Brainwashing 101

[Imran Siddiqui]

The fact is that both of them don't have much to do with today's mainstream conservatism. If you want to call them true conservatives, well, let it be, but what name is left for the others?

The fact that they are the founders of modern conservativism (and Will is actually alive and writing now) makes this a silly statement. It's like saying Marx doesn't have much to do with today's mainstream Communist.

I never meant to say that conservatives can't legislate, but rather that they do it according to a set of monolithic rules.

If they don't want change at all, then why would they legislate? Legislation would be change.

What your post implies is that conservatives are just people who really want some change but do it prudently as to avoid trouble. I don't buy that, because if you look around you, conservatives are really attached to older values because they believe in them, not because they fear the consequences of instability.

Well it's true. Every conservative wants something to change. Conservatives, as opposed to reactionaries, are looking for gradual progress (take, for instance, your Sandra Day O'Connors) to achieve that change. And yes, they like traditional values because it gives society stability. Its the filtered wisdom of history. But no conservative is happy with everything as it is. They want progress towards some goal. That's why they advocate certain programs and don't just sit on their hands.

If you really think that conservatives are people that don't want ANY change, then you've deluded yourself in your hatred.

[Sandman]

So.... what's the difference between a conservative and a liberal or socialist?

Are we expected to believe that liberals and socialists only advocate rapid, out-of-control change?

[Arrian]

No. The labels of "conservative" and "liberal" and such just don't happen to work very well when disconnected from specific issues.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sandman
So.... what's the difference between a conservative and a liberal or socialist?

Are we expected to believe that liberals and socialists only advocate rapid, out-of-control change?

The rate of change is imporant. And yes, for the record, I do think that socialists, for the most part, are for rapid change (though there are conservative socialists, who are for gradual, through the ballot box, change). Conservatives look to tradition as a guiding principle. Progress is good, but don't do so simply for the sake of change; do it because it is demonstratibly better. Liberals, at least in the US spectrum, tend to perfer to change for the sake of change (some portions of society do tend to dislike them for their seeming disdain for tradition as a whole).

Though if you are talking European liberal, well, Burke was one of those. His conservatism takes part fully within the liberalism of the Enlightenment.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
No. The labels of "conservative" and "liberal" and such just don't happen to work very well when disconnected from specific issues.

-Arrian

You could describe someone as conservative by the definition that Imran is using, but that wouldn't really be a description of a persons political bias. It would just be a decription of the persons tolerance for speed of change. Most people probably use a cost/benefit approach, but some people seem to prefer either change or no change.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I would far prefer a society that granted the quirks of human nature as something that is OK, and to be respected, than to live in a beaker where busy bodies try to manage our every behaviour.

I wish no part of your petri dish of humanity.

The "quirks of human nature" have no economic benefit in this context. I'm going to bet that the human desire for economic benefit will prefail, unfortunately for you.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You could describe someone as conservative by the definition that Imran is using, but that wouldn't really be a description of a persons political bias. It would just be a decription of the persons tolerance for speed of change. Most people probably use a cost/benefit approach, but some people seem to prefer either change or no change.

I think people are mixing up the use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in the classical sense of meaning the rate of change, and the use of the terms used nowdays to mean specific ideologies. When most people think of conservative nowdays, they don't think of "slow, prinicipled change", they think of "pro-lassez faire" and "moralism".

[Agathon]

When most people think of conservative nowdays, they don't think of "slow, prinicipled change", they think of "pro-lassez faire" and "moralism".

An oxymoron.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The rate of change is imporant. And yes, for the record, I do think that socialists, for the most part, are for rapid change (though there are conservative socialists, who are for gradual, through the ballot box, change). Conservatives look to tradition as a guiding principle. Progress is good, but don't do so simply for the sake of change; do it because it is demonstratibly better. Liberals, at least in the US spectrum, tend to perfer to change for the sake of change (some portions of society do tend to dislike them for their seeming disdain for tradition as a whole).

Though if you are talking European liberal, well, Burke was one of those. His conservatism takes part fully within the liberalism of the Enlightenment.

The idea of 'conservative' socialists stretches this notion to breaking point. Sounds like you think that anybody who advocates non-revolutionary change is partly conservative. That's basically everyone - including the vast majority of lefties.

This 'gradual change' and 'looking to tradition' stuff doesn't convince me at all. Conservatives seldom care about corporate consumerism, even though it has a debilitating effect on tradition.

Who protests about the destruction of indigeous tribes? Or the creation of multiplexes, motorways, pipelines or shopping centres? It's not as if the left doesn't also fly the tradition flag...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin


I think people are mixing up the use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in the classical sense of meaning the rate of change, and the use of the terms used nowdays to mean specific ideologies. When most people think of conservative nowdays, they don't think of "slow, prinicipled change", they think of "pro-lassez faire" and "moralism".

Lassez faire has been another bull**** argument, for about 200 years now. Let's not get into that. Conservatives support social hierarchy and they tend to be wealthy so they don't want to be taxed to benefit other people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Sandman]The idea of 'conservative' socialists stretches this notion to breaking point.[/q]

Why? Did you think the party apparatchiks in the 80s USSR who wanted to keep the structure going were not conservatives? Like has been pointed out, conservative and progressive are terms that depend on the underlying society.

Note, when I speak of 'conservative socialists', I'm speaking of within the socialist society, so to speak. In the general society (ie, liberal democracy... at least in Western countries), socialists are fairly radical, if not in their aims to overthrow society than in their beliefs of what policies should be.

Odin is quite a conservative in the socialist world (and has gotten flack from people like che for it). Not in the general society, however.

Conservatives seldom care about corporate consumerism, even though it has a debilitating effect on tradition.

You haven't met many religious conservatives, have you? Frankly, to me, they seem to be even more any consumerism than the lefties I know.

Business conservatives are defending another kind of tradition (the capitalist one), and normally don't care so much about the tradition of religions and families.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sandman


The idea of 'conservative' socialists stretches this notion to breaking point. Sounds like you think that anybody who advocates non-revolutionary change is partly conservative. That's basically everyone - including the vast majority of lefties.

There actually is a "conservative" left-wing ideology popularizd by some Israeli sociologist called Communitarianism, basically a mix of left-wing economics and conservative social values with emphasis on tradition and society over the individual.

[Agathon]

I guess while you could say that conservatism fails as a coherent political ideology, it is certainly a coherent psychological pathology.

It's a socially motivated form of cognition that is motivated by an inability to deal with change and complexity. This is why many working class people are extremely conservative. They would prefer a definite position in a stable social hierarchy to the freedom of personal authenticity. The conservative opposition to the counterculture of the 1960s is ostensibly aimed at its hedonism and seeming immorality, but it is really motivated by opposition to the unifiying theme of the counterculture - the rejection of external and internal authorities in favour of an individual-centred view (everyone ought to be free to pursue their own conception of the good life unhindered by others and by oppressive traditions that seek to subvert individual welfare for collective security). Conservatives call this idea "moral relativism", which it really isn't (it is belief in another distinct set of values), but they want to lump it in with real moral relativism.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why? Did you think the party apparatchiks in the 80s USSR who wanted to keep the structure going were not conservatives? Like has been pointed out, conservative and progressive are terms that depend on the underlying society.

You haven't addressed my point about your definition of conservatism applying to every single non-revolutionary person. Presumably those Party people who advocated 'gradual change' were also conservatives. Also, you said earlier that people who advocated no change were not actually conservatives, but reactionaries.

You haven't met many religious conservatives, have you? Frankly, to me, they seem to be even more anti consumerism than the lefties I know.

Business conservatives are defending another kind of tradition (the capitalist one), and normally don't care so much about the tradition of religions and families.

Pat Robertson's Website

Look at the snake oil he's peddling. What a capitalist.

It's rather odd to characterise 'business conservatives' as defending capitalist traditions. As if capitalism is under attack in any developed country. It's on the advance. Which gives us the bizarre situation of socialist and liberal 'conservatives' defending the welfare state from free-market conservatives.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You haven't addressed my point about your definition of conservatism applying to every single non-revolutionary person.

Apparently you stopped reading there . Non-revolution socialists are indeed conservative in the socialist society (or society of socialists, or 'the party', if you want). In general society, their views for society are radical. However, they are indeed more conservative than those who advocate revolution.

Presumably those Party people who advocated 'gradual change' were also conservatives.

Indeed. The Soviet Union had its own conservatives. It's society specific.

It's rather odd to characterise 'business conservatives' as defending capitalist traditions. As if capitalism is under attack in any developed country.

What does that have to do with anything? Conservatism doesn't lay dormant until an 'attack' happens. And of course business conservatives want to make sure that change in government regulation doesn't happen too fast. They don't want to wake up and find new massive government regulatory programs arose in the night.

And which conservatives are for dismantling the welfare state? The goal is to prevent it from enlargening by changing them up (including reforming aspects). Perhaps you have been misled by the few reactionaries who want to privatize everything? For instance, even though the Republicans control every branch of the US government, they haven't even come close to privatizing a measley 2% of Social Security (ie, SS privatization as a whole as some far far right reactionaries speak about is no where in sight).