The Verifiability Policy is actively observed at this high quality, stable list. Additions must be attributed using an inline citation. Do not be offended if your addition is quickly removed or moved to the talk page. |
Timeline of modern American conservatism is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured list candidate |
It is requested that an image or photograph of Goldwater 1964 presidential campaign poster be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Suggestions? Will Beback talk 09:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
For the historian, the 1930s is "recent" :) The point is that the common thread is anti-New-Dealism and it begins c. 1933. Rjensen ( talk) 07:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The timeline for 1947 says that there is a balance between management and labor in Taft-Hartley Act. That is false. The closest thing to proper balance was before the Wagner Act was passed in the first place. Taft-Hartley did not remove the obligation to bargain from the National Labor Relations Act. Instead of fully protecting businesses and individual workers from extortion by labor unions, it added tangential restrictions on labor-management relations. JRSpriggs ( talk) 08:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Will this pass fair use? – Lionel ( talk) 11:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
A better title might be "Timeline of modern American conservatism". Any comments? TFD ( talk) 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that a major feature of American conservatism in the 1950s and 1960s was opposition to civil-rights legislation. This was particularly significant in the South, where the national Democratic Party "lost the South" by embracing civil-rights legislation. The current Republican domination in southern states is often traced to this shift arising from conservative opposition to civil-rights bills. This doesn't appear to be covered by the timeline in any great depth. Does anyone think it should be? MastCell Talk 22:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Conservatives should feel some embarrassment and shame that we are outraged at instances of racism now that it is easy to be. Conservatives... were often at best MIA on the issue of civil rights in the 1960s. Liberals were on the right side of history on the issue of race. And conservatives should probably admit that more often.
In the civil-rights debates of the 1950s and 1960s, many conservatives—including William F. Buckley Jr., other figures associated with this magazine, and Sen. Barry Goldwater—took positions that the vast majority of conservatives now reject. Most contemporary conservatives who know this history regret it and find it embarrassing.
In some cases these conservative positions were motivated by straightforward support for an official policy of white supremacy, or by a desire to enlist segregationist southern Democrats in the burgeoning conservative movement. But some people held these positions while also sincerely wishing for segregation to end. They believed that their conservative principles—principles that do not on their face entail hostility to blacks—compelled opposition to the civil-rights movement’s platform. ( [3])
Several additions to the article have been made which mention civil rights. The unwary reader might be mislead by them into thinking that conservatives or Republicans were opposed to civil rights. So I added an item pointing out that Republicans gave relatively more support to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats (as that article states and references). In fact, Republicans have always been more opposed to racial discrimination than Democrats. However, after African-Americans registered to vote in large numbers, the Democrats opportunistically switched from anti-black to pro-black. Unfortunately, The Four Deuces ( talk · contribs) chose to delete my item without deleting the others, thus leaving the article with a bias. JRSpriggs ( talk) 08:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The contention that Wallace was not conservative seems based on an extraordinarily simplistic and selective reading of history. "Populist" and "conservative" are hardly mutually exclusive categories. Moreover, the fact that one appeals to blue-collar whites or union members does not exclude conservatism. In fact, Wallace was a pioneer in using racial resentment and social conservatism to split this demographic - generally progressive on economic matters - away the national Democratic party. Wallace himself frequently claimed credit for this strategy, used to great effect by Nixon and later Reagan. Do you want sources? We could start with George Wallace: Conservative Populist. MastCell Talk 18:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the Note section? I realized that conservatism is a method, not a group. Though Republicanism is now associated with it, it wasn't always, and there were proponents of both slavery and the civil rights act that used conservative arguments. I also try to show that through comparing the arguments for/against slavery at that time with those for/against abortion today, since they happen to be almost identical. (And could I get some help finding citations? I know I've seen some, but I couldn't tell you where.) There is no hard and fast rule for whether or not conservatives were for or against it, so (in my opinion) it is best to point that out rather than letting the reader decide based solely on a list of events that none of us can actually agree on, thus creating a biased page. My hope for this is to remove any accidental bias that the page has in relation to slavery.
Yodarocks1 (
talk) 21:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Can we fatten up the lede a bit, say 1500 chars, I've been going through a bit of a DYK drought as of late. – Lionel ( talk) 06:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Are we regarding Libertarianism to be a part of Conservatism? Will Beback talk 08:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It is important to notice that libertarians frequently disapprove of activities which they would allow to be legal. That is, personally they may be ant-abortion, anti-drinking, anti-prostitution, anti-smoking, anti-gambling, etc.. So in his own life he may be a social conservative. The difference is, that he does not approve of anyone, even himself, foisting his personal beliefs on other people. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: "Opposition to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies takes shape as the modern conservative movement. They are referred to as the " Old Right." Could editors please provide sources for entries. It is contentious whether modern conservatism begins with the Old Right or the New Right and in any case they were not called the Old Right at the time. The term was coined by Murray Rothbard in the 1960s and it is questionable whether they saw themselves as a cohesive movement. TFD ( talk) 15:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As noted in the AfD, the scope of the article needs to be limited, and sourced to existing timelines. Including whatever factoids wikipedia editors is interesting is synthesis. I suggest going through the sourcing over the next couple of days and removing items not sourced to existing timelines. Likewise, I've restored the article title from the AfD to avoid creeping scope issues. aprock ( talk) 03:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's a style question: the See also contains section links to relevant timelines contained in other articles. Would these be better as rediects? – Lionel ( talk) 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This edit by Lionelt [6] where he removes Lionel Trilling's comments on conservatism with the notation "how is the musing of a "literary critic" a notable event in the history of consevatism?" shows a real ignorance of the subject. Trilling's comments about conservatism have been extensively mentioned by leading conservative scholars to the extent that it is part of the narrative of modern U.S. conservatism. Could you please familiarize yourself with the subject before removing relevant material. TFD ( talk) 05:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this quote is "controversial", nor how it can be "made NPOV" - after all, Trilling wrote what he wrote. Perhaps Lionel could elaborate. I think the sources demonstrate the relevance of the quote to the subject of this article - it's often cited, by non-partisan sources, as emblematic of the low ebb of U.S. conservatism and the ascendancy of liberalism at a particular time point in U.S. history, immediately before the modern conservative movement spearheaded by Buckley et al. took shape and began its rise. MastCell Talk 07:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Inside the GOP Rockefeller was considered a liberal--that's also the way the media played it. 1) "He has reached for the presidency three times as a liberal Republican and will reach for it again if he sees any..." [Life Magazine (1971)]; 2) "This record created Rockefeller's reputation as a liberal Republican." (Wilson, American political leaders 2002 p 342; 3) "Rockefeller came to politics with a sense of noblesse oblige that pervaded his liberal Republican sensibilities." [Danver, Revolts, protests, demonstrations, and rebellions in American Hist 2010) p 1064]; 4) "Rockefeller was the leading liberal Republican at a time when liberal Republicanism was heading down a dead-end street."[Olson, Historical dictionary of the 1970s (1999) p 300. Rjensen ( talk) 18:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
How is the Recession of 1937–1938 part of the timeline of American conservatism? Are we going to mention every recession? Will Beback talk 16:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This document was originally titled "An Address to the People of the United States" and was not called the " Conservative Manifesto" until later. That should be pointed out in the timeline, since it is partly about the development of the use of the term, but I do not have access to the source article. TFD ( talk) 17:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
We need more about the major documents of modern conservatism. TFD ( talk) 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Many people view the Austrian School as an example of classical liberalism. What's our source for Mises and his school being important parts of conservatism in America? Will Beback talk 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Please remember that these political labels have been used to mean different things by different people. Many people called Ayn Rand a conservative, but she rejected that and called herself a radical for Capitalism. Later, she was called a libertarian, but she and her closest associates despised libertarians and she labeled them "enemies of Objectivism". JRSpriggs ( talk) 19:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Why would this be important enough to mention but not his defeat in 1992? Some commentators have attributed that defeat, in part, to the disaffection of conservatives when Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge.
More generally, we need to make sure we are creating a balanced list that includes both victories and defeats. Will Beback talk 18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've added {{ lopsided}} to the estimates of attendance at Washington for Jesus and the Taxpayer March on Washington. The latter reports the highest estimate cited in the WP article as fact, even though that estimate comes from one of the event's organizers. There's a whole section on Attendance in that article that could help in selecting a more neutral figure. The problems with the Washington for Jesus number are spelled out at the DYK nomination. Lagrange 613 04:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a bit of a gap in the 2000s where we need a pic. We have 4 options that I am aware of: Bush's 1st inaugural, Bush holding the megaphone in the rubble on 9-11 (note that there is also an ogg for this), Bush's Oval Office address 9-11, Bush signing the Partial birth abortion act. From an aesthetic perspective, the Abortion signing is perfectly spaced between Fox News and the Tea Party, and we already have the Bush 9-11 speech ogg in the article, so 9-11 is handled. Also the Abortion pic kills two birds (pardon the expression) as it were: Bush & abortion. I couldn't find a 2006 Values Voter so don't ask. Thoughts? – Lionel ( talk) 09:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
As Will mentioned above, this article exhibits substantial bias in that it omits of a number of things that embarrass Conservatives. There's no mention of the Iraq War or the fact that it was started based on lies (I just added it myself); nothing about the Southern strategy or Jim Crow; nothing about Nixon's dirty tricks, or how they come down to the present day via Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove (see also: Willie Horton); nothing about Iran Contra; nothing about the Great Recession, whose root cause was insufficient regulation of derivatives and the sub-prime mortagage industry. There are others I could name but those are some of the big ones that come to mind.
On a related note - this article includes several events whose importance is highly dubious. Is the founding of Conservapedia really all that important? Ditto the Values Voters summit. This isn't bias, per se, but more a lack of perspective. Raul654 ( talk) 15:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I wrote an entry about conservative extremist Timothy McVeigh but it was removed by Lionelt per BRD. Here's the entry:
*April 19: The Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by conservative extremist Timothy McVeigh and accomplices. The bombing killed 168 and destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. McVeigh was described as a militant believer in gun ownership and small government. Gingrich and other conservative Republican congresspersons sought to distance themselves from terrorist activists such as McVeigh without alienating the gun lobby or conservatives with libertarian sympathies.
If McVeigh has been described as a "conservative extremist" then he qualifies for this list. If conservative politicians in America can be said to have reacted to McVeigh and the bombing in regard to the challenge to gun ownership, etc. then the entry is valid. McVeigh forced conservatives to scramble to define themselves somehow differently from a guy who made many of the same arguments as thousands of Republican right-wingers. Binksternet ( talk) 02:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The timeline currently has about 93 entries. I don't see how the founding of Conservapedia could in any way be considered among the top 100 events in the modern history of American conservatism. If someone can provide sources which show that it is so important then they're welcome to restore it. The existing source makes no claim about its importance to the conservative movement. Will Beback talk 03:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Could editors please provide sources for entries that explain the relevance of entries to conservatism, and explain the significance of events described. This edit for example does neither. TFD ( talk) 20:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Let's see if we can get this to FL. – Lionel ( talk) 11:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Editors who desire to co-nominate and work to achieve Featured List sign below:
Most of the issues at FLC have been handled. These are still open (see the FLC page for original authors):
Most of this is copyedit and grunt work. Please sign items you want to handle. The end is in sight. We can do this!!! – Lionel ( talk) 01:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
[coped from rjensen talk page]
Howdy, noticed you nixed the Bush photo. It isn't my first choice either: I don't want the timeline to get overloaded with pics of people. However, 9/11 does seem to be an important development in the 2000s section of the timeline, and there is a huge gap in pictures at that spot. Thus is prominent enough to rate a pic, and there is a space for it. Which pic? My first thought was soldiers. But the connection to conservatism would've been tenuous. The pic of Bush is iconic and historic--perhaps the most historic pic in the timeline. Thoughts? – Lionel ( talk) 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The sourced entry for 2001 reads "9-11 terrorists attacks redefine the conservative role in foreign policy" and then it is summarized in the intro to the decade: "The terror attack on September 11, 2001 reorients the adminsistration towards foreign policy and terrorism issues, providing an opportunity for neoconservatives ..." Where do we go from here? – Lionel ( talk) 06:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Two things:
– Lionel ( talk) 10:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
What do you guys think about caricatures?
– Lionel ( talk) 02:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Items removed per issues raised at FLC. Usually the item was removed because the source is offline. Please resolve specific issue raised before re-adding.– Lionel ( talk) 10:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Re the Harrington quote--the RS is in the appropriate footnote: Justin Vaïsse, Neoconservatism: the biography of a movement (2010) p. 298
Sources do not have to be online in order to be valid. — goethean ॐ 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC) There is no mention of Charles Lindbergh, a prominent conservative critic of FDR just before WWII. — goethean ॐ 18:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should mention that Wallace ran as a 3rd party candidate, and perhaps Reagan in the primary. From the main article (unsourced): "By early spring, California Governor Ronald Reagan, the leader of the GOP's conservative wing, had become Nixon's chief rival." Also the election was a realigning election. – Lionel ( talk) 00:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"wealthiest Americans" and "lowest-earning taxpayers" is POV and inaccurate. Some "wealthy Americans" are not in the top bracket due to their income arising from from capital gains. For comparison, the main article used "top tax rate" and "bottom rate." We should do likewise. – Lionel ( talk) 01:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Should we add to the lead something about the "low ebb" of conservatism in the 50s, and the revitalization starting with Conscience of a Conservative? The intro to the 1950s could also use a some treatment the "low ebb." – Lionel ( talk) 06:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where this is representative of the decade, nor an important enough event to make the intro to the decade. In any event, I don't believe the conservative opposition is to "global warming" per se, but to far-reaching policies supposedly intended to counteract global warming such as cap-and-trade. I'll move it here so we can work on it.– Lionel ( talk) 22:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a bit wider-reaching than just global warming. Opposition to science has become a hallmark of the conservative movement. To wit, their:
Not to mention that surveys show that conservatives have stopped believing in science, and that this is concentrated particularly in those who are the most educated. It's become conservative de rigour to accuse climate scientists of being involved in some sort of conspiracy to provoke alarm in order to secure funding. I could go on, but there are entire books written on the subject. The point is, it's not just global warming but science as a whole that that should be mentioned in the article. Raul654 ( talk) 05:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
This is certainly true to some degree, but conservatives tend to support the UK. Perhaps it can be reworded to recognize that? Toa Nidhiki 05 01:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I read through the article again and also the FL nomination. I find a problem in this article is scope. It needs to be more clearly defined in the lead and entries should be restricted to relevant items. For example, Lee Edwards concisely defines the topic: "America's modern conservative movement began as a Remnant with Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov, grew into an intellectual movement with Friedrich Hayek, Richard Weaver, and Russell Kirk, blossomed into a political movement with William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater, burst into full bloom as a governing movement with Ronald Reagan and the Heritage-ACU-YAF axis, succumbed to hubris with Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, imploded under George W. Bush and the neoconservatives...." [15] That would seem to exclude Nixon, Strom Thurmond, etc., who were outside the movement, even if they could also be described as conservative. On the other hand, the success of the movement has blurred the lines between it and the Republican Party. TFD ( talk) 19:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
From http://spectator.org/about :
The American Spectator was founded in 1924 by George Nathan and Truman Newberry over a cheap domestic ale in McSorley's Old Ale House. In 1967 the Saturday Evening Club took it over, rechristening it The Alternative: An American Spectator; but by November 1977 the word "alternative" had acquired such an esoteric fragrance that in order to discourage unsolicited manuscripts from florists, beauticians, and other creative types the Club reverted to the magazine's original name.
We need to fix the timeline and the main article. – Lionel ( talk) 23:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Is "lowering taxes" or "tax cuts" generally accepted to mean the same as lowering tax rates? I keep running into people who argue that a "tax cut" lowers the total amount of tax that some favored group pays (like rich people or huge corporations). But I also have read (even here in Wikipedia) of examples where cutting a tax rate resulted in the federal government bringing in more tax revenue.
I don't think people in general will agree that "lowering taxes" means the same thing as "lowering the tax rate". There are many who assert that lowering tax rates can (and has!) result in increasing taxes. I read just the other day a claim that the Reagan tax rate cuts resulted in nearly doubling federal tax revenues.
Whether these claims are true or not might be controversial, but let's get the ball rolling by distinguishing between laws and regulations aimed at increasing tax revenue (via "tax rate cuts") and those which are intended (perhaps secretly) at lowering tax revenue (e.g,. tax cuts for the rich).
You can't discuss the issue without clear terminology. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Conservatism has just launched an A-Class Review department. It's modelled on the one at MILHIST. Did you know that A-Class is a higher quality than Good Article (GA)? (In fact there is no Good List.) And the entire process takes place within the WikiProject. I'm inviting editors here to joint nominate this list for A-List! @ Rjensen and Toa Nidhiki05: – Lionel( talk) 09:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I am so sorry, as I don't know how or where to raise this question, and I hope I'm doing it in the proper place.
The lede summary includes the statement: "Since 2009, the Tea Party movement has energized conservatives at the local level against the policies made by the presidency of Barack Obama, leading to a Republican landslide in 2010 and again in 2014, eventually culminating in the election of Republican Donald Trump as President in 2016."
I certainly agree that the Tea Party movement presaged the election of Donald Trump but I'm wondering about the phrase "the policies made by the presidency of Barack Obama" I'm not disputing that, but I'd just be interested in a source for this claim, especially as it uses the definite article 'the' in 'the policies made by...', as this implies it was in response to specific policies. It has been my understanding that resistance to the Obama presidency actually preceded Obama's inauguration, which was obviously too early to represent a response to actual policies. Can someone support this claim?
Would the claim be more accurate if the words, "the policies made by" as well as the word "has" (which constrains this perspective to a specific point in time) were deleted, to read, "...the Tea Party movement energized conservatives at the local level against the presidency of Barack Obama, leading to a Republican landslide in 2010 and again in 2014, eventually culminating in the election of Republican Donald Trump as President in 2016.
I am basing this partly on a book I've been reading about the Tea Party movement, entitled "Change They Can't Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America", by Christopher Parker & Matt Barreto. [1] They unequivocally identified an extremely strong antipathy toward Barack Obama, representing some 90% of self-identified Tea Party supporters, but the book does not not clarify what this antipathy was based on. If it was based on policy issues, they did not elucidate them. Is the statement as it stands in the current draft, based on actual data, mere supposition, or the author's personal opinion.
Thanks... and if this is not where to post this inquiry, please advise. Thanks. TreeDoctor ( talk) 02:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The Verifiability Policy is actively observed at this high quality, stable list. Additions must be attributed using an inline citation. Do not be offended if your addition is quickly removed or moved to the talk page. |
Timeline of modern American conservatism is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured list candidate |
It is requested that an image or photograph of Goldwater 1964 presidential campaign poster be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Suggestions? Will Beback talk 09:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
For the historian, the 1930s is "recent" :) The point is that the common thread is anti-New-Dealism and it begins c. 1933. Rjensen ( talk) 07:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The timeline for 1947 says that there is a balance between management and labor in Taft-Hartley Act. That is false. The closest thing to proper balance was before the Wagner Act was passed in the first place. Taft-Hartley did not remove the obligation to bargain from the National Labor Relations Act. Instead of fully protecting businesses and individual workers from extortion by labor unions, it added tangential restrictions on labor-management relations. JRSpriggs ( talk) 08:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Will this pass fair use? – Lionel ( talk) 11:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
A better title might be "Timeline of modern American conservatism". Any comments? TFD ( talk) 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that a major feature of American conservatism in the 1950s and 1960s was opposition to civil-rights legislation. This was particularly significant in the South, where the national Democratic Party "lost the South" by embracing civil-rights legislation. The current Republican domination in southern states is often traced to this shift arising from conservative opposition to civil-rights bills. This doesn't appear to be covered by the timeline in any great depth. Does anyone think it should be? MastCell Talk 22:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Conservatives should feel some embarrassment and shame that we are outraged at instances of racism now that it is easy to be. Conservatives... were often at best MIA on the issue of civil rights in the 1960s. Liberals were on the right side of history on the issue of race. And conservatives should probably admit that more often.
In the civil-rights debates of the 1950s and 1960s, many conservatives—including William F. Buckley Jr., other figures associated with this magazine, and Sen. Barry Goldwater—took positions that the vast majority of conservatives now reject. Most contemporary conservatives who know this history regret it and find it embarrassing.
In some cases these conservative positions were motivated by straightforward support for an official policy of white supremacy, or by a desire to enlist segregationist southern Democrats in the burgeoning conservative movement. But some people held these positions while also sincerely wishing for segregation to end. They believed that their conservative principles—principles that do not on their face entail hostility to blacks—compelled opposition to the civil-rights movement’s platform. ( [3])
Several additions to the article have been made which mention civil rights. The unwary reader might be mislead by them into thinking that conservatives or Republicans were opposed to civil rights. So I added an item pointing out that Republicans gave relatively more support to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats (as that article states and references). In fact, Republicans have always been more opposed to racial discrimination than Democrats. However, after African-Americans registered to vote in large numbers, the Democrats opportunistically switched from anti-black to pro-black. Unfortunately, The Four Deuces ( talk · contribs) chose to delete my item without deleting the others, thus leaving the article with a bias. JRSpriggs ( talk) 08:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The contention that Wallace was not conservative seems based on an extraordinarily simplistic and selective reading of history. "Populist" and "conservative" are hardly mutually exclusive categories. Moreover, the fact that one appeals to blue-collar whites or union members does not exclude conservatism. In fact, Wallace was a pioneer in using racial resentment and social conservatism to split this demographic - generally progressive on economic matters - away the national Democratic party. Wallace himself frequently claimed credit for this strategy, used to great effect by Nixon and later Reagan. Do you want sources? We could start with George Wallace: Conservative Populist. MastCell Talk 18:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the Note section? I realized that conservatism is a method, not a group. Though Republicanism is now associated with it, it wasn't always, and there were proponents of both slavery and the civil rights act that used conservative arguments. I also try to show that through comparing the arguments for/against slavery at that time with those for/against abortion today, since they happen to be almost identical. (And could I get some help finding citations? I know I've seen some, but I couldn't tell you where.) There is no hard and fast rule for whether or not conservatives were for or against it, so (in my opinion) it is best to point that out rather than letting the reader decide based solely on a list of events that none of us can actually agree on, thus creating a biased page. My hope for this is to remove any accidental bias that the page has in relation to slavery.
Yodarocks1 (
talk) 21:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Can we fatten up the lede a bit, say 1500 chars, I've been going through a bit of a DYK drought as of late. – Lionel ( talk) 06:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Are we regarding Libertarianism to be a part of Conservatism? Will Beback talk 08:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It is important to notice that libertarians frequently disapprove of activities which they would allow to be legal. That is, personally they may be ant-abortion, anti-drinking, anti-prostitution, anti-smoking, anti-gambling, etc.. So in his own life he may be a social conservative. The difference is, that he does not approve of anyone, even himself, foisting his personal beliefs on other people. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: "Opposition to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies takes shape as the modern conservative movement. They are referred to as the " Old Right." Could editors please provide sources for entries. It is contentious whether modern conservatism begins with the Old Right or the New Right and in any case they were not called the Old Right at the time. The term was coined by Murray Rothbard in the 1960s and it is questionable whether they saw themselves as a cohesive movement. TFD ( talk) 15:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As noted in the AfD, the scope of the article needs to be limited, and sourced to existing timelines. Including whatever factoids wikipedia editors is interesting is synthesis. I suggest going through the sourcing over the next couple of days and removing items not sourced to existing timelines. Likewise, I've restored the article title from the AfD to avoid creeping scope issues. aprock ( talk) 03:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's a style question: the See also contains section links to relevant timelines contained in other articles. Would these be better as rediects? – Lionel ( talk) 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This edit by Lionelt [6] where he removes Lionel Trilling's comments on conservatism with the notation "how is the musing of a "literary critic" a notable event in the history of consevatism?" shows a real ignorance of the subject. Trilling's comments about conservatism have been extensively mentioned by leading conservative scholars to the extent that it is part of the narrative of modern U.S. conservatism. Could you please familiarize yourself with the subject before removing relevant material. TFD ( talk) 05:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this quote is "controversial", nor how it can be "made NPOV" - after all, Trilling wrote what he wrote. Perhaps Lionel could elaborate. I think the sources demonstrate the relevance of the quote to the subject of this article - it's often cited, by non-partisan sources, as emblematic of the low ebb of U.S. conservatism and the ascendancy of liberalism at a particular time point in U.S. history, immediately before the modern conservative movement spearheaded by Buckley et al. took shape and began its rise. MastCell Talk 07:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Inside the GOP Rockefeller was considered a liberal--that's also the way the media played it. 1) "He has reached for the presidency three times as a liberal Republican and will reach for it again if he sees any..." [Life Magazine (1971)]; 2) "This record created Rockefeller's reputation as a liberal Republican." (Wilson, American political leaders 2002 p 342; 3) "Rockefeller came to politics with a sense of noblesse oblige that pervaded his liberal Republican sensibilities." [Danver, Revolts, protests, demonstrations, and rebellions in American Hist 2010) p 1064]; 4) "Rockefeller was the leading liberal Republican at a time when liberal Republicanism was heading down a dead-end street."[Olson, Historical dictionary of the 1970s (1999) p 300. Rjensen ( talk) 18:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
How is the Recession of 1937–1938 part of the timeline of American conservatism? Are we going to mention every recession? Will Beback talk 16:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This document was originally titled "An Address to the People of the United States" and was not called the " Conservative Manifesto" until later. That should be pointed out in the timeline, since it is partly about the development of the use of the term, but I do not have access to the source article. TFD ( talk) 17:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
We need more about the major documents of modern conservatism. TFD ( talk) 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Many people view the Austrian School as an example of classical liberalism. What's our source for Mises and his school being important parts of conservatism in America? Will Beback talk 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Please remember that these political labels have been used to mean different things by different people. Many people called Ayn Rand a conservative, but she rejected that and called herself a radical for Capitalism. Later, she was called a libertarian, but she and her closest associates despised libertarians and she labeled them "enemies of Objectivism". JRSpriggs ( talk) 19:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Why would this be important enough to mention but not his defeat in 1992? Some commentators have attributed that defeat, in part, to the disaffection of conservatives when Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge.
More generally, we need to make sure we are creating a balanced list that includes both victories and defeats. Will Beback talk 18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've added {{ lopsided}} to the estimates of attendance at Washington for Jesus and the Taxpayer March on Washington. The latter reports the highest estimate cited in the WP article as fact, even though that estimate comes from one of the event's organizers. There's a whole section on Attendance in that article that could help in selecting a more neutral figure. The problems with the Washington for Jesus number are spelled out at the DYK nomination. Lagrange 613 04:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a bit of a gap in the 2000s where we need a pic. We have 4 options that I am aware of: Bush's 1st inaugural, Bush holding the megaphone in the rubble on 9-11 (note that there is also an ogg for this), Bush's Oval Office address 9-11, Bush signing the Partial birth abortion act. From an aesthetic perspective, the Abortion signing is perfectly spaced between Fox News and the Tea Party, and we already have the Bush 9-11 speech ogg in the article, so 9-11 is handled. Also the Abortion pic kills two birds (pardon the expression) as it were: Bush & abortion. I couldn't find a 2006 Values Voter so don't ask. Thoughts? – Lionel ( talk) 09:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
As Will mentioned above, this article exhibits substantial bias in that it omits of a number of things that embarrass Conservatives. There's no mention of the Iraq War or the fact that it was started based on lies (I just added it myself); nothing about the Southern strategy or Jim Crow; nothing about Nixon's dirty tricks, or how they come down to the present day via Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove (see also: Willie Horton); nothing about Iran Contra; nothing about the Great Recession, whose root cause was insufficient regulation of derivatives and the sub-prime mortagage industry. There are others I could name but those are some of the big ones that come to mind.
On a related note - this article includes several events whose importance is highly dubious. Is the founding of Conservapedia really all that important? Ditto the Values Voters summit. This isn't bias, per se, but more a lack of perspective. Raul654 ( talk) 15:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I wrote an entry about conservative extremist Timothy McVeigh but it was removed by Lionelt per BRD. Here's the entry:
*April 19: The Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by conservative extremist Timothy McVeigh and accomplices. The bombing killed 168 and destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. McVeigh was described as a militant believer in gun ownership and small government. Gingrich and other conservative Republican congresspersons sought to distance themselves from terrorist activists such as McVeigh without alienating the gun lobby or conservatives with libertarian sympathies.
If McVeigh has been described as a "conservative extremist" then he qualifies for this list. If conservative politicians in America can be said to have reacted to McVeigh and the bombing in regard to the challenge to gun ownership, etc. then the entry is valid. McVeigh forced conservatives to scramble to define themselves somehow differently from a guy who made many of the same arguments as thousands of Republican right-wingers. Binksternet ( talk) 02:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The timeline currently has about 93 entries. I don't see how the founding of Conservapedia could in any way be considered among the top 100 events in the modern history of American conservatism. If someone can provide sources which show that it is so important then they're welcome to restore it. The existing source makes no claim about its importance to the conservative movement. Will Beback talk 03:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Could editors please provide sources for entries that explain the relevance of entries to conservatism, and explain the significance of events described. This edit for example does neither. TFD ( talk) 20:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Let's see if we can get this to FL. – Lionel ( talk) 11:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Editors who desire to co-nominate and work to achieve Featured List sign below:
Most of the issues at FLC have been handled. These are still open (see the FLC page for original authors):
Most of this is copyedit and grunt work. Please sign items you want to handle. The end is in sight. We can do this!!! – Lionel ( talk) 01:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
[coped from rjensen talk page]
Howdy, noticed you nixed the Bush photo. It isn't my first choice either: I don't want the timeline to get overloaded with pics of people. However, 9/11 does seem to be an important development in the 2000s section of the timeline, and there is a huge gap in pictures at that spot. Thus is prominent enough to rate a pic, and there is a space for it. Which pic? My first thought was soldiers. But the connection to conservatism would've been tenuous. The pic of Bush is iconic and historic--perhaps the most historic pic in the timeline. Thoughts? – Lionel ( talk) 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The sourced entry for 2001 reads "9-11 terrorists attacks redefine the conservative role in foreign policy" and then it is summarized in the intro to the decade: "The terror attack on September 11, 2001 reorients the adminsistration towards foreign policy and terrorism issues, providing an opportunity for neoconservatives ..." Where do we go from here? – Lionel ( talk) 06:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Two things:
– Lionel ( talk) 10:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
What do you guys think about caricatures?
– Lionel ( talk) 02:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Items removed per issues raised at FLC. Usually the item was removed because the source is offline. Please resolve specific issue raised before re-adding.– Lionel ( talk) 10:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Re the Harrington quote--the RS is in the appropriate footnote: Justin Vaïsse, Neoconservatism: the biography of a movement (2010) p. 298
Sources do not have to be online in order to be valid. — goethean ॐ 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC) There is no mention of Charles Lindbergh, a prominent conservative critic of FDR just before WWII. — goethean ॐ 18:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should mention that Wallace ran as a 3rd party candidate, and perhaps Reagan in the primary. From the main article (unsourced): "By early spring, California Governor Ronald Reagan, the leader of the GOP's conservative wing, had become Nixon's chief rival." Also the election was a realigning election. – Lionel ( talk) 00:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"wealthiest Americans" and "lowest-earning taxpayers" is POV and inaccurate. Some "wealthy Americans" are not in the top bracket due to their income arising from from capital gains. For comparison, the main article used "top tax rate" and "bottom rate." We should do likewise. – Lionel ( talk) 01:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Should we add to the lead something about the "low ebb" of conservatism in the 50s, and the revitalization starting with Conscience of a Conservative? The intro to the 1950s could also use a some treatment the "low ebb." – Lionel ( talk) 06:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where this is representative of the decade, nor an important enough event to make the intro to the decade. In any event, I don't believe the conservative opposition is to "global warming" per se, but to far-reaching policies supposedly intended to counteract global warming such as cap-and-trade. I'll move it here so we can work on it.– Lionel ( talk) 22:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a bit wider-reaching than just global warming. Opposition to science has become a hallmark of the conservative movement. To wit, their:
Not to mention that surveys show that conservatives have stopped believing in science, and that this is concentrated particularly in those who are the most educated. It's become conservative de rigour to accuse climate scientists of being involved in some sort of conspiracy to provoke alarm in order to secure funding. I could go on, but there are entire books written on the subject. The point is, it's not just global warming but science as a whole that that should be mentioned in the article. Raul654 ( talk) 05:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
This is certainly true to some degree, but conservatives tend to support the UK. Perhaps it can be reworded to recognize that? Toa Nidhiki 05 01:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I read through the article again and also the FL nomination. I find a problem in this article is scope. It needs to be more clearly defined in the lead and entries should be restricted to relevant items. For example, Lee Edwards concisely defines the topic: "America's modern conservative movement began as a Remnant with Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov, grew into an intellectual movement with Friedrich Hayek, Richard Weaver, and Russell Kirk, blossomed into a political movement with William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater, burst into full bloom as a governing movement with Ronald Reagan and the Heritage-ACU-YAF axis, succumbed to hubris with Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, imploded under George W. Bush and the neoconservatives...." [15] That would seem to exclude Nixon, Strom Thurmond, etc., who were outside the movement, even if they could also be described as conservative. On the other hand, the success of the movement has blurred the lines between it and the Republican Party. TFD ( talk) 19:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
From http://spectator.org/about :
The American Spectator was founded in 1924 by George Nathan and Truman Newberry over a cheap domestic ale in McSorley's Old Ale House. In 1967 the Saturday Evening Club took it over, rechristening it The Alternative: An American Spectator; but by November 1977 the word "alternative" had acquired such an esoteric fragrance that in order to discourage unsolicited manuscripts from florists, beauticians, and other creative types the Club reverted to the magazine's original name.
We need to fix the timeline and the main article. – Lionel ( talk) 23:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Is "lowering taxes" or "tax cuts" generally accepted to mean the same as lowering tax rates? I keep running into people who argue that a "tax cut" lowers the total amount of tax that some favored group pays (like rich people or huge corporations). But I also have read (even here in Wikipedia) of examples where cutting a tax rate resulted in the federal government bringing in more tax revenue.
I don't think people in general will agree that "lowering taxes" means the same thing as "lowering the tax rate". There are many who assert that lowering tax rates can (and has!) result in increasing taxes. I read just the other day a claim that the Reagan tax rate cuts resulted in nearly doubling federal tax revenues.
Whether these claims are true or not might be controversial, but let's get the ball rolling by distinguishing between laws and regulations aimed at increasing tax revenue (via "tax rate cuts") and those which are intended (perhaps secretly) at lowering tax revenue (e.g,. tax cuts for the rich).
You can't discuss the issue without clear terminology. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Conservatism has just launched an A-Class Review department. It's modelled on the one at MILHIST. Did you know that A-Class is a higher quality than Good Article (GA)? (In fact there is no Good List.) And the entire process takes place within the WikiProject. I'm inviting editors here to joint nominate this list for A-List! @ Rjensen and Toa Nidhiki05: – Lionel( talk) 09:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I am so sorry, as I don't know how or where to raise this question, and I hope I'm doing it in the proper place.
The lede summary includes the statement: "Since 2009, the Tea Party movement has energized conservatives at the local level against the policies made by the presidency of Barack Obama, leading to a Republican landslide in 2010 and again in 2014, eventually culminating in the election of Republican Donald Trump as President in 2016."
I certainly agree that the Tea Party movement presaged the election of Donald Trump but I'm wondering about the phrase "the policies made by the presidency of Barack Obama" I'm not disputing that, but I'd just be interested in a source for this claim, especially as it uses the definite article 'the' in 'the policies made by...', as this implies it was in response to specific policies. It has been my understanding that resistance to the Obama presidency actually preceded Obama's inauguration, which was obviously too early to represent a response to actual policies. Can someone support this claim?
Would the claim be more accurate if the words, "the policies made by" as well as the word "has" (which constrains this perspective to a specific point in time) were deleted, to read, "...the Tea Party movement energized conservatives at the local level against the presidency of Barack Obama, leading to a Republican landslide in 2010 and again in 2014, eventually culminating in the election of Republican Donald Trump as President in 2016.
I am basing this partly on a book I've been reading about the Tea Party movement, entitled "Change They Can't Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America", by Christopher Parker & Matt Barreto. [1] They unequivocally identified an extremely strong antipathy toward Barack Obama, representing some 90% of self-identified Tea Party supporters, but the book does not not clarify what this antipathy was based on. If it was based on policy issues, they did not elucidate them. Is the statement as it stands in the current draft, based on actual data, mere supposition, or the author's personal opinion.
Thanks... and if this is not where to post this inquiry, please advise. Thanks. TreeDoctor ( talk) 02:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
References