism (A.C.) to the Founding Father's writings, which include the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constituion, The Federalist Papers, etc., including pre-U.S. Independence writings.
A.C. is essentially based upon these documents which also make claim to inspiration to English Common Law and the Bible.
The breakdown of A.C. into groupings of Social Conservatives, etc. is fine as long as it is understood that these groupings form the much larger philosophy of A.C.
I think this article would benefit from additional information and sources from the "Paleoconservatism" page.
While A.C. is a simple philosophy to understand, there is a great deal of information that supports the root and the role it has played in politics from the very first U.S. election to current nationwide elections.
And, frankly, the criticism section is ridiculous because it argues non-contexual arguments in a non-contextual fashion, and leaves more questions than it answers. In fact, answers to the critcism's are found within the article. For example, arguing that the problem with A.C. is that it protects its' perspective despite the march of history, is silly because fundamental beliefs do not change despite what historical occurances any issue encountered. It's like saying that Jewish people should change their beliefs because of the Holocaust. Clearly, absurd. That section should be deleted because a criticism section belongs in a discussion page not in an article that explains the tenets of an article. Jtpaladin 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:American liberalism to move the page to Liberalism in the United States. Since the change would also apply to this article, please join in the discussion. -- Cie lomobile talk / contribs 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The cites in Russell Kirk are looking rather anemic. Anybody care to try to improve them? -- 201.51.211.130 15:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And now we have an article titled American Conservatism with a talk page titled Conservatism in the United States, and links and redirects going God knows where. I'll check back with you all about a year, and see how its going. Rick Norwood 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Many editors have worked on this page now one wants to change the title because he dislikes "American" as an adjective. This is vandalism and violates Wiiki policy. Be Aware! Rjensen 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
While Rjensen misunderstands Cielomobile's motive, his point about ease of search is a good one. More people call this country America than call it the United States. Rick Norwood 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since this move is no longer possible for someone without admin status, I'm going to go through the whole WP:RM process for this article again. Whoever incorrectly moved the page split the page histories; you actually have to move the page, not just put up redirects. -- Cie lomobile talk / contribs 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok Isolani, here is what you have done. You have set up redirects on the pages, and that is NOT the correct way to do this. It messes up the page histories; I did this for Liberalism in the United States and an admin told me that was not the correct way to do this. If you want to move the article back to American Conservatism, you have to have an admin do it, which means going through WP:RM and having a discussion here. -- Cie lomobile talk / contribs 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consesus, defaults to keep for now. Please continue the discussion in another thread, though. Teke ( talk) 05:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose we move back to "American Conservatism" for these reasons:
This article is about American culture and political movements like American Civil Rights Movement. the USA designation is merely geography, not culture. The article must be inclusive of the millions of Americans who lived outside the USA -- James Baldwin, WEB DuBois and Richard Wright come to mind, for example. Conversely it does NOT cover European and Latin Amerian writers who lived for years in the US, such as José Martí or Bertolt Brecht. Rjensen 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies within the United States under the blanket heading of conservative."
I parse this as conservatism in the United States means conservatism in the United States. This formulation is apparently residue from when the title was 'American Conservatism' and someone felt a need to disambiguate the term 'American.' I couldn't fix this rhetorical tautology by simply removing the redundant term because that would have utterly destroyed the sentence. Hence the change. Baon 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I also changed the adjectival forms refering to groups to noun forms refering to doctrines (i.e., conservatives to conservatism) to better reflect the form of the title. Baon 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This article states that O'Reilly states he is either "conservative or libertarian", yet the source that it cites states that O'Reilly claims himself as an "independent", not a "conservative" nor a "libertarian". In fact, a political organization in opposation to him calls him conservative. This statement in the article is inaccurate, and possibly even opinionated by including the organization's opinion as fact. -- 66.227.194.89 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please post a county by county election map? 70.108.101.57 11:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Republican Midwest? Why was it that in 2004 only Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa were won out of all the Midwest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.170.110 ( talk) 05:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Historically, it was GOP, note "midwest" can include Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota which lean Dem today, others include Plains states like Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas which are still heavily GOP... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 ( talk) 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The Criticism section seems to me particularly lame. This article and the Liberalism articles both used to have criticism sections, as did many other articles on controversial subjects. It was suggested that instead of placing criticism in a separate section, it should be incorporated in each section where there was more than one generally held belief. Is there any objection to doing that here? Rick Norwood 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In the section titled "Fiscal conservatism"...
"This economic liberalism borrows from two schools of thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are the only ethical markets."
Then, in "Economic liberalism"...
"Classical liberals AND [emphasis added] libertarians support free markets on moral, ideological grounds: principles of individual liberty morally dictate support for free markets."
Further, the article notes that conservatives passively reject rights theory as a motive for support for free markets, after stating that they inhert their position from both camps (whether or not it is true that such disparity between them exists)...
"Modern conservatives, on the other hand, derive support for free markets from practical grounds. Free markets, they argue, are the most productive markets."
So there are two contradictions in all. First, that classical liberal and libertarian perspectives on the market are different AND the same. (For the record, I'm NOT saying that they aren't different positions, OR that they're the same. It's just that the article should come down on this one way or the other.) Second, that conservatives hold a position taken from a single source (after stating otherwise). King of Corsairs 02:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A writer noted under this topic heading:
"The race-blind meritocracy now embraced by many U.S. conservatives as an alternative to affirmative action would have seemed quite radical to most U.S. conservatives in the 1950s."
Really? Both National Review and The Freeman editorialized against Brown vs. Board of Education when the opinion was handed down in 1954, as being an unconstitutional attempt to recognize race as a political category. Specifically what conservatives of the time would have regarded a color-blind polity as "radical"?
I think Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity should be removed, because they are neoconservatives? If there are no comments on this in 24 hours I'll go ahead and move them. Reinoe ( talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Gop-plank.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit quoted Barry Clark as saying that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, conservatism was a mixture of economic liberalism and social conservatism. Here is what Clark actually says on the subject: "During the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, American Conservatism was found almost exclusively in the South, where the Plantation System and slavery were ideally suited for an ideology that emphasized the importance of a hierarchal community." Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of Jonamo's recent edit seems fine to me, with two exceptions. First, conservative Christians are strongly divided on environmental issues, some favoring "stewardship", others opposing any government attempt to protect the environment. I agree that the movement is currently in the direction of steweardship, but do not see any evidence that believers in stewardship are yet in the majority.
On the question of schools, the issue is more clear cut. There is a strong movement among conservative Christians in the United States in favor of teacher-led Christian prayer in state schools. The right to choose between public and private schools has never been in question.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In response to the recent addition of John McCain's name to the list of conservatives, I must point out that his voting record is pretty much the same as Hillary Clinton's. Speaking for myself, I was a big McCain fan when he ran against Bush in 2000, but changed my view when joined the gang of 14 to block Bush's judical appointments. McCain yearns for the moment in 2000 when he had the adoration of the media; the nomination is a cross he bears. Kauffner ( talk) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this list is too long, and I don't think minor figures like Sean Hannity or Neal Boortz should be on this list. Would anybody mind if I cut the list down to a few fundamentals:
Does that look acceptable? -- LightSpectra ( talk) 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Hannity and Boortz can go, and that the list is too long. It would probably be best to leave Founding Fathers off the list, because the political divide in those days was not between liberal and conservative -- all the Founding Fathers were both -- but between Whig and Tory. Both Milton Friedman and John Calhoun certainly belong on the list. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
All of the Founding Fathers were liberals -- they overthrew a king! All of the Founding Fathers were conservative -- they believed in the traditions of western civilization.
The same is true today. The practical difference between your average liberal and your average conservative is about as great as the difference between the Red Party and the Green Party in ancient Constantinople, and they divided up into parties based on which race horse they backed!
People tend to divide up into parties. Might as well call them the Us party and the Them party. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The names are widely recognized and newsworthy, and without the support of their followers the intellectual conservatives could not win an election. I voted in the local Republican primary yesterday, and the main issues in contention were not the issues of Greenspan and Buckley but the display of the Ten Commandments in court houses, establishing English as the only American language, and overturning Roe vs. Wade. This, too, is American conservatism. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is on Conservatism in the United States, not on conservative theory. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think dismissing Coulter and Limbaugh is wishful thinking. They are scorned by intellectuals, yes. But intellecutals only make up about five percent of the population. Many American conservatives are strongly anti-intellectual -- consider the the frequent accusation that their enemies are "elitist", live in an "ivory tower", and eat brie and drink white wine. If you ask the average American to name a living conservative, I think Limbaugh's name would lead the list, followed by Bill O'Reiley (who says he isn't one). Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
They are leaders because they have many followers. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a number of issues with the psychology section in article: to begin with it is quite dissonant in tone and - so to say - puts rather a bit of pressure on the NPOV. Furthermore, if there is a psychological component to conservatism, it cannot possibly be specific to specifically American conservatism. I suggest the psychological section is split off from this article and moved to an article on 'the psychology of political ideology' or some such. -- Scarpe ( talk) 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please explain how the terms liberal and conservative came to be used in the US. I have never come across the use of these terms in their modern sense in writings before the post-war era. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
But when did these terms become used in the United States with their modern meaning? Is there any reference that McKinley called himself a conservative? The first Republican I could find who used the term was Barry Goldwater. Even then, it seems that Roosevelt's use of the term was much broader, and Goldwater's narrower, than current usage. The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
LightSpectra, The Four Deuces specifically asked about the use post-WWII. Your information about the use pre-WWII is very interesting, but does not answer The Four Deuces's question. Since you didn't like my first answer, which I am willing to defend if we are talking about political discourse at the level it is conducted on television, I'll try again. Among Americans who do not turn to television for their "news", the words have gone through many meanings in my lifetime. John F. Kennedy was proud to call himself a "liberal", by which he meant something similar to what FDR meant. William F. Buckley wrote an influential book, "The Conscience of a Conservative", and founded a magazine, National Review, that defined intellectual conservatism for several decades. Barry Goldwater was of this school. Buckley was strongly anti-Communism, and so for a time "conservative" meant "anti-communist". Liberals were anti-communist, too, but because liberals and communists both supported integration, women's rights, and trade unions, the liberals had a hard time convincing anybody of their anti-communist credentials. So, the liberals embraced integration as the most important liberal cause. This caused the "solid south" to change from solid Democrat to solid Republican overnight, but the Democrats were still strong enough to stay in power. So, for a while "liberal" meant "civil rights". The next players on the scene were rich businessmen, who chafed at a very high tax rate -- as high as 95% in the top tax bracket. They were looking for a personable, likable candidate who would lower their taxes, and found him in actor Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a strong conservative in the anti-communist sense, and this is when the racists, the anti-communists, and the tax-cut conservatives joined forces. Reagan was allowed to pursue his sincere anti-communist agenda while his Handlers saw to it that he pushed for low taxes and deregulation of business. Then everything changed in ways that almost nobody could have guessed. First, thanks to Blacks on television, the younger generation no longer feared Black people the way the older generation did, and the low-tax conservatives lost many of their racist allies. Then Reagan, against all expectations, won the struggle against the Soviet Union, and the low-tax conservatives lost most of their anti-communist allies. They had, by this time, lowered the top tax rate from 95% to 35%, but they thought they could get it even lower, if they could find another cause that would join them. That cause came their way when the Supreme Court passed Roe vs. Wade. So, now "conservative" means "low taxes" and "no abortions". Liberals, too, had largely won their struggle. So, if liberal doesn't mean "civil rights", what does it mean? Mostly, now, it seems to mean pro-choice and gay rights. But listen to the presidential debates. The conservative and the liberal agree about almost everything, and are reduced to talking about William Ayres and Joe the Plumber -- non-issues if there ever were any. So, the history of the meaning of "liberal" and "conservative" has, in a practical sense, little relationship to their original meaning. Yes, liberals favor freedom, such as freedom of choice and freedom for gays. Yes, conservatives favor traditions, such as the upper class and the Christian religion. But when words change their meaning from election to election, they tend to lose their meaning entirely. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Contemporary writers may refer to supporters of the New Deal as liberals and their opponents as conservatives, but can anyone find a reference that these terms were used at the time? I can only find people calling themselves (in the modern sense) liberals in the late forties and conservatives with Richard Nixon. Was the Conservative Coalition even known by that name? The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You have to say what Knowles meant by the term liberal. Did he for example describe Hoover and Coolidge as liberals too? As for 1912, the Republican platform does not use the term liberal but accuses its opponents of supporting Democracy, which they saw as a step to Socialism. Is there an example before the 1950s when any Republican called himself a conservative, or an example before the 1960s when a mainstream Republican called himself a conservative and his opponents liberals?
In the citation, Coolidge did not call himself a conservative, but merely used the term. It's like a democrat saying he is conservative with salt but uses liberal amounts of ketchup. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
LightSpectra: I'm not trying to "implant" anything, just trying to answer The Four Deuces question. Nor am I "fearmongering". I'm generally optimistic. But I lived in the American South during the civil rights movement, and while first hand reports have no place in articles, here in the talk section I can report what I saw. The South changed from solid Democrat to solid Republican. What's your explanation? Why did William F. Buckley fight so hard to keep Black students out of Skull and Bones? Modern conservatives would like to deny that they ever allied with racists, but history says otherwise. (For a modern example, see the verbal attacks on a Black cameraman at a recent McCain rally.)
The Four Deuces: Before the anti-communist movement in America, Republicans and Democrats alike described themselves as liberal. The modern use of "conservative" began with William F. Buckley's book, as cited above. Conservatives then began to use the word "liberal" in a negative sense. There is a good discussion of that in Modern liberalism in the United States in the section "Negative uses of the term 'liberal'", with plenty of examples. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the "Conservative Manifesto" was not known by that name when it was written and its author identified himself as a liberal who opposed the New Deal. The Four Deuces ( talk) 08:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner: Thank you for correcting my defective memory, which paired the author of one book with the title of another. My bad. On the other hand, I am not mistaken by the number of racists who shifted from Democrat to Republican because of Lyndon Johnson. Yes, sometimes southern states vote for a democratic governer. My own state, Tennessee, has a democratic governer. But according to the polls, Tennessee will go strong for McCain. I hope I'm wrong about that. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
George Wallace went back to the days when the Democratic party proudly called itself "The Party of the White Man". Actually, Wallace started out as a liberal, but found he couldn't advance politically in the South without being a racist, so he remade himself as a racist's racist. After he was shot, and retired from politics, his true liberal nature came to the fore again. He was an interesting character. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This article implies that conservatism existed as an ideology in the US from Revolutionary times, when in fact it is a modern reaction to New Deal/Great Society liberalism with no agreement on ideology. Some conservatives trace their beliefs to British Toryism, while others look to the US constitution or European liberalism. While historic figures like Adams and Jay are claimed by modern conservatives, there is no universal agreement on this. Also, most of the sources for this article are from modern conservatives, not academic studies.
Conservatives historically supported monarchy and the established church, and were opposed to equality, private property and capitalism. The lack of a conservative tradition in the US is seen by most historians as leading to greater enterprise but also lack of social cohesion.
In order to be NPOV, the article should rely on peer-reviewed studies of conservatism in America. While it is proper to cite modern conservatives for information about themselves, including their view of history, their view of history should not be presented as fact. I notice that the article on American liberalism is more clear in its explanation of its origins. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Valois bourbon continues his work to definite conservatism as Libertarianism, citing the eminent scholar Ronald Reagan as evidence. He is also working hard in the articles on Liberalism to define liberalism as Libertarianism. In his world view, the world is divided into two groups, one group including both liberals and conservatives, who are all really Libertarians, the other group including socialists and communists, which includes everyone who is not a Libertarian. Since he edits every day, I'm getting tired of trying to restore mainstream definitions to the many articles he edits, and would appreciate any help I can get. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I have posted my comments at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me write one for this article and see what you think. Both Lee Edwards and Sara Diamond have written extensively about American conservatism, its origins, beliefs and practices, from different perspectives, and I suggest they would be good sources for this article, both for factual information, and for informed commentary. The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest updating the lead section of this article. Numerous edits have left it lacking in clarity. Specifically, the first paragraph does not clearly define the subject. The second paragraph describes conservatism, rather than American conservatism. The third paragraph lists examples but does not state their significance.
The lead should define the subject and outline the issues, with details left to the main body of the article. It should also be a brief summary of the subject, outlining the issues that the article will discuss. I have written a draft for a possible lead. The information is taken from the Heritage Foundation, which is the leading US conservative think tank, but it conforms to mainstream views. There is controversy over who are true conservatives in the US, and about the conservative credentials of historic figures. These disputes are best left to the body of the article.
I believe that it is possible to have an article that is not controversial, even though it is about a controversial subject. That is best achieved by including the various viewpoints in the article, rather than writing the article from a viewpoint.
I welcome your comments.
Suggested lead:
The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Morton provides a very good example of the use of the word "conservative" with a clearly-defined meaning, and of course is important to the history of the subject. As I wrote there has always been a conservative tradition, but the term conservative was not popularized until Kirk, who traced the tradition, and may have been the first to do so. After Morton there were many people we would today identify as conservatives but were not described as such at the time, e.g., Sen. Robert Taft. There are others, such as WJ Bryan, T Roosevelt and the progressives who do not fit neatly into liberal/conservative categories.
I am happy to remove "strong belief in God and country".
The point of starting with Kirk and the National Review is that it provides a basis for examining the conservative tradition as well as the starting point for modern conservatism. One of the problems with this article is the on-going argument about who should be considered a conservative before the 1950s. Kirk provides a starting-point, although there will always be disagreements, which should be clearly stated in the article.
If you find my writing in the draft lead unclear, I would appreciate suggestions on how it could be re-written. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I just came across the Wikipedia article Red Tory which shows that conservatism in Canada does not necessarily equate to US conservatism. There is also the Tory Reform Group within the UK party. The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the history section would be more helpful if the history of American conservatism is broken down into the different strands which have now come together, particularly traditional conservatism and libertarianism. After all, members of these two groups often had significant differences, e.g., federalists and anti-federalists, Northerners and Confederates. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I have separated the history section into traditional, libertarian and modern conservatism. The Four Deuces ( talk) 08:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I am using the terminology of modern conservatives, which I have defined in the article, and am not referring to supporters of the modern Libertarian Party. These libertarians support tariffs when they help their businesses and oppose them when they don't. Do you have another word for for pro-business conservatives? The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This section is confusing anyway, and needs to be re-written. From Lincoln to Hoover, the two parties shared broadly similar ideas, although both were influenced to some degree by populists/progressives. Ideological polarization between the two parties began during the New Deal. The section reads as if a modern conservative had sat down and tried to figure out who he would have voted for. The Four Deuces ( talk) 12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Because this topic is so controversial, ObjectivityAlways, you should discuss changes here first. I notice that Four Deuces is trying to fix some of the problems this edit has introduced, and I don't want my edit to conflict with his, but I'm going to make a few changes in the lede that seem necessary to me, to restore some of the points that were there before today's edits. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ObjectivityAlways reverted my edit without discussion. His edit leaves the reader with the idea that there is no conflict between Libertarians and the Religious Right, or between Libertarians and the Republican Party. Sorry, that's not true to fact, that's wishful thinking. I'd be happy to work with you, but until you discuss you ideas here, I'm restoring what I wrote. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you decided to talk things over, sorry you decided to revert a second time instead of rewriting. My objections to your paragraph are partly a matter of emphasis and partly a matter of style. As for emphasis: you seem to want "small government" up front, but that has not, until recently, been a conservative principle. It is true that in the 1960s "States Rights" became a conservative by-word, but to those of us living in the South at the time, this was understood as a code word for segregation. The primary conservative position, as a later paragraph affirms, is God, King, and Country. Obviously, in a democracy such as the United States, that has been modified, but the primary conservative values are still religion and patriotism, with "small government" an offshoot that hasn't got much to do with the first two. In fact, the desire for religious laws and for a strong military often come into conflict with the desire for small government. To run these together in one sentence, as if they were similar or even compatible values, is misleading. Also, while it is true that in the past sixty years or so the Republican party has been the conservative party, in the years following the US Civil War the Republican party was the liberal party, and the Democrats were the conservatives. In short, the lede you have written is too narrow a picture of American conservatism.
In the spirit of cooperation, I'll try another rewrite instead of reverting what you've written. I would ask you to also focus on rewriting rather than reverting. Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The main thing I have done in my rewrite is to take out a lot of material that really belongs further down in the article. Rick Norwood ( talk) 01:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
ObjectivityAlways You refer to fusionism as an argument. Do have any reason why this is just an argument? The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, ObjectivityAlways, for rewriting rather than reverting. I am going to restore "God and country", however, since these are core Conservative beliefs, while "Intelligent Design" is a minor belief of some Conservatives. For example, conservative Roman Catholics do not reject evolution, but do strongly believe in God. If you will leave this, I will leave "most" instead of "some" to describe "small government" conservatives. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that many non-conservatives also believe in God and country, but the conservatives tend to turn to government to support their beliefs, as with their desire for laws requiring school prayer and laws against burning the flag, while liberals generally want these things to be matters of personal conscience rather than required by law.
As it now stands, we have a lede both of us seem to agree on. Now if The Four Deuces also agrees, we can move on to the body of the article, which still needs some work. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The lede seems fine - it outlines the issues and avoids bias. The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me know what you think since this seems to be a defining conservative theme. ObjectivityAlways ( talk) 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner, you make some good points, but the conservative tradition is "God, King, and Country". The instances you mention show that America is a very conservative country (as well as being a very liberal country). The two views only became opposed when adopted by political parties to win elections. Also, the Republican and Democratic parties switched places during the civil rights movements. Before that, the Dixiecrats were the conservatives.
I don't think anyone wants to suggest that conservatism began with Kirk, only that the modern American conservative movement began with Kirk. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
ObjectivityAlways. Sorry, I must have been looking at an earlier edit, and am deleting my comments and your response. The Four Deuces ( talk) 13:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I added the word liberal to the sentence about WWII. In the US, Conservatives have generally been opposed to war. If you look at the wars over the past century most of them were started by Democratic presidents. Exceptions are Greneda, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Famously, Bob Dole said in the 1976 debate with Walter Mondale: "I figured it up the other day: If we added up the killed and wounded in Democrat wars in this century, it would be about 1.6 million Americans-enough to fill the city of Detroit." It should also be noted that Kennedy started the Vietnam War, Johnson escalated it, and Nixon ended it. I'm not saying Nixon was a conservative. The guy imposed price controlls and expanded welfare programs in ways much more in keeping with new deal liberals. I only point out that Vietnam was fought by liberal presidents from beginning to end. Other evidence I'd like to offer in support of my insertion of the word liberal is the book Road to Serfdom by the libertarian Icon Friedrich Hayek. In the book, Hayek argues that war is a tool used by those who would strip us of all of the rights Conservatives generally try to conserve. 64.9.237.248 08:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Matt
The tactic of starting a war to consolidate political power at home is at least as old as the Roman Empire and has been used by leaders of all stripes. Rick Norwood 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, guys, but we had troops in Vietnam since early in our participation in the Pacific Theater of World War II. As a matter of fact, during World War II, Ho Chi Minh was the leader of an anti-Japanese organization in Vietnam, and we were supplying him. The Quid Pro Quo was that we would keep the French out after the war. The Pacific Desk of the OSS was doing the supplying. At the same time, the European Desk of the OSS was supplying the French, and telling them that we would secure all of Indochina for them. After the war, when the OSS was allowed to pass into history, the State Department favored the French in this matter, and Minh realized that he was betrayed. That started the whole mess. We kept Observers and Advisors in all of Indochina, and they remained to become the initial group that got involved after 1954. The rest is history. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) ( talk) 11:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I was disappointed to find so little discussion of the adherence of American Conservatism (A.C.) to the Founding Father's writings, which include the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constituion, The Federalist Papers, etc., including pre-U.S. Independence writings.
A.C. is essentially based upon these documents which also make claim to inspiration to English Common Law and the Bible.
The breakdown of A.C. into groupings of Social Conservatives, etc. is fine as long as it is understood that these groupings form the much larger philosophy of A.C.
I think this article would benefit from additional information and sources from the "Paleoconservatism" page.
While A.C. is a simple philosophy to understand, there is a great deal of information that supports the root and the role it has played in politics from the very first U.S. election to current nationwide elections.
And, frankly, the criticism section is ridiculous because it argues non-contexual arguments in a non-contextual fashion, and leaves more questions than it answers. In fact, answers to the critcism's are found within the article. For example, arguing that the problem with A.C. is that it protects its' perspective despite the march of history, is silly because fundamental beliefs do not change despite what historical occurances any issue encountered. It's like saying that Jewish people should change their beliefs because of the Holocaust. Clearly, absurd. That section should be deleted because a criticism section belongs in a discussion page not in an article that explains the tenets of an article. Jtpaladin 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:American liberalism to move the page to Liberalism in the United States. Since the change would also apply to this article, please join in the discussion. -- Cie lomobile talk / contribs 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The cites in Russell Kirk are looking rather anemic. Anybody care to try to improve them? -- 201.51.211.130 15:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And now we have an article titled American Conservatism with a talk page titled Conservatism in the United States, and links and redirects going God knows where. I'll check back with you all about a year, and see how its going. Rick Norwood 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Many editors have worked on this page now one wants to change the title because he dislikes "American" as an adjective. This is vandalism and violates Wiiki policy. Be Aware! Rjensen 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
While Rjensen misunderstands Cielomobile's motive, his point about ease of search is a good one. More people call this country America than call it the United States. Rick Norwood 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since this move is no longer possible for someone without admin status, I'm going to go through the whole WP:RM process for this article again. Whoever incorrectly moved the page split the page histories; you actually have to move the page, not just put up redirects. -- Cie lomobile talk / contribs 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok Isolani, here is what you have done. You have set up redirects on the pages, and that is NOT the correct way to do this. It messes up the page histories; I did this for Liberalism in the United States and an admin told me that was not the correct way to do this. If you want to move the article back to American Conservatism, you have to have an admin do it, which means going through WP:RM and having a discussion here. -- Cie lomobile talk / contribs 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consesus, defaults to keep for now. Please continue the discussion in another thread, though. Teke ( talk) 05:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose we move back to "American Conservatism" for these reasons:
This article is about American culture and political movements like American Civil Rights Movement. the USA designation is merely geography, not culture. The article must be inclusive of the millions of Americans who lived outside the USA -- James Baldwin, WEB DuBois and Richard Wright come to mind, for example. Conversely it does NOT cover European and Latin Amerian writers who lived for years in the US, such as José Martí or Bertolt Brecht. Rjensen 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies within the United States under the blanket heading of conservative."
I parse this as conservatism in the United States means conservatism in the United States. This formulation is apparently residue from when the title was 'American Conservatism' and someone felt a need to disambiguate the term 'American.' I couldn't fix this rhetorical tautology by simply removing the redundant term because that would have utterly destroyed the sentence. Hence the change. Baon 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I also changed the adjectival forms refering to groups to noun forms refering to doctrines (i.e., conservatives to conservatism) to better reflect the form of the title. Baon 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This article states that O'Reilly states he is either "conservative or libertarian", yet the source that it cites states that O'Reilly claims himself as an "independent", not a "conservative" nor a "libertarian". In fact, a political organization in opposation to him calls him conservative. This statement in the article is inaccurate, and possibly even opinionated by including the organization's opinion as fact. -- 66.227.194.89 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please post a county by county election map? 70.108.101.57 11:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Republican Midwest? Why was it that in 2004 only Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa were won out of all the Midwest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.170.110 ( talk) 05:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Historically, it was GOP, note "midwest" can include Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota which lean Dem today, others include Plains states like Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas which are still heavily GOP... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 ( talk) 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The Criticism section seems to me particularly lame. This article and the Liberalism articles both used to have criticism sections, as did many other articles on controversial subjects. It was suggested that instead of placing criticism in a separate section, it should be incorporated in each section where there was more than one generally held belief. Is there any objection to doing that here? Rick Norwood 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In the section titled "Fiscal conservatism"...
"This economic liberalism borrows from two schools of thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are the only ethical markets."
Then, in "Economic liberalism"...
"Classical liberals AND [emphasis added] libertarians support free markets on moral, ideological grounds: principles of individual liberty morally dictate support for free markets."
Further, the article notes that conservatives passively reject rights theory as a motive for support for free markets, after stating that they inhert their position from both camps (whether or not it is true that such disparity between them exists)...
"Modern conservatives, on the other hand, derive support for free markets from practical grounds. Free markets, they argue, are the most productive markets."
So there are two contradictions in all. First, that classical liberal and libertarian perspectives on the market are different AND the same. (For the record, I'm NOT saying that they aren't different positions, OR that they're the same. It's just that the article should come down on this one way or the other.) Second, that conservatives hold a position taken from a single source (after stating otherwise). King of Corsairs 02:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A writer noted under this topic heading:
"The race-blind meritocracy now embraced by many U.S. conservatives as an alternative to affirmative action would have seemed quite radical to most U.S. conservatives in the 1950s."
Really? Both National Review and The Freeman editorialized against Brown vs. Board of Education when the opinion was handed down in 1954, as being an unconstitutional attempt to recognize race as a political category. Specifically what conservatives of the time would have regarded a color-blind polity as "radical"?
I think Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity should be removed, because they are neoconservatives? If there are no comments on this in 24 hours I'll go ahead and move them. Reinoe ( talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Gop-plank.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit quoted Barry Clark as saying that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, conservatism was a mixture of economic liberalism and social conservatism. Here is what Clark actually says on the subject: "During the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, American Conservatism was found almost exclusively in the South, where the Plantation System and slavery were ideally suited for an ideology that emphasized the importance of a hierarchal community." Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of Jonamo's recent edit seems fine to me, with two exceptions. First, conservative Christians are strongly divided on environmental issues, some favoring "stewardship", others opposing any government attempt to protect the environment. I agree that the movement is currently in the direction of steweardship, but do not see any evidence that believers in stewardship are yet in the majority.
On the question of schools, the issue is more clear cut. There is a strong movement among conservative Christians in the United States in favor of teacher-led Christian prayer in state schools. The right to choose between public and private schools has never been in question.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In response to the recent addition of John McCain's name to the list of conservatives, I must point out that his voting record is pretty much the same as Hillary Clinton's. Speaking for myself, I was a big McCain fan when he ran against Bush in 2000, but changed my view when joined the gang of 14 to block Bush's judical appointments. McCain yearns for the moment in 2000 when he had the adoration of the media; the nomination is a cross he bears. Kauffner ( talk) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this list is too long, and I don't think minor figures like Sean Hannity or Neal Boortz should be on this list. Would anybody mind if I cut the list down to a few fundamentals:
Does that look acceptable? -- LightSpectra ( talk) 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Hannity and Boortz can go, and that the list is too long. It would probably be best to leave Founding Fathers off the list, because the political divide in those days was not between liberal and conservative -- all the Founding Fathers were both -- but between Whig and Tory. Both Milton Friedman and John Calhoun certainly belong on the list. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
All of the Founding Fathers were liberals -- they overthrew a king! All of the Founding Fathers were conservative -- they believed in the traditions of western civilization.
The same is true today. The practical difference between your average liberal and your average conservative is about as great as the difference between the Red Party and the Green Party in ancient Constantinople, and they divided up into parties based on which race horse they backed!
People tend to divide up into parties. Might as well call them the Us party and the Them party. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The names are widely recognized and newsworthy, and without the support of their followers the intellectual conservatives could not win an election. I voted in the local Republican primary yesterday, and the main issues in contention were not the issues of Greenspan and Buckley but the display of the Ten Commandments in court houses, establishing English as the only American language, and overturning Roe vs. Wade. This, too, is American conservatism. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is on Conservatism in the United States, not on conservative theory. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think dismissing Coulter and Limbaugh is wishful thinking. They are scorned by intellectuals, yes. But intellecutals only make up about five percent of the population. Many American conservatives are strongly anti-intellectual -- consider the the frequent accusation that their enemies are "elitist", live in an "ivory tower", and eat brie and drink white wine. If you ask the average American to name a living conservative, I think Limbaugh's name would lead the list, followed by Bill O'Reiley (who says he isn't one). Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
They are leaders because they have many followers. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a number of issues with the psychology section in article: to begin with it is quite dissonant in tone and - so to say - puts rather a bit of pressure on the NPOV. Furthermore, if there is a psychological component to conservatism, it cannot possibly be specific to specifically American conservatism. I suggest the psychological section is split off from this article and moved to an article on 'the psychology of political ideology' or some such. -- Scarpe ( talk) 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please explain how the terms liberal and conservative came to be used in the US. I have never come across the use of these terms in their modern sense in writings before the post-war era. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
But when did these terms become used in the United States with their modern meaning? Is there any reference that McKinley called himself a conservative? The first Republican I could find who used the term was Barry Goldwater. Even then, it seems that Roosevelt's use of the term was much broader, and Goldwater's narrower, than current usage. The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
LightSpectra, The Four Deuces specifically asked about the use post-WWII. Your information about the use pre-WWII is very interesting, but does not answer The Four Deuces's question. Since you didn't like my first answer, which I am willing to defend if we are talking about political discourse at the level it is conducted on television, I'll try again. Among Americans who do not turn to television for their "news", the words have gone through many meanings in my lifetime. John F. Kennedy was proud to call himself a "liberal", by which he meant something similar to what FDR meant. William F. Buckley wrote an influential book, "The Conscience of a Conservative", and founded a magazine, National Review, that defined intellectual conservatism for several decades. Barry Goldwater was of this school. Buckley was strongly anti-Communism, and so for a time "conservative" meant "anti-communist". Liberals were anti-communist, too, but because liberals and communists both supported integration, women's rights, and trade unions, the liberals had a hard time convincing anybody of their anti-communist credentials. So, the liberals embraced integration as the most important liberal cause. This caused the "solid south" to change from solid Democrat to solid Republican overnight, but the Democrats were still strong enough to stay in power. So, for a while "liberal" meant "civil rights". The next players on the scene were rich businessmen, who chafed at a very high tax rate -- as high as 95% in the top tax bracket. They were looking for a personable, likable candidate who would lower their taxes, and found him in actor Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a strong conservative in the anti-communist sense, and this is when the racists, the anti-communists, and the tax-cut conservatives joined forces. Reagan was allowed to pursue his sincere anti-communist agenda while his Handlers saw to it that he pushed for low taxes and deregulation of business. Then everything changed in ways that almost nobody could have guessed. First, thanks to Blacks on television, the younger generation no longer feared Black people the way the older generation did, and the low-tax conservatives lost many of their racist allies. Then Reagan, against all expectations, won the struggle against the Soviet Union, and the low-tax conservatives lost most of their anti-communist allies. They had, by this time, lowered the top tax rate from 95% to 35%, but they thought they could get it even lower, if they could find another cause that would join them. That cause came their way when the Supreme Court passed Roe vs. Wade. So, now "conservative" means "low taxes" and "no abortions". Liberals, too, had largely won their struggle. So, if liberal doesn't mean "civil rights", what does it mean? Mostly, now, it seems to mean pro-choice and gay rights. But listen to the presidential debates. The conservative and the liberal agree about almost everything, and are reduced to talking about William Ayres and Joe the Plumber -- non-issues if there ever were any. So, the history of the meaning of "liberal" and "conservative" has, in a practical sense, little relationship to their original meaning. Yes, liberals favor freedom, such as freedom of choice and freedom for gays. Yes, conservatives favor traditions, such as the upper class and the Christian religion. But when words change their meaning from election to election, they tend to lose their meaning entirely. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Contemporary writers may refer to supporters of the New Deal as liberals and their opponents as conservatives, but can anyone find a reference that these terms were used at the time? I can only find people calling themselves (in the modern sense) liberals in the late forties and conservatives with Richard Nixon. Was the Conservative Coalition even known by that name? The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You have to say what Knowles meant by the term liberal. Did he for example describe Hoover and Coolidge as liberals too? As for 1912, the Republican platform does not use the term liberal but accuses its opponents of supporting Democracy, which they saw as a step to Socialism. Is there an example before the 1950s when any Republican called himself a conservative, or an example before the 1960s when a mainstream Republican called himself a conservative and his opponents liberals?
In the citation, Coolidge did not call himself a conservative, but merely used the term. It's like a democrat saying he is conservative with salt but uses liberal amounts of ketchup. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
LightSpectra: I'm not trying to "implant" anything, just trying to answer The Four Deuces question. Nor am I "fearmongering". I'm generally optimistic. But I lived in the American South during the civil rights movement, and while first hand reports have no place in articles, here in the talk section I can report what I saw. The South changed from solid Democrat to solid Republican. What's your explanation? Why did William F. Buckley fight so hard to keep Black students out of Skull and Bones? Modern conservatives would like to deny that they ever allied with racists, but history says otherwise. (For a modern example, see the verbal attacks on a Black cameraman at a recent McCain rally.)
The Four Deuces: Before the anti-communist movement in America, Republicans and Democrats alike described themselves as liberal. The modern use of "conservative" began with William F. Buckley's book, as cited above. Conservatives then began to use the word "liberal" in a negative sense. There is a good discussion of that in Modern liberalism in the United States in the section "Negative uses of the term 'liberal'", with plenty of examples. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the "Conservative Manifesto" was not known by that name when it was written and its author identified himself as a liberal who opposed the New Deal. The Four Deuces ( talk) 08:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner: Thank you for correcting my defective memory, which paired the author of one book with the title of another. My bad. On the other hand, I am not mistaken by the number of racists who shifted from Democrat to Republican because of Lyndon Johnson. Yes, sometimes southern states vote for a democratic governer. My own state, Tennessee, has a democratic governer. But according to the polls, Tennessee will go strong for McCain. I hope I'm wrong about that. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
George Wallace went back to the days when the Democratic party proudly called itself "The Party of the White Man". Actually, Wallace started out as a liberal, but found he couldn't advance politically in the South without being a racist, so he remade himself as a racist's racist. After he was shot, and retired from politics, his true liberal nature came to the fore again. He was an interesting character. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This article implies that conservatism existed as an ideology in the US from Revolutionary times, when in fact it is a modern reaction to New Deal/Great Society liberalism with no agreement on ideology. Some conservatives trace their beliefs to British Toryism, while others look to the US constitution or European liberalism. While historic figures like Adams and Jay are claimed by modern conservatives, there is no universal agreement on this. Also, most of the sources for this article are from modern conservatives, not academic studies.
Conservatives historically supported monarchy and the established church, and were opposed to equality, private property and capitalism. The lack of a conservative tradition in the US is seen by most historians as leading to greater enterprise but also lack of social cohesion.
In order to be NPOV, the article should rely on peer-reviewed studies of conservatism in America. While it is proper to cite modern conservatives for information about themselves, including their view of history, their view of history should not be presented as fact. I notice that the article on American liberalism is more clear in its explanation of its origins. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Valois bourbon continues his work to definite conservatism as Libertarianism, citing the eminent scholar Ronald Reagan as evidence. He is also working hard in the articles on Liberalism to define liberalism as Libertarianism. In his world view, the world is divided into two groups, one group including both liberals and conservatives, who are all really Libertarians, the other group including socialists and communists, which includes everyone who is not a Libertarian. Since he edits every day, I'm getting tired of trying to restore mainstream definitions to the many articles he edits, and would appreciate any help I can get. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I have posted my comments at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me write one for this article and see what you think. Both Lee Edwards and Sara Diamond have written extensively about American conservatism, its origins, beliefs and practices, from different perspectives, and I suggest they would be good sources for this article, both for factual information, and for informed commentary. The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest updating the lead section of this article. Numerous edits have left it lacking in clarity. Specifically, the first paragraph does not clearly define the subject. The second paragraph describes conservatism, rather than American conservatism. The third paragraph lists examples but does not state their significance.
The lead should define the subject and outline the issues, with details left to the main body of the article. It should also be a brief summary of the subject, outlining the issues that the article will discuss. I have written a draft for a possible lead. The information is taken from the Heritage Foundation, which is the leading US conservative think tank, but it conforms to mainstream views. There is controversy over who are true conservatives in the US, and about the conservative credentials of historic figures. These disputes are best left to the body of the article.
I believe that it is possible to have an article that is not controversial, even though it is about a controversial subject. That is best achieved by including the various viewpoints in the article, rather than writing the article from a viewpoint.
I welcome your comments.
Suggested lead:
The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Morton provides a very good example of the use of the word "conservative" with a clearly-defined meaning, and of course is important to the history of the subject. As I wrote there has always been a conservative tradition, but the term conservative was not popularized until Kirk, who traced the tradition, and may have been the first to do so. After Morton there were many people we would today identify as conservatives but were not described as such at the time, e.g., Sen. Robert Taft. There are others, such as WJ Bryan, T Roosevelt and the progressives who do not fit neatly into liberal/conservative categories.
I am happy to remove "strong belief in God and country".
The point of starting with Kirk and the National Review is that it provides a basis for examining the conservative tradition as well as the starting point for modern conservatism. One of the problems with this article is the on-going argument about who should be considered a conservative before the 1950s. Kirk provides a starting-point, although there will always be disagreements, which should be clearly stated in the article.
If you find my writing in the draft lead unclear, I would appreciate suggestions on how it could be re-written. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I just came across the Wikipedia article Red Tory which shows that conservatism in Canada does not necessarily equate to US conservatism. There is also the Tory Reform Group within the UK party. The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the history section would be more helpful if the history of American conservatism is broken down into the different strands which have now come together, particularly traditional conservatism and libertarianism. After all, members of these two groups often had significant differences, e.g., federalists and anti-federalists, Northerners and Confederates. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I have separated the history section into traditional, libertarian and modern conservatism. The Four Deuces ( talk) 08:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I am using the terminology of modern conservatives, which I have defined in the article, and am not referring to supporters of the modern Libertarian Party. These libertarians support tariffs when they help their businesses and oppose them when they don't. Do you have another word for for pro-business conservatives? The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This section is confusing anyway, and needs to be re-written. From Lincoln to Hoover, the two parties shared broadly similar ideas, although both were influenced to some degree by populists/progressives. Ideological polarization between the two parties began during the New Deal. The section reads as if a modern conservative had sat down and tried to figure out who he would have voted for. The Four Deuces ( talk) 12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Because this topic is so controversial, ObjectivityAlways, you should discuss changes here first. I notice that Four Deuces is trying to fix some of the problems this edit has introduced, and I don't want my edit to conflict with his, but I'm going to make a few changes in the lede that seem necessary to me, to restore some of the points that were there before today's edits. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ObjectivityAlways reverted my edit without discussion. His edit leaves the reader with the idea that there is no conflict between Libertarians and the Religious Right, or between Libertarians and the Republican Party. Sorry, that's not true to fact, that's wishful thinking. I'd be happy to work with you, but until you discuss you ideas here, I'm restoring what I wrote. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you decided to talk things over, sorry you decided to revert a second time instead of rewriting. My objections to your paragraph are partly a matter of emphasis and partly a matter of style. As for emphasis: you seem to want "small government" up front, but that has not, until recently, been a conservative principle. It is true that in the 1960s "States Rights" became a conservative by-word, but to those of us living in the South at the time, this was understood as a code word for segregation. The primary conservative position, as a later paragraph affirms, is God, King, and Country. Obviously, in a democracy such as the United States, that has been modified, but the primary conservative values are still religion and patriotism, with "small government" an offshoot that hasn't got much to do with the first two. In fact, the desire for religious laws and for a strong military often come into conflict with the desire for small government. To run these together in one sentence, as if they were similar or even compatible values, is misleading. Also, while it is true that in the past sixty years or so the Republican party has been the conservative party, in the years following the US Civil War the Republican party was the liberal party, and the Democrats were the conservatives. In short, the lede you have written is too narrow a picture of American conservatism.
In the spirit of cooperation, I'll try another rewrite instead of reverting what you've written. I would ask you to also focus on rewriting rather than reverting. Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The main thing I have done in my rewrite is to take out a lot of material that really belongs further down in the article. Rick Norwood ( talk) 01:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
ObjectivityAlways You refer to fusionism as an argument. Do have any reason why this is just an argument? The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, ObjectivityAlways, for rewriting rather than reverting. I am going to restore "God and country", however, since these are core Conservative beliefs, while "Intelligent Design" is a minor belief of some Conservatives. For example, conservative Roman Catholics do not reject evolution, but do strongly believe in God. If you will leave this, I will leave "most" instead of "some" to describe "small government" conservatives. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that many non-conservatives also believe in God and country, but the conservatives tend to turn to government to support their beliefs, as with their desire for laws requiring school prayer and laws against burning the flag, while liberals generally want these things to be matters of personal conscience rather than required by law.
As it now stands, we have a lede both of us seem to agree on. Now if The Four Deuces also agrees, we can move on to the body of the article, which still needs some work. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The lede seems fine - it outlines the issues and avoids bias. The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me know what you think since this seems to be a defining conservative theme. ObjectivityAlways ( talk) 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner, you make some good points, but the conservative tradition is "God, King, and Country". The instances you mention show that America is a very conservative country (as well as being a very liberal country). The two views only became opposed when adopted by political parties to win elections. Also, the Republican and Democratic parties switched places during the civil rights movements. Before that, the Dixiecrats were the conservatives.
I don't think anyone wants to suggest that conservatism began with Kirk, only that the modern American conservative movement began with Kirk. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
ObjectivityAlways. Sorry, I must have been looking at an earlier edit, and am deleting my comments and your response. The Four Deuces ( talk) 13:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)