That’s a very simple version. Conservatives traditionally want to maintain traditional institutions and bring in reforms very slowly, little by little, if at all. There’s an emphasis on hierarchy and authority, which given its value should be maintained. I think it was said of Balfour “if you want nothing doing, he’s your man” - not in the sense of laziness, but as arch-conservatism. Of course, those most motivated to maintain the social order are those who benefit from it.
And another quote from GK Chesterton: “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”
Thanks for your reply, Only_Humean. Sounds like it is that simple. As though the philosophy of conservatism is merely a relic of a time when the ruling justified their position at the top of the pile on the grounds of some appeal to divine right. Of course, in a more secular age, appeals to more meritocratic principles might seem more apt. And in an age of fast-paced changes in science and technology, surely gradual change and sticking to tradition is a hindrance?
Is there anything else to conservatism or is that really all it is? It seems a bit banal at present.
Progressivism is for progress. Conservatism is literally for conservation of the current situation. In practice, however, what is usually meant by “conservatism” is “regressivism”—a striving to restore some past situation. But because it is disputable what would be “progress” and what would not, this “regressivism” may also be considered progressivism. For a fallen angel for instance, regression—a return to his original, unfallen state—would of course be progress. “Conservatism” and “progressivism” are therefore in practice useless terms: the difference between “conservatism” and “progressivism” consists only in what the “conservatives” and the “progressives” strive for; both however aim toward the future, for time does not stand still and only moves in one direction…[/size]
The current definitions of Conservatism in British and American politics both include a desire to maintain ‘tradition.’ Then, they diverge. American ‘conservatism,’ in its extreme, is ‘right wing’ and Liberalism, taken to its extreme, is ‘left wing.’ Right-wing Americans want a social order based on hierarchy, which, in the US means who has the money. British hierarchy is, of course, its Royal family and all of the familial nobility; Britain also has a multi-party political system, while the US has only 2 parties. This means, in my mind, that Great Britain can further define its political labels while the US can only label two. In the US, then, the label (as is true with any label) becomes inclusive, generally connoting only the most general definitions which aren’t always true,
IMO, one of the best examples of how the labels affect behavior is the film, The Queen. Helen Mirren was brilliant in her portrayal of Elizabeth II and her conflict between Conservatism and Blair’s Labour Party Liberalism. I doubt that any such conflict could occur in the US, since our hierarchy and class structure is based on money, rather than birth. None of our monied ‘leaders’ would ever be faced with such conflict.
So, you Brits may think your Royals are a financial drain on your country, but they do provide you with a lodestar we Yanks don’t have.
There is indeed a line of thought to be traced from the Royalists and divine right of kings down to the current Tory party, but it’s obviously mutated a lot. Like Progressivism, it’s one end of a continuum of political thought.
Fast-paced changes in technology don’t demand fast-paced changes in values. That we could genetically design babies doesn’t mean we ought to, for instance, and very few people have the wisdom to predict the effects of an important new technology on society. Conservative philosophy is to adapt changes to institutions, rather than adapting institutions to changes - after all, the institutions we have so far have served us well enough, whereas new technology/ideology could be a blessing or a curse. If the uberConservative wants to bring everything back to a mythical golden age, the uberProgressive is a gadfly, chasing from one new idea to the next without integrating anything into a coherent system. Inertia can be a hindrance, but it can also be a good thing.
The other significant difference between Conservatism and Progressivism for me is the acceptance of authority as a necessary and useful tool by the former. Democracy in its widest, most populist form form (the form understood by many today and pushed by the populist media) gives everyone an equal say in everything, regardless their education, experience or qualifications. For X-Factor or America’s Next Model this isn’t the end of the world, but clearly you wouldn’t volunteer to undergo brain surgery by popular vote.
Hmm. Thanks all, I’m starting to get a clearer picture. Preservation of privilege (be this class-based or plutocratic) dressed up as conservation of tradition, with values or manifestos subsumed to this aim?
Yes. But is this generally non-beneficial to the whole? I think, within the US, it is.
Our highest paid State government employee is the coach of the main campus of the state university’s football team. And that University is raising its tuition by about 18%. Dear lord!
Unfortunately, no. You’re right in that it is based on the word “conserve”. And nowadays, it does seem to be primarily about preserving the social order and the powers that benifit from it. However, there was a time when it was about preserving the constitution and the rights it described. For instance, when they first attempted to make drugs illegal, it was the conservatives that resisted because they felt it violate our right to privacy.
Seems like much of the interest in such as foot ball is interest such as to fit in with the the corwd…to be manly maybe…I imagine people enjoyit but that they came to enjoy it due to practice after doing it to fit in or being taught such…I see little value in it other than that of playing a sport for helath…watching one seems odd to me…unless one is anathlete and means to learn a trick or two…
But that they would pay a coach that much money, and then rase tution when they could just reduce payment for one who is surely already well off enough to enjoy life well…that is sad I would think…
Yes, I’m sure they can. But once you take a desire to preserve of acquire privilege to the level of an explicit philosophy or manifesto, surely some concessions have to be made or distortions introduced in order to make it more generally palatable? And these concessions and distortions are no less part of what a political philosophy or manifesto is about, even if they serve primarily to sweeten the core values for a broader electorate (or populus, to prevent them from rebelling or challenging one’s sovereignty), are they not?
(Btw, if I ask naïve questions it’s because I’m genuinely naïve in this subject!)
You’re contradicting your own assertion - it’s explicitly about respect for institutions, tradition and authority and eschewing radical change.
Conservatives and progressives alike put their desired plans in the most favourable way possible. Pragmatically, politics is about getting your way, imposing your will. There are idealists and exploiters on both sides of the house, and sadly (but perhaps luckily?) the latter outweigh the former.
I’m not very conservative in most of my views, and certainly not a Tory voter; however, I get the firm impression you dislike conservatism from the off and are looking for justification. Apologies if this is not the case: it’s just that reinforcing prejudice is no match for open-minded learning
I’m looking to find out more about something I know very little about. I’m not in favour of excessive privilege, but neither am I in favour of equality for all irrespective of effort. My politics has always been a confused (and possibily irreconcilable) mixture of left, right, centre and anarchy. If I tend towards criticism of conservatism here it’s because I’m trying to tease out the detail by playing devil’s advocate (my favoured role); I’d be doing the same if we were discussing liberalism or socialism.
It’s always a step by step process for progressives. In the long run, we tend to get our way. The problem for us is that our ideology tends to evolve out a constant process deconstruction, including that aimed at ourselves. Therefore, our statements tend to seem a little more wishy-washy than those of conservatives. This is because conservatives seem to work from assumptions that they consider well beyond question. For instance, they tend to work by throwing out a word such as “Socialism” and act as if we should hear psycho-shreiks at the mere mention of it. In other words, they heavily exploit the agreement that language is by establishing agreements among their own, then going on as if the agreement is universal. This is why such op-ed writers as Cal Thomas and Mona Charon can make the arguments they do and finish it off as if to say: that’s just the way it is. The problem is that they fail to see that the underlying assumptions don’t work for everyone. They just assume that anyone that doesn’t agree with them is somehow mislead or irrational.
The problem for progressives is exactly what everyone tells us our problem is: we think too much. We think to the point of even undermining our own assumptions, and end up seeming weaker in the process. But this liability is our greatest asset. We don’t need strong arguments for what reality will ultimately prove to be true in the long run. The 2008 economic meltdown, for instance. Anyone who recognized that the problem with supply-side economics is that it creates an economy so top heavy that it would become ineffective could have seen it coming. And we’re seeing it again thanks to Obama’s tendency to play nice with the Republicans and the underlying assumption that even many democrats have taken on: that the market is everything.
But as I said, it is a step by step process for us. For instance, I recently noticed BIll Maher talking more and more about socialism, and on one episode, having his guests recognize a lot of things that I have for some time. But most hopeful was a guest of his that directed the documentary on Sarah Palin and seemed sympathetic to the tea party. To paraphrase his argument:
The rich and the very poor are the benifactors of socialism while the working people in the middle have to deal with grinding Capitalism.
And the “grinding Capitalism” was a phrase he did use. Now think about that. This tells me we are having an effect. We are changing attitudes about what we ultimately know is right.
Which is perhaps for the best. While I tend to generally disagree with a guy like Edmund Burke: I do tend to agree with him to the extent that society is an organic thing that tends to work best with slow change. At the same time, what he failed to understand was that there comes a time when the resistance of the status quo is so rigid, slow change no longer seems like an option. Such was the reasoning and fascism behind the French Revolution that repulsed him so much.
Conservatism in the US differs from conservatism in GB. Conservatism in the US brings religion into the equation, which is unconstitutional per the 1st amendment. Conservatism in the US strives for strict adherence to the Constitution, despite bringing religion into politics. Conservatism in the US is trying to create a hierarchy of a monied class even though the Revolution was about the denial of the Right of Kings to impose restrictions on the Colonies.
It seems to me, Conservatism in the US goes totally against the philosophies presented in the Constitution–and, yet, the FF were basically conservative.
Plus that, conservatives in other western industrialized nations tend to be more careful when approaching safety nets such as nationalized healthcare. Nor do they say such words as “socialism” as if everyone should hear psycho-shreiks everytime its mentioned. Unlike America, they tend to see it as an ideology that they just happen to disagree with.
And just to show you how low American progressives have had to lower their bar, the most important goal now is to get America to the same intellectual level as every other western industrialized nation -primarily when it comes to the word “socialism”.
Second of all, you’re right in that if they were conservatives, they would have conserved British rule. Secondly, they couldn’t have been strict constitutionalists in that not all of them fully agreed with the end result. I’m not sure any of them did.
But then, many of them would have disagreed with the radical positions many of us hold on this board.
This just goes to show the relative relativity of such terms as liberal and conservative. In many circles throughout history, Liaise Faire capitalism has been considered liberal.
It just all goes to show you the relativism of such terms. They’re always in need of a point of reference.
you’re right of course - the terms are totally relative - definable in different ways at different times - i just can’t think of any definition of the word conservative that fits the founding fathers, then or now.
you’re also right that by today’s standards they might not be radicals - it’s kind of like calling something dark or light or tall or short - you sort of have to agree upon arbitrary definitions in order to have the words ultimately mean anything, and the definitions change with time and perspective and in relation to one another - they’re real slippery pigs.
