Conservatism questions

[Whaleboy]

elijah, I have to disagree with you. Societies have seemed to advance when they operate from a common value system. Albiet, they do need an influx of new ideas and should be adaptable.

IMO it is the influx of ideas that advances a society, though they may be generated within that society itself. Of course, that is all dependent on how you see "progress". I would imagine many see it as technological, I see it as intellectual, and working with the grain of human societies throughout history, libertarian. I do see what you mean about a common value system, but I believe that such a notion is inconsistent in application and can often lead to harm. Also, what happens when something needs to occur that contradicts that value system? Its a flawed example, but look at the urgent concerns of environmentalists in todays America being ignored for the sake of the economy. Nonetheless, my argument against is largely irrelevant here.

[Elok]

There's a thread about conservatism, and nobody's even mentioned Burke yet? Edmond Burke was essentially the founder of modern conservatism. His chief doctrine was that change within societies should be accomplished by gradual reform rather than sudden revolution, which is destructive to the societies it tries to fix. The key to change is to gradually shape the ideals of society itself so that the problems are fixed at their root and the passing of laws to fix problems is almost a matter of course. The alternative method of forcing a radical change on the populace only imposes an unwanted law on an unwilling people, and merely solves the problem until the next generation repeals that law. Burke's morals were actually rather communist in a way, as a persecuted "Burkean" would endure for the good of a stable nation rather than revolt in a quest for change. It begins with the presupposition that peace and order are the chief desirable good.
It's been about a year since I took Poli Sci so I might have mixed him up a little with other philosophers.

[Giant_Squid]

Conservativism can't be defined as just "trying to keep the status quo" in a political sense because there are seemingly at least as many issues in America at least in which conservatives are the ones pushing for change. Abortion, tax reform, school vouchers, affirmative action, welfare, et cetera - in fact, whenever the current policy was set by liberals, conservatives are usually looking to reform it And a lot of this thing about "progress" versus "reactionism" is just rhetoric...when a liberal wants something done he says it's necessary in order to progress to the glorious future and when a conservative wants something done he says it's necessary to bring back the simpler and more virtuous days of the past, whereas it doesn't matter what the thing actually is.
Conservative and liberal are at least partly names of groups that have appeared out of necessity with no decent reason for existing or coherent philosophy. The fact that Pat Buchanan and Milton Friedman, despite having a lot of opposite views on stuff, are both called "conservative" should be a tipoff, not to mention the craziness in having, say, a Latino immigrant and a Hollywood superstar as liberals.
Much easier than what you're trying to do would be to define "social conservatives" and "economic conservatives" and not bother trying to link the two into some overarching conservativism existing mostly out of political chance.

[The diplomat]

Conservatism believes that individuals are better capable of managing their lives than government. In order for individuals to be able to manage their own lives, they need as much of their earned income as possible, therefore taxes should be as low as possible. Furthermore, in order for individuals to manage their own lives, government regulations should be reduced as much as possible. Goverment should be as non-intrusive in economic matters as possible. Also, conservatives feel that social programs should be as limited as possible, only covering those in desperate need. The reasoning is that most individuals are capable of self-reliance if helped properly, and individuals should be encouraged to be as self-reliant as possible, or the compassion of others, because self-reliance and economic independance are ultimately better.
Lastly, conservatives believe the primary goal of government is national defense. Therefore, the budget should always emphasize national defense. And, the military should be used only when it involves a matter of national security.

[Shi Huangdi]

It traditonally means someone opposed to change/reform. Presently, it's just a political word that has little meaning.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, modern conservatism is based on the writings of Burke, as Elok stated. Change should be gradual and not a sudden overthrow of tradition. The sudden overthrow, such as in the French Revolution, causes social chaos and disorder. He believes that tradition is the collected wisdom of history, so should be built upon, rather than totally cast aside.

[GePap]

Yup: read up on Burke:

This version of conservatism believed that the institutions of each people were a slow creation through hisotry, and thus were the best possible set ofg institutions for that time and that place. Burke is not a universalist: he did not believe that what worked for the French would for the Spaniards, or Brits, or vice versa. So to some extent he renounced once of the core beliefs of the enlightenment, that through Reason man could solve any problem, and that all human were the same and the same was applicable universally.

I think that can be an interesting part of your essay: who much has conservatism embraced te enlightenment (as certainly the Liberas [UK] have) and how much they still fight it (look at some of George Will's comments on the Holocast).

[Whaleboy]

The Burke idea is not strictly the domain of conservatism. Gradual change being preferable to revolution seems separate to the fundamental issues of conservatism, as a liberal, I can say that I prefer a slow incremental change over a vast revolution, because it makes sense. That is not essentially related to the issues one changes in the first place imo.

Nonetheless... adding to the list

[C0ckney]

as others have said, it's hard to put all conservatives under one roof, as it is with most other 'groups'. for example both elijah and myself would describe oursleves as liberals (albeit left and right liberals, respectivly) but we would disagree about most things ().

[Whaleboy]

I'm a staunch libertarian liberal, and believe in a free market, so I guess that would also put me on the right - at least economically.

[C0ckney]

well that goes even further towards proving my point.

[The Andy-Man]

A fundemental part of conservatism is the idea that govt changing things will only make them worse, this is part of the reason deregulated/free-market economics (but only in economy) is favoured, this way the economy regulates itself with no govt. intervention.

Besides, did adam smith not say that when an economy was in recession the govt. should do NOTHING cos they will only make the situation worse?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
A fundemental part of conservatism is the idea that govt changing things will only make them worse

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure Mandarin bureaucrats "conservatives" in imperial China believed that the action of the gov was better than the action of the individual...

[Whaleboy]

Certainly in this day and age, it would appear that government action by conservatives is supported. Still what do people think about conservatism being based fundamentally on pragmatism?

[Sava]

I don't think there is a recognized and legitimate ideology to being a conservative... and likewise for liberals. People call me a liberal and other speak of some ideology called "liberalism" but I've never read about such a doctrine, nor do I follow one. As with most people, I just say what I think makes sense. People throw around labels like conservative and liberal because they are too ignorant to learn what others have to say.