Talk:National conservatism

message: Is there really an umbrella big enough for both the Likud and the Kuomintang?  Yakuman 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty suspicious of the category. It seemed to have arisen as a term out of the alt-right with a whole bunch of other "national-<existing ideology>" , "national anarchism" (An absolutely barking mad and largely dead "movement" that tried to import anarchist language into neo-nazi praxis) , "national bolshevism" ("Nazbols" tried to emulate, national bolshevism is an equally whacky creed that came out of russia with the likes of Aleksander Dugin and the chaotic Eduard Liminov" An attempt at dressing neo-naziism in communist clothing. These had some traction in Russia early 2000s but you dont hear much of it no more). At some point fascist groups kinda got the message that they where not going to succeed in entryism against their traditional foes, and switched attention to slightly more plausible right wing entryism (Where arguably the nativist bent in paleoconservatism is already half way to fashy), first with the the "Alt Right", and later with other attempts at coopting the conservative movement. This whole "national conservative" thing seems to me like a ploy to try and adopt a bunch of existing conservative groups and say "Hey look at us, we're not cryptofascists we're mainstream mom and pop conservatives). To be blunt, I'm not convinced at all .Duckmonster (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this category exist?

message: * I strongly oppose the merge of this article with Social conservatism. They're two completely different concepts. Some national conservatives may be also social conservatives (and viceversa), but this doesn't mean that they are synonims. --Checco 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on that, but I don't think that national conservatism is necessarily far-right. --Checco 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry should probably be redefined precisely, and explain varieties of national conservatism. On the cited parties, the League of Polish Families, the National Alliance, the Movement for France and the National Front, and the Swiss People's Party are all usually considered as far-right. The Likud is not, and I gather that the Democratic Unionist Party is not either. Tazmaniacs 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, yes. —Nightstallion 16:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Swiss People's Party is not far-right, as National Alliance undoubtely is not: it is a moderate-conservative parties, with both social-conservative and liberal stances. It is definitely part of the Italian political mainstream, exactly as Forza Italia. --Checco 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yeah, the National Football League, and National Parks are all a part of the vast third position conspiracy. Thanks for your contribution, you're a integral part of our organization. --Anthonysenn (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguing in bad faith and you know full well what he means. Why even reply if your not going to take it seriously? Duckmonster (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Social conservatism]]?

message: Neither nationalist nor conservative by any metric, do not belong here. Socially and economically left wing. Arguably we only have very minor parties(with no elected candidates) that are national conservative.
see https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2020/01/02/the-post-national-fianna-fail-politician
on Brexit and nationalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akkPu-FJyiA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.104.131 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Fianna Fail

message: I have taken this source to RSN.  TFD (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parties and Elections in Europe 

message: :()
:()
As I mentioned at the AfD, I was unable to find any sources for "national conservatism" and no useful secondary sources have been provided. However since it is a European term, I searched for National Konservatismus and it appears that it is used in a consistent way in German to describe authoritarian conservatism from Bismarck to the right-wing of the CDU/CSU.  Does anyone have any other foreign language sources?  TFD (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Shouldn't the Party for Freedom (Netherlands) be listed?
Under their Wikipida article it even stands that they're national conservative  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.254.106 (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources do not support that description.  TFD (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The PVV 

message: This article takes the definition of "national conservatism" from the "Dictionary of Public Administration".
However, the article about "national conservative" in that book, published in 2007, is almost exactly identical to... this wikipedia article in 2006, meaning that the book (at least, in the "national consevative" entry) is a copy of wikipedia.
Then, I think that these book should not be accepted as a "source" - if we use as a source a book that is a copy of the wikipedia article, these mean that, in the end, the article is the "source" of itself.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern, but I think that the 2007 book validates what Wikipedia contained before. Moreover, the content you removed from the article is correct in any case: even without a source, it can stay there with a "citation needed" tag. This is no more the case, anyway. --Checco (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-valid source 

message: In the Netherlands we have a new party, forum for democracy, since the last elections.
They're also national conservative, should we add them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.237.74 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forum voor Democratie 

message: I propose some changes to the list of parties. First, Austria has 3 parties listed. This is too much. I don't think Austrian People's Party should be there. The FPÖ has already appropriated the national conservative niche and the ÖVP is more liberal conservative (and also christian democratic). Second, Jobbik in Hungary does not seem to suit. Again, Fidesz has appropriated the national conservative niche and Jobbik is more of an openly far-right, ultranationalist party.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 13:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on Austria, especially as ÖVP's Wikipedia page does not list this. Jobbik is described as a national conservative party on its Wikipedia page. It has shifted its political position in recent years to the point where many reports describe Fidesz as to the right of it.--Jay942942 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only there in the infobox because sympathetic editors prevent its removal. There's no essential difference between Rodina and Jobbik.Miacek  (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

text: This conversation is futile unless we can find a reliably sourced definition for the topic.  TFD (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: Last month, there was a large conference on "National Conservatism" in Washington DC, attended by a number of politicians and intellectuals broadly aligned with this idea, many aligned with the Trump administration.
https://nationalconservatism.org/
It has gotten quite a bit of coverage and reaction, this being a sampling:
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-national-conservatism/2019/08/15/45f0628a-bec4-11e9-a8b0-7ed8a0d5dc5d_story.html
* https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/08/15/national-conservatism-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
* https://quillette.com/2019/07/31/national-conservatism-and-the-preference-for-state-control/
* https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/a-big-government-nationalism-or-a-burkean-one/
* https://www.vox.com/2019/7/17/20696543/national-conservatism-conference-2019-trump
* https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/23/20679172/amy-wax-white-national-conservatism-yoram-hazony-racism
Considering the attention this has gotten as an emerging political ideology in the US, and the fact that this article mainly covers European and Asian national conservatism, it seems that this article is in need of updating to include proper coverage of American national conservatism. It might also be appropriate to list the Republican Party (United States) as a political party with a national conservative faction. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you on this, though it will not be an easy task to do so that it doesn’t end up as an “editing war” between different fractions. J. P. Fagerback (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be updated to include American national conservatism 

message: Hello,
It seems this page is promoting an euphemism fascists use to disguise themselves. This page should redirect to Fascism, or at least have a clear link established in the introduction. 159.134.255.230 (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source that spells this out? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: National conservatism per se has nothing to do with fascism and it is not necessarily a far-right ideology. --Checco (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism 

message: I don't really do politics, but I jumped on this because I believe this article has gone wildly wrong on classifications, which are my thing. (I don't support or oppose the subject; I came this way because of the tussles in Brussels this week.)
The concept 'National conservatism' is a newly minted one, self-defined by the Edmund Burke Foundation for a specified set of political parties joining a movement since 2019. Attributing the name retrospectively to political parties from the past is like describing Boudica as a 'Eurosceptic'. All those should be deleted.
Furthermore, those chosen for that list of past 'national conservative' parties is bizarre: the Edmund Burke Foundation concept is of tradition and individualism in liberal democracy, but the list includes past parties which were the polar opposite; opposing tradition, individualism, liberalism and democracy. It is ludicrous.
Hogweard (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not confuse "national conservatism" — the ideology — with "National Conservatisnm" — the conference.  --Checco (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly agree that Edmund Burke was a liberal for his time. He gained a reputation as a champion of Tory ideas though he was a Whig. The philosophy of modern British Conservative and Unionist Party actually comes from the Liberal Unionists rather than the old Conservative Party: individualism and free enterprise - or maybe from American tradition. Eastern European conservatives were heavily influenced by Roger Scruton - socially conservative, with free trade and a small state. That makes it all the more bizarre that editors have tried to link a Burkean/Scrutonian movement with its exact opposite. Hogweard (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported classification