Talk:Conservatism/Archive 3

message: There is still some confusion, apparently, about this article and US conservatism. Some recent edits in this section were obviously about the United States, such as the suggestion that conservatism honours 'common law'. Many European conservatives don't even know what that is, let alone the prominence it has as an anti-statist shibboleth among the American right. On nationalism, it is true that some American and British conservatives are unhappy with the term, which is not surprising given the bloody history. Nevertheless, radical nationalist conservatism was a major element of European conservatism, and still is in some places. The article is about conservatism, not about how American self-identified conservatives define conservatism. For that, there is still the now-separate artile on North American conservatism.Ruzmanci 10:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it looks more like the article is about how anyone and everyone define conservatism, very few of whom I suspect identify themselves as conservatives. keith 18:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: your ad hominem dismissal is neither relevant nor correct. First of all the article purports to summarize all conservatism. And second, the article makes a specific point of associating American conservatism and fascism. Speaking of which, the term "fascism" and its variants are used seventeen times by my count. keith 04:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: yes 10 uses of "fascism", and seven more for "fascist". "Nazi" is used five times (plus a bonus reference to Hitler himself). I also count nineteen hits for "radical", not as inflammatory I suppose, though by definition not applicable to the mainstream.  Plus a modest four mentions of the Taliban.  keith 13:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: You're just side-stepping the argument. The article isn't titled "Fascist Tendencies in European Conservatism", Perhaps it should be, but until then statements which are not accepted as fact by both sides should not be presented as fact, especially not sooo many times. We are going in circles. See below. keith 03:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservatism and nationalism 

message: This section is a mess; I have moved the neutral part out and removed the rest here for now, pending something useful actually being done with it. I get the feeling it is far different from how it started out. But, discussion of other ideologies belongs in their respective articles. And these are not worded as claims than can be referenced or argued.  Weasel-talk like "many non-fascist conservatives admired Hitler" is not just worthless, its inflammatory. 
:The most controversial ideological impact is the conservative element in fascism.  European fascism drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on the conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century socialism. Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler provided much of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement. However, traditionalist, monarchist, and Catholic conservatives often despised the fascist mass movements, and the personality cult around the leader. In Britain, the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative Party supported closer ties with Nazi Germany. When defeat in the Second World War ideologically and historically discredited fascism, almost all western conservatives tried to distance themselves from it. The theory of totalitarianism, which treats Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as equivalent systems, provided the intellectual foundation. Nevertheless, many post-war western conservatives continued to admire the Francisco Franco regime in Spain, clearly conservative but also fascist in origin. With the end of the Franco and Salazar regimes in the 1970’s, the relationship between conservatism and classical European fascism became an issue for historians.
:The relationship with right-wing ideologies (including some that are described as neo-fascist) is still an issue for conservatives and their opponents. Especially in Germany, there is a constant exchange of ideology and persons, between the influential national-conservative movement, and self-identified national-socialist groups. In Italy too, there is no clear line between conservatives, and movements inspired by the Italian Fascism of the 1920’s to 1940’s, including the Alleanza Nazionale which is member of the governing coalition under premier Silvio Berlusconi. Conservative attitudes to the 20th-century fascist regimes are still an issue even within Anglo-American conservatism. The U.S. neoconservative Michael Ledeen was criticised  by other conservatives for "flirting with fascism", because of his admiration for early Italian fascism and  Gabriele D'Annunzio.
:Anglo-American conservatives are unhappy with any implied link to fascism, since the term generally has negative connotations. Nevertheless, the historical contribution of conservatism to facsist ideology is itself clear, and in the 1930's many non-fascist conservatives admired Hitler and Mussolini. The most that can be said is that ideological polarisation was common at the time. Some components of 1930's fascist ideology, such as corporatism are no longer on the political agenda in western democracies. Others, such as antiliberalism, are still central for religious conservatives. They are generally sceptical of both personal and political freedoms, since their concept of social order is grounded in values, and not in the process-oriented 'freedom' of liberalism.
I'm not looking to deny anything, just soften the obsession this article has with discussing (ad nauseum) radical fringe groups who are at best warped caricatures of the article's subject. And the article is too long and bloated already. keith 03:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nazism is even less than a fringe movement, it is a dead movement. Further, your ruminations about it, should you prove able to provide sources, belong on the page titled Nazism. And nowhere does the article state it excludes American conservatism. In fact it explicitly include mention of it in multiple places.  Irregardless I don't think my understanding of Chirac's politics, for example, vis a vis Fascism, is too far out of line either. And even Iranian conservatives take offense at being associated with the Taliban. Even a single suggestion of fascist sympathies can get a politician ejected from a most parties which describe themselves as conservative. Does the article mention this in its bigger-than-most-articles subthesis on radicals and fascists? Nope. What you are arguing for is the equivalent of a treatise on Al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers smack dab in the Islam page. I'd like to see how well that goes over. Please stop dismission my objections as irrelevant--that is not your call--and work with me to produce an article both sides can agree on. Or, alternatively, I would certainly appreciate renaming the article. One final though that occurs to me, I would generally describe Fascists, Nazis, Taliban, etc as extremes of "right-wing" ideology, in whose articles they are already represented, by the way. Perhaps our whole argument is actually whether Conservative and right-wing are the same (as I notice the article erroneously contends). Meantime I'm disputing the article. Further attempts at resolution will follow. keith 12:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Impact on other ideologies" Section 

message: Everyone seems to have given up and gone home.  At least, it has been almost two weeks since the last attempt to clean up this mess -- and, as it stands, it is a mess.
I am going to try for a rewrite.  I know that is presumptious of me, but I will bend over backward to be 1) universal 2) neutral 3) careful.  All material on conservatism in a particular modern country will be moved to, for example, Conservativism is Lithuania, and I will take all of my examples from ancient cultures, and try to keep a good mix of Western, Eastern, African, and Polynesian examples.
I'm going to move slowly, one section at a time, beginning with the introduction.  The main thing about the introduction is that it is much too long.  An introduction should introduce.  Shake hands first; then fight. Rick Norwood 22:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: not giving up

message: Using a method that has worked well in other articles, I have put here my attempt to make the next section neutral point of view.  Clearly, this section was written by someone who was thinking of the conservative movement in the United States, which is the subject of a different article.  The article also makes many assertions about conservatives that conservatives would not agree with.  I have tried to give it a global point of view, and to make it clear that only some conservatives think their values are a universal imperative.  The Amish are a good example of conservatives who do not think their values are a universal imperative.  So, here is my rewrite of the section.  Please edit it until it is ready to go into the main article. Rick Norwood 22:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving right along 

message: Looks good to me. Rick Norwood 12:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification of conservatism

message: I rather doubt the statement that in most Western democracies most conservatives believe in "intelligent design" -- at least, not in the kind of "intelligent design" that is being pushed into science classes in the United States.  I'm going to try to find a more moderate statement that will still convey the idea that many conservatives believe in a creator. Rick Norwood 22:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  intelligent design 

message: My first inclination was to revert this rewrite, but on consideration I'll grant that, for example, "behavior" might be considered a plural noun.  I limited myself to one change, removing the assertion that the upper class wants the lower class to disappear.  On the other hand, if someone else wants to revert the entire rewrite by 162.119.64.111 I have no objection. Rick Norwood 23:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite by 162.119.64.111 

message: Even when talked about objectively, conservativism still sounds stupid. I can't believe it.
:Remember NPOV.
:Sign your comments with four tildes. Rick Norwood 14:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: The article currently has this sentence.
"Cultural conservatism does not always support its own culture: Kemal Ataturk attempted to transplant some Western institutions into Turkey, creating a republic."
I never thought of Kemal Ataturk as a conservative.  Does this view have any support, or should this example be removed? Rick Norwood 22:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

message: I have reluctantly reverted the recent edit.  To single out "family values" as an important example of conservative politics seems to me to place undue emphasis on something that is very much a modern American issue, not something conservatives have historically supported.  Also, I think it is clear that the use of the word "ideal" in the context of that paragraph is clearly shorthand for "a past society that is considered ideal" rather than an assertion that the society in question is actually ideal or, for that matter, ever actually existed. Rick Norwood 16:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I share your concern about the prominent placement of family values.  However, as conservatism is principally about pragmatism and a slow rate of change, I think the word "ideal" is out of place in the introduction.  Idealism is something that progressives are concerned with—conservatives less frequently so.  The relationship between conservatism and idealism certainly does warrant discussion, but certainly not in the introduction, and in such matter-of-fact terms. —thames 17:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  family values 

message: Overall, I think this edit improves the article. Rick Norwood 14:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sansvoix edit 

message: Conservatism and fascism are not vital compliments, they are antagonists, as this article is biased. Fascists were often ex-Reds, and fused Leftist ideology with violent, belicose nationalism.
:The Fascist movement was led by Benito Mussolini, and specifically aimed at restoring the conservative values of Ancient Rome.  It was fiercely anti-communist.  By extension, other nationalistic and conservative movements of the time were also called "fascist" with a lower case f, notably the government of Francisco Franco, who fought a war against communists.
:On the other hand, you are correct in saying that conservatism and fascism are not vital compliments.  Few if any modern conservatives are fascists, and to link fascism and modern conservatism is as misguided as linking Hitler and vegitarianism. Rick Norwood 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservatism and Fascism 

message: An Open Letter to Wikipedia's Helpdesk --- Re: Conservatism 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conservatism 
This is the most shoddy, intellectually dishonest article I have read in my life. All of these smears against conservatism marrying it with fascism, and the reductionism about hardline communists being conservative is just repulsive and dishonest. Who among them has ever read Edmund Burke? Not one iota of conservative thought correlates it with totalitarian movements -- neither fascism or communism. This article needs a few quarter of the materials deleted, gutted, and removed. That is not vandalism-- it is prudent editing... the sections on fascism should be deleted... as well as substantial sections on China... "Today the Chinese Communist Party exerts the most powerful force in mainstream Chinese conservatism..." Yeah, I am sure the party of Mao Tse-Tung is a conservative force. 
Apparently, solidifying large quantities of spurious materials sanctifies it-- and attempts at editing it gets one deemed as a vandal. If the guardians of this puff-piece of intellectual fodder are going to be so gung ho about fascism-- why not recollect Hitler's words, "All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility..." That is problem here--- there is a lot of errant, spurious material, and challenging it-- gets one deemed a vandal. 20-25% of it could be deleted... the article is poorly written... many claims are errant... the perspective horribly obfuscates a movement that arose in opposition to the French Revolution 
No one is going to write an article on classical liberalism and say Ted Kennedy is a "classical liberal..." So, why tolerate an article on conservatism being screwed up?
I've contributed to other articles and have never witnessed such non-sense that was not challenged... This article has fallen through the cracks-- not because people are not willing to prune it, but because a couple of biased ideologues stand as guardians of the garbage they have written in this article. This needs to be addressed... This reflects poorly on Wikipedia's standards to let a handful of scoffers who are opposed to conservatism write a smear against it. They can guard their 'democratic socialism' pages with a passion. I have no desire to mess with their non-sense. 
I might not be a darling of the neoconservative mainstream myself in America... I never voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004. After all I wrote a polemic book review on the Bush Betrayal (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/setliff1.html) critical of our standing Republican President, but I know ridiculous scholarship when I see it. What does my coming from that vantage point, and my position say about this article? I will be reviewing an advance copy of American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia from Intercollegiate Studies Institute-- I know what conservatism is and is not... this article is not accurately reflective of conservatism. It is pejorative, counter-factual, obfuscatory and misleading. 
This article misrepresents conservatives and smears the totalitarian brush across a movement born out of opposition to the radical French Revolution-- It is thoroughly intellectually dishonest, and much of it has been written and edited by biased ideologues with an axe to grind. It is not an objective account by any stretch of the imagination. 
No dice. You guys need to address this! Taking Wikipedia's credibility is vitally requisite particularly after the scandal with the hacker. 
Rsetliff 16:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The PROBLEM here is that you men are trying to write an article on conservatism in a pan-global manner - which is IMPOSSIBLE, as all conservatisms are particular to the nation and traditions wherefrom they evolved. US Conservatism in the philosophical sense, is Lockean liberalism. English and Canadian conservatism are unique in that they emanate from English Tory (Richard Hooker (theologian))traditions, and are modified somewhat by the Lockean influence, but not as seemingly bound to it as the American variant. French conservatism is not bound to the idea of market economics, as is the US type. Yet to call French conservatism anything but conservatism would be a lie. It is FRENCH Conservatism - and it retains its own pedigree, traditions, and policy inclinations. Conservatism is PARTICULAR folks. It is NOT UNIVERSAL. Burke knew this. This whole debate is between those who understand PARTICULARISM and those who think US conservatism is universal. This whole article has an underlying American bias that reeks. I am an English-Canadian conservative (see Red Tory), and I reject any idea that conservatism is Universal, because it clearly is NOT. And YES, there is something called Chinese Conservatism, which is a varaiant of Chinese Communist thought. In the context of Communist China, it is conservative. TrulyTory 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, and just because some people here apply educated concepts and references that contradict the existence of a universal US-style Conservatism, does not make them "lying liberals." An uneducated person who refers to themselves as a universal conservative is just that - an uneducated person. TrulyTory 23:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that makes sense, and in fact we Canadians have been doing that for some time in Wikipedia. TrulyTory 15:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, I have been trying (with little success) to make this exact point in the discussion below. keith 01:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Letter to Wikipedia Helpdesk on Bias in Conservativism Article

message: Ok. but why not share your wisdom without holding the article hostage. My edit idea is the following:
#One controversial link often claimed in Europe, is a conservative element in fascism. 
#Though it should be pointed out, the goal of such claims is not to imply guilt by association between two often very different political groups and ideologies. 
#European fascism, it is suggested, drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on the conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century socialism. 
#Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler supposedly provided an element of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement. 
#However, much the same has also been said for links between fascism and socialism, populism, and progressivism.  
#For that matter, Josef Stalin claimed social liberals were in fact       ts. 
#Further, many if not most conservatives despised the fascist mass movements. 
#Of course as in all mainstream political movements of the day, there were fascist sympathisizers, particularly in Europe. 
#For example, in Britain, the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative Party supported closer ties with Nazi Germany. 
#But by the end of the Second World War, almost all western conservatives denounced       m. 
#The theory of totalitarianism, which treats Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as equivalent systems, provided one aspect of the intellectual foundation. 
#Nevertheless, there were some post-war western conservatives who continued to admire the Franco regime in Spain, claimed by some to be conservative in addition to       t in origin. 
#With the end of the Franco and Salazar regimes in the 1970’s, classical European fascism became an issue soley for historians.
Which specific sentences don't you like and how would you suggest changing them? 
keith 05:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well how nice and consistent.you refuse to consider a single step towards compromise. revert war continues... keith 15:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A large step toward a compromise would be to cite sources.  Rick Norwood 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fascism section