What is Conservative?

Higher

A very simple question but what is conservative? I mean could the Saudi Arabian or Muslim Brotherhood governments be considered conservative in the same way as the Tory or Republican party?

What I am essentially asking is, what defines conservatism? Is there a specific definition of conservatism that applies to parties such as the Tories and the Republican party but not to Islamic fundamentalist parties?

Can governments that are socially conservative be blanketed as conservative parties?

Shea O'Meara

Well leave your dictionary aside;

A conservative party supports business, the larger the better in the belief that there is a trickle down effect. If the big companies do well it stands to reason the little guy will get the run off, they'll be jobs and money in the country.
They tend to be blinkered religious types who don't actual have any moral 'help thy neighbour' code when it comes to the working classes, poor, unemployed or sick.
Basically if there is no money in it, they put no money in it.

Using religion to secure the backing of certain sectors of society is what every religiously slanted party has in common with each other.

Higher

So what would you call a party such as the Muslim Brotherhood? Surely its considered a conservative party as well?

I suppose what I am asking is, the term conservative is so broad, if I wanted to narrow it into a simple term that would exclude socially conservative type parties such as Islamist parties what would I call it?

Dirk Gently

It's such a big catch all phrase really. Socially conservative parties I consider to be simply bigots, looking to enforce their own social codes on the population as a whole. It's not a legitimate political movement, it's simply an oppressive regime.

Then there's fiscal conservatives, which can actually mean liberal economic policies, although I find a lot of conservative parties are actually ideologically closer to crony capitalism which is economically destructive. So when I hear the phrase "conservative" I automatically think of an economically illiterate bigot, whose purpose is to be lobbied by big business and to deny social rights to those who don't fit their narrow definition of social acceptance.

As regards the muslim brotherhood and the ruling Iranian or saudi governments I would consider them to be ideologically similar to religious conservatives in the US Republican party. I'm sure they see themselves on opposite ends of the scale but it's just social conservatism, or as I call it, bigotry and the suppression of universal human rights.

Brussels Sprout

A simplistic definition is that conservatives are generally in favour of maintaining the status quo (or seeking to return to the ways of the past) whereas liberals are often seeking changes.

LordSutch

Mrs Thatch, David Cameron, Boris Johnson . . .

Manach

The conservative tradition dates as a social political factor from the time of Edmund Burke, writing in reaction to the excesses of the French Revolution. In essence, the core thinking revolves around a reverence for the past and the various institutions that have organically grown and been sculpted by historical forces. In regard to reform, if it is deemed to be necessary, then conservatism holds it best to be in a form that is reflects the needs of people and not based on abstract reasoning of theorists.
This can both be associated with both the social sphere in terms of smaller government but with traditional mores and responsibilities and the market sphere in terms of maximum economic choice being allowed to people.
Current leading thinkers would include Rodger Scruton, with journals like the Spectator and National Review giving a conservative slant to world events.

who the fug

LordSutch wrote: »

Mrs Thatch, David Cameron, Boris Johnson . . .

Also Harold MacMillan, Michael Hesltine, Ken Clarke , John Major and Ted Heath

A very broad party, that in recent times seems to have let the nut jobs take control.

seamus

Depends on one's point of view. I would consider "conservative" in the broadest sense to be someone who favours policies which involve the most minimal amount of change (social, political or financial) for the minimal cost possible and actively opposes policies which may seen to be a large departure from the existing policy, or which appear unneccesarily costly.

"Liberal" I would see as the polar opposite of this - someone who favours policies which create broad changes in the shortest time possible, with less concern for the cost of implementing these policies, and opposes policies which appear needlessly restrictive or which prioritise cost over need.

In both cases of course, the person believes that the policies are in the greatest interest of their society or of themselves.

I don't think it's possible to say that conservative automatically means "controlling" and liberal automatically means "anything goes", as in terms of commercial activity for example, traditional conservatives often favour completely open markets whilet traditional liberals typically favour higher levels of regulation.

Chuck Stone

Manach wrote: »

This can both be associated with both the social sphere in terms of smaller government but with traditional mores and responsibilities and the market sphere in terms of maximum economic choice being allowed to people.

Social conservatism and small government are not compatible. You need lots of government and lots of government workers to enforce social conservatism.

The catastrophic costly failure of the so-called 'war on drugs' would be an example.

LordSutch

who the fug wrote: »

Also Harold MacMillan, Michael Hesltine, Ken Clarke , John Major and Ted Heath

A very broad party, that in recent times seems to have let the nut jobs take control.

Boris as PM, can you imagine )

Always liked Ken Clarke & his hush puppies!

southsiderosie

The problem with lumping Western conservative parties in with parties like the Muslim Brotherhood is that you are comparing apples and oranges: these societies have fundamentally different views on the rights of the individual, the role of religion in the law and society, and the role of the state - in particular, the use of the coercive power of the state.

The other problem with unpacking conservatism is that there are really two branches in the West today: those who stem from the classical liberal positions of Locke and Burke with their emphasis on individual rights, property rights, and the organic development of social institutions, and social conservatives, who see a far more active role for government and religion in shaping the lives of individuals.

That said, I see a problem in the way that conservatism is being framed in this thread. Calling conservatives economically illiterate, bigoted, or blinkered isn't really conducive to an honest discussion of modern conservatism. One need look no further than the Socialist party in France to see a fine example of economically illiterate policies, and classical liberals (and even modern liberals in the classic mold, such as Barry Goldwater), would be/were horrified by today's Christian conservatives; indeed, one of Goldwater's most well-known quotes is:

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

As to the argument that conservatives don't care about poor people: I think it would be more accurate to say that conservatives may care about poverty but don't necessarily believe in government-led social engineering to address the problem.

Put simply, I would say that conservatives in the liberal mold prefer to see organic social change rather than state-led social change, whereas social conservatives are comfortable using the power of the state in order to engineer social change (usually in a more religious direction). So in this sense, social conservatives have a similar view of the state as left-wing social democrats & socialists.

who the fug

LordSutch wrote: »

Boris as PM, can you imagine )

Like Ken Clark & his hush puppies!

I can see Boris as PM, Cammy loses to milband, Boris keeps his nose clean and he will be the only big beast the Tories have left.

Ken Clarke was the only thing that could have saved the Tories in 97, but the party workers would't have it, so William Hague got it 6 years too early then it became OMG followed by WTF till Mr. Bland came on board

Dirk Gently

Ever notice how "small government" conservatives usually seem to be the very ones who actually increase the size of the state and also the control of the state over it's citizens.

greendom

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Ever notice how "small government" conservatives usually seem to be the very ones who actually increase the size of the state and also the control of the state over it's citizens.

And who believe in freedom only when it suits them and their supporters (Big Business, small business, land-owners)

Shea O'Meara

Dirk Gently wrote: »

It's such a big catch all phrase really. Socially conservative parties I consider to be simply bigots, looking to enforce their own social codes on the population as a whole. It's not a legitimate political movement, it's simply an oppressive regime.

Then there's fiscal conservatives, which can actually mean liberal economic policies, although I find a lot of conservative parties are actually ideologically closer to crony capitalism which is economically destructive. So when I hear the phrase "conservative" I automatically think of an economically illiterate bigot, whose purpose is to be lobbied by big business and to deny social rights to those who don't fit their narrow definition of social acceptance.

As regards the muslim brotherhood and the ruling Iranian or saudi governments I would consider them to be ideologically similar to religious conservatives in the US Republican party. I'm sure they see themselves on opposite ends of the scale but it's just social conservatism, or as I call it, bigotry and the suppression of universal human rights.

Also....let's not forget trying to get in bed/own the media. That's why if you don't belong to one of the above you're a commie or a member of the loony left when there are so many facets to liberal/left too.

Denerick

A conservative in the Edmund Burke sense (As imagined by the likes of William Buckly et all) is essentially another term for a moderate. They aren't opposed to social, cultural or economic change, but feel it should be gradual and grounded by traditional rules and social mores. A conservative may have been uneasy with the sexual revolution of the 60s, but would not necessarily have been uncomfortable with its more moderate demands - greater access to contraception, decriminalisation of private acts between individuals etc. A conservative would have feld nervous with the introduction of the welfare state in postwar Britain, but not necessarily on the creation of the NHS, for example. 'Conservatives' are painted with a broad brush, often confused for bigots and fools. Such as how many people of the left are often confused with the 'occupy' drum banging crowd or the 300 odd people whose sole profession seems to be to turn out at protests. There are, as in most things, extremities.

Buckley and the new American conservatives adapted Burke as their icon because he was two things. Firstly, he opposed the French Revolution because he predicted its inevitable descent into primal violence, anti clericalism, dictatorship and continental war. He predicted all of this before it happened. Secondly, because he supported the American Revolution, which created a stable and dynamic republic which has survived more or less intact for centuries. One revolution permitted the rise of a dictator, the other copper fastened the limitations of political power and its division between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

Who was the better man, Napoleon or Washington?

Conservatism generally means anything these days and it all depends on where the political center is. Most european 'conservative' parties are to the left of the US Democrats. Chinese conservatives are Maoists. Israeli conservatives could probably be labelled socialists, who hanker after the old socialist principles of the kibbutz and Ben Gurion. Russian conservatives are Marxists. So what does it all mean at the end of the day anyway? Its just a label.

who the fug

conservative to me means we can change when we have a good idea where that change will lead to, we have to pay for everything there is no such thing as free money, the state has no right to track you unless it declares an emergency

we will give you a start in life , be the best you can be run away from the circus and become PM

B

Boulevardier

I am sure I have read somewhere that while most conservatives are not (necessarily ) stupid, it is certainly also true that most stupid people are conservatives.

who the fug

Boulevardier wrote: »

I am sure I have read somewhere that while most conservatives are not (necessarily ) stupid, it is certainly also true that most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

will point out that the beveridge report came out of a conservative party, or LBJ was the driving force of civil rights

Also CJ Donnagha O Malley , & Brian Lennihan, moved Irish society forward, I would never call FF a progesive party

bmaxi

LordSutch wrote: »

Mrs Thatch, David Cameron, Boris Johnson . . .

......Enda Kenny, Eamonn Gilmore, Micheál Martin.

regi

Dirk Gently wrote: »

It's such a big catch all phrase really. Socially conservative parties I consider to be simply bigots, looking to enforce their own social codes on the population as a whole. It's not a legitimate political movement, it's simply an oppressive regime.

Most leftist and apologetic parties attempt to push their social codes on the population with political correctness and their new definitions of guilt and selfishness. When I hear 'socialist', I hear economically illiterate bigots, whose purpose is to be lobbied by unions, special interest groups and cynical party apparatchiks and seek to deny social rights to those who don't fit their narrow definition of social acceptance (God forbid you vote UKIP, for example).

To answer the OP, I think conservative is a relative term that defines the political movement that seeks to maintain the status quo in their area. You could probably lump pro-Chavez agitators in Venezuela, Tory party activists in the UK and Iranian mullahs in Tehran in that bucket, despite significant policy differences.

Maybe its time to drop the old labels for politics and start thinking about more general concepts like freedom and liberty instead?

greendom

regi wrote: »

Most leftist and apologetic parties attempt to push their social codes on the population with political correctness and their new definitions of guilt and selfishness. When I hear 'socialist', I hear economically illiterate bigots, whose purpose is to be lobbied by unions, special interest groups and cynical party apparatchiks and seek to deny social rights to those who don't fit their narrow definition of social acceptance (God forbid you vote UKIP, for example).

To answer the OP, I think conservative is a relative term that defines the political movement that seeks to maintain the status quo in their area. You could probably lump pro-Chavez agitators in Venezuela, Tory party activists in the UK and Iranian mullahs in Tehran in that bucket, despite significant policy differences.

Maybe its time to drop the old labels for politics and start thinking about more general concepts like freedom and liberty instead?

And to expand the meaning of freedom perhaps - freedom from poverty, ill-health, ignorance.

regi

And to expand the meaning of freedom perhaps - freedom from poverty, ill-health, ignorance.

How do you force someone to be healthy, non-illiterate and learned when they are quite happy to watch x-factor rather than read a book, eat junk food rather than plants and borrow from unscrupulous pay-day lenders?

I guess you can try to keep bribing them with other people's money and if that doesn't work, outlaw everything you don't like, enforced by prison/taxes.

You could always live and let live, and let people enjoy the consequences of their own choices. When did personal responsibility became a 'nasty' conservative attitude?

greendom

regi wrote: »

How do you force someone to be healthy, non-illiterate and learned when they are quite happy to watch x-factor rather than read a book, eat junk food rather than plants and borrow from unscrupulous pay-day lenders?

I guess you can try to keep bribing them with other people's money and if that doesn't work, outlaw everything you don't like, enforced by prison/taxes.

You could always live and let live, and let people enjoy the consequences of their own choices. When did personal responsibility became a 'nasty' conservative attitude?

Conservative then seems to mean that if you're sick, poor or ignorant, it's your own fault. Seems like an incrediby smug creed

Boulevardier

Sorry Fug, but the Beveridge report was written by a Liberal (L) and almost all American Civil rights laws came from liberal (l) Democrat sources. US Conservatives were never at the forefront of civil rights.

If Burke, Wilberforce and others like that are conservatives, then they are very untypical ones. The Tea Party and UKIP are probably much more characteristically conservative movements.

Fr Tod Umptious

What is Conservative?

Conservative is something you get as you grow up.

In my youth and young manhood I was all of the liberal agenda, but now as a family man in my 40s, with a job in the private sector and a mortgage I am mush more agreeable with a conservative approach.

And my respect for the likes of Tatcher and Regan has grown as I have matured

Lennonist

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

A simplistic definition is that conservatives are generally in favour of maintaining the status quo (or seeking to return to the ways of the past) whereas liberals are often seeking changes.

That would be my reading of it. I would consider the Irish electorate as largely conservative given that the majority of them generally vote for conservative parties - FG or FF.

later12

To answer the OP's question, you're unlikely to get a factual or unbiased answer on here. Most open political discussion forums have a liberal slant, probably due in part to a disproportionately young usership.

I wouldn't consider myself a conservative and so, like many others, any description of conservatives is likely to be tainted with negative descriptors - i.e. its faults and the reasons for its failures.

In an Irish context, I would describe pure conservatism as a movement that argues for the rights of liberty over equality, and pure unabashed liberalism as the polar opposite, with most people somewhere on the spectrum in between.

regi wrote: »

Most leftist and apologetic parties attempt to push their social codes on the population with political correctness and their new definitions of guilt and selfishness.

Can't let this one go I'm afraid; what on Earth is an apologetic party, and is that supposed to be a slur?

Many of us take the view that society has committed a lot of wrong for which we must not only be apologetic, but react to in a meaningful way. I would suggest that a lot of Conservatives would be likely to feel similarly; my understanding of both sides' attitudes to such redress is that the differences lies in how we go about a resolution (to social injustice, porverty, ghettoisation, prison reform, and so on) not whether or not they are wrongs that need to be addressed.

Lennonist

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What is Conservative?

Conservative is something you get as you grow up.

In my youth and young manhood I was all of the liberal agenda, but now as a family man in my 40s, with a job in the private sector and a mortgage I am mush more agreeable with a conservative approach.

And my respect for the likes of Tatcher and Regan has grown as I have matured

Thatcher and Reagan are the main reasons why the world economy has ended up in it's current malaise. The destruction of society and the welfare state (as if it was a bad thing) coupled with the socialisation of commercial debt, a fine mess those two among others got us into.

Denerick

Boulevardier wrote: »

If Burke, Wilberforce and others like that are conservatives, then they are very untypical ones. The Tea Party and UKIP are probably much more characteristically conservative movements.

Both of these groups are reactionary and populist.

The tea party want to create a very low tax base and cut spending down to its bare minimum. They hold far right views on sexuality, immigration and women's rights. They are not conservative, they seek sweeping and revolutionary change to the American welfare model (Whats left of it) and to American society. They have more in common with the fascist and Nazi movements in Europe in the 1930s than they do with what we might call 'conservatism'.

UKIP want to withdraw Britain from the EU, create a 'uniculture' and generally reset Britain to how it was in 1945. This isn't conservative, again, its reactionary. A conservative either tries to prevent change or manage it gradually (Perhaps even institutionalise it). UKIP wants sweeping changes to Britain.

All of these labels of course are rather unhelpful. Despite the financial crisis, the only real ideological distinction in European or American politics is on issues of liberalism or authoritarianism.