Talk:Conservatism/Archive 3

Conservatism and nationalism
There is still some confusion, apparently, about this article and US conservatism. Some recent edits in this section were obviously about the United States, such as the suggestion that conservatism honours 'common law'. Many European conservatives don't even know what that is, let alone the prominence it has as an anti-statist shibboleth among the American right. On nationalism, it is true that some American and British conservatives are unhappy with the term, which is not surprising given the bloody history. Nevertheless, radical nationalist conservatism was a major element of European conservatism, and still is in some places. The article is about conservatism, not about how American self-identified conservatives define conservatism. For that, there is still the now-separate artile on North American conservatism.Ruzmanci 10:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say it looks more like the article is about how anyone and everyone define conservatism, very few of whom I suspect identify themselves as conservatives. keith 18:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The article says more than once, that Anglo-American conservatism is unhappy with being associated with some other conservatives in some other cultures. But they don't own the word, and they have no special claim to be the conservatives.Ruzmanci 19:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * your ad hominem dismissal is neither relevant nor correct. First of all the article purports to summarize all conservatism. And second, the article makes a specific point of associating American conservatism and fascism. Speaking of which, the term "fascism" and its variants are used seventeen times by my count. keith 04:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello! i'm sorry i introduced some specifically american tendencies in my edit. i even knew that common law doesn't exist outside of anglo-influenced countries like england and india, but i failed to make the distinction. writing an article is harder than i had thought! i hope i didn't anger any of y'all. nevertheless, i am dissatisfied with the organization of this article. the sections don't seem to follow one another in any order, ontological, logical, temporal or otherwise -- they rather flow in a stream-of-consciousness, mentioned one after the other. might i offer a different ordering of the sections, here in this little forum, in order to more adequately introduce the philosophic tendencies? --OGO

I count 10 references to fascism, two of them explicitly indicate that Anglo-American conservatives dislike the implied link. (I also count 31 references to Edmund Burke, including the term Burkean, which is probably more than his due in an article on conservatism worldwide). The only item which specifcally links any American conservative to fascism, quotes from another conservative journal. It seems irrelevant here, and could be deleted. The order of the article could certainly be improved, it was inherited from the previous version.Ruzmanci 11:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * yes 10 uses of "fascism", and seven more for "fascist". "Nazi" is used five times (plus a bonus reference to Hitler himself). I also count nineteen hits for "radical", not as inflammatory I suppose, though by definition not applicable to the mainstream. Plus a modest four mentions of the Taliban.  keith 13:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The Taliban regime is a classic example of an ultra-orthodox religious conservatism in practice. And radical is exactly what much European conservatism is, which is perhaps why it contributed so much to fascism in general, and to Nazi ideology. All of these belong in an overview of conservatism. Whether any of them are "mainstream" depends entirely on what "mainstream" is. If it means something like 'conservatives within the Republican Party in the United States', then see the separate article on American Conservatism.Ruzmanci 18:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You're just side-stepping the argument. The article isn't titled "Fascist Tendencies in European Conservatism", Perhaps it should be, but until then statements which are not accepted as fact by both sides should not be presented as fact, especially not sooo many times. We are going in circles. See below. keith 03:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, see the bottom. Ogo 23:56, 20 August 2005 (EST)

"Impact on other ideologies" Section
This section is a mess; I have moved the neutral part out and removed the rest here for now, pending something useful actually being done with it. I get the feeling it is far different from how it started out. But, discussion of other ideologies belongs in their respective articles. And these are not worded as claims than can be referenced or argued. Weasel-talk like "many non-fascist conservatives admired Hitler" is not just worthless, its inflammatory.


 * The most controversial ideological impact is the conservative element in fascism. European fascism drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on the conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century socialism. Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler provided much of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement. However, traditionalist, monarchist, and Catholic conservatives often despised the fascist mass movements, and the personality cult around the leader. In Britain, the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative Party supported closer ties with Nazi Germany. When defeat in the Second World War ideologically and historically discredited fascism, almost all western conservatives tried to distance themselves from it. The theory of totalitarianism, which treats Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as equivalent systems, provided the intellectual foundation. Nevertheless, many post-war western conservatives continued to admire the Francisco Franco regime in Spain, clearly conservative but also fascist in origin. With the end of the Franco and Salazar regimes in the 1970’s, the relationship between conservatism and classical European fascism became an issue for historians.


 * The relationship with right-wing ideologies (including some that are described as neo-fascist) is still an issue for conservatives and their opponents. Especially in Germany, there is a constant exchange of ideology and persons, between the influential national-conservative movement, and self-identified national-socialist groups. In Italy too, there is no clear line between conservatives, and movements inspired by the Italian Fascism of the 1920’s to 1940’s, including the Alleanza Nazionale which is member of the governing coalition under premier Silvio Berlusconi. Conservative attitudes to the 20th-century fascist regimes are still an issue even within Anglo-American conservatism. The U.S. neoconservative Michael Ledeen was criticised by other conservatives for "flirting with fascism", because of his admiration for early Italian fascism and  Gabriele D'Annunzio.


 * Anglo-American conservatives are unhappy with any implied link to fascism, since the term generally has negative connotations. Nevertheless, the historical contribution of conservatism to facsist ideology is itself clear, and in the 1930's many non-fascist conservatives admired Hitler and Mussolini. The most that can be said is that ideological polarisation was common at the time. Some components of 1930's fascist ideology, such as corporatism are no longer on the political agenda in western democracies. Others, such as antiliberalism, are still central for religious conservatives. They are generally sceptical of both personal and political freedoms, since their concept of social order is grounded in values, and not in the process-oriented 'freedom' of liberalism.

I'm not looking to deny anything, just soften the obsession this article has with discussing (ad nauseum) radical fringe groups who are at best warped caricatures of the article's subject. And the article is too long and bloated already. keith 03:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Nazism was not a fringe movement, unfortunately. Neither was Italian Fascism, not the Taliban. The ideological influence on fascist movements is probably the largest singel effect of conservative ideology in Europe in the last two centuries. Radical is not the opposite of conservative, although Burkean conservatives might claim it is, and radical conservatism belongs in any overview of conservatism.

What exactly is the article's subject, according to you? Is it indeed mainstream secular conservatism in the United States, as you seem to imply? If so, then the article on Conservatism in North America is the appropriate place for any new material. There is absolutely no requirement to exclude from this article anything which any conservative might object to. There is no requirement to give any single group of conservatives a veto on the application of the term.

Certainly many American and British conservatives would be unhappy to find themselves in the same category as the Taliban or Oswald Spengler. The article says that explicitly, twice, and it differentiates between the Burkean and other conservative traditions. Any attempt to purge the content, on the basis of their preference is, by definition, political. Ruzmanci 10:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nazism is even less than a fringe movement, it is a dead movement. Further, your ruminations about it, should you prove able to provide sources, belong on the page titled Nazism. And nowhere does the article state it excludes American conservatism. In fact it explicitly include mention of it in multiple places. Irregardless I don't think my understanding of Chirac's politics, for example, vis a vis Fascism, is too far out of line either. And even Iranian conservatives take offense at being associated with the Taliban. Even a single suggestion of fascist sympathies can get a politician ejected from a most parties which describe themselves as conservative. Does the article mention this in its bigger-than-most-articles subthesis on radicals and fascists? Nope. What you are arguing for is the equivalent of a treatise on Al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers smack dab in the Islam page. I'd like to see how well that goes over. Please stop dismission my objections as irrelevant--that is not your call--and work with me to produce an article both sides can agree on. Or, alternatively, I would certainly appreciate renaming the article. One final though that occurs to me, I would generally describe Fascists, Nazis, Taliban, etc as extremes of "right-wing" ideology, in whose articles they are already represented, by the way. Perhaps our whole argument is actually whether Conservative and right-wing are the same (as I notice the article erroneously contends). Meantime I'm disputing the article. Further attempts at resolution will follow. keith 12:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fascist sympathies would not get anyone expelled from some European conservative parties, unless they were trying to shrink their membership. A number of senior advisors in governments under Chirac, and at least one minister, have fascist backgrounds, mostly in the 'Occident' movement. See here. Ruzmanci 13:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the moderate political parties don't just court the fringe groups to give the appearance of a concensus without forwarding any of their idealologies. Such is the case of Saudi Arabia who supports terrorist organizations in the middle east [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/659643/posts] and pays the families of the suicide bombers "bounties", all the while courting the american government with denials.

So if a political organization who had fascist aims supported the lesser of what they believed to be the two "evils" then you would condemn the group they supported? --Hierogre 11:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV: Conservatism and fascism
The article is about conservatism as ideology, movements and attitudes, over a long historical period. Nazism and Italian Fascism had a huge impact on history, they are not fringe movements. What you suggest is that, in order to avoid embarrassment to the average American conservative, the enormous impact of conservative values and ideology on fascist movements should be purged from this article. Similarly, you want reference to the huge spectrum of Islamist conservative movements removed.

Once again, no-one is disputing that some conservatives often dislike others who are also conservative. They might argue that the others are not 'real' conservatives, but since it is a generic term, there is no reason to listen to them, as far as this article goes. There is no veto on who is a conservative, by one group of conservatives, and that appears to be what you are asking.

This article is not about present-day mainstream U. S. conservatism. This article is not about present-day mainstream Conservative Parties in western democracies. Therefore there is no reason to take their self-definition as a norm for this article. There is no reason to construct a category "right-wing' for the sole purpose of excluding everything which does not meet their idea of conservatism. The article already makes a distinction, for U.S. religious conservatives, between conservatism and the right. The article already explains that Anglo-American conservatism is unhappy with any implied link to fascism. There is little point in putting that disclaimer in every paragraph.

If there are specific items which are disputed - for instance whether any individual was in fact a conservative - then users can edit the text, to say it is disputed. Preferably saying who disputes it.Ruzmanci 13:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * ah then you should love my last edit. I take it we can agree on removing North American conservatism altogether? keith 13:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Keith, excluding conservatism in the U.S. is not a good idea because conservatism is the U.S. does in fact belong to larger conservative norms, specifically the Anglo norm of conservatism. It is also not a good idea because most of our readers come to the page expecting to read about conservative norms in the English-speaking world, which again are largely Anglo norms and therefore American conservatism ought to be included. I think the above debate would really be helped by a reorganization of the category on more logical grounds -- specifically, to restructure the sections of the article first to introduce broad conservative ideas, then to some history, then to divide it up geographically, and only then, finally, to issues, of course including its flirtation with fascism, because the good has to be included with the bad, but I think you are right that the article does overstress this point. After all, the articles on other political philosophies are not so unsundry. Ogo 23:56, 20 August 2005 (EST) P.S. Can I get an Amen? If so, I'd really like to present my idea in full below, along with a section listing. Can't we cooperate?
 * Were it not for the presence of Ruzmanci I would agree with you 100%. He is deadset on associating European conservatives and Fascists, so this compromise at least gets him out of my backyard. My current thinking is the only hope to resolve this article's silly status is to crop it down to a "European conservatism" article, and suggest you create a whole new (hopefully much much more concise) article on conservatism.
 * As for the "good with the bad", Fascism is not conservatism, it is fascism. Hence any discussion of its ideals belongs there. It is not useful or informative to consider that Fascists may share roughly similar views with conservatives on immigration, for example, when the very word "Fascist" enflames emotions from a history of and continuing sympathies with the perpetrators of genocide and mass murder, not to mention their other warped and evil views. If you agree the inflammatory connotations of the word were not your point, then I suggest you find a less loaded word to make the same point. As for history, if it's not extraneous it belongs in the history section. keith 06:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

European conservatism is indeed associated with fascism: along with nationalism and race theories it is a major component of facsist ideology. European conservatism did indeed contribute to the massive atrocities perpetrated by fascist regimes, through its glorification of authority and militarism, and not least because of its often agressive anti-semitism. German conservatives continue to contribute to racist violence by their insistence on an ethnic definition of the German nation, and their opposition to the presence of non-Germans in that nation. In addition, conservatives who opposed fascism also committed atrocities, notably Winston Churchill (poison gas against civilians in Iraq) and the 1950's British Conservative governments (systematic torture in Kenya).

Since most of the fascism/conservatism issue is related to Europe (although also Latin America), it would indeed be possible to separate it from American conservatism. Other aspects of American conservatism, such as the 'paleo' versus 'neo' split, make no sense elsewhere, so that is another argument for separate treatment. But then there is the problem of religious conservatism, because you have some religious conservatives in the United States who say exactly the same thing about certain issues as their counterparts in Iran, (e.g the death penalty for homosexual acts). So it is very hard to argue that these are two separate movements, which share only a name. Clearly there is a global category of religious conservatism, which is present in similar forms in very different societies.Ruzmanci 11:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ruzmanci I could agree with everything you just wrote and still dispute the article. But let's be clear on this. You think Fascists are a subset of conservatives? keith 17:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
I think we should play it like this. Ruzmanci appears to know a lot and a lot about conservatism and its unfortunate relations with fascism, past and present. He seems to be very well suited to write an extensive section on conservatism and fascism, focusing especially on this in Europe, although I'd wager China would be also a good place to include. That being said, we should move all references to such a thing to that section of the article and then begin anew with the others. That would be most ontologically correct I think.

That being said, here is a first shot at what I am thinking about:
 * Intro (no section title). Much of this is already written but should be rearranged in order to make the following points:
 * Conservatism generally defined as resistance to change, etc, obviously
 * Conservatism representing the status quo in many countries
 * which accounts for its ideological diversity - conservatism is authoritarian in China, individualist in the Anglosphere
 * Conservatism being a product of one of several traditionalist motivations all of which oppose change, be it republican, liberal, feudal, etc:
 * Philosophic conservatism (Burke et al) who value the experience of tradition in the abstract (again, obvious)
 * "Particularist," I'll call them, or perhaps nationalist would be the better word, conservtives (e.g. Gaulist patriots, Chinese communists) who value the experience of one particular tradition. This is something I believe needs to be put in the introduction.
 * Religious conservatives, and this is something I have some personal experience with, who value a particular knowledge-granting Tradition that transcends (or in the case of Shinto, remains within) national and state bounds.


 * History and Geograpy. [-this section is very important due to conservatism's historical outlook-]
 * Western: feudal, etc, to modern times. name important figures and events, e.g. metternich at congress of vienna (this should be the largest because of our audience. happily I think we are all from the west so we should have an easy time writing it)
 * Eastern (someone should crib from the China history section and then do some independent research)
 * Arabic?
 * etc


 * Issues
 * Conservatism and capitalism (and underrepresented issue!)
 * religion
 * fascism
 * etc

OK, so what say you? Ogo August 23 2005
 * I say go to it. But its kinda harsh blaming both fascism and communism on conservatives. Communism is on the opposite end of the political spectrum from most of conservatism. For example, communism repression of religion or private business. yeah sometimes in practice they act more like monarchists and therefore old european-style right-wing, but right-wing isn't synonymous with conservative. I'd call the Taiwanese the conservatises in that situation. keith 23:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The distinction must be made between traditionalist, and reactionary, and radically contra-innovative conservatisms. Note that sustainability, for instance, implies a radical restructuring of society. Also note that religious conservatism does have a set of external values, which Burkean conservatism does not. The status quo in different countries is not the explanation for the differing ideologies, they evolved historically, usually by the time of the First World War. It is not so simple as "conservatism means keeping the system we happen to have here".

The value orientation of conservatives must be noted, because values extend to outside the group. Interests are internal to the group. If conservatism was a lifestyle preference, they would be happy living in closed conservative communities, but instead they want their values to be the norm, so they engage in political activity. That is what political conservatism is all about, and that ought to be in there too. So there if there is a rewrite, it would need to be more than the outline above.Ruzmanci 19:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ruzmanci I think those are all good points, especially that about values! And Keith I share your concern about "blaming" two radical movements on conservatism. I will try to make it clear that Chinese communists are not really communists per se but rather are the heirs of a rather mixed, and centuries-old, tradition of authoritative government and social hierarchy. Marxism just happened to fit the bill. (ironically, "conservatism" will accept any ideology) Ogo 25 August 2005


 * Ruzmanci I think I have slightly changed my mind :-). While what you say is true, I do not think it belongs so early in the article as it is currently; hence the rewrite. The reader, in my humble opinion, will be looking first for a definition of conservatism before a discussion of its repressive tendencies. Well, I will carry on with my rewrite. The first part might be done tonight. Ogo 25 August 2005, 22:10 (EST).

well, i am going to put my changes below. the integration might be a little daffy but i tried to pull it all together. i'm eager to hear what y'all say about this, for better or worse. razmunci especially i am eager to see what changes you make. your last edits on my piece saved me from myself, and it helps my writing to see what i should have done. i have discovered upon writing this, also, you had a real point about values. the only way to successfully unite all conservative positions is to include valuing in the definition. please read to see whether i did this successfully and objectively.

i have one minor bone to pick with you though. i have no way of knowing what you believe -- you could be a tory mp for all i know. but you do write as if you have it in for the traditionals in several places. i know you don't mean to, and you certainly have been more objective than i am. still, we should strive to make the article as neutral as possible, and while no one has been more assiduous at this than you, if we must err, we ought to err on the friendly side rather than weigh in against them. a specific case: the first example the article gives for an enforced moral standard shouldn't come from radical islam or nazi germany, but rather something any decent hardworking type could relate to. just my two cents. if anything here is patronizing or condescending i apologize. Ogo 27 August 2005, 00:17 (EST)

Conservatism REWRITE I am very concerned to hear your views before I begin to replace any of the text on the main page. So...

Introduction

Conservatism is a political tendency underlying those attitudes, political philosophies and movements which seek to limit change. A conservative works either to preserve aspects of a social order or to return to a previous order judged superior to the current. Hence conservatives would reject the premise, "change for its own sake," and are seen worldwide as defenders of the status quo.

The reasons any two conservatives might oppose change along with the particular changes they oppose tend to differ and even contradict; conservatism's rallying call is simple enough to summon a diversity of adherents. This explains the ideological range of those who invoke its name, from old American individualists to new Chinese communists, from wary Russian nationalists to defenders of Dutch tolerance. Conservatism in each case refers not to any specific beliefs but to a stance relative to certain changes. This is also why, though conservatives generally land relatively to the political right, they can be found to the political left. As local and historical situations vary, so does the conservative, and he varies most generally by the values he defends and the limits those values place on innovation.

Behind several conservative movements are the philosophic conservatives, represented best by English philosopher Edmund Burke. Philosophic conservatives wish to conserve their heritage; in other words, they claim a bias in favor of the current social climate. To a Burkean, any value or institution exists that is still extant has therefore undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected. This view of history resembles natural selection in biology.

Conservatism in one form or another undergirds the official platform of Conservative political parties in various countries. Then it is often spelled with a capital C to distinguish it from conservatism in general.

Section one: Conservatism in politics

The word conservative indicates a predilection to conserve something already existing and, most importantly, of value. The prime item of value for conservatives would best be called tradition. By tradition, however, conservatives do not mean simply custom, habit or nostalgia for the past. For a conservative, tradition is composed of standards and institutions that pass a test -- the nature of this test depends on the conservative, but often it is the test of time. A conservative feels he has time-honored reasons for preferring the once-was to the soon-will-be, and though among disparite conservatives these reasons may be at odds, they are united in looking backward.

Conservatives do not receive tradition in a vaccum. They place normative value on tradition, judging the world around them to be good or useful by the stardards they have come to trust, to the extent the standards they trust let them. Conservatives harvest these traditional values from their surroundings by identifying the institutions and acts that exemplify order and goodness. This emphasis on the concrete may be called conservatism's institutional or corporate orientation, and again depending on the scope of their values they may also find their worldview universally true or at least nationally applicable. Because conservatism orients its traditional values from received, concrete standards and institutions, it therefore has no standard by which to assign value to new ideas. These have not passed any test -- yet -- and so cannot be valued one way or another, save that they are often suspicious looking.

Moreover, all conservatives feel nontraditional ideas have the potential to mislead political thought and ought to be hedged with traditional ones, in any case at least for now. A good conservative statesman is less a great thinker than a wizened and weathered captain who has seen the world and can use his experience to guide the ship, which could become corrupt and sink but for his fidelity to the accumulated wisdom of the ship's manual, i.e. tradition. Conservatives therefore balk both at valueless thinking, which they find empty, and abstract or absolute ideology, which they find exhausts the competence of limited human reason.

It is perhaps easiest to grasp this by distinguishing conservatism from a few contemporary "abstract" or "absolute" ideologies:

Conservatives are generally counterrevolutionary: Above all they do not believe in radical social change. Conservatives believe that the preservation of the institutions they value overrides almost any other concern. The fences erected in yesteryear protect society from moral or social problems that may yet return. It must be noted, however, that in certain cases conservatives will undertake radical means if they feel their values under sufficient threat, and thereby become the etymologically confusing conservative revolutionaries.

Conservatism is not liberal, that is, they do not believe liberty in some form embodies the highest political value. They do not generally believe anything categorically embodies the highest political value. Certain items in the category of liberty are good, but some lead to license. Conservatives orient their values by the interplay of time and tradition, not by absolute categories, which they fear do not express reality.

Conservatism is generally neither capitalist nor socialist, that is, believing that the proper economic order is one of total public or private ownership, though conservatives appropriate the ideas of one camp or the other at various times. Again, the catch here is that conservatives shy away from the total application of any ideology that they have not received from the past.

Conservatism is definitely not anarchist, for conservatism if anything respects the received social order, especially hierarchy.

Conservatives judge institutions by their moral and social value, and generally the traditional source of their values guides them not to venture far into extremes. They can only really bring themselves to believe in the institutions they are familiar with: their own church, their own family, their own property. A pitfall occurs if conservatives allow their moral valuing to get out of hand, letting it elbow out the limiting influence of their affection for concretes. Conservatives might then repress the opposing values of their neighbor, forgetting any national tradition of toleration that might have arisen in their society. Generally, their reticence to venture far beyond what they see as limited human reason prevents most from too overt a display.

Section two: Conservative typology

Conservaties vary by the limits to innovation they propose and the particular values (if any) they defend. These differences generally arise from their tradition.

''Subsection one. Sorry, I don't know how to mark this up...'''

Cultural or nationalist conservatism derives its traditions from the history of one or a few cultures. It varies in name depending on the culture it honors: the American Way, la systeme Francaise, or Chinese communitarianism. Cultural conservatives grant political or social authority to the order they are familiar with because they believe it meets the criteria a culture should fulfill.

Note that the criteria are internal to their tradition itself. Cultural conservatives might derive their notions of good government from their religion, from local ideology, or most likely from living where they do. Conservatives do not find that this begs the question. Even if a conservative believes in a universal morality above political ideology, he is likely to hedge his bet -- to believe in the incommensurability of national political standards, that is, he doubts whether the ideals of France are really comparable to those of Germany. Nations, to him, reside behind a historical veil, since each evolves different traditions to overcome different issues in an imperfect, fallen world.

However, depending on how universalizing (or skeptical) they are, nationalist conservatives may not admit other ways to govern. These value conservatives seek to preserve traditional values, and often by having those values adhered to. This brings conservatism into the political arena. Value conservatism in the broad sense seeks to use the power of the state to enforce a social or cultural standard upon those who do not voluntarily adhere to it. For instance, it legislates against the spread of child pornography, supporting community service organizations or churches, or against abortion. Political conservatism may radicalize, and may result in a conservative revolution, such as the overthrow of the pro-western Pahlavi regime in Iran.

Two strategies for the enforcement of values prevail. The first is compulsion, a legal or social requirement to act as if one adhered to the tradition. The quasi-legal enforcement of the chador in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the legal requirement for women to wear a burqa or equivalent under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, are classic examples. The second strategy is prohibition, the ban on certain acts, or certain things, that contravene the values of the conservatives. For instance, the state may ban counterfeit currency, which is necessary for its functioning of social order, or ban the sale of condoms, or on pole dancing, or on the bikini, which threaten traditional values. Prohibition is more likely to be used to prevent social change in the sense of value innovation, or value erosion.

Conservative participation in the political process, with the intention of altering government policy, is the visible face of conservatism in western democracies. When people there speak of 'conservative politics' they are generally referring to this kind of campaign. Value-conservative campaigns are often focussed on a single issue. Conservative governments may promote broad campaigns for a return to traditional values, such as the Back to Basics campaign of British premier John Major. In the European Union, a conservative campaign sought to constitutionally specify certain conservative values, in the proposed European Constitution. Most prominently, Pope John Paul II lobbied for inclusion of a reference to God, which was narrowly defeated.

The conservative campaign against same-sex marriage is a typical recent single-issue campaign in western democracies, directed against a recent legal innovation. Until 2001, no country recognised same-sex marriage. Under conservative regimes, from Francisco Franco to Ayatollah Khomeiny, any official recognition of homosexuality was unthinkable. Value conservatives in western countries are vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage, although the number of these marriages is small. It is symbolically important precisely because it undermines the traditional social fabric, and the traditional values related to the family and marriage, and because it contravenes the widespread religious taboo on homosexuality. So the (usually Christian) campaigners seek to prohibit it. They do that through a campaign to oppose its introduction, repeal the relevant law, ban it by new law, or to constitutionally re-define marriage as 'between a man and a woman'.

While some conservatives may be wary of government intervention into the private lives of citizens, even when that intervention is in support of traditional values, conservative movements in general tend to support such causes. The almost universal support by secular, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim conservatives for anti-abortion movements is the most prominent example.

There are distinctions among 'traditional views' and culture-specific versions of 'family values'. To the Muslim, for example, social conservatism may entail support for polygamy. The traditions themselves may be a relatively recent invention. The prevalence of the nuclear family is, at most, a few centuries old (as is western democracy).

Subsection two

Philosophic conservatives, led by Edmund Burke, represent the classical conservative tradition in English-speaking countries. In practice, all conservative movements, and certainly all Conservative parties, operate on the basis of a formal written program or policy statement. However, classical conservatism, which usually regards Edmund Burke as its intellectual source, often insists that it is not an ideology. Ideology here is often intended in the sense of a utopian ideology, some form of master plan for society. Burkean conservatives claim to be pragmatic, and to avoid a formal set of principles. In its place, they champion the correcting influence of tradition in general.

The idea had its birth in turmoil surrounding the French revolution. Burke, an English statesman, was one of the fiercest critics of the victorious Jacobins, who he saw as violent experimenters fomenting rebellion against proper authority. The essential error, he wrote, was that France attempted to cut itself off from France. The Jacobins, who appealed to the Enlightenment standard of Reason apart from tradition, were willing to throw away centuries of governance and ritual. What appears to be mere prejudice to them Burke predicted would be the part of the gears and wheels of the country. Burke instead promoted "prejudice," or the right of the citizen to adhere to traditional beliefs that lack immediate, conscious justification, against a self-annointed elite, who for Burke exemplified hubris.

Some men, argued Burke, have more reason than others, and thus some men will make worse governments if they rely upon reason than others. To Burke, the proper formulation of government came not from abstractions such as "Reason," but from time-honoured development of the state and of other important societal institutions such as the family and the Church.

''We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence.''

The approach of philosophic conservatives to change differs from the more "conservative" conservatives. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke wrote that a means of change was necessary for the preservation of the state. A ship, to stay afloat, must be steered. This differs greatly from the more reactionary tendency in cultural conservatives. To make the distinction, Burke emphasized that the change had to be organic, in other words that change should well up from within the system and not be commissioned from without. How to tell when change is in fact organic is an issue in Burkean philosophy.

Subsection three

Religious conservatives look to the receipt of special knowledge from a traditional source. Note that these values arrive external to their surrounding institutional order; religion opposes "the world," however much it may be informed by it. So, religious conservatism, rather than valuing its local institutions, many of which it may find corrupt, instead finds room for just one: the holy organization of church, mosque or temple, which delivers special knowledge received so long ago to contemporary practitioners.

Due to its institutional parsimony, religious conservatism does not use the word tradition as other conservatives do. Tradition in the religious context does not invoke the evolving, self-correcting mechanism that it does in general conservatism. Religious tradition does not allow correction because the religious believe it is already secure. The church received it out of divine contact, passed it down and delivered it. For instance, St. Paul illustrates this new use of tradition in First Corinthians: "I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." The Greek word for delivered here is paredoka, or in Latin, traditio.

IT WOULD BE GOOD HERE TO INCORPORATE PREVIOUS TEXT CONCERNING RELIGIOUS CONSERVATISM...

Section three

Impacts on other ideologies

Conservatism in practice incorporates elements of other ideologies and philosophies. In turn, conservatism has reciprocated. In most cases the impact is shared, as between conservatism and nationalism. Most present conservatives strongly support the nation-state (although that was not so in the 19th century), and patriotically identify with their own nation. Nationalism, which sees the nation as a long-term, centuries-old, community, has many conservative aspects. Nationalist separatist movements are by definition radical, but appeal to the national past for their legitimacy, and often sought a traditionalist society, emphasising rural life and folklore.

The most controversial ideological impact is the European conservative element in fascism. European fascism drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on the conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century socialism. Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler provided much of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement. However, traditionalist, monarchist, and Catholic conservatives often despised the fascist mass movements, and the personality cult around the leader. In Britain, the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative Party supported closer ties with Nazi Germany. When defeat in the Second World War ideologically and historically discredited fascism, almost all western conservatives tried to distance themselves from it. The theory of totalitarianism, which treats Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as equivalent systems, provided the intellectual foundation. Nevertheless, many post-war western conservatives continued to admire the Franco regime in Spain, clearly conservative but also fascist in origin. With the end of the Franco and Salazar regimes in the 1970’s, the relationship between conservatism and classical European fascism became an issue for historians. The relationship with right-wing ideologies (including some that are described as neo-fascist) is still an issue for conservatives and their opponents. Especially in Germany, there is a constant exchange of ideology and persons, between the influential national-conservative movement, and self-identified national-socialist groups. In Italy too, there is no clear line between conservatives, and movements inspired by the Italian Fascism of the 1920’s to 1940’s, including the Alleanza Nazionale which is member of the governing coalition under premier Silvio Berlusconi. Conservative attitudes to the 20th-century fascist regimes are still an issue.

Section four

Conservatism in history.

Because conservatism is historical in outlook, this is very important, etc etc

Western conservatism

In the western world, conservative ideas and conservative thinkers are identifiable elements of Classical Antiquity. The best-known modern conservatisms developed in the early-modern and modern periods in Europe. Events such as the English Civil War and the French Revolution helped shape the modern ideologies. The early-modern conservatives tended to support monarchy, but Edmund Burke, who argued so forcefully against the French Revolution, favoured the American Revolution...

At the end of the Napoleonic period, the Congress of Vienna marked the beginning of a conservative reaction in Europe, to contain the liberal and nationalist forces unleashed by the French revolution. Joseph de Maistre was the most influential spokesperson for counter-revolutionary and authoritarian conservatism, with the emphasis on monarchy as a guarantee of order in society...

COMMENT

Almost all conservatives are value conservatives, it simply implies they hold to principles which they consider applicable to human society, as distinct from interests, which apply to those who have the interest. 'Beer is sinful' is a value preference, 'Buy our Beer' expresses the interests of the brewers. If the brewers claimed that drinking beer was a moral obligation, then they would be a value-based political group.

So values are not a sub-section of the classification, they are a quality of conservatism. Burkean conservatism is not a non-value conservatism. There is also no separate 'philosophical conservatism', most varieties have philosophers who support them. So there are a lot of problems with this proposed classification.

Political conservatism arises from the fact that values can be enforced by the state, and therefore (partly) determined by the political process. It too is not a separate type of conservatism, it is something conservatives do. Real-life examples such as the Taliban show how far that can go. The Ayatolah Khomeiny has just as much claim to be 'conservative' as the average US mid-western "conservative voter". There is no ground to take the US as a standard and to declare all other countries 'extreme' by comparison. It would just as invalid to take the Taliban as a standard, and say no Americans are true conservatives, because they allow 'sinful' kite-flying.Ruzmanci 11:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ruzmanci, before I respond, let me say I appreciate these points. (I do rather wish you would believe me that I understand you on the values point and need no further stern lecturing, even if you think the rewrite fails to show it. Please look it over again.) But I need your help, not just criticism. Would you please hash out, just in brief, a better classification that does both the work my rewrite is trying to do, and also at the same time preserves your points? One way or another we need to put this article in more logical order. It currently stands as a mishmash. While the rewrite above is probably flawed for the reasons you submit, I think it goes further than the current article in explaining what this thing is that is conservatism.


 * Now... for my response. I think the point of contention here, to be honest, has nothing to do with whether value behavior is essential to conservatism. I'm down on the record for agreeing with you, by now I hope. Rather, it has to do with our relative stances on valuing itself. Me, I find it rather normal that people value things. In other words, to believe some things are good and are worth preserving, this is a rather common sentiment and generally not an aggressive one. Ergo, I think the encyclopedia article ought to reflect this by devoting no undue space to extremes. Islamic radicalism and Nazi fascism are both extremes. (Think about what an absurd encyclopedia this would be if the extreme was the first topic mentioned in other political articles. Good grief!) As for you, I confess I have the impression you do not find this aspect of human life normal, and moreover that you find it rather belligerent, given your dogged insistence on "sin" and Iran and bringing up the ugliest side of conservatism possible. Are you writing a thesis on conservative excesses or something? That would be valuable research, but it shouldn't dominate an encyclopedia article on conservative norms.


 * Oh and -- "almost all" conservatives are value conservatives, as you say. Some, such as Burkeans, do not subscribe to any values per se. And as you proabably know, if almost all cars are Fords, but a few are Lincolns, you'd only be mostly correct if you said all cars have Ford-like characteristics. That's the trouble I'm having, to the best of my limited ability, in the rewrite. I'd really appreciate some more constructive help. I don't mind doing some re-rewriting if I can just get a few ideas from you guys.


 * Keith, haven't heard from you yet... I have the feeling that Ruzmanci will not bend an inch on this, and I may need to seek an outside second opinion. Ogo 27 August 2005, 23:45 (ETC)

Burkean conservatives are also value-conservatives, their values are traditional values, and the the inherent value of tradition itself. A Christian religious conservative is against same-sex marriage because the Bible says it is wrong (or at least they read that into the Bible). A Burkean conservative opposes it because it is a radical break with a long-standing and fundamental social institution, which has value for that reason. The Burkean conservative could be an atheist.

Some conservatives want to preserve tradition, that is why I used the category 'traditionalist' which includes Burkean conservatives. Others are radical, and paradoxically seek to transform societies. Both Islamic radical conservatism and deep ecology are of that type. Even if they are 'extreme', that is not a synonym for marginal or unimportant. Islamic conservatives almost certainly outnumber self-identified 'conservatives' in the U.S. I moved all the U.S. material to a separate article precisely because it was written as if American conservatism was the only conservatism in the world.

All non-separatist conservatives are by definition in conflict with non-conservatives. The conflict is about what society should be like. In this respect American conservatives are no different, their political efforts are directed at prohibitions and prescriptions, which by definition are aimed at others. I don't know of any separatist conservative communities there, and that in a country with a long tradition of rural utopian communities. I do know a fictional example, which will be familiar to some, but don't post spoilers.Ruzmanci 11:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Really, what I want here is some help incorporating this into a more explicit classification, not endless debate. I can tell we're never going to agree, especially about whether Burkean conservatives admit to a universally applicable tradition, but I am very willing to accept an alternative classification that might preserve both of our interests. That or, please, in specific, tell me what in the rewrite does not conform to the points you've made above, because to me they fit in rather well. In particular, your use of the word tradition ought to find more resonance in the rewrite than the current, if you'll notice. I don't think the current article at all highlights the word tradition or treats it with the high status conservatives do. Please, actually read the re-write instead of the outline, the two are not the same, and either give me some help reordering the sections or tell me what in the re-write contradicts your points about conservative values. Ogo 11:45, 28 August 2005 (ETC)


 * To be productive the focus needs to be on specific statements. If they are disputed, a source needs to be given, e.g. "soandso describes the Naziism as a product on conservatism because ____", instead of "Naziism is the result of Conservatism". The former allows room for a counter-point such as "however someotherguy argues they are not because ____". Then both sides can have their views represented. Since you went to such effort just put your changes in and proceed from there. keith 03:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, there's that labor theory of value again. All my effort might be worth very little. But I agree about needing specific focus on the rewrite rather than political debate, especially as I have said several times that I think I understand the point concerning values. I am not going to make the changes yet, though. I don't think it's a good idea yet to mince the article up when this can still be hashed out, especially if Razmunci has an alternative idea for classifying things. I'll take anything. Meanwhile, I have some less controversial additions to make... I'll start near the bottom and add substance to the article in preparation for a more organized revision later. Ogo 16:39, 29 August 2005 (ETC)

Conservatism as a stance
OK, in the latest changes in the intro, I've noticed a two specific changes I'd like to discuss that I think may be inaccurate. The first change was:


 * Conservatism is a political tendency...
 * back to
 * Conservatism is a generic term...

A "generic term" is a generic term. This article concerns political conservatism. Conservatism becomes political, as you I think you insightfully pointed out, when voters with strong value preferences wish to enforce them in a large group. If they were content to keep the faith they would become separatists, like the Amish. So conservatism here is not simply a generic term but in fact must be a political term. And the kind of political thing it is I think is best expressed by the word tendency. I'm very willing to give ground if you can think of a better word than tendency.

I must say I appreciate the simplification in the second paragraph! I wrote complex, unreadable sentences. Thank you for clarifying the juxtaposition between the Islamists and the traditionalists in Holland. But, of course, I have a bone to pick:


 * is not a specific set of beliefs but refers to a stance relative to certain institutions.
 * to a more conciliatory
 * For some it is primarily a specific set of beliefs, an ideology, for others a stance relative to certain institutions.

I really sympathize with this change, and I appreciate the move to make a distinction. I suspect you made it because you thought that the first would be true only of Burkeans to the exclusion of the vastly more common "value" conservatives. (Correct me if not.) But I want to make it clear that conservatism as a stance holds for value conservatives a forteriori, which means we should fall back to the simpler version. Observe, if conservatism were really a generic term as you wrote, then it would not refer to any values in particular but rather the posession of values. That is, both Islamists and defenders of Dutch tolerance are generically conservatives, not due to their particular values whatever they may be, but because they have values to defend versus a set of certain proposed changes (or an "evil" status quo). So conservatism signifies an orientation vis a vis the larger direction of political movement in a state, not any particular set of values -- in other words, conservatism is a stance not of a particular set of absolute values but a stance relative to the proposed change (or status quo, for rev. cons) of values.

not giving up
Everyone seems to have given up and gone home. At least, it has been almost two weeks since the last attempt to clean up this mess -- and, as it stands, it is a mess.

I am going to try for a rewrite. I know that is presumptious of me, but I will bend over backward to be 1) universal 2) neutral 3) careful. All material on conservatism in a particular modern country will be moved to, for example, Conservativism is Lithuania, and I will take all of my examples from ancient cultures, and try to keep a good mix of Western, Eastern, African, and Polynesian examples.

I'm going to move slowly, one section at a time, beginning with the introduction. The main thing about the introduction is that it is much too long. An introduction should introduce. Shake hands first; then fight. Rick Norwood 22:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've given it my best shot. I'll let it simmer for a few days, and then look at the section I've broken off as "reasons for conservatism". Rick Norwood 23:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

With a new rewrite by Ruzmanci, I think we are making progress on the introduction. Rick Norwood 12:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

moving right along
Using a method that has worked well in other articles, I have put here my attempt to make the next section neutral point of view. Clearly, this section was written by someone who was thinking of the conservative movement in the United States, which is the subject of a different article. The article also makes many assertions about conservatives that conservatives would not agree with. I have tried to give it a global point of view, and to make it clear that only some conservatives think their values are a universal imperative. The Amish are a good example of conservatives who do not think their values are a universal imperative. So, here is my rewrite of the section. Please edit it until it is ready to go into the main article. Rick Norwood 22:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Conservatism and Universality

Some conservatives consider their ideology a universal imperative, valid for all persons and at all times. These conservatives, unlike, for example Amish conservatives, have no tradition of separatism, but attempt to use political power to mandate their views within their own society and to use missionary work, in the broadest sense, to export their views to other societies. For example, in 1324, the ruler of Mali, Mansa Musa, the most powerful ‘’mansa’’ (emperor) of sub-Saharan Africa, not only tolerated no dissent or change among his own people, but used a pilgrimage to Mecca as an opportunity to display the wealth and power of Mali to other nations, insisting that he be greated in Egypt according to the customs of Mali.

Conservatives who consider their beliefs a universal imperative may try to force those beliefs on others, a policy leading to repression. For example, in Spain, beginning in 1936 Francisco Franco led a Roman Catholic, nationalist, conservative movement which came to power in the Spanish Civil War, executed thousands of its political opponents, tortured and persecuted many others, imposed rigid censorship, and promoted a mono-cultural Spanish identity.

In democratic countries, conservatives who consider their beliefs a universal imperative may seek to impose conservative values through legislation. This may bring them into conflict with progressive factions, and result in polarization of the society. For example, in Iran in 1979, after the overthrow of Shah Pahlavi, the conservatives succeed in enacting a constitution that allowed Islamic religious leaders to veto laws, and deny the right of certain candidates to run for public office.

Conservatives reject anarchy as an absolute evil, since it leads to the overthrow of traditional norms. Some conservatives reject all social change on the grounds that it may lead to anarchy. While many conservatives embrace representative democracy and attempt to work with the system, others consider their values more important than democratic values. They may describe their values as “ordained by God” or as “traditional national values” or as “traditional values for the good of families and children”, and view such values as above the law. For these conservatives, the symbols of religion, nationalism, or royalty are more important than the will of the governed, as expressed in a democracy.

Rick, Actually I think that "universality" in one form or another should not be the next section at all. I don't really see what that has to do with defining conservatism as a political philosophy. The next chapter should be a broad statement of programme or something of the sort, not commentary on conservatism's universalizing aspect. Since you're in a writin' mood, how about rustling something up with a title like: Conservative Ideology, or Conservative Movements, or The Philosophy of Conservatism if you're feeling brave. The part about universality can come in later. Ogo 08 Oct 2005 14:42 UST.

More than 20 rewrites today and it is only 8:45 AM EST.
This article has already been rewritten extensively. That suggests two things. First, that you should not rush your rewrite, but consider it carefully. Second, that you should discuss your rewrite here before posting it to the main article. Rick Norwood 12:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I had hoped that something could be salvaged from all this, but it is clear that at least two of the posters have absolutely no interest in NPOV. I will mention only their insistance that conservatives support intelligent design, which is supported only by a minority of conservatives, and by almost no conservatives outside the United States. Let me point out that there is an article on American conservatism -- but I don't think Intelligent Design is going to fly there, either.

I see no alternative but to revert all the changes made today, and suggest to the posters that they discuss the changes they want here, one at a time. Rick Norwood 12:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rick. I appreciate your conservatism, hehe, but you can't control an article. (Ugh. I almost wrote one of those that's not what wikipedia is about lines. Yuck.) Rather than reverting changes that a lot of people made, probably after more thought than I'd expect, I try to modify what someone else modified, reintroduce clauses I think need to be included, etc. As it is, I agree with you about the intelligent design, etc, but I tend to overlook these things for a while just to "see what happens." No sense throwing a fit that sometimes people don't discuss changes with you. After all, you didn't discuss the revert you just made.

Here's a start to discussion: I'm going to re-do some of the changes I did because the introduction includes several unnecessary details that are inappropriate to it. Stuff about Confucius belongs below, also the first paragraph has almost a sentence and a half of repeated information that doesn't tell you anything about conservatism -- words like modern, etc. Ogo


 * But I did explain the revert, above, before I made it. Nobody has to explain anything to me, but they should explain major rewrites here -- at least, that's what I'm told, when my own passion for rewriting gets out of hand. ; )


 * As it happens, the sentence about Confucius in the intro was mine, and I added it because of several comments that the intro was too Eurocentric. You can't please everybody! Rick Norwood 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

getting down to work

 * Conservatism is a major political philosophy tending or disposed to support traditional values or an established social order. Etymologically, the word conservatism implies that conservatives seek to conserve the existing social order or to reinstate an ideal social order now in decline. This can take a peaceful, democratic form, such as a political party, or a radical form, and there are historical examples of radical conservatives.

Above is the current version. Below is my suggested rewrite.

Conservatism is a major political philosophy supporting traditional values or an established social order. Etymologically, the word conservatism implies that conservatives seek to conserve the existing social order or to reinstate an ideal social order now in decline. This can take a peaceful, democratic form or violent, radical form, and there are historical examples of both.

Let me know what you think. Rick Norwood 15:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me. You don't have to worry about running minor or medium changes by me, though. I'll let you know if I object, and judging by your other changes I really don't think I will. Ogo 21:04

Thanks. I've worked my way down to the section "Impact on other ideologies", making only minor changes. I note the return of "intelligent design", but since it is listed as one value held by some conservatives, that seems accurate to me. Rick Norwood 20:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Ogo has done a great job. Naturally, I have a few minor changes in mind, but overall I find the section much improved.  Rick Norwood 21:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

hey rick, want to chime in on Template:Conservatism discussion? Ogo 20:42 12 Oct UTC blah blah


 * Sure. Why not.  I've gotten the intro down to where the ToC is visible.  I think the main thing this article needs now is to be shorter.  Rick Norwood 19:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

awesome -- excision...liness is godliness Ogo sometime tonight 12 octobre '05

"Classification of Conservatism" ...is slanderous in parts. But I'm not sure what to do with it. I was thinking incorporating what it had to say into a rubrick, something like...

Conservatives look backward for their inspiration, so they are most logically classified according to their historical or religious situation.

i.e. republicans, christian d's, small governiks, tories subclassed by religion: christian morality folk w/ anti-abortion activists, fuzzy church-n-staters islamist morality folk from headscarf wearers to sharia madness buddhist morality folk w/ that New Clean Government Party in J-Pan subclassed by region: gaulists n' french social system types america firsters chinese nationalists vladimir putin i.e. monarchists, that kind of thing le pen (possibly?), germans like that, americans like that? organic types.
 * Western conservatives
 * Religious conservatives
 * Populists & Nationalists
 * old-timeys
 * extreme righters
 * Burkeans

input? Ogo Right Now, 12 October 2005


 * There must be a simpler way. It seems to me that conservatives fall into three big groups.  First, patriots.  "My country, may she always be right, but my country right or wrong."  This would include Xenophon, the various Louis, and Colin Powell.  The second group are the religious conservatives.  "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Martin Luther, John Calvin, Pat Robertson.  Finally, the social conservatives,  "We are the best people.  Not the smartest people, nor the richest people, nor the most handsome people, but simply the best people."  To be well bred is the only virtue.  Cicero, King James I, and George W. Bush.  Rick Norwood 23:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This would incorporate elements of Classification of Conservatism and Value Conservatism, and would replace Burkean conservatism as nonideological. It would also cut about 4K.

Classification of conservatism
Looks good to me. Rick Norwood 12:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Cultural conservatism
Cultural conservatism hopes to enshrine the received heritage of a successful nation or culture. The culture in question may be as large as Western culture or Chinese civilization or as small as that of Tibet. Cultural conservatism does not always support its own culture: Kemal Ataturk attempted to transplant some Western institutions into Turkey, creating a republic.

Cultural conservatives try to adapt norms handed down through a culture. The norms may be romantic: The anti-metric movement, demanding the retention of avoirdupois weights and measures in Britain, and opposing their replacement with the metric system is a classic example. They may be institutional: In the West this has included chivalry and feudal social structure, as well as capitalism, laicite and the rule of law. In the East it signifies the state examination system in China or widespread cultural tolerance in India. The norms may also be moral, according to the influence of social conservatives. This leads cultural conservatives to support moral community groups, for instance with public funds or good samaritan laws, and oppose the spread of practices that the culture considers to be vices such as child pornography, abortion and homosexuality, which are opposed by some cultures.

Cultural conservatives often argue that old institutions have adapted to a particular place or culture are therefore ought to perservere. Depending on how universalizing (or skeptical) they are, cultural conservatives may or may not admit of other ways to govern. Though most conservatives believe in a universal morality, most will hedge and say that political expression of morality is incommensurable between nations. That is, a cultural conservative may doubt whether the broad ideals of French communities are really comparable to those in Germany.

Others may radicalize, instigating a conservative revolution such as the overthrow of the pro-western Pahlavi regime in Iran. Radical conservatism represents a radical and utopian goal. It implies that conservatives ultimately seek a radically different form of society, one designed to suppress innovation. Since such a society has never existed on this planet, this form of conservatism cannot appeal to past models. The idea of a radical transformation of society, for contra-innovative purposes, is part of some theories of fascism.

Religious conservatism
Religious conservatives look to the receipt of special knowledge from a traditional source. Note that these values arrive external to their surrounding social order; religion opposes "the world," though it may be informed by the world. So religious conservatism, rather than considering local sources of tradition, prefers the holy organization of church, mosque or temple, which delivers special knowledge received so long ago.

This means religious conservatism does not use the word tradition quite like other conservatives. Tradition in the religious context does not invoke an historically informed evolution. Church tradition by definition cannot evolve because it derives tradition from an unchanging divine act. This does not mean that church tradition never adapts, but that any "changes" enacted after revelation are refinements rather than discontinuities. St. Paul illustrates this use of tradition in First Corinthians: "I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." The Latin word for delivered here is traditio.

While some conservatives may be wary of government intervention into the private lives of citizens, even when that intervention is in support of traditional values, religious conservative movements in general tend to support such causes. The almost universal support by secular, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim conservatives for anti-abortion movements is the most prominent example.

Conservative governments influenced by religious conservatives may promote broad campaigns for a return to traditional values, such as the Back to Basics campaign of British premier John Major. In the European Union, a conservative campaign sought to constitutionally specify certain conservative values in the proposed European Constitution. Most prominently, Pope John Paul II lobbied for inclusion of a reference to God, which was narrowly defeated.

Radical movements in Islam illustrate the sense in which religious conservatism, rather than trying to preserve an existing social order, seeks to overthrow the existing order to effect a return to the values, worldview, and lifestyle of its special tradition. This differs from utopian revolutions, which seek to replace the existing order with a more progressive society. The Salafist movement is often politically radical, and violently repressed for that reason. Salafism seeks to re-create the Islamic society which existed at the time of Muhammad's death and for a short time thereafter, rejects the later development of Islamic societies, and can therefore be classified as a radical religious conservatism. The Salafi give great prominence to a disputed hadith (reported statement of the Prophet), which is classically conservative:

"Every innovation is misguidance..."

Burkean conservatism
The classical conservative tradition in English-speaking countries, which usually regards Edmund Burke as its intellectual source, often insists that conservatism has no ideology in the sense of a utopian programme, with some form of master plan. Edmund Burke developed his ideas in reaction to the Enlightenment idea of a society guided by abstract "Reason." Although he did not use the term, he anticipated the critique of modernism, a term first used at the end of the 19th century by the Dutch religious conservative Abraham Kuyper. Burke was troubled by the Enlightenment and argued, instead, for the value of tradition.

Some men, argued Burke, have more reason than others, and thus some men will make worse governments if they rely upon reason than others. To Burke, the proper formulation of government came not from abstractions such as "Reason," but from time-honoured development of the state and of other important societal institutions such as the family and the Church. "'We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence.'"

Burke argued that tradition is a much sounder foundation than "reason". The conservative paradigm he established emphasises the futility of attempting to ground human society based on pure abstractions (such as "reason," "equality," or, more recently, "diversity"), and the necessity of humility in the face of the unknowable. Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while "reason" may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation.

In the Burkean view, an attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society for the sake of some doctrine or theory runs the risk of running afoul of the iron law of unintended consequences. Burke advocates vigilance against the possibility of moral hazards. For Burkean conservatives, human society is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue is to invite unforeseen disaster.


 * Ogo 00:08 14 October 2005 UTC

this article is shit
and to try to edit it would be like pissing in the wind, as wiki is a hangout for those sorts of pseudoscholars who cash in sosoc early and move in with their elderly mothers, leaving them nothing to do but pad around town in their keds and write stupid shit like this.

arguing about it is pointless. take this reasoning for instance:

"(paraphrased) this article isn't how self-identified conservatives would describe themselves, but about defining conservatism accurately."

rather than argue with it, i suggest anyone offended by the slander in this article go apply this rationalle to the articles on progressivism, liberalism, social democracy, etc. [-- added posthumously 66.209.214.23 ]


 * Thanks for sharing. Rick Norwood 23:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * ummm... Ogo 02:03 14 Oct 2005 UTC

netherlands and conservative diversity
IMHO, the introduction should stress the ideological diversity that falls under the conservative position against innovation. The best way to do this is to stress its (nominal) independence from the left-right distinction, but this won't make sense to most people without an example, and the netherlands is a pretty good one. if you can think of another, let's hear, but otherwise I think it ought to stay. i tried to make it more logical in the latest edit. Ogo 16 Oct 18:11

intelligent design
I rather doubt the statement that in most Western democracies most conservatives believe in "intelligent design" -- at least, not in the kind of "intelligent design" that is being pushed into science classes in the United States. I'm going to try to find a more moderate statement that will still convey the idea that many conservatives believe in a creator. Rick Norwood 22:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would doubt that they believe in it in the sense that others would portray them as doing. They believe it should be explored and realize the problems with Darwinism.  They certainly don't think federal judges should be in the business of dictating curriculum. -- Jbamb 12:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite by 162.119.64.111
My first inclination was to revert this rewrite, but on consideration I'll grant that, for example, "behavior" might be considered a plural noun. I limited myself to one change, removing the assertion that the upper class wants the lower class to disappear. On the other hand, if someone else wants to revert the entire rewrite by 162.119.64.111 I have no objection. Rick Norwood 23:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

reversion of rewrite by 66.147.146.90
The author of this edit did not offer any justification for his claims, but I'll assume good will on his part and explain the revert.

The claim that children are not allowed to pray is school is false. Children have always been allowed to pray anywhere and any time they want. What is not allowed is for teachers to force children to pray -- though the Supreme Court has recently made an exception to that rule, in the case of the Pledge of Allegience.

The claim that public displays of religion are not allowed is false. I probably drive past a dozen public displays of the Ten Commandments every day. Rick Norwood 23:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I second the revert with reservations. I agree completely about the school prayer and religious display. I would perhaps preserve a couple of the edits in which he softened language with a bit of POV, and also he caught some spelling mistakes. Ogo 23:50 20 Oct OH5 (UTC)


 * Which is a good reason to make changes a few at a time. Rick Norwood 21:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow
Even when talked about objectively, conservativism still sounds stupid. I can't believe it.


 * Remember NPOV.


 * Sign your comments with four tildes. Rick Norwood 14:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What a classic liberal response; no argument, no supporting details.

Turkey
The article currently has this sentence.

"Cultural conservatism does not always support its own culture: Kemal Ataturk attempted to transplant some Western institutions into Turkey, creating a republic."

I never thought of Kemal Ataturk as a conservative. Does this view have any support, or should this example be removed? Rick Norwood 22:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

family values
I have reluctantly reverted the recent edit. To single out "family values" as an important example of conservative politics seems to me to place undue emphasis on something that is very much a modern American issue, not something conservatives have historically supported. Also, I think it is clear that the use of the word "ideal" in the context of that paragraph is clearly shorthand for "a past society that is considered ideal" rather than an assertion that the society in question is actually ideal or, for that matter, ever actually existed. Rick Norwood 16:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I share your concern about the prominent placement of family values. However, as conservatism is principally about pragmatism and a slow rate of change, I think the word "ideal" is out of place in the introduction.  Idealism is something that progressives are concerned with&mdash;conservatives less frequently so.  The relationship between conservatism and idealism certainly does warrant discussion, but certainly not in the introduction, and in such matter-of-fact terms.   &mdash;thames 17:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I do not agree that conservatism is principally about pragmatism and a slow rate of change. That is one strain of conservative thought, but Kung Fu Tze, for example, lived in a divided China in which life was made miserable by warring states, and looked toward a rapid change to restore a golden age. Many modern conservatives see the modern world as a cess pool of sin and depravity, and work toward a rapid change to restore things to the way they were in the good old days (good old days that never existed outside Leave it to Beaver, but that does not alter their desire for rapid change). Islamic conservatives want to drive out all Western influence from their society, by violent means if necessary. Another instance of wanting rapid change.

I'll try to come up with a wording of the sentence that is not subject to misinterpretation. Rick Norwood 22:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of the word "ideal". Let me know what you think. Rick Norwood 22:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

explanation of recent reverts
To say that conservatives believe in the moral, social, and economic values they believe in is circular reasoning. Everybody believes in the moral, social, and economic values they believe in. What sets conservatives apart from non-conservatives is that conservatives take their values from the past. Rick Norwood 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Centrists don't believe in the moral, social, and economic values that centrists believe in. keith 22:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But centrism is not a political ideology per se. Ogo 23:24 Nov 5 2005

That is not what the changes were about. The changes said that they want to conserve these values- not that they believe in them. This implies that they take their values from the past, but it is more than that- they are less willing to change or compromise these values as time passes.


 * Sign your posts, please. -St|eve 21:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bite my butt, please. Freaking wikinazi. anonymo the nameless

You have said that conservatives want to conserve these values, not that they believe in them. As dubious as that is, if so, then we should emphasize that conservatives want to conserve what exists, rather than their beliefs. This is better illustrated by the original text. Ogo 23:41 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It appears to me that a rather young, perhaps hostile fellow is trying to alter the conservatism article. "Bite my butt" and such. Is there anything that can be done about this? He/she reverts any attempts (by both Rich and me) to rectify his changes, and appears not to be willing to discuss them. I'm not sure what to do in this situation, other than start some abortive revert war.


 * Whoever you are, could you please register an account with wikipedia and communicate with the other editors? Believe it or not, we're not total idiots just because we disagree with you. Ogo 22:47, 14 Nov 2005.


 * These people usually (but not always) loose interest and wander off after a few days. Rick Norwood 00:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The current text does NOT correctly illustrate the fact that Rick Norwood pointed out on 3 Nov. Just as not all conservative values are moral, not all conservative values are social, and this is not properly conveyed by saying they seek to conserve or reestablish a social order.  The fact that anybody believes in their values is obvious; what defines conservatives is that they do not want to change these values as time passes.  As others have pointed out, the fact that something is old or already exists does not mean that conservatives want to keep it.  Sometimes conservatives will even affect huge changes in a social order in order to conserve their values.  --192.55.52.2 02:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... let's be a little more precise. I'd say what 'defines' conservatives is that they believe tradition is an authority of the first rank on values. They may adapt these values, or even change them within certain limits, but they always consult tradition. It's not that they prefer 'old values' but that age often implies wisdom to them. Ogo 20:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If someone doesn't prefer stability over change, they are not a conservative. Someone can prefer the status quo to remain unchanged because it favours them.  That person will take the same side of a fight as a conservative, but for different reasons.
 * A conservative does not believe that all change is bad, rather, most individual changes are bad. Therefore, experiments are best if they are small, localised, easily reversible and, best of all, happening on a completely different continent.  The few changes that stand the test of time will accumulate slowly, and the rest will be forgotten.  Regards, Ben Aveling 00:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Sansvoix edit
Overall, I think this edit improves the article. Rick Norwood 14:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Conservatism and Fascism
Conservatism and fascism are not vital compliments, they are antagonists, as this article is biased. Fascists were often ex-Reds, and fused Leftist ideology with violent, belicose nationalism.


 * The Fascist movement was led by Benito Mussolini, and specifically aimed at restoring the conservative values of Ancient Rome. It was fiercely anti-communist.  By extension, other nationalistic and conservative movements of the time were also called "fascist" with a lower case f, notably the government of Francisco Franco, who fought a war against communists.


 * On the other hand, you are correct in saying that conservatism and fascism are not vital compliments. Few if any modern conservatives are fascists, and to link fascism and modern conservatism is as misguided as linking Hitler and vegitarianism. Rick Norwood 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a bunch of bull... Mussolini was an ex-Marxist and never abandoned socialistic ideas. He was a radical and fascism is not conservative. In Nazi Germany, Goebbels said it was movement of the "German Left." That they were anti-Marxist, does not make them conservative.

Conservatism and Communism
This article is ridiculous, wrought with ad hominem by biased editors, either anti-conservatives or crypto-fascists with an agenda, and aloof from reality and historical developments. Whenever I shall see references to fascism and communism, and any insinuation that those totalitarian ideologies have conservative predilections, I shall promptly remove them.

This page is repugnant, and it is even more repugnant that it cannot be edited
This page is repugnant, and it is even more repugnant that it cannot be edited, because biased Wikipedia editors consider it vandalism. This web page insinuations correlating conservatism with fascism and communism are off base, inaccurate, and shoddy scholarship... I guess you objective wikipedia editors can ban me for saying that too, huh?

Fully, 20% of this page should be gutted, and deleted. Particularly sections on Fascism and China.


 * You sound very angry. Anything "correlating" conservatism and fascism should be removed, of course.  But to whitewash the history of conservatism by only mentioning positive examples is also unacceptable.  I suggest you focus on specifics, and issues that can be documented, instead of generalization. Rick Norwood 18:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest approaching your concerns from the Verifiability angle. Controversial claims must be attributed to a source, they should not be made in a broad narrative voice. Move text here that requires sources. The burden of proof is not on the person that disagrees with a controversial addition, but anons aren't generally given much slack as people are so jaded by all the vandals. keith 12:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Burden of proof-- whatever... this is a shoddy article... There was no burden of proof on the person who posted this spurious non-sense. The irony is that someone thinks just because they have solidified a shotgun blast of spurious information-- which cannot be challenged because it is vandalism... How is it little white lies can be erased, but big ones go down in the annals of wikipedia, and those who challenge them are deemed vandals.

This non-sense about hardline communists being conservative just because they are resistant to change, is reductionist and absurd. This article is poorly written anyway. If one does an article on classical liberalism, one is going to note its emhpasis on individual liberty and laissez-faire philosophy... not paint it with authoritarian stripes.

The fascism invocation is just a smear by biased ideologues-- I like how anti-conservatives get to be the gatekeepers and define what it means. No, ones is tarring up the classical liberalism article and saying Ted Kennedy is a classic liberal.

Regarding this fascism non-sense. Not one substantive thing as been written, just same rambling extraneous harraunge by some dishonest scholar with too much freetime on his hands. In an article in "Der Angriff" (The Attack) of Dec 6th, 1931, the Nazi propaganda chieftan Goebbels declared: "The NSDAP is the German Left. We despise bourgeois nationalism". Konrad Heiden's bio on Hitler, The Fuhrer, noted they the Nazis considered themselves "a party of the Left" (p. 81). Hitler himself boisterously proclaimed, "This revolution of ours is the exact counterpart of the French Revolution." Nazi ideologue Eduard Heimann boasted, "True Hitlerism proclaims itself as both true democracy and true socialism." Neev Sternhell and Richard Overy would be good source materials on their socialist economic ideas. I think this whole right-wing, left-wing dichotomy has a capacity to be misleading, but philosophically fascists are modern Jacobins-- the nation is just the vehicle of deliverance not the transnational proletariat class. Totalitarian movements have nothing to do with conservatism whatsoever, and anyone who has read Burke knows that... The amplification given here is reflective of the bias of editors.... This is a shoddy, intellectually dishonest article... The Chinese Communist Party is not a conservative force in the world-- that is most idiotic, asinine thing I have read... It should be gutted and revamped.
 * ironically, when the guy that added all the fascism stuff, then tried to go and add the "dark side" to the Liberalism page, none other than your friend Rick-whitewashing-is-unacceptable-Norwood was there to remove it. I don't think a single negative thing has survived on that page. But this page just doesn't have the team of guardians, or at least not ones as sympathetic to the subject apparently.
 * If you know about political science and actually want to put in the effort, you can definately rewrite the article. It has been done repeatedly before. It would help if you were logged in. Of course after all your work I doubt you'd recognize the page again in another three months. keith 06:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well Keith it seems-- all very pointless... &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk &bull; contribs).

Open Letter to Wikipedia Helpdesk on Bias in Conservativism Article
''An Open Letter to Wikipedia's Helpdesk --- Re: Conservatism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conservatism

This is the most shoddy, intellectually dishonest article I have read in my life. All of these smears against conservatism marrying it with fascism, and the reductionism about hardline communists being conservative is just repulsive and dishonest. Who among them has ever read Edmund Burke? Not one iota of conservative thought correlates it with totalitarian movements -- neither fascism or communism. This article needs a few quarter of the materials deleted, gutted, and removed. That is not vandalism-- it is prudent editing... the sections on fascism should be deleted... as well as substantial sections on China... "Today the Chinese Communist Party exerts the most powerful force in mainstream Chinese conservatism..." Yeah, I am sure the party of Mao Tse-Tung is a conservative force.

Apparently, solidifying large quantities of spurious materials sanctifies it-- and attempts at editing it gets one deemed as a vandal. If the guardians of this puff-piece of intellectual fodder are going to be so gung ho about fascism-- why not recollect Hitler's words, "All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility..." That is problem here--- there is a lot of errant, spurious material, and challenging it-- gets one deemed a vandal. 20-25% of it could be deleted... the article is poorly written... many claims are errant... the perspective horribly obfuscates a movement that arose in opposition to the French Revolution

No one is going to write an article on classical liberalism and say Ted Kennedy is a "classical liberal..." So, why tolerate an article on conservatism being screwed up?

I've contributed to other articles and have never witnessed such non-sense that was not challenged... This article has fallen through the cracks-- not because people are not willing to prune it, but because a couple of biased ideologues stand as guardians of the garbage they have written in this article. This needs to be addressed... This reflects poorly on Wikipedia's standards to let a handful of scoffers who are opposed to conservatism write a smear against it. They can guard their 'democratic socialism' pages with a passion. I have no desire to mess with their non-sense.

I might not be a darling of the neoconservative mainstream myself in America... I never voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004. After all I wrote a polemic book review on the Bush Betrayal (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/setliff1.html) critical of our standing Republican President, but I know ridiculous scholarship when I see it. What does my coming from that vantage point, and my position say about this article? I will be reviewing an advance copy of American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia from Intercollegiate Studies Institute-- I know what conservatism is and is not... this article is not accurately reflective of conservatism. It is pejorative, counter-factual, obfuscatory and misleading.

This article misrepresents conservatives and smears the totalitarian brush across a movement born out of opposition to the radical French Revolution-- It is thoroughly intellectually dishonest, and much of it has been written and edited by biased ideologues with an axe to grind. It is not an objective account by any stretch of the imagination.

No dice. You guys need to address this! Taking Wikipedia's credibility is vitally requisite particularly after the scandal with the hacker. Rsetliff 16:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait, don't WE as conservatives have a right to define ourselves? This article is an outrage and if you the leadership of Wikipedia don't fix it then i can only conclude that you are liberals who are doing what liberals do best: lying, manipulating, hating, and blocking other opinions. Those tactics are, after all, the only way liberalism has ever survived against truth-based ideologies. Conservatives believe in personal freedom and limited government. How the hell can you make a link between conservatism and communism? Secondly, you come out right from the start with a misconception taught to all americans by liberal elementary school teachers; that conservatives want to keep things the way they are. Sadly, many minds never overcome this, thus we have a democrat party. Conservatism takes its roots primarily from religiousness, where truth, justice, mercy, and selflessness are put above all else. THOSE are the defining characteristics which you should have led off the article with. I hope you will fix this whole article or i will never again have faith that the management here is unbiased. Thanks.


 * The PROBLEM here is that you men are trying to write an article on conservatism in a pan-global manner - which is IMPOSSIBLE, as all conservatisms are particular to the nation and traditions wherefrom they evolved. US Conservatism in the philosophical sense, is Lockean liberalism. English and Canadian conservatism are unique in that they emanate from English Tory (Richard Hooker (theologian))traditions, and are modified somewhat by the Lockean influence, but not as seemingly bound to it as the American variant. French conservatism is not bound to the idea of market economics, as is the US type. Yet to call French conservatism anything but conservatism would be a lie. It is FRENCH Conservatism - and it retains its own pedigree, traditions, and policy inclinations. Conservatism is PARTICULAR folks. It is NOT UNIVERSAL. Burke knew this. This whole debate is between those who understand PARTICULARISM and those who think US conservatism is universal. This whole article has an underlying American bias that reeks. I am an English-Canadian conservative (see Red Tory), and I reject any idea that conservatism is Universal, because it clearly is NOT. And YES, there is something called Chinese Conservatism, which is a varaiant of Chinese Communist thought. In the context of Communist China, it is conservative. TrulyTory 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, and just because some people here apply educated concepts and references that contradict the existence of a universal US-style Conservatism, does not make them "lying liberals." An uneducated person who refers to themselves as a universal conservative is just that - an uneducated person. TrulyTory 23:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

TrulyTory, then why don't we just have the Conservatism article explain that it is the name of varying political/ideological philosophies and parties throughout the world, and then give links to each country's conservatism page? That seems to me to be the most accurate and honest way to do things.


 * Yes, that makes sense, and in fact we Canadians have been doing that for some time in Wikipedia. TrulyTory 15:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I have been trying (with little success) to make this exact point in the discussion below. keith 01:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

China and the Communist Correlation with Conservatism Non-Sense
All of this text below could be deleted... it is extraneous, misleading and obfuscatory to marry communism in whatever mutation it has taken with conservatism... Being old, or entrenched in power, opposed to change when one is a utopian revolutionary ideologue--doesn't make one a conservative all of a sudden. Same with fascism.

Unfortunately, taking such a broad dig into the text gets one deemed as a vandal. It is absolutely pointless to include any of this, and it is extraneous. If someone wants to show their intellectual prowess on Chinese politics and communism than post their stuff to a more appropriate article.


 * Ironically, today the Chinese Communist Party exerts the most powerful force in mainstream Chinese conservatism, as it has transitioned from strict communism into important norms of previous Chinese regimes. It is seen by some as the recipient of the Mandate of Heaven, a traditional Chinese idea, and its rulers do not protest at the designation. Just as before, the ruler is revered and generally seen as worthy of praise, with most criticism repressed not simply by law but also by taboo. The party itself has moved to a burgeoning Chinese nationalism as a basis for its legitimacy, and it does not really advocate revolutionary theory, adhering instead to a certain ideological flexibility consistent with Deng Xiaoping's dictum, seek truth from facts.


 * During the first twenty or so years after 1949, the Communist Party did posess a conscious revolutionary spirit. Its leader, Mao Zedong, excoriated Chinese tradition as a vestige of feudalism; the government eliminated opposing views during the Anti-Rightist Movement; the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards tried to manufacture new Chinese "worker" values, notably by frowning on Confucian morality, issuing the Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong instead and "reforming" traditional art to mirror the new standards. The party only transitioned after Mao's death, which opened a power vacuum that would determine the party's future orientation. Three factions wrestled to succeed Mao after his death in 1976: leftist Maoists, who wanted to continue the revolutionary mobilization; rightist restorationists, who advocated a return to the Soviet model of communism; and rightist reformers, led by Deng Xiaoping, who hoped to reduce the role of ideology in government and overhaul the economy.


 * Deng eventually won the seat of the party. While stressing his continuity with Mao, he soon initiated a series of economic reforms and promulgated his Four Cardinal Principles, which clearly outlined (and slightly liberalized) government control over ideology. The party today stems from Deng Xiaoping, and like him it asserts the primacy of pragmatism over communism while maintaining the iron dominion of the Communist Party. His ostensibly communist descendents, notably Jiang Zemin, continued to stray from communist theory on an ad hoc basis while incorporating any convenient parts when useful. The result combined heavy preference for economic growth, hostility to efforts to decentralize power and support for a burgeoning Chinese nationalism, a fusion Deng called Socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Rsetliff 17:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I read your comments, and then went back to the article. You ask if anyone here has read Burke. Burke is mentioned in the introduction and quoted prominently in the article.

It seems to me that your objection to the article is that it states that conservatism in different countries and at different times seeks to conserve different values. Mao was a communist. It does not follow that all Chinese leaders are communists. China today is staunchly capitalist. Eighty percent of the goods sold in Wal Mart are made in China, and twenty-five percent of American debt has been bought up by China. How are you going to keep them down on the collective farm once they've seen Hong Kong?

I agree that the paragraphs you quote are badly written. Instead of deleting them why not rewrite them, to make them more accurate? (Whoever does this is going to have to do a great deal of research, however, and quote sources.) Rick Norwood 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

How bout we just delete the non-sense, along with the trifling non-sense on fascism... and call it a day.

Textbook Frankfurt School Marxism-- deem everyone a fascist-- from your free-market capitalist to your nostalgic agrarian. I see that smear plays out on the Wikipedia article on conservatism as well.


 * It is helpful if you sign your comments with four tildes.


 * Certainly deleting everything is easier than making constructive changes, but it is apt to be reverted, whereas if you replace what is incorrect with what is correct and cite sources that change is apt to stand.


 * But the section on Chinese conservatism is certainly bad. I'm going to make a start at fixing it, in hopes that someone will carry on from there. Rick Norwood 17:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've taken a shot at a rewrite, but I doubt it will please the people who complain about this section. They seem to take the point of view that all conservatism is anti-communist.  That view really only applies to American conservatism during the Cold War, and does not apply today.  It was, after all, arch-anti-communist Richard Nixon who opened the door to trade with China. Rick Norwood 17:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I think anyone who agrees with the aforesaid paragraph on communism is simply ignoratio enlenchi, that is to say missing the point... that conservative characteristics of Chinese society are beginning to reemerge owes not to Chinese Communist party ideology, but to longstanding traditional moorings, and is occuring in spite of their influence, not because of it. We live in a world with a maelstrom of conflicting ideas and values. Incidentally, I don't agree Nixon deserves the appellation as arch-anti-communist, save that for Barry Goldwater.


 * "Poorly written?" Nuts to you. :-p Ogo 21:02, 27 December 2005

Mihnea Tudoreanu
I think the paragraph Mihnea Tudoreanu restored to the article is balanced and fair. I suspect it was removed by people to whom "conservatism" means "American conservatism". There is a separate article on the latter subject. Rick Norwood 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal. I believe the editor made his points clearly enough above. If you want to work it into a verifiable form here it is:
 * The most controversial ideological impact is the conservative element in fascism. European fascism drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on the conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century socialism. Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler provided much of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement. However, traditionalist, monarchist, and Catholic conservatives often despised the fascist mass movements, and the personality cult around the leader. In Britain, the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative Party supported closer ties with Nazi Germany. When defeat in the Second World War ideologically and historically discredited fascism, almost all western conservatives tried to distance themselves from it. The theory of totalitarianism, which treats Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as equivalent systems, provided the intellectual foundation. Nevertheless, many post-war western conservatives continued to admire the Franco regime in Spain, clearly conservative but also fascist in origin. With the end of the Franco and Salazar regimes in the 1970’s, the relationship between conservatism and classical European fascism became an issue for historians.
 * As for American Conservatism, of course this page is not supposed to be Amerocentric, but also not it can not exclude the 100M US conservatives in its broad claims. keith 03:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the paragraph. Tag it disputed, if you like, but it is well documented. It is not about American conservatism, but presumably American conservatives are included in the general statement that after the war conservatives tried to distance themselves from facism. Before the war, we have most notably Charles Lindburgh as an example of an American conservative drawn to fascism. And William F. Buckley has defended Franco. Much as you might like to drop that history down the memory hole, it happened, and is will documented. Rick Norwood 17:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It is good to have the disputed paragraph here where we can consider it objectively. The first point to debate seems to be Oswald Spengler. Was he a conservative and did his philosophy influence facism? Rick Norwood 17:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The links between fascism and conservatism are well documented. You may go to any library, pick up books on fascism, and read about its various conservative aspects. Or I may do so and post quotes here. A Conservatism and Fascism section would be a good addition to the article. At the same time, I would like to remind everyone here that the fact that there are links between conservatism and fascism does not in any way mean that conservatives are fascists, or vice versa. There is an obsessive and, I believe, highly destructive trend in modern political discourse to deny any links between one's preferred ideology and totalitarian regimes. Yes, conservatives have something in common with Hitler. You have something in common with Hitler. I have something in common with Hitler. If you look hard enough, you'll find that everyone has something in common with Hitler. Get over it. Having something in common with fascism does not make you a fascist, any more than having a moustache makes you Hitler. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You clearly admit the section implies Guilt by Association. But you seem to blame it on the reader. I blame it on the text; that's certainly easier to change. Your point about Reductio ad Hitlerum is an argument against the section not for it. Your library book will also undoubtedly list aspects from all other major political ideologies. Was this supposed to be another argument for or against? Further your argument which I assume means to imply common knowledge (as a justification for not providing sources) is not acceptable because, to paraphrase the policy, Controversial claims should most definitely not be left to common knowledge without citations.
 * Additionally, as I argued months ago and again here, these fascist "links" does not remotely apply to American Conservatives. But the section doesn't make the distinction does it? You already admit it is therefore at least partially erroneous. As I personally don't care about European politics, the solution back then was to focus the article purely on Europeans, but I see that compromise has since been violated. btw aren't European conservatives also called liberals? Shall we also paste this section into the liberalism article? For that matter what about the other strange bedfollows that turn up in European politics. And finding a handful of sympathisizers out of a mainstream movement does not prove squat, except of course inflammatory logical fallacies we have already covered.
 * Now as I said above, if someone wants to bring the section up to wikipedia standards with sourced statements of who ties conservatism and fascism together and in what countries that does not violate the above policy you certainly can. Might I suggest the wikipedia needs to be extremely careful with broad statements about the pariahs of western history. I still think it is completely lopsided treatment vs other political science topics. keith 03:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I did not say that the section implies guilt by association; I argued that some users (such as yourself) mistakenly see guilt by association where there is none. Nor was my mention of library books an idle appeal to "common knowledge". I meant it when I said "Or I may do so and post quotes here". I intend to do precisely that. I know guilt by association when I see it - I have been fighting for two years against various attempts at creating entire articles based on Reductio ad Hitlerum. The most recent example is Economic fascism; you might want to take a look. There is also an ongoing attempt to have Hitler mentioned (and quoted) as a significant altruist over in the altruism article (this particular feat of POV-pushing is the work of a Randite). If you truly believe that wikipedia needs to be extremely careful with broad statements about the pariahs of western history, I have at least a dozen articles in urgent need of your attention - articles that mention fascism with a clear attempt at smearing other ideas and concepts. As a matter of fact, I sincerely wish to invite you to help me against a number of such smear attempts. Would you accept? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * hmm more affirmative arguments. If there is no implication of guilt by association what is so encyclopedic about making an association? Fascists are Fasists. Conservatives are Conservatives. They are two completely different groups each with their own article and everything. Is pointing out their similarities and sympathisizers (btw with zero mention of differences or context) supposed to be encyclopedic because it is "controversial"? why is it so if there's no guilt implied or assumed (by anyone except me apparently)? How about we drop the semantics and just assume that if someone reads it a certain way its because of the way it's written. Telling me "it's all in your head" will not end this revert war. keith 05:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, so far, you're the only one who is reading it as guilt by association. We certainly can't go around removing every paragraph that one person reads as being POV; we'd have no wikipedia left! The article talks about conservatism's relationship to nationalism and liberalism, so why not fascism? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * These points are not relevant. And I wasn't the one who originally removed the text. Please read the talk above. A neutral pov is one that is accepted, if grudgingly, by both sides. Your arguments are instead simply dismissive of one side. I await your sources. keith 06:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem with the section. In fact, it is a basic set of facts, neccesary in understanding the state of conservatism at such an important time in world history! The section is extraordinarily well written to boot! It would be unfortunate for the information to slide through the cracks. I believe the relationship between fascism and conservatism is somthing that needs to be aknowledged, lest we risk letting history repeat itself. The argument for removing the data seems to be around the idea that a reader may mistake modern conservatism with fascism (if i have read this debate correctly). Is that really a good excuse for that kind of censorship? ...Should there be no connection with Communism in the Socialism article, as it might lead the reader to believe most socialists follow Stalin? --sansvoix 07:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User: Keithd's recent edit on conservatism in fascism
I reverted Keithd's recent edits, as one liners such as "much the same has also been said for links between fascism and socialism, populism, and progressivism." do not help an article on conservatism. As I am chock full of tryptophan, i'll just say that this is a good example of inserting "ignore this because I think" sentances. I don't think it appropriate to protect the reader from somehow drawing the lines between the aspects of conservatism and aspects of fascism.--sansvoix 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * perhaps you hurt your neck switching from inclusionist to exclusionist in such a short time. And I don't think it's appropriate to censor context and counter-arguments when the other pov has been given. As for not protecting the reader from drawing bad assumptions, what exactly is the argument there? article length concerns? keith 09:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Counter-arguments to what, exactly? The fact that fascism has elements in common with other ideologies besides conservatism doesn't refute the fact that it has links to conservatism. Perhaps guilt by association should be mentioned, but only if the paragraph on conservatism and fascism is expanded into a section of its own. Your edits essentially said "some people think there are links between conservatism and fascism, but they don't know what they're talking about so you should just ignore this". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole is not helpful. I gave context. Political science is not facts it is opinions. There are opinions going both ways regarding whether fascism belongs on the left or on the right. Do you disagree with this? Do you dispute the verifiability of anything I added?
 * And at least I'm trying. What are you doing besides arguing and reverting? that will not get the npov tag off. keith 13:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keith -- you are reading into a balanced and well written paragraph things that are not there. The paragraph is careful to say, twice, that many conservatives opposed and do oppose fascism. Our heroes have warts. Jefferson had sex with a slave. Wilson was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. And some major conservatives supported fascism, in the years before American entered WWII. Telling the truth is not "guilt by association". Rick Norwood 16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I have been hyper-sensitive about "gba" lately, since I'm enmired in another article where it's being used much more brazenly. But look at the edits I made (that were reverted). I have another idea which is to move the stuff to the European section. Or just shrink it down and link to Fascism_and_ideology where there's plenty of context. thoughts? keith 18:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I read your version, and it seems to me both too long and to bend over backwards to say what the original version says clearly in one sentence: "However, traditionalist, monarchist, and Catholic conservatives often despised the fascist mass movements..."

It would be nice if no American conservatives had embrased fascism, but Charles Lindburgh is, unfortunately, on record, as are others who combined conservatism with anti-semitism.

I'm afraid you'll have to content yourself with the clear statement that today conservatives reject facism. Rick Norwood 23:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying conservatives associated with guilty people. And the likes of Lindbergh go in the latter category as well. Also, excluding certain subgroups of conservatism (btw weren't almost all continental-european-conservatives basically monarchists?) still may imply that fascism is itself a subgroup of conservatism as no context on fascism is given, save its common ground with certain conservatives. Fixing that is clearly not just being redundant. keith 02:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Keithd, could you please stop your edit war. It is not helping you work togeather with your fellow editors. Your edits are compleatly innapropriate, and are simply there to deligimise the facts stated. The section is not an obscure claim blowing around in europe, as your edits suggest. Your edits only drive attention away from the facts being stated, they do not help educate the reader. It does not help to say that Stalin claimed social liberals were the real fascists, or state that "much has been said" between the links between progressivism and fascism. It is innapropriate to say there were "fascist sympathisers in all mainstream political movements of the day" when in fact the vast majority were conservatives. Your edits are complete propaganda, and that is why they are being dismissed. Again, please stop waging your edit war.--sansvoix 02:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That was an attempt at compromise which you deleted. Why don't you suggest some alternative language instead of just trying to block everything I do then accuse me of edit-warring. keith 02:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the language is fine in the origional version. But if you have some specific facts to bring up, that you feel are important to insert, please feel free to go over them here!--sansvoix 03:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what a lot of bickering. Keith, I really think you are in the wrong here. Maybe the following list could clarify why, as well as form a prolog to future controversies about this article:


 * Conservatism is not a kind of classical liberalism (though some conservatisms are informed by it)
 * Burke is not the only conservative (though some conservatisms are informed by him)
 * Religious conservatives are conservatives too

Certain people -- I suspect mostly Americans, since we Tories do not revere him as a Guru in England -- think Burke wrote all we need to read on conservatism. Burke is not the only conservative. Conservatives do not have to follow the Enlightenment tradition of rights and contracts. Conservatives are more interesting than this. Those who believe conservatism is essentially a classically liberal, Burkean philosophy would quite naturally find this article 'biased' against conservatism because they have a myopic notion of it.


 * Conservatism is not historically unimpeachable (could any public idea ever be?)
 * Conservatism has had a relationship with fascism

I do think the end of this article treats conservatism's dark side as something more pernicious than it was. But please keep in mind that it is a relic from previous versions of conservatism and not the true intention of any of conservatism's editors right now. So change it, stop griping. Here is why it is important to keep in mind the first three points: conservatism is not a classical liberalism and does not "have" to oppose fascism.


 * It is immaterial whether the Liberalism article is biased; even if so, the conservatism article should set a higher standard rather than 'counterweight' other articles

I think that is pretty clear. --Ogo Dec. 28 5:00 UTC
 * this is getting frustrating. I am getting one argument after another about the links between european conservatism and fascism that chides me on being Amerocentric when I have said repeatedly, my objection is the article making the implication to all conservatives instead of just European ones. I agree European conservatives joined fascism (though it is originated as--not to mention called itself--socialism but whatever), and you agree a link to American conservative ideology is false. This has been going on since August. What exactly are we arguing about?
 * It's the same as if the Chinese conservatism section was instead called the impact of conservatism and communism and included mention of communist collaborators/sympathisizers in the west too. keith 04:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Damn right its frustrating! The best thing you can do to work this out, is to revert your edits back to the original, and bring up your specific arguments here.  Furthermore, many many conservatives across the world sympathised with fascism.  Mussolini was Time Magazines man of the year due to his domestic policy, I believe. I think what you are doing is trying to impose a radical conceptual view onto a fact based article, so it will help if you bring up your edit ideas in the talk page, and perhaps we can work togeather to find somthing valuable to add to the article!--sansvoix 04:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Time Magazine is a real conservative publication. I believe it was members of the Progressive Left that were heaping praise on Mussolini. The American ambassador wrote the introduction to Mussolini's autobiography. **sarcasm**

fascism section
Ok. but why not share your wisdom without holding the article hostage. My edit idea is the following: Which specific sentences don't you like and how would you suggest changing them? keith 05:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) One controversial link often claimed in Europe, is a conservative element in fascism.
 * 2) Though it should be pointed out, the goal of such claims is not to imply guilt by association between two often very different political groups and ideologies.
 * 3) European fascism, it is suggested, drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on the conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century socialism.
 * 4) Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler supposedly provided an element of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement.
 * 5) However, much the same has also been said for links between fascism and socialism, populism, and progressivism.
 * 6) For that matter, Josef Stalin claimed social liberals were in fact      ts.
 * 7) Further, many if not most conservatives despised the fascist mass movements.
 * 8) Of course as in all mainstream political movements of the day, there were fascist sympathisizers, particularly in Europe.
 * 9) For example, in Britain, the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative Party supported closer ties with Nazi Germany.
 * 10) But by the end of the Second World War, almost all western conservatives denounced      m.
 * 11) The theory of totalitarianism, which treats Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as equivalent systems, provided one aspect of the intellectual foundation.
 * 12) Nevertheless, there were some post-war western conservatives who continued to admire the Franco regime in Spain, claimed by some to be conservative in addition to      t in origin.
 * 13) With the end of the Franco and Salazar regimes in the 1970’s, classical European fascism became an issue soley for historians.

1) The article does not claim that there is a conservative "element" in fascism but that many conservatives supported fascism, it does not limit that to European conservatives, and it does mention three classes of European conservatives who opposed fascism. 2) Intelligent readers do not need to be told not to judge guilt by association. 3) I'll let somebody else take this one. 4) There is no "supposedly" about it. 5) I'm not aware of any such links -- except with socialism. Cite sourses. 6) This has nothing to do with conservatism. Put it in the article on Stalin. 7) The article already says this -- but I think "many" is closer to the mark than "most". 8) Your claim is unsupported. 9) These are examples of conservative support of fascism, not of the claim in #8. 10) The article already says this. 11) The article already says this. 12) "claimed by some" suggests doubt. Read William F. Buckley on Franco. 13) Since this is made clear in the article, the purpose of this sentence, like all of the other inclusions of weasel words, is to minimize a bit of history you find unpleasant.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Rick Norwood 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * well how nice and consistent.you refuse to consider a single step towards compromise. revert war continues... keith 15:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto Keith... Rsetliff 18:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A large step toward a compromise would be to cite sources. Rick Norwood 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

the reply to the fascism section
You take it for granted, that most conservatives supposedly supported fascism. You never produce substantive quotations or evidence.

It is well known that some members of the Progressive Left in America in the early twentieth-century praised fascist dictators. Fabian socialists in England, who are associated with the Left, heaped praise on the fascists as much as the communists, particularly Mussolini. Many in the Progressive Left shared their enthusiasm for eugenics, as well as corporatist or socialist schemes of intervention, and the love of the planwirtschaft (the planned economy.) The American ambassador wrote the introduction to Mussolini's biography for example. Under FDR's New Deal, code authorities were modeled after Mussolini's corporatism, and planning schemes. When Mussolini heard of FDR's exploits, he said, "Behold a dictator." Though, I don't think this trivial stuff warrants an amened article on progressivism... so I can magnify the fascist connection, to some out of world proportion, as Rick does with this article. Xenophobia also characterized Russia under the Soviets, despite all of the egalitarian Marxist propaganda which permeated their society. A zeal for cultural homogenity by itself does not suffice to make one a conservative. Oswald Spengler was an avowed socialist-- in his own words... His hope in fighting every pessimistic thing he saw as coming to past was in ordering the world through socialism. Not very conservative if you ask me! He never made a conservative affirmation. I've argued with a crypto-fascist before-- and he says there is nothing left to conserve, and conservatism is an ideology for losers... typical nihilism.

It is funny how so many German conservatives were declared enemies of the National Socialist regime. The German conservative Edgar Julius Jung was killed in the infamous blood purge. Much of what you say are from erroneous presuppositions-- about what constitutes a conservative. Conservatives were denounced for their faux bourgeosie nationalism by Goebbels for example, who said National Socialism was a party of "the German Left."

"It is the attitude to religion which separates and must always separate Conservative thinking from National Socialism. The basis of Conservative politics is that obedience to God and faith in him must also determine the whole of public life. Hitler and National Socialism adopt a fundamentally different position... It is a fact that Hitler... only acknowledges race and its demands as the highest law governing state activity. That is materialism irreconcilable with faith and Christianity." -Ewald von Kleis-Schmenzin

I really get tired of the Frankfurt School Marxist interpretation of fascism which is just a smear against conservatives.
 * ...article does not claim that there is a conservative "element" in fascism but that many conservatives supported fascism...

You can twist around however many ways you want... This is a dishonest article wrought with shoddy scholarship, and pseudo-factual scribblings of a biased ideologue with an agenda. It needs to be pruned, edited, and purged of its extraneous and erroneous non-sense. Rsetliff 18:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, isn't it interesting that you have the same style of writing as Keithd, and you recently joined wikipedia and immidiatly started editing in the conservative articles! Both of you two need to work harder to cooperate, digging in your heels does not help this situation.  Comprimise is only an option when both sides are right.  So please prove to us that this articles facts have gone awry, and bring your ideas here rather than participating in edit wars.--sansvoix 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Or maybe, just maybe we should live by WP:FAITH and WP:POV and just not lump fascism with conservativism simply because the left doesn't like their own dirty laundry. -- Jbamb 20:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "You take it for granted, that most conservatives supposedly supported fascism. You never produce substantive quotations or evidence."

Show me where anyone has said this. "It is well known that some members of the Progressive Left in America in the early twentieth-century praised fascist dictators." Show me where anyone has suggested otherwise. "I can magnify the fascist connection, to some out of world proportion, as Rick does with this article." Show me where, either in the article or anywhere else, I have ever magnified anyone's fascist connections. "It is funny how so many German conservatives were declared enemies of the National Socialist regime." Show me where this article says one word about a connection between conservatism and Nazism. "...scribblings of a biased ideologue with an agenda." Show me how this honors the Wikipedia assumption of good faith.
 * The section you object to is brief and factual. It is careful to point out that many conservatives opposed fascism.  It is careful to point out that few if any modern conservatives support fascism.  The purpose of the section is not to argue against conservatism, but to report history objectively.  As I point out above, your attacks on the section do not engage what the section actually says.  Rick Norwood 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And therefore you prove why it's an extraenous section. If fascism were so related to conservativism, then they would come down on it in largely numbers instead of scattershotting the map on the issue.  This is why we should get rid of it altogether.  Talk about fascism in the fascism articles. -- Jbamb 21:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What is this, historical revisionism? Wikipedia is not here to re-write history. Fascism was a right-wing movement, that tried to gain support from all aspects of society with nationalism.. militarism, control of the media, dissolution of trade unions.. I'm sorry if you disagree with all the textbooks and university courses that I've seen, but thats the way it is. In the 1930's fascism was directly related to conservatism. And it wasn't simply a european thing either. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt began his socialist comprimise, major interests in wall street began organising a fascist coup, and THAT has been documented. The link between fascism and conservatism (at the time) is somthing so important it should never be ignored, or casually dismissed! I can't believe this!--sansvoix 21:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC), re-added on 23:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you wish to redefine right-wing to make your point, fine. If you think Wikipedia should do that fine.  Hell, let's just make Howard Dean editor and chief of the thing and be honest about it then.  The Nazis were SOCIALIST.  By your definition what defines right-wing is not economic policy, it is not political policy, but it is essentially wanton violence and oppression.  That's the difference between left and right wing according to these definitions.  They can have the same policies, but if one uses oppression, then it's right-wing.  It's not internally consistent and that has nothing to do with original research.  If you want to play this game fine.  The 10 largest genocides in the 20th century were caused because of left-wing governments.  That's right, liberals kill people.  Now I'm going to go on some boards, get some people to login, and we can horde these entries all day long to enforce that POV.  Or maybe, just maybe, we can try to make the encyclopedic.  If you can explain to me how a right-wing government can at the same time be socialist, I might concede your point. -- Jbamb 11:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I wish to advise you to make a serious study of the history and meaning of socialism before you make broad sweeping claims about what is or is not "socialist". If a group has "socialist" in its name that does not make it socialist, for the same reason why the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (North Korea) or the "German Democratic Republic" (East Germany) or the "Democratic Republic of Vietnam" (North Vietnam) are not democratic. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In German, "national socialism" is not a phrase made up of two words (adjective + noun), but a single word: Nationalsozialismus. The Nazis did not call themselves a specific kind of socialists; they made up an entire new word to describe their ideology. Why is this word related to the word for "socialism"? There is good reason to believe that it was a strategic propagandist move by Hitler to confuse his enemies and gain some working class support. There may be a parallel with the reason why the first Nazi party posters were red, as explained in Mein Kampf:
 * "The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them [working people] to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant. The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists. [...] We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings – if only in order to break them up – so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people."
 * The tradition of creating misleading names continues in the post-war German Neo-Nazi movement, whose main political party is called the National Democratic Party of Germany. They clearly oppose democracy, but they call themselves "national democrats" (again, one word, Nationaldemokratische) anyway. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 02:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

China
This article as it stands revised suffices; although, I have no problem trimming more of it. Overall, this rambling article on conservatism needs to be succinct and possess more brevity on each point instead of being a rambling hodgepode of trivial, extraneous facts, and spurious claims. That China section was certainly full of too much fodder before the edit.

FYI It is pointless to have the previous Trotskyite left-right dichotomy where someone like Stalin is called right-wing, or any other communist for that matter... It is non-sense, and reflective of dissenting minority elements in communist groups trying to smear their opponents. SO LET US LEAVE IT ALONE AND CLOSE THIS CHAPTER. This article is about conservatism, not Chinese communism. Focus on conservatism in China which exists in spite of Chinese communists, not because of them.


 * This article is on world conservatism, and as such there is no reason for the section on China to be shorter than the section on Europe. I usually agree that shorter is better, but in this case you have cut a lot of valuable information.  You will notice that when the Wiki Gods critique an article, the first thing they object to is Eurocentrism.


 * I agree with you that the left/right dichotomy is pointless, though if you look the phrases up you will discover they date from the French Revolution rather than from Turkey Trotsky.


 * From the end of WWII until the fall of the Soviet Union, American conservatism defined itself by its opposition to Godless Communism. Today, that sounds a little quaint.  The only real communists left in the world today are a few aging hippies and some tenured professors at French universities.  The battle today is between religion and secularism.  You are fighting this war with the weapons of the last war, always a mistake.  The problem with China is not that it is communist.  The problem with China is that it is beating the pants off of us in a purely capitalist economic struggle.  Eighty percent of the goods in WalMart are made in China, and they have bought up roughly 25% of the Bush national debt. Rick Norwood 18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's nice Rick.
 * Rsetliff 06:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

We should make the Europe article shorter too. Until we can supplant something substantive in place of all the extraneous dicta, it could use a polishing too. Besides, the Wikipedia prompt reminds us that article is exceeding long-- over 40KB already.


 * The left/right dichotomy in the Chinese Communist Party has nothing to do with inner-Communist political divisions. The "right-wing" of the party has abandoned Communism (in everything but name) long ago. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)