Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 8

Queston
May I ask why you reinstated an old version of the text of the "2008" section of Conservatism in the United States? Some of the wording used in the old version of the section either hints at ([WP:POV|POV]], isn’t reliably sourced, and/or isn’t really explained. Here's the text you reinstated, with emphasis on the terms that don't really belong or need more work:

The Republican contest for the nomination in 2008 was a free-for-all, with maverick Senator John McCain the winner, facing the first black candidate in Barack Obama. McCain electrified conservatives by choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate; she immediately emerged as a major political leader on the right. The economic crisis of 2008 doomed McCain, and Congress had already shifted to the left in 2006.


 * maverick -- According to wiktionary, a maverick is someone who shows "independence in thoughts or actïons." While this is definitely true of McCain, its not grven enough context to make it sound NPOV. Including referenced examples of McCains willingness to transcend party lines and the medias referral to him as a maverick would make it better,
 * the first black candidate -- per Black presidential candidates in the United States, Obama wasn't the first black presidential candidate, just the first black president. Also, calling attention to that doesn't really make sense in this context.
 * electrified conservatives -- this could mean a couple of things, and the text doesn't make it clear which of those it is. It could mean McCain shocked them negatively, or he energized them positively. Either way, it needs a source.
 * doomed McCain -- needs a source. It's kid of a dubious statement, but if you can find a source that says that the economic crisis specifically doomed his campaign, then its worth leaving in. But it would still need to be connected to conservativism in the United States (maybe a large percentage of voters didn't agree with his opinion on how to resolve the crisis? I can't remember...)
 * I'll add more on the others later -- right now I'm dashing out the door!

Additionally, your edit summary merely said “updates”, which doesn’t address the reinstatement of the old text and merely addresses the moving of other text from one section to the "2008" section. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 02:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * good questions: some comments

(outdent because I'm too lazy to indent my bulleted list) Thanks for providing sources! There are a couple of issues that I didn't get to fully type out:
 * 1) "maverick" is widely used for McCain (Elaine S. Povich. John McCain: A Biography (2009) ch 15 is entitled "Maverick") --google gives 615,000 hits for "mccain maverick"
 * 2) Obama is the first black presidential candidate --others like Jesse Jackson never became candidates
 * 3) "electrified" is standard English. Webster's 3rd unabridged: "to excite suddenly and markedly as if by an electric shock: startle, jar, or thrill into total attention or concern"  If anyone thinks it's POV  they can look it up in The Battle for America 2008: The Story of an Extraordinary Election by Daniel J. Balz & Haynes Johnson - 2009. ch 26 is "Palinmania"
 * 4) economy doomed McCain -- the consensus of most analysts like Balz & Johnson. ch 27 is "Collapse" re the economy; also "the economy perceived to be the most important issue in this election" says Frank Newport, Winning the White House; also Renegade: the making of a president (2010) by Richard Wolffe p 294.  [ moved from rjensen talk page] Rjensen (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the black presidential candidate thing goes, Shirley Chisholm was a candidate, although she didn't win the Democratic Party's nomination. Additionally, I don't see how mentioning that Obama was the first black candidate is relevant to the article's subject.
 * However, maybe it would be good to include something on his platform in the election in comparison to McCain's?
 * I agree, electrified is a good word choice, but it needs to be clarified. The issue I had with this one was not POV, but clarity. Since it's not fully explained, "electrified" could be taken to mean stirred conservatives into action because they were outraged, or because they were inspired. Many people reading this article will have some background knowledge of the subject and will figure it out themselves, but a non-American or someone who doesn't pay attention to politics probably wouldn't know enough about the election and Palin's politics to understand.
 * As far as the economic crisis thing goes, it's fine now that it's sourced, but it would be best to specifically state his views on how to resolve the economic crisis.

Also, maybe a separate 2009-2010 section is warranted, with the Tea Party section being a subsection of that. That way, the article would include non-Tea Party conservative reactions to the current government. Aren't political analysts predicting an increase in conservative voting this year? I think I read that somewhere, and that'd be worth including. Additionally, a 2009-2010 section would cover reactions to the Obama presidency, which doesn't really belong in the 2008 section, seeing as he was merely elected in 2008 and actually began his presidency in 2009. Thanks! --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 17:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Angry reverts
People have asked for citations and I provided them. On "angry": the BBC Harris poll clearly states--as quoted--"On most of these topics, supporters of the Tea Party movement are angrier than any of the other groups." Its headline is "What Are We Most Angry About? The Economy, Unemployment, the Government, Taxes and Immigration: Tea Party supporters are angrier than Republicans, who are angrier than Democrats," and is dated Oct. 21, 2010. Uncle Dick seems to deny this but he erased the cite and did not provide one that supported his position, a clear violation of NPOV rules. Likewise the statement "It has paid little attention to foreign affairs" is supported by the New York Times, which said: "a review of the Web sites of many Tea Party candidates suggests that they have not spent much time exploring foreign policy specifics. Many do little more than offer blanket promises to keep America safe." as cited in the footnote. Finally the statement that the TP "generally ignored traditional social issues such as abortion and gay rights" is supported by this quote from reporter Kate Zernike in the NY Times: "But as the Tea Party infuses conservatism with new energy, its leaders deliberately avoid discussion of issues like gay marriage or abortion." Rjensen (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjensen had embarked on a campaign to add broad, tendentious statements to this article, sometimes using marginally-related or misleading citations to support NPOV language. For example, one edit describes the Tea Party movement as a group of "angry conservatives". While polling seems to support the notion that tea partiers are as a group angrier on average than the general population, I do not believe that justifies the use of intemperate, sweeping language to label an entire movement.


 * Another edit makes the claim that the Tea Party movement "has paid little attention to foreign affairs". Again, scant evidence is provided in the form of a blog post that does not definitively support such a broad assertion. I think these sorts of edits need to be discussed on the talk page before they are added, particularly when sourcing is scant or nonexistent. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From the cited blog post: "Among the more than 100 candidates who claim Tea Party support, opinions about foreign policy range from severely isolationist to unapologetically assertive of America’s role in the world. And in between are many candidates who appear to have spent little time at all thinking about such issues." This does not support the notion that the Tea Party "has paid little attention to foreign affairs". The point made by the blog post is that there is not a united foreign policy position among Tea Party affiliates, not that the Tea Party is disinterested in foreign affairs. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncle Dick has an argument with the RS. They clearly state 1) in their headline "What Are We Most Angry About? The Economy, Unemployment, the Government, Taxes and Immigration: Tea Party supporters are angrier than Republicans, who are angrier than Democrats." 2) "a review of the Web sites of many Tea Party candidates suggests that they have not spent much time exploring foreign policy specifics." The article needs to summarize these points, and calling TPartyers "angry" seems not very controversial. what else should we call them? Anyone who is unaware of the anger in 2010 has not been following the news or watching the campaign ads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 October 2010


 * The sources portray them as angry with no consistent foreign policy. TFD (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. One poll indicates that Tea Partiers are angrier about some issues than the general population. This does not make them "angry" in a general sense, nor does it make the use of that adjective appropriate for a NPOV. One blog indicates that the Tea Party does not have a consistent foreign policy, however, that's not what Rjensen's language says. He specifically claims that the Tea Party "has paid little attention to foreign affairs". Those are two entirely different concepts. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The way Rjensen has described them is neutral and supported. Certainly no one is suggesting that they are happy with the administration's policies and they do not appear to have presented any foreign policy.  What is their foreign policy anyway?  TFD (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between not happy with the administration and just plain "angry". Again, the sources do not support the notion that the Tea Party is "a conglomerate of angry conservatives". The language is a blatant violation of NPOV. If you read the blog post that Rjensen is citing, you'll see that Tea Party candidates espouse a wide variety of foreign policy views from isolationism to interventionism. They have not "paid little attention to foreign affairs". Tea Partiers are split on foreign policy just as they are on many issues. Rjensen's language remains unsupported. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See also this article from the Christian Science Monitor, which explicitly states "that a majority of them are women (primarily mothers), not angry white men" and "polls show that the anger at big government exhibited by tea party protesters is shared by many, if not most, Americans." Uncle Dick (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see why you are objecting. Your sources speak of "anger at big government" and "split on foreign policy".  There is nothing wrong with being angry or that the Tea Party does not have a shared foreign policy.  Anti-war groups for example were angry about the war but had no agreed fiscal policy.  TFD (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to this language on two counts: 1) It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to label the Tea Party as "angry conservatives". Certainly we don't see this sort of language at the Tea Party movement article or references to "angry liberals" at Opposition to the Iraq War. While anger is perhaps a socially appropriate emotion in certain contexts, labeling a political movement as "angry" is biased and demeaning. 2) The sources do not support the notion that the Tea Party is universally angry, nor do they support the notion that the Tea Party has "paid little attention to foreign policy". Being split on something and ignoring something are two entirely different concepts. The Tea Party has not ignored foreign policy and the sources do not indicate that they have. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the foreign policy of the Tea Party? TFD (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Among the more than 100 candidates who claim Tea Party support, opinions about foreign policy range from severely isolationist to unapologetically assertive of America’s role in the world," according to Rjensen's blog source. Since we're not getting anywhere here (and I'm 3RR'd out), I have posted this dispute on the NPOV noticeboard. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest a compromise? I agree with Uncle Dick that the description of the tea party movement as made up of "angry conservatives" is not encyclopedic. "angry" is not a category applied to describe a demographic, and the sources cited do not support the statement as it is. On the other hand, I agree that the word "angry" is often used by Tea Party people and also by independent sources, standing out from descriptions of other political groupings. So something along the lines of "Tea party members are frequently referred to as being "angry" [cite, cite, cite] or "tapping into anger" [cite, cite, cite] stemming from frustration with the political system." FWIW, the foreign policy bit is well-sourced and should stay.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with content that is directly supported by the poll results. Something like, "In a poll conducted by Harris Interactive, self-identified Tea Party supporters were most likely to indicate anger over a wide range of issues." As for the foreign policy question, I would feel much better with language that followed the blog source. Something like, "Tea Party supporters remain divided on foreign policy". Note that the first paragraph of the Tea Party article shows Afghanistan and Iraq on the front burner of the libertarian wing of the Tea Party. To say that not much attention has been paid to foreign policy is to ignore the strong foreign policy stances of both the anti-war (e.g. Ron Paul) and pro-war (e.g. Marc Rubio) wings of the Tea Party. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * [outdent] "This does not make them "angry" in a general sense" --this is an article this is article about politics, not family troubles or complaints about the traffic or 1,000,001 other things that can make people angry. Anyone who goes to Google and looks up "Tea Party and anger or angry" will immediately discover over 2,000,000 web sites. That's a lot--do we need 3,000,000 hits before we agree? the article cites scientific polls say they say they have more political anger than Republicans or Democrats. Rjensen (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What is a "Conservative Publication"?
There is a bit of dispute here over the listing of Fox News and The Wall Street Journal as conservative media organizations. While the editorial content of Fox and the WSJ are generally viewed as conservative-leaning, both organizations pride themselves on providing independent, hard news coverage of newsworthy events. I think it's a violation of NPOV to include these media organizations among unabashedly conservative magazines like National Review and The American Conservative, which are explicitly conservative in all aspects of their news coverage. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this an appropriate discussion for this article? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a dispute over the addition of this content to the article, so it's appropriate to have a discussion here on the talk page. If we take a look at the articles for Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, there's no consensus that either organization is explicitly conservative in the way that the other organizations listed in this article have identified themselves. The WSJ is a respected business newspaper first and foremost, with a conservative-leaning editorial page. Fox News is a little bit trickier, with a mixture of neutral hard news coverage and opinion programming, but in this case, I think it is more appropriate to list the conservative commentators on Fox News (e.g. O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck) individually and leave the news organization out of it. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would concur. Arzel (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see the problem with listing them under "Magazines and Media" because they attract a right-wing audience for their commentaries. TFD (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Causal fallacy. Just because they attract conservative audiences does not mean they are conservative.  Arzel (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets see what the RS say: 1) " Fox's strategy to cater to a conservative audience has worked to increase its market share." says S. Iyengar, "Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use," Journal of Communication, 2009; 2) "The rise of the conservative Fox News Channel caused CNN to shift to the left." Richard Posner NY Times July 31, 2005 (Posner is a prominent conservative); 3) " cable channels can focus their products on particular types of news: sports stories on ESPN; business news on CNBC; storm data on the Weather Channel; and news that appeals to a conservative audience on FOX News Channel." The Institutions of American Democracy: The Press by Geneva Overholser, Kathleen Hall Jamieson p 352; 4) "with the rise of new media such as conservative Web sites, talk radio, and especially the Fox News Channel," in "Who's the fairest of them all? An empirical test for partisan bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News,"  by T Groeling - Presidential Studies Quarterly, 2008. Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Rjensen for doing the homework needed to prove the bleeding obvious. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 04:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rjensen. TFD (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Appears we have some anger going on here. Could it be possible that there are two media outlets that lean right, oh my! Tell me it isn't so. There appears to be some around here who like to trot Posner out every time they post a quote (Fox caused CNN to go left)...yeah right. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be anger, or it could be going to reliable sources and seeing what's there. There is a difference between overall leaning to the right (such as The Times of London), and more or less promoting a conservative outlook. The WSJ is conservative only on its editorial pages, which seem to be divorced completely from the news reporting, which hasn't been noted as having a bias; I wouldn't put it in the list. On the other hand, Fox News is more or less promoting the tea party, and its news coverage does actually have issues. There are studies showing that it reports in a manner biased towards conservatism,, and contains bias by omission and inclusion (fwiw, these studies also typically pinpoint CBS as liberal). It's been quite a cheerleader for the tea party, and it superserves a conservative audience judging by both audience profiles and impact on understanding of world events. Importantly, it was formed explicitly as part of a strategy of attracting a conservative audience perceived to be excluded by the mainstream media, and its commentators are unblinkingly conservative, if not radical right. There's a limit to how much we conform to self-descriptions, particularly if they start to crowd out reliable secondary sources. I'm not totally convinced about the inclusion of Fox News, but I was a little taken aback by Founders' Intent's dismissal of the issue as "anger". There are better ways to argue a case than to express a lack of good faith and nothing more. One might, for example, find countersourcing that explains why this common epithet is not a valid inclusion. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is not true. The studies of the actual news on FNC have show it to be the MOST balanced of all the major outlets. If the arguement is that FNC news reporting is conservative, then per the studies performed all other major news outlets are liberal and should then be added to the liberal article as examples of liberal media outlets. Somehow I don't see that happening, so lets cut this bs in the bud and stop trying to use WP to try and PROVE something that is simply not true. Furthermore there seems to be this causual fallacy that because FNC also reported the right point of view, ergo attracted conservatives, that this impled that their news is conservative. FNC was created to expose a niche in the media market in which there was no place for conservative views. Occam's Razor, if the views of conservatives were already being given equal time and placement then there would have been no need for FNC. It is ironic, as FNC has become more popular, because of their ability to provide both sides of the specturm, all of the others have gone even further to the left, not only making FNC seem even further to the right, but also pushing their ratings through the roof. Arzel (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing that Fox is both conservative and most neutral. Out of interest, which peer-reviewed academic studies claim that Fox News is the "most balanced" of all? All I can find is stuff published by think tanks with various connections to the American Enterprise Institute.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * we editors and the RS all agree that Fox and the editorial page of the WSJ both strongly appeal to conservatives and have become top news resource for conservatives--what sources are more preferred by conservatives?. Why Fox and WSJ did this is not at issue, and bias is not at issue. So let's list FOX and the WSJ editorial page. Rjensen (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is another case of what goes for the goose goes for the ganter. If we include Fox/WSJ here, it would be incumbent on us to include MSNBC/NYT at Modern liberalism in the United States for neutrality's sake. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I must add I'm afraid to even post on the talk in this article, as I'm sure we'll get some spillover from the navelgazing stupid partisanship at Fox News Channel controversies and Tea Party movement. Can we all try to avoid a "your side is worse than my side" argument while discussing this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FNC was set up with a mandate to balance perceived "liberal bias" in the "mainstream media" and the WSJ has a conservative editorial policy. Whether or not MSNBC and the NYT are liberal media is something to discuss in other articles.  TFD (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly with including the editorial page of the WSJ. It just doesn't make sense to pick on part of one media outlet. Furthermore, it's misleading, because it gives the impression that the overall mission of the WSJ is to present a conservative point of view. Fox News on the other hand, does appear, both in its actions (as analysed by good secondary sources) and in the words of some of its executives, to have a conservative mission. Comparing Fox's conservatism to the NYT's alleged liberalism is simply not founded in any credible RS. The Huffington Post yes (and it's listed at Modern liberalism in the United States), and there's a very weak case for MSNBC, although it just doesn't appear to have the consistent track record that Fox does. I'm not sold on Fox news being in there (mainly because of the wikigrief it might cause, which is not a great reason), but all the people objecting so far seem to dislike the idea without providing reasons beyond that. (The main argument seems to be based on a disbelief that the counterweight to Fox is genuinely seen to be outlets rather more to the left of ABC and NYT.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen's new lede, please discuss
Old lede:

"Conservatism in the United States is a concept which has evolved over the history of the country, encompassing somewhat different political stances in various eras. The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and outright contradictions, with intellectual debates not only between types of anti-communists and anti-statists, but between traditionalist and individualists who affirmed the primacy of religion, politics, or economics."

Rjensen's proposed new lede:

"Conservatism in the United States has been a political force for over two centuries. Its recent manifestation--often called "movement conservatism" according to Nash (2009) comprises a coalition of five distinct impulses. From the mid-1940s to the 1960s, libertarians, traditionalists, and anticommunists made up this coalition. In the 1970s, two more impulses were added with the addition of neoconservatives and the interfaith Religious Right."

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer the old lede. I don't like the prominent mention of "movement conservatism" in the new lede, as most people (myself included) are not familiar with this term. But that's not to say the old one couldn't use some improvement. –CWenger (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the term "movement conservatism" refers to the idea that after 1850 conservatives deliberately organize themselves to be a political force. I will add more explanation--it is used in the text and it is commonly used in the RS. What is new in the lede is being more specific about the 5 groups Nash identifies--the old lede was just vague referring to unspecified "somewhat different political stances". Rjensen (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "movement conservatism" was an inside term that has become widely used in recent years by experts from all point of view, liberal and conservative. R. Emmett Tyrrell, a prominent writer on the right, talks about "the conservatism that, when it made its appearance in the early 1950s, was called the New Conservatism and for the past fifty or sixty years has been known as 'movement conservatism' by those of us who have espoused it." Tyrrell, After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery (2010) p 127. For recent examples, experts using the term "Movement Conservatism" include Sam Tanenhaus, The Death of Conservatism: A Movement and Its Consequences (2010) p 10 and book title; Paul Krugman, The conscience of a liberal (2009) entire ch 6; Paul Gottfried, Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right (2009) p. 137--Gottfried is a leading paleo; Jonathan Riehl, The Federalist Society and movement conservatism (2008), book title.  Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

While I accept your statement that "movement conservatism" is currently popular in conservative circles, I'm a political junkie and it didn't make a blip on my radar. I think it is important enough to mention in the article, but not important enough to be the focus of the lede. All of your references are very recent, and this article is about 200+ years of American conservatism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've checked Nash -- he never uses the phrase "movement conservatism". The book title you cite as an example of the use of the phrase, is "a movement and its consequences". Writing about the conservative movement is not the same as calling that movement "movement conservatism". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, we can drop it to a footnote, Rjensen (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If a recent major book on conservatism by Nash does not even mention "movement conservatism", that is an indication that "movement conservatism" is not important enough to go into the lede. Also, the lede you have written suffers from triumphalism "a political force for over two centuries", jumps abruptly from 1776 to 1930 with no transition, suggests that the conservative movement first became organized in 1930 which is clearly untrue, and gives undue weight to "movement conservatism".  You need to get some consensus here before you rewrite the lede. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rick Norwood, I think everybody appreciates Rjensen's bold edits to the lead, but let's just step back for a minute and work out something everybody can agree with here on the talk page. –CWenger (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I dropped the "movement conservatism" to a footnote. Saying it was "a political force for over two centuries" does not say it was dominant or triumphant, but I agree we can add more on the pre-1930s. "first became organized in 1930 which is clearly untrue" says Norwood--well that is what most of the RS actually say--they conservatives fiorst tried to organize in the 1930s (as in American Liberty League which soon collapsed, and the Conservative Coalition which succeeded in dominating Congress for a generation. That is--no major organizational efforts before 1933, and several important ones later.  The original lede was vacuous = says zero = "Conservatism in the United States is a concept which has evolved over the history of the country, encompassing somewhat different political stances in various eras." and the new version gives dates and names specific movements Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is just one example of organized conservatism before 1930, I could give many others. From Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris. The time is 1901, the subject the cabinet of the president when Theodore Roosevelt took office. "To a man, these conservatives believed in the sanctity of property and the patrician responsibilities of wealth and power." p.33 "This conservative alliance, forged after the Civil War, was intended to last well into the new century, if not forever." p. 34.

The lede begins, as it must, by pointing out that "conservative" has, in the United States, many meanings. The next paragraph should, and does, set out some of those meanings. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Modern conservatism" might be a better term than "movement conservatism". But we should be clear that the term "conservative" is fairly modern in usage.  And while "traditional conservatism" can be traced back to the Federalists, other strands came from "liberalism".  TFD (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What is fairly modern is not the term conservative, which was applied to the pro-business, pro-banking faction as far back as Hamilton, but rather the idea that conservatives are opposed to liberalism, which is very modern. Until the political propaganda of the Republican party demonized the word "liberal", all American politicians, even the most conservative, considered themselves liberal.  I seem to remember you, TFD, giving an example of this (a long time ago).  Rick Norwood (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * yes it's a strange story. LIBERALISM changed meaning in the 1930s in the USA, but not in other countries. The "Liberal" party in Japan and Australia etc is similar to the GOP in the USA. "liberalism" before 1930 used to mean what we now call "libertarianism". Of course libertarianism is ONE component of today's conservatism, but by no means the whole of it. Libertarians in 2011 for example do not like laws restricting abortion or homosexuality, while the religious conservatives today demand such laws. The Liberalism of 2011 used to be called "radicalism" (the 1860s used "Radical Republicans"), "agrarianism" (Bryan in 1896) or "progressive" (presidential candidates in 1912--Roosevelt; 1924-LaFollette; 1948-Henry Wallace). Rjensen (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The division in liberalism goes back to the Grandees and Levellers of Cromwell's day, and there is no agreed terminology to describe the two sides. But my point was that in an American version of sinistrisme, many of the strands of modern conservatism developed from radicalism, and at one time were opponents of conservatism.  Jackson was more supportive of free markets than the conservatives, Bryan opposed the teaching of evolution, Wilson persecuted the Left and promoted interventionism.  TFD (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * “The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them.” -- Mark Twain. The term "Liberal" has changed over time, but not the definition of Left/Right.  There are a lot of people over the past decade who've promoted a rather absurd Newspeak redefining of Left/Right, based on a "Totalitarianism vs. Anarchy" paradigm that is not backed up by anything but "wishful thinking."  "Liberal," in many ways, is a word too abused to really define much of anything anymore...kind of like "Democracy."  (For example, how many dictatorships and totalitarian governments have the word "Democratic" in their name?  DDR, I'm looking at you!)  But "Conservative" has generally always meant "opposition to change." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the nature of radicalism. Once their specific demands have been met or their problems disappear they become supporters of the new status quo.  TFD (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Biographies
I started articles about Kenneth Goff and Willi Schlamm. While their names appear in many sources about American conservatism, I could find little written about them specifically. Any help on these articles would be appreciated. TFD (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Lincoln's Conservatism"?
This entire section should be eliminated. Lincoln was about as Liberal as a President could be...under any definition of the word...during the mid-1800s. Furthermore, the citations used to "back up" these assertions are completely spurious. Guelzo's book REPEATEDLY describes Lincoln as following Liberal ideals, and refers to his opponents as "Conservative." In addition, the second citation is completely revisionist...and should AT LEAST be tempered with some kind of mention of the prevailing scholarship.Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lincoln was opposed by the Radical Republicans and supported by the conservatives and Moderates. The word "Liberal" in the 1860s has about the same meaning as libertarian-conservative in 2011. Lincoln favored banks, railroads, and tariffs to protect big business. Since the 1980s American liberals have generally downplayed Lincoln as too conservative on racial issues, though there is a debate there.  Lincoln favored a strong army and a strong foreign policy. So just what is so "liberal" about him?? Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lincoln was a Center-Leftist, which is why he was opposed by the Left-Wing Radical Republicans who wanted more support for Abolitionism. The term "Liberal," has always meant moving forward towards Egalitarianism...while "Conservatism" has always meant being opposed to change, or favoring "traditional" values.  Libertarianism is the application of Social Liberal (Civil Rights, Egalitarianism) and Fiscal Conservative (Laissez-Faire) policies.  Any opposition to slavery, even the less-than-enthusiastic one evidenced by Lincoln, is by definition Liberal.  It's like claiming that President Obama is really a "Conservative" because he hasn't appeased the Liberals on Gay Marriage yet...  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bryonmorrigan seems to have his own definitions. ok-- who does Bryonmorrigan consider to be a CONSERVATIVE in the 1850s and 1860s--any names? Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm using the definitions supplied in every dictionary in the world. (Hyperbole, I know...but essentially correct...)  Those in favor of slavery, since it represented the traditional, established order...would therefore be a "Conservative," and this would best be represented by the South.  In addition, the "States' Rights" argument is one almost wholly exclusive to Conservatives. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * the problem is that those "conservatives" denied the Declaration of Independence and went to war to break up the United States--and in the process destroyed their entire way of life....not very "conservative" i suggest. Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That the outcome was different than intended seems an odd way to characterize their intentions. The Confederacy, and their arguments in general, were little different from those of the modern day Reactionary Right (I find the use of the term "Radical Right" to be a bit of an oxymoron, don't you?).  They claimed they understood the "real" meaning of the Founding Fathers (who you can't possibly deny would be considered "Left-Wing" in the definition of their era...), and tried to forcibly ensure that the USA did NOT progress forward towards further Egalitarianism, clinging instead to the antiquated concept of slavery...which was already losing favor in other countries.  But anyways, back to the original topic: While you might be able to argue that Lincoln was somewhat "Conservative" in regards to economic policies, or at least "Classically Liberal," I think it would be extremely disingenuous to infer, as the article currently does, that Lincoln was acting from a "Conservative" mindset in regards to the Emancipation Proclamation, or in his (later) anti-slavery stance.  It furthers this new revisionist "Glenn Beck" slant of history where somehow...through intellectual dishonesty...the Abolitionists were "Conservatives," a view of history of no more validity than David Irving's views on the Holocaust. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and furthermore, none of this explains why Guelzo's book is allowed to be used as a "citation" for something that is completely the opposite of what is inside it...nor why such a blatantly revisionist book as Harris's is presented as an uncontested viewpoint. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * [outdent] Lincoln used every power at his disposal to defeat the enemies of the U.S., including destroying their economic base (which was slavery and the export of cotton). Sounds pretty conservative to me. Rjensen (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How does that even make sense? Plenty of Liberal presidents have been advocates of military action...or are you going to claim that FDR was a "Conservative" as well?  What kind of definition of "Conservative" are you even relying upon? Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We keep giving examples of Lincoln's conservatism: 1) used military strength aggressively; 2) liberty for all; 3) strong devotion to constitution; 4) strongly pro-business--pro-banks--pro railroads; 5) strong against subversives (eg Copperheads, actions in Maryland); 6) very strong advocate of American nationalism; 7) very articulate on American exceptionalism (Gettysburg Address); 8) strong opponent of the radicals. Rjensen (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the examples that you used would be historically accurate examples of Conservatism for the 19th century. In fact, they all pretty much point to late 20th century "Neo-Conservatism."  I'm beginning to think you aren't even taking this seriously.  Furthermore, almost every dictionary definition of "Conservatism" makes the primary component of this ideology the "preservation of traditional values" and "opposition to change."  Google "define:Conservatism". Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate whether or not Lincoln was a conservative. There are countless books about Abraham Lincoln by major historians. Unless they describe him as a conservative -- and that in an overall assessment, not in the sense that, say, "Lincoln ate a conservative breakfast", then this article should not try to claim Lincoln for the conservative cause. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not propagandize. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point. If someone wants to include the revisionist history of Harris's book in an article about Lincoln...as presents it _as_ a revisionist theory, then that's all fine and dandy.  As it is now, it essentially is nothing more than an attempt by Conservative to "claim" him because they know damned well that the "Right Wing Cause" in the Civil War was that of the Confederacy.  It's no different than these other Conservative revisionists trying to "claim" Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement.  Hell, in another few decades, they'll be claiming that they were also behind the Hippie counterculture movement, Gay Rights, and health care reform.  Just watch. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Norwood is right. here's what you get from scholars like Allitt (Lincoln "can certainly be thought of as a conservative" The Conservatives (2009) p 95) It's not a new idea; Hofstadter (a leading liberal) in 1948 said "Lincoln ranked as a moderate conservative."  (American Political Tradition 1973 edition p 100)  Hofstadter added, Lincoln "belonged to the party of rank and privilege" (p 99). His war aim to preserve the union was "historically conservative: it aims to preserve a long-established order that is well served the common man in the past....  Sometimes Lincoln's language is frankly conservative." (p124). Hofstadter does not once use the word "liberal" in his chapter on Lincoln. Rjensen (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Allitt is your "rebuttal?" Jeez.  Talk about revisionism...  And Hofstadter?  Puh-lease.  Hofstadter's central thesis is that NOBODY is a Liberal.  LOL.  He doesn't even consider the New Deal to be a Liberal program, for Pete's sake!  My central point is that the entire section is based on a faulty citation (Guelzo) and revisionist theories...so you present MORE revisionist theories?  If you want to put revisionist theories in an encyclopedia article, by all means do so.  But PRESENT them as revisionist theories, rather than the commonly-accepted views of the academic world. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bryonmorrigan apparently does not trust anyone -- is not cited a single reliable source that is depending upon for his personal opinions. Rjensen (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Guelzo's book, which is erroneously used as "evidence" of Lincoln's "Conservatism," proves my case quite nicely...and mentions Liberalism as being at the heart of Lincoln's philosophies, and only really refers to Conservatives in opposition to him. Furthermore, the work of J. David Greenstone, particularly "The Lincoln Persuasion: Remaking American Liberalism," also backs up my point.  In general, as I've stated before, it is the prevailing view in academic circles.  Furthermore, you have not responded to my allegations that your definition of "Conservatism" is mired in the Historian's Fallacy of applying the late 20th century political definition of "Neo-Conservatism," rather than the general concept of "Conservatism" as a concept in opposition to "Liberalism" and Progressive reform. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Cooper Union speech, Lincoln said, "But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" In The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk takes this statement at face value and never questions Lincoln conservative credentials. Lincoln was opposed by the abolitionists and later by the Radical Republicans. He was the most conservative of the major candidates at the Republican nominating convention in 1860. Whether he was a liberal or not is another question altogether. Conservativism is as Lincoln defined it: following the tired and true, doing what has been shown to work. In the American context, getting inspiration from the founding fathers. Taking a more anti-liberal, pro-slavery position is not necessarily the same thing as being more conservative. Kauffner (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Im glad we finally have a citation from Bryonmorrigan and can see where he goes astray. Guelzo of course is a prominent 21st century conservative who greatly admires Lincoln. Greenstone was a political scientist who said that all American are 19th century "liberals" in the sense of John Locke and libertarianism (he is following the political scientist Louis Hartz). He groups Lincoln with John Adams and John Quincy Adams, who are indeed conservative heroes, not heroes to 21st century liberals.  Greenstone says Lincoln's version of 19th century liberalism reflected the spirit of the Whig Party, and I agree. Greenstone says that Lincoln is committed to equality of opportunity not equality of results, which fits with modern conservatives. (today's liberal want equality of results, as seen in affirmative action). (Guelzo emphasizes the same--Lincoln was a champion of equality-of-opportunity. Redeemer p 57-59) Guelzo notes that the Radicals opposed Lincoln because of his conservatism (p 289, 455)  Rjensen (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Under that definition of "Conservative," President Obama is a "Conservative," because he takes a much more "Conservative" approach to Left-Wing issues like LGBT rights, universal health care, and progressive taxation. And Obama is also often opposed by the Radical Left for not being "Liberal enough."  Lincoln's "wishy-washy" statements on slavery and reform are particularly comparable to Obama's "wishy-washy" statements on LGBT rights.  But compared to the modern Conservatives, Obama is Liberal.  The same goes for Lincoln.  He did not go along with the extreme Leftism of the Radical Republicans and Abolitionists, but attempted to compromise with Conservatives for the sake of getting things done.  (Again, a lot like Obama...)  And really...Russell Kirk?  I suppose you'll be citing National Review articles and books by David Barton next... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and frankly, the amount of debate on this subject over the past few days is proof of my central thesis, which is based on two major points: (1) The Guelzo citation does not accurately back up the claims of Lincoln's alleged "Conservatism;" and (2) the section on Lincoln should be presented as a revisionist theory, or at the very least presented as something to the effect of "Some historians call him a Conservative..." or something, rather than simply stated it as a "fact," when this is only the interpretation of a select few historians. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bryonmorrigan certainly knows more about Obama than Lincoln. in the 21st century few historians call Lincoln a liberal (using the modern usage--they call him a "19th century liberal" like Goldwater or Reagan, say). Lots of scholars call him a conservative. What happened I think is that there was a big push to minimize the role of white men in black history, and Lincoln was deliberately ignored on the left. Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Kudos for "standing up for the oppressed white man," professor...or something...and keep promoting those unqualified revisionist theories... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several different meanings of the word "liberal." For example, the major parties in the 1872 election presidential election were the Liberal Republicans (Greeley) and the Radical Republicans (Grant). Whether a writer labels Lincoln a liberal or not has to do with which meaning the writer uses. Lincoln can still be a conservative either way. Conservative scholars are ones who have put some thought into the issue of who's a conservative and who is not. The best sources for an article like this are scholarly works whose focus is U.S. conservatism. Works that focus on "remaking American liberalism" will tend depict conservatism only as a state of inadequate liberalism. Kauffner (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The origins of the terms "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" are based on the Left being in favor of social reform, and the Right wanting to keep social reform from occurring (French Revolution). The standard, dictionary definitions of "Liberal" and "Conservative" are essentially moderate positions of Left and Right.  Lincoln is best known for instituting one of the largest acts of radical social reform in the United States.  It requires intense amounts of mental gymnastics to conclude that Lincoln was a "Conservative," unless one tries to enforce revisionist definitions of the word.  I mean, look at the word ITSELF...even in a non-political context.  Concluding that a social reformer could be considered "Conservative" or social reactionaries could be considered "Liberal" is an idea that smacks of Orwellian Newspeak, and largely comes from the Right-Wing in this country...who want to "rehabilitate" history in order to pretend they haven't been on the wrong side of every social reform movement since the Enlightenment. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You should know, Bryonmorrigan, that Rjensen is willing to argue this point ad infinitum. The archives contain many pages of exactly these arguements. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm getting that idea. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * true enough. I'm interested in getting it right. :) But Lincoln was not trying for social reform. He was trying to save the Union and destroy the base of the Confederacy. His own proposals were gradual abolition of slavery over decades, with compensation to the owners (he could not get that passed). Rjensen (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is that...on the slavery issue, the reactionary-Right position would be "More slave states;" the Conservative (center-Right) position would be "Keep things the same;" the Liberal (center-Left) position would be "gradual elimination of slavery;" and the radical-Left position would be "uncompromised Abolition." (Radical Republicans) Like I said, if you compare the issue of slavery to modern social reforms like LGBT rights, you seem the same "spectrum" from Left to Right.  And I claim that Obama's center-Left views on gay marriage are comparable in many ways to Lincoln's views on slavery. Either way, like I said...the section deserves some kind of "fixing," whether one agrees with me on the disposition of Lincoln's views.  It currently presents its case very poorly, and makes it appear as if there is a historical "consensus" on the issue....which this debate proves is not the case. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bryonmorrigan invented all those positions. He lack RS. The Free Soil position Lincoln adopted in 1850s was that slavery was bad for the ordinary white man (the rich would buy all the best land and work it with slaves) AND violated fundamental American/republican values (the Slave Power would control the government). Rjensen (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rjensen stated, "He lack RS." Que?  And furthermore, I really think you don't understand the Left/Right spectrum at all... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * RS = reliable sources, the foundation of Wikipedia. see WP:RS Rjensen (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You should look up John Breckinridge, John Bell, and Stephen Douglas. Then you would know what the major points of view really were at that time and you wouldn't have to create an imaginary political spectrum, a spectrum that appears to have been derived by analogizing slavery to restrictions on same sex marriage and then projecting modern attitudes about gays on to 1860s views concerning blacks. Kauffner (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would LOVE to hear you guys' definition of what constitutes the difference between Left and Right... My definition of Left/Right is the same as when the terms were coined during the French Revolution, and I argue that those same definitions apply now, and have always done so.  Show me another definition of Left/Right that can apply to all historical uses of the terms.  I'd love to hear it. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bryonmorrigan wants to use European definitions when the article clearly states there is a huge difference in terminology. The US rejected kings, aristocrats, standing armies, established churches etc that were central to the European Right. And it did not have the Robespierres (with his guillotine) and anti-establishment/ anti-church radicalism of the French Revolution. Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The "European" definitions still pertain to the USA...only the specific "agendas" change. The ideology is consistent through history.  The Left has always been about the promotion of "social justice" and egalitarianism, while the Right has always been about the maintenance of traditional social structures or reversion to "the good 'ol days" of the past.  It applies to the French Revolution, the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-War Movement of the 1960s, and any other major clash of the Left and Right in American politics.  The only really major change between the American Left/Right and the historical Left/Right is the Left's movement away from Laissez-Faire economics, and it's appropriation by the Libertarians.  The definition that I'm using...(which is frankly the one that I was taught in high school)...is the only one that makes any sense from an historical standpoint, and does not contradict itself. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There are ideologies to the left of conservatism and also ideologies to the right. So conservatism is not in general the same as right-wing. Edmund Burke, the best-known conservative ideologue, was a Whig. That is to say, he was to the left of the ruling Tories. Kauffner (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's pretty much what I said in an earlier post. Conservatism is a slightly Right-of-Center, and Liberalism is slightly Left-of-Center.  Ronald Reagan was far less Right-Wing than but that doesn't mean that Reagan was a "Liberal" or in any way "Left-Wing."  And John F. Kennedy, (a self-described Liberal) was far less Left-Wing than Karl Marx or Robespierre...but that doesn't suddenly make him a "Conservative."  These words have very well-defined meanings. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln was by far the most conservative president. A militant nationalist in preservation of the Union. Calling ending slavery conservatism due to the Constitution stating that All Men are Created Equal. Equality before the law also being a conservative pillar. Not to mention being a free market capitalist. I cant name a more conservative president than that.

All presidents before Woodrow Wilson and the "New Freedoms" are right of todays right wing. Thomas Jefferson is extremely far right. Lincoln is extremely far right as well.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.107.154 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 April 2011


 * This topic has already been discussed at length. While some books on conservativism claim Lincoln as a conservative, no books about Lincoln have been cited that express that view.  The unsigned discussion above is based on the idea that it was conservatives, not liberals, who fought for racial equality.  This is contrary to what the various factions called themselves at the time, and is an attempt to rewrite history. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone who advocates ideas that were considered mainstream or radical in previous centuries would seem out of touch today. The Jacksonian view that all white men should be allowed to vote was radical, but the view that only white men should vote is today rejected even by conservatives.  TFD (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you must there were four groups during the Civil War. The states rights conservatives, the equality before the law conservatives, the abolishionist radicals that wanted to take rights away, and the pro-slavery extremists. Lincoln was against the radicals and the pro-slavery and thought equality before the law trumped states rights. Therefore Lincoln, by his own accord was a equality before the law conservative. Cooper Union: "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live. - Abraham Lincoln, Cooper Union Address, February 27, 1860, NY


 * This quote has been cited here before. It is an example of Lincoln, a politician, addressing a group of conservatives, trying to win their votes.  It is not an example of Lincoln stating his political philosophy nor of someone writing about Lincoln stating Lincoln's political philosophy. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The 1860 Cooper Union speech was the most important Lincoln made before he became president. It made him acceptable to the eastern party and every historian has taken it to represent AL's political philosophy in 1860. Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is how Doris Kearns Goodwin describes the Cooper Union speech in Team of Rivals. "Lincoln attempted to cut through the rancor of the embattled factions by speaking directly to the Southern people." It's a great speech. But it is the speech of a politician running for office, not of a philosopher laying out his views. The fact that Lincoln, in one speech, said he was conservative (in the sense of honoring the traditions of the Founding Fathers) does not constitute the preponderance of the evidence on this subject. The index of Godwin's book does not include the word "conservative". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lincoln was making the point that his values (and the Republican Party) were closer to the Founding Fathers than the rival parties--that's a conservative theme then and today --you hear often today (say from Tea Party, or Justice Scalia) Rjensen (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nothing but POV propaganda, and has never been the definition of "Conservatism," either then or now. The radical, Liberal, Enlightenment values upon which the Founding Fathers relied would be considered anathema to the Tea Party, and certainly to a Christian Supremacist like Scalia who, unlike Jefferson, thinks that "Freedom of Religion" only applies to "Biblical Monotheism."  As you can see by looking at a multitude of definitions, the single unifying thread in the definition of "Conservatism" is opposition to change.  The concept of Conservatism is irreconcilable with the abolition of slavery.  The only way to make them "fit" is to change the definition of "Conservatism," an Orwellian agenda if ever there was one.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)e
 * Who are these slavery-supporting anti-change people? You've defined conservatism is such a way that it doesn't apply to any real-life group. It was common for the government to support Christianity in the early republic. For example, the Northwest Ordinance provided that religion be taught in the schools. Jefferson never objected to this and in fact kept all criticism of Christianity to himself until after he retired from politics. John Adams is the conservative's favorite Founding Father. Adams edited Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence and added a reference to God. Kauffner (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I was referring to slavery during Lincoln's era, as we are discussing Lincoln. In his era, slavery was the traditional, conservative position.  In the '60s, segregation was the traditional, conservative position.  And now, in the 2000s, we don't have either...thanks to the Left.  2. Jefferson's opinion of Christianity is irrelevant.  He clearly stated that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was meant to accommodate, "...the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination,"  as opposed to simply "Christianity," and this predated the Bill of Rights by many years, so it's safe to assume that neither Jefferson, nor the "great majority" who rejected the idea that such freedoms should only apply to Christians, did not have the same kind of Christian Supremacist view of government that guys like Scalia do, which are far more akin to Islamic "Sharia Law" than Egalitarianism, Freedom, or Liberty.  Furthermore, there are plenty of references to "God," a "Creator," and other deliberately unspecific terms in the founding documents, that can certainly apply to people of different religions, and not a single reference to "Christianity" or "Jesus Christ."  Regardless, to interpret the concept of "Freedom of Religion" to only apply to Christianity is to say that, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," and is a point of view more at home in Iran or Pakistan than the USA.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * we're mixing up words . One definition of "conservative" indeed is resisting any change in the status quo. But this article is about something else, an American political philosophy called conservaTISM. It has a very strong libertarian element (in 2011) that rejects slavery; it has (in 2011) a very strong admiration of the Founding Fathers.  That's Lincoln--he argued at Cooper Union that the Founding Fathers (mostly) opposed slavery and wanted it to end. After 1800 a new element emerged that saw slavery as a good idea (no Founder ever called slavery good)--and Lincoln said these newcomers were the ones who distorted the American tradition. Rjensen (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and the definitions that I quoted were for "ConservaTISM." Go check them.  At Cooper Union, Lincoln even reiterated this definition, saying, "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"  He then tried to frame Conservatism as agreeing with his own position, in order to sway Conservatives...who were most certainly not the Abolitionists, who represented the extreme Left.  You are being revisionist, in order to promote the modern attempts to "redefine" Conservatism to atone for the Right's support for slavery, segregation, gender inequality, and religious intolerance.  As Mark Twain so eloquently put it so many years ago: "The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you accept Lincoln's definition of conservatism, but not idea that Lincoln himself was a conservative, then it would follow that Lincoln supported the "new and untried"? If he was secretly in favor of abolitionism, that would make the Cooper Union speech a fraud. As for the claim that history is moving us ever leftward, I thought that was refuted by the collapse the Soviet Union. The Left-Jihad alliance is hard to square with the idea that gender inequality and religious intolerance are sins of the right. Kauffner (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Left-Jihad alliance?" That has to be the most ridiculous thing ever posted on Wikipedia (...which is no small feat, mind you).  There is no such thing...as Islamic Fundamentalism is a fundamentally Right-Wing concept (as is all religious fundamentalism)...under ALL definitions of "Right-Wing."  You've further derailed this thread into complete and utter nonsense, and just proved that you are unbelievably unqualified to edit anything regarding politics or history, or the combination of such.  I feel sorry for you.  Stop bothering me with this un-sourced, pseudo-historical nonsense, which is of the same academic "validity" as Holocaust Denial.  Turn off the Glenn Beck and pick up a history book for a change...  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you never heard of Noam Chomsky, a man who spent his life trying to prove that he is more left-wing than thou? The Truthers were Democrats or Republicans? Kauffner (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of "Truther" Right-Wingers...like Alex Jones...and being against the "Global War on Terror" (of which I am a Veteran, mind you) does not make one a supporter of Islamic Fundamentalism (or I guess Ron Paul is a "Jihadist?"). Again, you make no sense.  The only difference between Islamism of Al Qaeda and the Christian Dominionism of the American Right-Wing is the name they call their Abrahamic deity.  They both fight for the same outcome: Religious Conservatism.  I'm not going to respond any further, since you're treating this page like a message board, in violation of WP:FORUM.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan: I agree with what you say, but try to keep your temper. Nothing infuriates an irrational person more than refusing to rise to the bait. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Jihadists and Left both oppose the War on Terror/overseas contingency operations and work together against it. This is what I meant by a "Left-Jihad alliance." You don't seem to be disputing that this is in fact the case, just niggling about word usage. Kauffner (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you think that Obama and Bin Laden are working together? TFD (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of referenced statement.
Please explain why the following referenced statement was removed.

From the late 19th century onward, conservatives have been dedicated to preventing the rise and spread of socialism and communism

Rick Norwood (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln and Osama and Obama
I'm starting a new section, because the Lincoln section has wandered so far afield. It is clear that arguement is not going to settle anything, and in any case this is not the a place for such debates. The article as a whole has a low grade, and needs to be rewritten, carefully, with every statement referenced. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
Can we rewrite this article using objective sources, without anger, exageration, or argument? it will be a lot of work, and will certainly require more than one editor to sign on to the project. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be nice...but I doubt that it can happen unless Conservative editors accept the dictionary definition of "Conservatism," rather than just making it up on the fly as is the case throughout the article. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Random House Dictionary: "conservatism": 1. the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change. 2. the principles and practices of political conservatives."  This article uses definition #2. Rjensen (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, it means, "whatever you want it to mean," since that definition relies on a definition of "political conservatives" that is not stated. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it means what the Reliable Sources says it means. We have a good bibliography here--I recommend reading Allitt, Nash, Critchlow, & Schneider. Rjensen (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Allitt is the only one who writes about conservatism as continuous from the 1700s while the others write about post-war conservatism and its immediate antecedents. TFD (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If we enter into this trying to convince Rjensen then it would be better not to try at all. Rjensen and I have edited the same articles for many years, now. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. But I cannot think of a single case where Rjensen has changed his mind. Rather, we have to keep our temper, edit using standard historical sources, and stand by what those sources say. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition
Clearly, we must begin with a definition. It would be a great help if there were an American equivalent to the OED, but lacking that I turn to Webster's Dictionary.

This, from the first edition of Webster's, 1828:

CONSERVATIVE, a. Preservative; having power to preserve in a safe or entire state, or from loss, waste or injury.

According to the current edition of the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary, the first known American use of the word "conservative" was in 1931. Clearly, the quote above proves the current Mirriam-Webster wrong, and the definitions there are, as Rjensen notes, singularly useless.

This, from the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 1968, is a little more useful.

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., and to agree with gradual rather than abrupt change.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * if you look at top issues in 2011, like taxation, spending, Medicaid-Medicare, raising national debt, strengthening public sector unions, restrictions on oil drilling, and abortion, say, then people who want to CONTINUE the current system are the liberal Democrats. But the people in USA who call themselves conservatives in 2011 want to radically change or LOWER taxes, etc. Hence the "preserve existing conditions" definition works badly. Goodness, even Rick Norwood comes out a "conservative"!Rjensen (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because what modern Republicans are proposing is actually "Reactionary," rather than "Conservative." The definition above, which is basically the same definition of Conservatism that you will find in almost any dictionary, works just fine when you understand that Right-wing extremism is not "Conservative," nor is Left-wing extremism "Liberal." For example, Newt Gingrich's recent comments about wanting to avoid "radical changes," whether Left-wing or Right-wing, place him as a "textbook" Conservative, whereas the "so-called" Conservatives throwing a hissy-fit about his comments are actually Reactionaries.  Unfortunately, nobody understands nuance any more. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that most people misuse words and politicians misuse words more than most, so that "conservative" has come to mean "my side" and liberal "your side", or vice versa. But I hope Wikipedia can do better than the politicians, by following standard reference books. When words lose their meaning, we have is a failure to communicate.

Shall we define "conservative" as wanting to go back to the "good old days", the "status quo anti", when everybody was white and went to church on Sunday, and husband and wife slept in twin beds? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * we should not define conservative as people wanting to uphold the status quo in 2011 (think of where liberals and conservatives stand on taxation, spending, Medicaid-Medicare, raising national debt, strengthening public sector unions, restrictions on oil drilling, and abortion, etc) 20:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's what Conservative means, whether you like it or not. The fact that this country has moved so far to the Right that Reactionary, Right-wing extremism is presented as "Conservatism" does not change the meaning of the terms.  See my above comment regarding Gingrich.  Redefining political terminology to accommodate a political "narrative" is nothing but propaganda...and an encyclopedia article should most definitely NOT contradict every major dictionary on the planet.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bryonmorrigan comments are less useful because a) he does not read any RS and b) he displays a violent hatred of conservatism which violates Wiki rules about editing. Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. That was a very "constructive" argument, and certainly negated my points above, which certainly displayed a "violent hatred of conservatism." :::rolls eyes::: I guess all those dictionaries are not RS either.  Why do you have a "violent hatred of dictionaries?"  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And for the record, you might want to rethink that "violent hatred" comment, as it's a very specific, and borderline libelous one. Just sayin'.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dictionary definitions are unhelpful for political ideologies. For every ideology, policies will change over time and from place to place.  TFD (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Policies change, of course...but the Left will always be about Egalitarianism and Social reform, and the Right will always be about preserving the status-quo or undoing those reforms. Those central ideals have been consistent from the moment that Left and Right were defined in the French National Assembly, and they still apply today.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Boys, boys, play nice! Anger kills rational thought. Rjensen, what "conservative" means to you is, I believe, libertarian. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But I live in the state of Tennessee, which last time I looked was part of the United States. And conservatives in Tennessee have a bill in the state Senate even as we speak making it illegal to "teach homosexuality in the public schools." I can't even figure out what that means. But that, too, is an aspect of Conservatism in the United States. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bryonmorrigan, I do not see the relevance of your observation. TFD (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Rick Norwood's comment directly above yours, or one of mine? Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bryonmorrigan doesn't like the Random House Dictionary and has never cited any RS on conservatism apart from a desk dictionary. This article depends on RS and Bryonmorrigan  cuts himself off from those resources. In response to Rick Norwood, I think that on economic issues the American conservatives are in today very heavily libertarian, but that libertarianism is not dominant in social issues (certainly not in Tennessee--I lived in Clarksville and know that state). Rjensen (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC).

Conservatism in America today is a uneasy aliance of two very different groups of people. One group of people things that the rich should get everything, and the workers should be thankful for whatever the rich choose to give them. The other group things that God is on their side, and they have the right to boss other people around.

Leaving religion out of it, the fundamental question is this. You put up the money. I, and a hundred people like me, do all the work. How do we divide up the profits? The conservatives think you should get it all. The communists think I should get it all. The liberals think we should share. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * here's a good definition, though it ignores social issues: "a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)." (source: "conservatism" in Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary (2006)Rjensen (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, the entire definition of Conservatism in Merriam Webster is as follows: "a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)" It's telling that you specifically omitted the part that explicitly backed up the definition that I have been saying all along, and which does include social issues. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bryonmorirgan, yes I am referring to you, which is why I began my posting, "Bryonmorrigan,...." Rjensen, that sounds like a good definition of neoliberalism and could describe the governments of Tony Blair or Bill Clinton.  It does not seem to include Alexander Hamilton and Robert Taft.  TFD (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why do you keep responding to me out of the order of the thread? It's confusing, especially when you make vague comments not specifically addressed at a particular statement or position.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TFD makes a good point. The conservatives have always been pro-business, pro-banking and pro-growth. They always opposed high taxes and wanted a strong national defense. But in the 1790s to get to that stage they had to pay off the national debt, and get some revenue, which required a tariff and a liquor tax.  After 1940 the tariff issue largely faded. (US still has high taxes on liquor and cigarettes, which conservatives do not try to lower.). Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That tradition would clearly be represented by Hamilton, Lincoln and TR and today by Bush, Romney and McCain. But where I find the narrative confusing is that other strands have joined the Republican Party which are not considered conservative for their time - Jefferson, Jackson, Bryan. Wilson.  So modern conservatism has incorporated ideas and groups that were once considered radical, which has also happened in the U.K., Canada and France.  TFD (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jefferson yes (he was keen on limiting the federal government and on Empire of Liberty) and Wilson (world democracy)--yes, but Andrew Jackson and WJ Bryan??? Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jackson for laissez-faire and free trade and Bryan for religion. Of course one could argue that a true follower of either would be a liberal today, but much of their policies are now considered conservative.  Regardless, the fact that modern conservatism contains strands that were once opposed to them creates a difficulty for the historical narrative.  TFD (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is fun, but we cannot decide what conservatism means. We can only report what other people say it means. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And has anyone but me noticed that, with the exception of a single mention of Bryan, all of these definitions (except the "opposition to radical change" one that I propose) are completely avoiding the entire concept of Social conservatism, which has been the primary source of division between American Conservatives and Liberals for almost a hundred years? Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the complete Merriam-Webster definition:

a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would we use any of these definitions? TFD (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What alternative do you suggest? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article on the relationship between economic conservatives and social conservatives. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/16/the-case-for-conservatism-versus-libertarianism/ Rick Norwood (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Klaus von Beyme's work on party families, discussed here may be helpful. So for example conservatives and liberals (as understood in the rest of the world) clashed over monarchy, established church and aristocratic privilege, and these divisions have persisted over time, although ideologies have transformed.  Modern U.S. conservatism can be traced to controversy over the New Deal.  I suppose Allitt et al believe it can be traced to the division between Hamiltonian's republicanism and Jefferson's democracy.  While I accept Allitt provides a valid viewpoint, I wonder how accepted that view is.  I would suggest that the Tea Party movement could be seen as more Sam Adams than John Adams.  TFD (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of historians before Allitt included John Adams and Alexander Hamilton in their histories of conservatism (Rossiter, Viereck, Kirk, Filler, Buckley, Lora, Frohnen, Forrest McDonald)Rjensen (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But then they disagree over the chronology following the collapse of the Federalists, and whether modern conservatism belongs to the family or are "pseudo-conservatives". And of course both the consensus theory and Pocock and Bailyn's theories challenge whether they were correctly called conservatives.  TFD (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case, there is nothing remotely conservative about libertarianism -- it is much closer to liberalism, and has allied with the social conservatives only because it needs their votes. Fiscal conservatives talk about libertarianism, but their actions invariably support "free enterprise" only to the extent that the rich are free to exploit the working class. Conservatives support the freedom of the rich to form monopolies, but oppose the freedom of the workers to form unions. Every definition of conservatism mentions the desire to conserve the existing class structure and traditional religion. I can hardly imagine Libertarians doing either. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The article Conservatism in Canada explains the orgins of conservatism in that country, including the issues that separated conservatism from liberalism, and how conservatism has absorbed liberal people and policies and members over time. Of course tracing the history is made easier by the continuing existence of conservative parties.  Nonetheless the main dividing issue - the attitude toward the Empire - persisted even if its relevance did not.  Is there anything similar that can connect Federalism with modern conservatism?  The Canadian conservatives btw were greater admirers of Hamilton and adopted his views on banking and federalism.  Rick, both Herbert Spencer and Hayek explained that.  Libertarians came to support conservatives because they were less likely to enact modern liberal policies such as child labor and factory health and safety laws.  The conservatives became the lesser of two evils.  But some libertarians, including Hayek, cautioned libertarians against supporting the conservatives.  TFD (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Libertarians support conservatives because conservatives are anti-regulation, and conservatives support libertarians because in a free market, the rich get richer and richer. But just because each supports the other does not mean that the definitions of the two terms are the same. This article should not imply (as I think it does) that anyone in favor of freedom is automatically a conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think it does. TFD (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Consider this sentence for example. "Abraham Lincoln became a hero to conservatives for his intense nationalism, support for business, his insistence on stopping the spread of slavery, and his devotion to the principles of the Founding Fathers." Did Abraham Lincoln really become a hero to conservatives for his insistence on stopping the spread of slavery and his devotion to the principles of the Founding Fathers? If that is the case, why did none of the books I've read about Lincoln or about the Civil War mention this? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that is dubious and unsourced. The book mentioned in footnotes (see pp. 195 ff.) even says that slavery was a question where Lincoln departed from conservatism.  TFD (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Frohnen ed American Conservatism (2206) p 515 says re slavery Lincoln took a "conservative antislavery position." He rejected the abolitionist Yankees and the pro-slavery Southerners, both were too radical. (the Southern radicalism was to reject the Declaration & the Founding Fathers" Rjensen (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

For their vengeance?
I deleted the phrase "for their vengeance" from the sentence, "When Lincoln was assassinated the Radicals gained the upper hand for their vengeance," which is in the section marked "Lincoln's Conservatism," as it appears to be clearly POV. Rjensen reverted this change, claiming that, ""Vengeance" is the word used by RS (Steers (2003) p xxiii; Harris (1999) p 265; T H Williams (1965) p 372; Chesebrough (1994) p 97; Turner (1991) p 52" Regardless of whether the phrase is used in a RS, it's still POV, as it assigns a derogatory, very "Pro-CSA," Dunning school POV to the sentence, disparaging the Radical Republicans.  I mean, if we're going to keep sentences like that, we might as well change all references to the "Civil War" to the "War of Northern Aggression."  I have examined Rjensen's RS, and found that: Essentially, these references describe a multitude of different issues, and do not warrant the inclusion of the phrase "for their vengeance" as it currently stands in that sentence, as it currently implies that this "vengeance" was ready to be loosed upon the South, and set free by Lincoln's assassination...whereas the sources that Rjensen cited actually are mostly referring to "vengeance" FOR the assassination of Lincoln...and this is clearly not what the current sentence implies. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Steers (2003), on page xxii, clearly uses the word "vengeance" in regards to conspiracy theories, and uses the words "preposterous" and "easily shown to be false" in reference to them.
 * Harris (1999), on page 265, clearly uses the word "vengeance" in the context of Northern "revenge" for the assassination of Lincoln, which is completely different from how the word is used in this article, which is to make the claim that the Radical Republicans just couldn't wait to enact bloodthirsty "vengeance" upon the South, and with Lincoln out of the way, they finally got their way. (Also, for the record, one should note the following sentence, which appears at the bottom of the page: "Conservatives who had opposed Lincoln now proclaimed his "sterling excellencies" and expressed their fears that worse would occur at the hands of Johnson and a vengeful Congress," since that sentence pretty much sums up the whole "after the fact" Conservativization of Lincoln...)
 * T H Williams (1941/1965) does indeed use the term "vengeance" on many occasions in that book, including on p. 372 . However, one can easily tell by reading that page, (and/or the pages preceding or following it), that Williams has written an extremely pro-CSA book, often referring to the opponents of slavery derogatorily as "Jacobins," and writing that they "rejoiced in Lincoln's death," as well as using a host of other ridiculously POV phrases, such as the "crusade of hate" (p.255) against slavery.  The book is essentially a textbook example of the now thoroughly discredited Dunning school of Civil War history.
 * Chesebrough (1994), is describing the text of sermons, and is completely 100% irrelevant.
 * Turner (1991), is not describing the Radical Republicans on page 52, and here is the text of the reference: "People honestly believed that the South was involved, and sometimes vengeance was visited upon the guilty and innocent alike." Again, this is a reference to Lincoln's assassination, and public opinion...and is not at all relevant to the sentence above.


 * You have discovered something about Rjensen that some of us discovered long ago. His references do not always say what he says they say.  I'll delete "for their vengence" this time, if you have not already done some, along with other obvious POV in this section.  I hesitated because, really, the entire section in strongly POV, and I was waiting for a chance to do some real research into what "conservative" meant during the Civil War. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * the argument is that Radicals used the assassination to further their harsh treatment of the South. The Radical position was indeed based on their supporters, as expressed in sermons and public opinion, as Bryonmorrigan has discovered. See also Berwanger (1981) p 39; Simpson (1997) p 93; West (2010) p 23; Raymond (1992) p 295; DuBois (1935) p 187; Knight (2003) p 249; Conlin (2008) p 403; The standard encyclopedia on the war says: Heidler Encyclopedia of the American Civil War (2002) p 1200 "his assassination unleashed a wave of vengeance in the North that meant the end of his conservative and conciliatory policy."  Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a huge difference between the original sentence (which was POV) and the one you just replaced it with, which is more accurate (though I still dispute the idea that he should be considered "Conservative," but that's an entirely different issue). The original statement played into the Dunning School theory, and sounded like a line from "The Birth of a Nation."  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazing -- for the first time Bryonmorrigan cites his source--Birth of a Nation!! He misreads Speers. The words "preposterous" and "easily shown to be false" are references to a conspiracy theory that the Radicals killed Lincoln. Speers does not dispute the vengeance-theme. Harris says that the Radical base in the North wanted vengeance as does Chesebrough and Turner--that is 100% relevant. Radicals were a wing of the GOP and the ministers preaching sermons wer a major factor in their power. T Harry Williams (Pulitzer prize) was a very distinguished historian and Wiki rules require serious views be included. Let me add James Randall and David Donald (''The Civil War and reconstruction" p 528 who refers to the post assassination mood of "rage, horror, dread and wild rumor." Fellman's textbook (2007 p 296) says the Northern people "wanted visible signs of punishment and contrition." Turner (1991) has a whole chapter on the intensely hostile reaction of teh Radical base (ch 6) and says the sermons "are an excellent means of gauging public opinion." (p77) -- and they were pretty extreme as they showed "very little emotional restraint." (p 77) -- sort of like Bryonmorrigan I guess. Rjensen (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. You really are getting pretty hardcore in your personal attacks these days.  Quoting "Wiki rules" while simultaneously violating them requires a certain level of chutzpah.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah, wow: this victim is the same Bryonmorriganwho started off the debate with this attack: "It furthers this new revisionist "Glenn Beck" slant of history where somehow...through intellectual dishonesty...the Abolitionists were "Conservatives," a view of history of no more validity than David Irving's views on the Holocaust." I suggest that Bryonmorrigan has not read the RS and makes up false allegations as he goes along. For example, on  T Harry Williams he says "Williams has written an extremely pro-CSA book, often referring to the opponents of slavery derogatorily as "Jacobins," and writing that they "rejoiced in Lincoln's death," as well as using a host of other ridiculously POV phrases, such as the "crusade of hate" (p.255) against slavery. The book is essentially a textbook example of the now thoroughly discredited Dunning school of Civil War history."  Nasty falsehoods. Actually Williams was a Yankee from the Wisconsin School, a strong supporter of Lincoln and a leading OPPONENT of the Dunning school. (See Novick That Noble Dream p 349) . Rjensen (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, you might be right about Williams...but that book is hardly objective. I started counting the number of times that I found the pejorative "Jacobins" leveled at the Radical Republicans, and lost track sometime after 20.  Plus, all of the phrases that I quoted from that text are indeed in there.  I made nothing up.  Finally, I stand by my earlier statement.  The idea that the Abolitionists were in any way "Conservative" or "Right-Wing" is ludicrous, and of no more historical merit than any of Irving's half-baked conspiracy theories about "The Jews."  Surely you can't believe otherwise, as I believe even you have referred to the Abolitionists as representing the Left.  Oh, and I'm no "victim," chief, but rather a sincere fan of "unintentional irony."  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that The idea that the Abolitionists were in any way "Conservative" or "Right-Wing" is ludicrous -- I consider them radicals. Foner The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery(2010) has a good discussion of this issue around p 85. Foner sees Lincoln  in the 1850s as a moderate closer to the Conservative Republicans than to the Radicals.  Williams makes a good case that the Radicals fought Lincoln tooth and nail--and indeed some Radicals cheered when he died because he was the main obstacle to Radical success. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

While I think my version of the Civil War section is closer to the consensus view that the version it replaces, I'm happy to have it rewritten to improve it. However, given the examples cited by Bryonmorrigan showing that the cited sources do not support the POV of the earlier version, it is not acceptable to just revert the rewrite and restore the discredited version.

The illogic of Rjensen's attacks is shown by his characterization of Bryonmorrigan's mention of "Birth of a Nation" as citing "Birth of a Nation"! We have two choices. We can accept Rjensen's paragraph or we can replace it. Changing Rjensen's mind through debate is simply not going to happen. I say this based on long years of experience. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Norwood's personal attacks are not helpful. I'm so superconfident because I actually read the RS, something Norwood has not yet done. He projects his own personal views on what history OUGHT to be, with a special emphasis on delegitimizing conservatives. (for example by denying that high-prestige people like Lincoln could possible be honored heroes to conservatives today). Rjensen (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlike your very personal attacks on Bryonmorrigan and myself, my criticism was not of you but of very specific actions you took on these pages, to wit, using references that did not support the statements you claimed they supported and using illogical arguments to attack Bryonmorrigan (and now myself).

I have never said any of the things you accuse me of saying.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)