Is conservatism even actually "conservatism"?

[George_Bonanza]

The meaning of conservatism is a philosophy reluctant to embrace untried and untested new changes and to turn to history for guidance basically. Doesn't sound that bad actually when you think about it. But then American conservatism has it all warped, and this is why:

Firstly, what's the first thing one should immediately think of when conservatism comes to mind? That's right, conserving the nature we were born with from the first humans. Yet modern day Republican-style conservatism has no regard for conserving precious irreplacable nature. Just WHAT are they trying to conserve, if they're conservatives, if not starting with nature? It's confusing and mind-boggling that groups that seek change and reform must be the ones who are most adamant about protecting nature.

Secondly, "conservative" groups like the Religious Right are being nostalgic about the "good old times" that never seemed to exist. I can't really recall a successful nation or empire that was driven by intense religious doctrines. Some very religious rulers like Oliver Cromwell's Puritan England crumbled quickly. The Catholic Church held a lot of power in the medieval times, and look what happened. I thought conservatives wanted to implement TRIED, TESTED, and TRUE methods, not TRIED, TESTED, and FAILED methods. Let's see, intense religious adherence and intolerance led to mass killings, and religious wars. Definitely not something I'd want to pull out of again in history. And this is what the American conservatives want, a sort of a Christianized (if this is what Jesus would've wanted, which is a NO) America vs. the heathen world. It hasn't worked, and it'll never work. In fact, one may even classify the Religious Right as social reformers, because they're trying to change what America was founded upon; separation of church and state. If they think reformers and change is so bad, maybe they should look at themselves and how they're trying to drastically change America from what it was meant to be.

So in conclusion, because the conservative ideal seems to be less about keeping the best aspects of our history and government intact and about enforcing hazardous old religious battle lines and wreaking environmental havoc, it is a self-contradictory and flawed philosophy. In many ways, the liberals of today are noble and intelligent conservatives, because we're trying to keep the best aspects of our old government intact: Welfare, Roe vs. Wade, Medicare, etc. Al Sharpton was right on the money.

[maggrwaggr]

1. neocon/religious right "conservatism" is actually fascism

this nostalgia for a halcyon time that didn't actually exist is one of the hallmarks of any fascism.

Blaming the society's problems on a group of people (liberals, homosexuals) is another.

The list goes on and on.

Oddly, I doubt that American religious-right/neocons have any idea that they're actually fascists. I know several, and they're actually not educated enough to realize this.

I think fascism is an aspect of human nature that is brought to the forefront of certain personality types due to fear and ignorance.

Then others take advantage of it. And gain power. And kill people.

[saoirse]

2. No - and you make a great point

The Bush neo-con artists aren't conservatives at all. They're
greedy opportunists.

I can remember a time - before Reagan - when there were Republicans who were worthy of respect. They had some good ideas, but now they'd feel much more at home in the Democratic party. Jim Jeffords proved that anyone with a conscience will never feel at peace in the Republican party.

[Pinko Commie]

3. I've always loved Peggy Lipton

I second that, saoirse. I never believed in conservativism, but there was a time in the 60s when I still respected them. I thought both liberals and conservatives wanted mostly the same thing (ie, they both respected this country), but just had different ways of going about it. Now I don't respect conservatives at all.

The sad thing is that the cons. rank-and-file is being duped, and they don't even realise it. The cons. leadership does not have a cons. philosophy. They're just greedy bastards who are exploiting the natural tendency of their rank-and-file to blindly follow without asking questions.

Sort of reminds me of certain other types of fundamentalism.

[newyawker99]

5. Hi Pinko Commie!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[loyalsister]

4. perpetual nagging question

Conservativism is one of those words that has lost some of it's meaning.
What does Teddy Roosevelt and "Conservation" bring to mind? That's a brand of "Conservativism" that Republicans would like to forget. And yet, he will be remembered fondly.....
Theodore Roosevelt also feared anti-corporate muckrakers, writing to Taft in 1906, "Some of these are socialists; some of them merely lurid sensationalists; but they are building up a revolutionary feeling which will most probably take the form of a political campaign" (McNaught, 1968, p. 259).

Then there are those who grab onto this and call it "conservativism"....

Political economy pretended to illuminate the economy by liberating it from the polity, by restraining the sovereign's tight grip on the producer in favor of Adam Smith's innate grasping: given the "natural liberty" to direct "industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is...led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention" (Smith, 1961, p. 166).

No other principle seemed necessary but rational self-interest, and the only organ of Homo Economicus that needed vigilant exercising was this magnificent "Invisible Hand." That meant that "free enterprise" or "free trade" or "free markets" were to be actively saved from interference by legislatures or courts: "Laissez-faire, laissez-passer," let it alone, let it pass, was the watchword that Smith took from the French Physiocrats. The story was told that Colbert, the chief minister of Louis XIV, once asked a group of businessmen what he could do for them. One of these businessmen, replied, laissez nous faire - leave us alone.

As the textile magnate Daniel A. Tomkins explained, "Whatever the socialist and other sentimentalists may think, the survival of the fittest is, has been, and will always be the law of progress in national affairs, in business and in all other walks of life" (ibid.). As the historian Sidney Fine detailed in his 1956 study, "...laissez faire was woven into the fabric of the law during the years from 1865 to 1901..." (p. 127).

http://www.greeninformation.com/CORPORATIONCAPITALISM1.htm


Then there was Barry Goldwater. The local control, government out of our lives conservativism. That also has been abandoned.


I believe that most people who haven't studied philosophy use these literal meanings.......

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

So, what is the percent of the population that has delved into political philosophy enough to fully consider the views of people like Adam Smith? I would guess not very high.

Thus, MOST people probably use one of the literal meanings of the word to define "Conservative." Meet our swing voters. They don't realize that if they identify themselves as squarely in the "conservative" camp, they are buying the above warped philosophy. It's a very clever trick! Most people who lead ordinary lives like to believe that they are continuing traditions of some variety. They like to consider themselves moderate. They try to feed their kids a nutritional diet, try to limit their Kids' TV watching, participate in their kids' education, save money for family vacations, work hard to make sure they have job security, etc. Even if they don't always do these things, they "intend" to, or like to think they do. People (baby boomers especially) consider these things "conservative" principles because they are elements of a moderate, calm lifestyle, or efforts to get there. In that sense, there is something comforting about the concept.

So, when Republican reactionaries talk about "conservativism" They are talking about corporatism and social darwinism. When ordinary people use the word, they are talking about tradition and caution. Conservativism, applied literally isn't so bad. I kind of like how Dean seems to be trying to take that word back. The interesting thing about that is, when we get that one back, we can also restore the proper meaning for the word liberal!! I have come to hate when those words are used to describe ideology as opposed to qualities. I really think our best bet for repairing the "literary fraud" and damage that has been done, is to use reclaim the words and find and use common word meanings.
My favorite literal synonym for liberal is "flexible" - as in willing to examine all points of view. Any thoughts on this?

[George_Bonanza]

6. I've always thought that the idea of conservatism in general was okay

There are times when everybody needs to be conservative and changes need to be stopped. Basically, liberal and conservative means change and little change, respectively. All change isn't good, and no change isn't always good. It always depends on the situation. For example, now is a good time to be conservative in order to save Roe vs. Wade. I sure as hell do not want changes or "progress" (progress is in the eye of the beholder) made to those right now. It's good to be conservative on the environment. I do not want nature changed or reformed.

The problem with Republicans is that they are in fact changing America more so than Democrats. They are changing the child of democracy and freedom to one of theocracy and limited rights.

[gulliver]

7. True. It is the ultimate irony.

Conservatives foolishly let an unrestrained profit motive, an unrestrained appetite for consumption, and an unrestrained intolerance take away every tradition and human value we hold dear. Everything that matters is being wrecked, including everything the conservatives claim to value. And they themselves are swinging the wrecking ball in their madness.

[maggrwaggr]

8. "conservatism" is now a rationale for hatred and fear

It has lost its previous meaning and is now a refuge for those who need a formula to justify their hatred and their fear.

That's sad. But it's also horribly wrong. And needs to be defeated.

How to defeat it? When the people in power have become such experts at exploiting it?

None of these hypocrites in charge believe a goddamn thing they say. But the voters do.