What Does "Conservative" Mean?

[Lemur]

I've been pondering this for a while now. Many of the positions staked out by people who call themselves conservatives are radical and unprecedented. So what makes these people conservative? Or rather, what inspires them to call themselves something that they do not appear to be? Interesting article here: What is a conservative?

Ask that question of a British Tory and you’ll get a reply that is different from one given by an American—even if the Tory you query is a Thatcherite Conservative. And the same will be the case of Spanish, Italian, German and French conservatives. These differences tell us that conservatism is an attitude—not an “ism”—and a disposition of mind toward government, politics, and tradition, not a philosophy of government or a systematic political theory. If not an ideology, a philosophy nor a political theory, then there is no universal conservatism about which to write. What we are discussing is an artifact, a cultural development, that in the case of those participating in this symposium began in America in response to the growth of the administrative state and which we can address by reflection on its history and the problems it addresses.

This raises an obvious question -- can one describe a universal conservatism?

[English assassin]

As a paid up member of the Conservative party, I've always understood it to mean the view that on the whole things shouldn't be changed without good reason, that people probably knew what they were doing in the old days, etc, together with a certain misty eyed attachment to the Queen and suchlike (or whatever your local equivalent may be).

Those aren't my views at all but that's because being "conservative" and being "right of centre" are in no way the same thing. In the 70's in the UK most of the trade union movement was far more conservative than the Conservative party, for instance.

Can you even define conservatism? Surely its a largely negative mind set, reacting to whatever changes it is that someone else is proposing? Do conservatives oppose gay marriage? Not until someone else proposes it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Conservative is such a sweeping term that I don't think it is easy to define, beyond the fact it is generally "right of centre" on a political compass relative to it's country. Likewise, I believe it is difficult to define liberalism beyond the fact that it is "left of centre."

It's much easier to define the different kinds of conservatism. For example, I am a national conservative leaning to the centre when it comes to the economy. You could say I am a little bit of a liberal conservative in the most traditional sense.

This post was written under the influence of exhaustion.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It is very tricky. We are all Conservative and all Progressive in different ways. It all depends on which ideals, institutions and concepts we are trying to preserve. I don't really like the terms because it suggests that all we do is "conserve" or "progress".

Many progressives are funny in that they are actually socialists who are seeking for the application of century old philosophies. Sure they tinker those concepts to fit in the modern era and move them forward as well, but any intelligent conservative does the same with the century old concepts that they are trying to maintain.
It is totally confused. I call myself a "conservative" to clear things up for some people, but the name doesn't suggest much.

Look at the second amendment. That is a radical and "new" concept in line with socialism during the 18th and 19th centuries. How about the idea that Don Corleone and I have about removing the civil institution of marriage altogether and allowing for religious or secular marriages to be recognized by the state only as civil agreements? I believe that this is a radical idea that will help to preserve ideals that I believe to be under threat in civil marriage - one totally unsupported by historical precedent.

Other "Conservatives" are degenerates who are scarier than any progressive that I've seen. A number of atheist economic libertarians remind me of a killing machine with no moral compass.

The terms are important, but truly meaningless. I respect progress, but "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is something I'm very cautious of. Progressives would most likely agree - we just need to figure out which "baby" is worthy of protection.

[Adrian II]

This raises an obvious question -- can one describe a universal conservatism?

Like the author said conservatism is a state of mind, not a political program. It is a state of mind that emphasizes respect for tradition and distrust of government activism.

Since traditions differ from country to country, so do conservative preferences. Hence a British conservative will be a royalist and an American conservative a republican; an Italian or Spanish conservative will be staunchly Roman Catholic and a Swedish conservative will tend to be Lutheran; a Tory favouring change can be progressive and a Trade Unionist rejecting it is conservative.

The present American use of the word conservatism is a nisnomer. Since its proponents favour a return to a previous social order their proper title is 'reactionary'.

Of course a universal conservatism can be described: a philosophy that considers the established ways of a society inherently superior to their renewal. Another word to properly denote this attitude would be 'stupid'.

[Geoffrey S]

Conservatism is inherently reactionary, and dependent on there being call for change and what the perceived status quo is. There cannot be a universal conservatism, since the things it depends upon can vary immensely. Islam, the Soviet Union, the US - all have or had their brands of conservatism.

And it is indeed misappropriated far too often, using the banner of conservatism in some form or another to promote extensive change to a former situation which has never actually previously existed. Islamism is an example of that, as is what is promoted in the US by a significant number of politicians calling themselves conservatives.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Conservatism is inherently reactionary, and dependent on there being call for change and what the perceived status quo is. There cannot be a universal conservatism, since the things it depends upon can vary immensely. Islam, the Soviet Union, the US - all have or had their brands of conservatism.

And it is indeed misappropriated far too often, using the banner of conservatism in some form or another to promote extensive change to a former situation which has never actually previously existed. Islamism is an example of that, as is what is promoted in the US by a significant number of politicians calling themselves conservatives.

What if the "status quo" changes? To say that the definition of conservatives is that they support the status quo is ludicrous. The status quo of Abortion has changed, yet most conservatives oppose this. The status quo of homosexual acceptance has too, yet many conservatives oppose this. Many "status quo's" have been established long before most conservatives that I know were even born - yet are strongly opposed by conservatives.

"Reactionary" is a pejorative, usually used by "progressives" (or revolutionaries/radicals, if you want to start using pejoratives).

[Rhyfelwyr]

In Britain, being conservative is more to do with ideas on culture and nationality than any economic leanings.

Conservatives in the UK are generally Euroskeptic, suspicious towards multiculturalism, and in most cases proud of their nationality (usually British for conservatives).

However, they diverge a lot when it comes to the economy. The left wing-ish idea of the welfare state is important to many conservatives and a part of their national identitiy. On the other hand you get the Thatcherite-style conservatives, a much nastier bunch (IMO), who traditionally fitted into the Conservative party due to their hatred of socialism.

Then you have the average Conservative who is identical to any New Labour/Liberal Democrat and who is only involved with a party because he wanted a career in politics.

[Geoffrey S]

What if the "status quo" changes? To say that the definition of conservatives is that they support the status quo is ludicrous. The status quo of Abortion has changed, yet most conservatives oppose this. The status quo of homosexual acceptance has too, yet many conservatives oppose this. Many "status quo's" have been established long before most conservatives that I know were even born - yet are strongly opposed by conservatives.

Conservatism is inherently reactionary, and dependent on there being call for change and what the perceived status quo is. There cannot be a universal conservatism, since the things it depends upon can vary immensely. Islam, the Soviet Union, the US - all have or had their brands of conservatism.

People don't agree on what the status quo is - one can perceive it as the situation now, whilst someone else can perceive now as an aberration and prefer the status quo twenty years earlier. That's the problem.

"Reactionary" is a pejorative, usually used by "progressives" (or revolutionaries/radicals, if you want to start using pejoratives).

Conserving isn't done for the sake of it - although the less persuasive arguments in favour of conservatism do tend to degenerate to that level. It is done in reaction to calls for change, and a conscious decision is made on what to focus on. One isn't ever totally conservative, at least not if the aim is to be taken seriously.

Just to make things clear, the above are some reasons why I don't see 'conservative' as a worthwhile definition in serious discussion. It is however too easy to use in political rhetoric to be abandoned altogether. As definition it's worthless, more important is how people differ in how they perceive it. Hence, I presume, this topic.

[ajaxfetish]

I find it interesting that we treat 'conservative' and 'liberal' as two ends of a spectrum in American politics, as their inherent meanings don't lend them to it at all. I see them more as the ends of two different spectrums, one reaching from conservative to innovative, and the other from liberal to secure (liberal to enslaved would be a little more accurate in terms of word meanings, but less useful for discussing politics). Going to any of the extremes is dangerous, as pure conservation is stagnation, innovation with no anchor is chaos, liberty with no legal or social regulation is Hobbesian, and security with no liberty is a police state. A healthy state, imo, needs a decent balance somewhere in the middle, and I'd personally lean a little more toward the liberal side of the one scale, and sit about squat in the middle of the other.

I thought the most interesting point in Bishirjian's article was the following:

Conservatives oppose this growth of state power because it subtly transfers our allegiances from home and hearth to a power far removed from where we live our daily lives. “We are forced to the conclusion,” Nisbet writes, “that a great deal of the peculiar character of contemporary social action comes from the efforts of men to find in large-scale organizations the values of status and security which were formally gained in the primary associations of family, neighborhood, and church.”

He uses quotations including this to argue that allegiance and power are shifting from the local institutions of family, neighborhood, and church, to the distant institution of the state. I follow him except for his inclusion of church in the local category. For the most part, churches are huge institutions with headquarters as far or further removed from the average neighborhood as the state. It seems to me more that church once held a monopoly on being the distant and omnipotent institution in most people's lives, and that the state has long been a competitor on the same level, trying to match or outperform churches' grip on people's lives.

Ajax

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The present American use of the word conservatism is a nisnomer. Since its proponents favour a return to a previous social order their proper title is 'reactionary'.

No, it's not correct to use 'reactionary' in that way. If the senate votes on a social order changing bill and the final count is 51 liberals vs 49 conservatives, the conservatives don't become reactionaries if they still oppose the bill after it is passed.

Of course a universal conservatism can be described: a philosophy that considers the established ways of a society inherently superior to their renewal. Another word to properly denote this attitude would be .

You're assuming we will never get anything right.

[Adrian II]

If the senate votes on a social order changing bill and the final count is 51 liberals vs 49 conservatives, the conservatives don't become reactionaries if they still oppose the bill after it is passed.

Technically most are not conservative in the first place.

[Kralizec]

One possible meaning of the term is a mindset that the traditional way of doing or seeing things is universally correct for both the past and the future.

An entirely other defenition is that of the Tory philosophy: the traditional way of doing things might not necessarily be the best possible but it's better to keep using what works than blindly following people who speak from ideological conviction. Change should be allowed but incrementally as a continous proces of evolution, rather than going from conservativism to revolution, then being conservative of the fruits of the revolution till a new revolution comes, and so on (the French way of doing things )

There are different definitions in different countries, but the above two seem to be the most widely used. Of course even within a country people can have different ideas of what it really is.
In the Neth's people mostly think of the former definition and it's usually taken as a slur from left to right. The Socialist Party for example is closer to "old school" socialism than the Labour party is (wich is arguably similar to its modern British counterpart) and has occasionally been called conservative for it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"Liberals" in the U.S. tend to defend the "traditional" school system which has been failing so many students recently. Put new ideas in front of them that would diminish the need for crappy teachers or talk about serious reform and they go ballistic. They sound like the reactionaries in those instances - the ones who are clammoring to keep a failed status quo.

Again, it is about what you are trying to conserve and what you are trying to change.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

One possible meaning of the term is a mindset that the traditional way of doing or seeing things is universally correct for both the past and the future.

An entirely other defenition is that of the Tory philosophy: the traditional way of doing things might not necessarily be the best possible but it's better to keep using what works than blindly following people who speak from ideological conviction. Change should be allowed but incrementally as a continous proces of evolution, rather than going from conservativism to revolution, then being conservative of the fruits of the revolution till a new revolution comes, and so on (the French way of doing things )

I'd say a mix of those describe me, on a per issue basis of course.

[CountArach]

As we decided on with Socialist, there is no clear-cut meaning.

[Husar]

"Liberals" in the U.S. tend to defend the "traditional" school system which has been failing so many students recently. Put new ideas in front of them that would diminish the need for crappy teachers or talk about serious reform and they go ballistic. They sound like the reactionaries in those instances - the ones who are clammoring to keep a failed status quo.

Again, it is about what you are trying to conserve and what you are trying to change.

No, wrong, if they want to keep the status quo they're conservatives, not reactionaries.

Reactionaries would want whatever you had before the status quo.
Conservatives want to keep the status quo.
And progressives want to move on beyond the status quo.

That should be the terminology and I think that's what the opening post was aiming at, that many use the terms completely wrong or associate certain political aims with them when in reality the terms don't have anything to do with any aims because they are completely relative to the status quo.

It's also save to say that it's usually relative to the topic, you can be conservative in this regard and progressive in another, as a whole it would then be best to describe you as a human being or if you want, perhaps as the prevalent notion, like conservative when on 80% of the political topics you have a conservative stance, butt you can still be progressive or reactionary about this or that, although that should be self-explanatory.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Reactionaries would want whatever you had before the status quo.
Conservatives want to keep the status quo.
And progressives want to move on beyond the status quo.

That's not accurate though--you can't say progressives want to move beyond the status quo, the just want to change it in a way that it hasn't been changed before.

It's completely pointless to try to describe someone as any of the three by your definitions anyway--I challenge you to find anyone who fits that description for every political issue.

[Pannonian]

As a paid up member of the Conservative party, I've always understood it to mean the view that on the whole things shouldn't be changed without good reason, that people probably knew what they were doing in the old days, etc, together with a certain misty eyed attachment to the Queen and suchlike (or whatever your local equivalent may be).

Those aren't my views at all but that's because being "conservative" and being "right of centre" are in no way the same thing. In the 70's in the UK most of the trade union movement was far more conservative than the Conservative party, for instance.

Can you even define conservatism? Surely its a largely negative mind set, reacting to whatever changes it is that someone else is proposing? Do conservatives oppose gay marriage? Not until someone else proposes it.

Your first paragraph describes Toryism, which I'm actually quite sympathetic towards, despite being a self-described liberal. Something about the American brand of conservatism that puzzles me though, is what I'd call conservative activism - actively promoting "conservative" values. Maybe it's just me, but isn't this an oxymoron?

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, wrong, if they want to keep the status quo they're conservatives, not reactionaries.

Reactionaries would want whatever you had before the status quo.
Conservatives want to keep the status quo.
And progressives want to move on beyond the status quo.

That should be the terminology and I think that's what the opening post was aiming at, that many use the terms completely wrong or associate certain political aims with them when in reality the terms don't have anything to do with any aims because they are completely relative to the status quo.

It's also save to say that it's usually relative to the topic, you can be conservative in this regard and progressive in another, as a whole it would then be best to describe you as a human being or if you want, perhaps as the prevalent notion, like conservative when on 80% of the political topics you have a conservative stance, butt you can still be progressive or reactionary about this or that, although that should be self-explanatory.

Noble sentiment, but it still doesn't solve the problem of "what should we call an individual?". There is no single definition that would apply to an individual and any attempt is rather futile.

What are socialists? Progressives, even though they seek to restore old concepts and ways of governance? Even if they would modify tried and failed government to work, how is that really different from conservative who want the old modified to last as well?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Something about the American brand of conservatism that puzzles me though, is what I'd call conservative activism - actively promoting "conservative" values. Maybe it's just me, but isn't this an oxymoron?

Take vague pot-shots at conservatism why don'tcha. Any in particular that you don't understand?

It's completely pointless to try to describe someone as any of the three by your definitions anyway--I challenge you to find anyone who fits that description for every political issue.

Exactly.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Europeans and those educated using that intellectual model tend to use the term conservative quite differently than it is used in the United States.

Drawing on the ideas of the enlightenment, this "classic" definition runs roughly as:

Conservative: Acknowledges change is inevitable, but prefers to react in a measured fashion to changes as they occur. All things being equal, an individual with this outlook would be comfortable with the status quo. Often has a fondness for the "good old days" and worries that changes may take the society/culture in question away from "core" values.

Liberal: Not only acknowledges change to be inevitable, but often seeks to encourage change in order to redress perceived inequities discernible within the status quo. An individual with this outlook values freedom of thought and expression. Thus, Eurpeans tend to use "liberal" as in generous or expansive of thought ("Liberal Arts").


The USA has its own meanings for both terms. Our meanings actually center on the role/scope etc. of the Federal government versus the role of the individual, the community, and the states.

USA Conservative: Favors political decision making at the lowest possible level and the minimum possible scope for the Federal Government. Thus, a preference for minimizing regulations, taxes, etc. in order to open up the fullest possible scope for the individual to pursue their own goals.

NOTE: USA "SOCIAL" Conservatives differ from this in that they want minimal taxes and regulations on all things economic, but would prefer a social mindset equivalent to that which dominated the USA between 1890-1915. Some of the more ardent would use sweeping Federal mandates and/or Constitutional ammendments to enact this set of Mores....while at the same time attempting to minimize Federal involvement in economics etc.

USA Liberal: Very few acknowledge being such as the term has become a political liability. However, in the USA, we use this label to indicate an individual who views the Federal Government as the proper tool for addressing social and economic problems. Broad social safety nets and entitlements are a hallmark of this view.

NOTE: Despite leanings in the direction of what Europeans label "socialism," few liberals in the USA would consider themselves socialist as they do not believe in replacing private property with government control -- even though they wish to do exactly that (in the interest of fairness and well-being for the disadvantaged) to a number of major segments of the economy.


Lemur, a very good question. I thank you.

[HoreTore]

As we decided on with Socialist, there is no clear-cut meaning.

Hitler was a conservative though.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Lemur]

Hitler was a conservative though.

Not only are you in blatant violation of Godwin's Law*, but you're forgetting that Adolf was head of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Conservative: Acknowledges change is inevitable, but prefers to react in a measured fashion to changes as they occur. All things being equal, an individual with this outlook would be comfortable with the status quo. Often has a fondness for the "good old days" and worries that changes may take the society/culture in question away from "core" values.

Liberal: Not only acknowledges change to be inevitable, but often seeks to encourage change in order to redress perceived inequities discernible within the status quo. An individual with this outlook values freedom of thought and expression. Thus, Eurpeans tend to use "liberal" as in generous or expansive of thought ("Liberal Arts").

This is the best definition I've seen in the thread thus far, although it ain't perfect. (I guess any one-dimensional definition, no matter how well parsed, is going to leave you dissatisfied.)



* Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm actually referring to the #1 corollary to Godwin's Law, not the law itself. Shut up and stop being pedantic.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hitler was a conservative though.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No he wasn't.

[Goofball]

It is very tricky. We are all Conservative and all Progressive in different ways. It all depends on which ideals, institutions and concepts we are trying to preserve. I don't really like the terms because it suggests that all we do is "conserve" or "progress".

Very true. Just thinking about it, radical environmentalists, whom most of us think of as ultra-left wing, are actually the truest conservatives on the planet.

Odd.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hitler was a conservative though.

By Husar's definition he was a progressive

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hitler was a Socialist. End of discussion.

[Husar]

That's not accurate though--you can't say progressives want to move beyond the status quo, the just want to change it in a way that it hasn't been changed before.

Well, if you change it it's not like the status quo anymore.

It's completely pointless to try to describe someone as any of the three by your definitions anyway--I challenge you to find anyone who fits that description for every political issue.

You must have missed the next part of my post.

Noble sentiment, but it still doesn't solve the problem of "what should we call an individual?". There is no single definition that would apply to an individual and any attempt is rather futile.

I tried to say that in my post, you have to come to a conclusion or, quite simply, put different tags on your drawers before putting people into them.

What are socialists? Progressives, even though they seek to restore old concepts and ways of governance? Even if they would modify tried and failed government to work, how is that really different from conservative who want the old modified to last as well?

socialists are usually socialists, whether they are progressive, conservative or reactionary depends entirely on the history and the status quo of the state they live in. They can very well be reactionary.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Labels are important because they help us to understand general ideological concepts, but they don't explain individual ideology. I've never met a true "Conservative", "Socialist" or a "Capitalist" unless they were morons who could only read information, never synthesize it.