What Does "Conservative" Mean?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hitler was a conservative though.

By Husar's definition he was a progressive

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hitler was a Socialist. End of discussion.

[Craterus]

Hitler was a Socialist. End of discussion.

Hitler wasn't interested in administration. He left all that to the various ministries and gave his backing to the most radical bill. It's not really worthwhile trying to apply political terms to him. He was just a militaristic nationalist. He wanted an empire of the master race. The general ruling between 1933-1945 was chaotic and that's why policies fluctuated so much. Hitler was indecisive, lazy and uninterested with general administration.

[Adrian II]

Hitler was a Socialist. End of discussion.

Oh please, discussion is such a liberal fetish.

[Ironside]

By Husar's definition he was a progressive

Actually, following those definitions (that shows how limited they actually are), more of a radical reactionary (the third reich, aryans, purifying the blood, all to return to an imaginary golden age), with some progressive moves.

Lemur, are you continuing on the joke or are you going to argue that DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) was democratic next?

[Adrian II]

Lemur, are you continuing on the joke or are you going to argue that DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) was democratic next?

[CountArach]

Hitler was a conservative though.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Where's Frag when you need him?

[Lemur]

Well, looks as though the time for serious replies is over, and it's all-Hitler-all-the-time from now on. Could some kindly mod please lock this thread?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hitler.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Seriously though, could someone tell me what the national identity is for conservatives in England? Because here in Scotland it is pretty confused.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, looks as though the time for serious replies is over, and it's all-Hitler-all-the-time from now on. Could some kindly mod please lock this thread?

Sorry, Kukri's asleep. So you'll have to put up with me instead.

Thank you all for contributions.