What Exactly Is Conservatism?

[exchemist]

I think you're being a bit harsh. Carl has said some decent stuff and it is worth listening to.

Hmm. Reading this: Carl Benjamin - Wikipedia , I must say he strikes me as an 88mm, self-propelled arsehole.

At any rate, he and Disraeli seem to have zero in common. I'll stick with Disraeli.

 

[Rival]

Hmm. Reading this: Carl Benjamin - Wikipedia , I must say he strikes me as an 88mm, self-propelled arsehole.

At any rate, he and Disraeli seem to have zero in common. I'll stick with Disraeli.

I only came across him first on Lotus Eaters and he talks well and has apparently matured a lot. His ideas are well read, his philosophical knowledge is good and he's a bit more chilled. I think we may owe some forgiveness, is all I'm saying. If you looked back on some of my old stuff, well, that wouldn't be great innings either.

At any rate, wiki doesn't tend to go easy on conservatives.

 

[Rival]

For more clarification...

I see a lot of people equating conservatism with Neo-Liberal, Thatcherite economics. This is a very recent development in the history of conservatism and represents only one branch of conservative economics. It is by no means a representation of all mainstream conservative capitalism, but has unfortunately become the one we are most familiar with since it came into force in the 1970s. I will list some basic examples:

Red Tory - Wikipedia
Paternalistic conservatism - Wikipedia
Progressive conservatism - Wikipedia
Liberal conservatism - Wikipedia

These in themselves have many outgrowths.

Modern political parties are odd compared to the Victorian ones of Disraeli or even the early 20th century, when compromise was common and seen as necessary. Whilst we may conceptualise Whigs and Tories in the same way we see Labour and Tories, they were not the same. Political parties were not the coherent, static groups we see today - they were entanglements of people who vaguely agreed with each other but had no underlying principle. Thus we see the Whigs changing from pro to anti imperialist stances within a few decades, iirc. Nowadays the groups are frozen and feel the need to stick rigidly to predefined ideologies that simply did not exist as rigidly as before.

This in mind, the modern conception of conservatism, Thatcherism, may be seen as a response to rising interest in socialism in an era where the Soviet Union still existed - thus the polarised parties; anything to do with socialism became abhorrent to many Western minds and thus unjustifiable. This has also led to problems such as no longer being able to have parties like Old Labour (socially conservative, fiscally left) or One-Nation or other such groups, because to the modern mind the idea of 'socially left, fiscally right' or the reverse makes little sense given we now put people in ideological boxes that don't allow for these kinds of nuances anymore, so you end up with consistently polarised parties that refuse to admit people with very different beliefs, when this never used to be the case.

Today, by many in the US, I may as well be some kind of socialist. I'm not, but such is the polarisation that in modern terms I may as well be.

This is the problem.

 

[exchemist]

For more clarification...

I see a lot of people equating conservatism with Neo-Liberal, Thatcherite economics. This is a very recent development in the history of conservatism and represents only one branch of conservative economics. It is by no means a representation of all mainstream conservative capitalism, but has unfortunately become the one we are most familiar with since it came into force in the 1970s. I will list some basic examples:

Red Tory - Wikipedia
Paternalistic conservatism - Wikipedia
Progressive conservatism - Wikipedia
Liberal conservatism - Wikipedia

These in themselves have many outgrowths.

Modern political parties are odd compared to the Victorian ones of Disraeli or even the early 20th century, when compromise was common and seen as necessary. Whilst we may conceptualise Whigs and Tories in the same way we see Labour and Tories, they were not the same. Political parties were not the coherent, static groups we see today - they were entanglements of people who vaguely agreed with each other but had no underlying principle. Thus we see the Whigs changing from pro to anti imperialist stances within a few decades, iirc. Nowadays the groups are frozen and feel the need to stick rigidly to predefined ideologies that simply did not exist as rigidly as before.

This in mind, the modern conception of conservatism, Thatcherism, may be seen as a response to rising interest in socialism in an era where the Soviet Union still existed - thus the polarised parties; anything to do with socialism became abhorrent to many Western minds and thus unjustifiable. This has also led to problems such as no longer being able to have parties like Old Labour (socially conservative, fiscally left) or One-Nation or other such groups, because to the modern mind the idea of 'socially left, fiscally right' or the reverse makes little sense given we now put people in ideological boxes that don't allow for these kinds of nuances anymore, so you end up with consistently polarised parties that refuse to admit people with very different beliefs, when this never used to be the case.

Today, by many in the US, I may as well be some kind of socialist. I'm not, but such is the polarisation that in modern terms I may as well be.

This is the problem.

As one who lived through it, my impression of Thatcherism is that it was largely a recognition that the UK economy was failing due to constant government intervention. She thought, rightly as it turned out, that the way to improve the quality of industrial management and to stop the unions dragging government into industrial disputes - often involving government subsidies to deservedly failing businesses - was to get the government out of the process and let the market decide which businesses would survive. It was accompanied by the use of interest rates to stamp out inflation, without attempting to ameliorate the consequences, leading to a recession and a rise in unemployment. But economically it worked. I left the UK in 1983 and returned from the Middle East in 1987 and the change was dramatic. Gone were the long management lunch hours, often with alcohol. Gone were the union disputes. The London rush hour had moved from 9am-5pm to 8am-6pm. People were working instead of whining and management and workers seemed to have a common purpose. I was impressed!

It seems to me Thatcherism, at least initially, was as much a reaction against the managerial Toryism of Heath as it was to the gentle semi-socialism of Wilson and Callaghan. But then I think it grew from there, in the minds of the Conservative party, as a notion that a bracing dose of free market competition could solve all problems, from the railways to the health service. They had a new tool and couldn't resist trying it on everything.

I do not believe the British public ever became much polarised on ideological lines, though Thatcher was never forgiven in the North of England and Scotland for the way the dominant rust belt industries were left to die without any real help to address the social consequences. People had a go at regeneration in places e.g. the London Docklands and Heseltine's efforts in Liverpool, but it was never a national programme. By then, the dogma was that that was not the job of government! But I never heard people in the pub really taking sides on ideology like that.

 

[Rival]

As one who lived through it, my impression of Thatcherism is that it was largely a recognition that the UK economy was failing due to constant government intervention. She thought, rightly as it turned out, that the way to improve the quality of industrial management and to stop the unions dragging government into industrial disputes - often involving government subsidies to deservedly failing businesses - was to get the government out of the process and let the market decide which businesses would survive. It was accompanied by the use of interest rates to stamp out inflation, without attempting to ameliorate the consequences, leading to a recession and a rise in unemployment. But economically it worked. I left the UK in 1983 and returned from the Middle East in 1987 and the change was dramatic. Gone were the long management lunch hours, often with alcohol. Gone were the union disputes. The London rush hour had moved from 9am-5pm to 8am-6pm. People were working instead of whining and management and workers seemed to have a common purpose. I was impressed!

It seems to me Thatcherism, at least initially, was as much a reaction against the managerial Toryism of Heath as it was to the gentle semi-socialism of Wilson and Callaghan. But then I think it grew from there, in the minds of the Conservative party, as a notion that a bracing dose of free market competition could solve all problems, from the railways to the health service. They had a new tool and couldn't resist trying it on everything.

I do not believe the British public ever became much polarised on ideological lines, though Thatcher was never forgiven in the North of England and Scotland for the way the dominant rust belt industries were left to die without any real help to address the social consequences. People had a go at regeneration in places e.g. the London Docklands and Heseltine's efforts in Liverpool, but it was never a national programme. By then, the dogma was that that was not the job of government! But I never heard people in the pub really taking sides on ideology like that.

I'm talking more about our current polarisations that have arisen over time due to these factors. Certainly we can say Thatcher and Reagan had an ideology of a kind that, as you rightly note, has now been applied to everything in a way even Thatcher would have found absurd. We seem to have reached a point where ideology overtakes pragmatism and social justice.

 

[exchemist]

I'm talking more about our current polarisations that have arisen over time due to these factors. Certainly we can say Thatcher and Reagan had an ideology of a kind that, as you rightly note, has now been applied to everything in a way even Thatcher would have found absurd. We seem to have reached a point where ideology overtakes pragmatism and social justice.

Yes! Leaving the Single Market, which was largely Thatcher's own brainchild.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We can also add the George Soros donor type who may be calling some of the shots.

Keep bringing up such boogeymen and anti-semitism is why so many can't take Conservatives seriously, and even express hostility towards them. Such as, Soros has really done nothing more than donate to Dems and be born a Jew. But he gets singled out by Cons.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think you're being a bit harsh. Carl has said some decent stuff and it is worth listening to.

The links speak for themselves, in my opinion. Do you think someone who has said and done the things he has is a good representative of conservatism?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think we may owe some forgiveness, is all I'm saying. If you looked back on some of my old stuff, well, that wouldn't be great innings either.

His social media are still full of the same kind of rhetoric as before. He hasn't become less hateful or immature, from what I've seen.

At any rate, wiki doesn't tend to go easy on conservatives.

There are various examples of his issues aside from Wikipedia.

The reason I'm so firm in my criticism of him is that I think it's quite harmful to legitimize such malicious, bad-faith actors whether they be conservative or otherwise. It doesn't reflect well on any political camp to embrace someone who has done things like minimizing the Holocaust or engaging in harassment against a YouTuber he didn't like.

 

[Debater Slayer]

At any rate, he and Disraeli seem to have zero in common. I'll stick with Disraeli.

You're not alone.

I have actually found some ideas of Disraeli's pretty convincing even though I lean left myself, and his arguments seem to me quite well-reasoned overall even when I disagree with some of them. It's unfortunate that many conservative public figures nowadays have become reactionary demagogues instead. I suspect the ease of access to social media also exarcebates this deterioration.

 

[Rival]

His social media are still full of the same kind of rhetoric as before. He hasn't become less hateful or immature, from what I've seen.



There are various examples of his issues aside from Wikipedia.

The reason I'm so firm in my criticism of him is that I think it's quite harmful to legitimize such malicious, bad-faith actors whether they be conservative or otherwise. It doesn't reflect well on any political camp to embrace someone who has done things like minimizing the Holocaust or engaging in harassment against a YouTuber he didn't like.

I will be honest in saying these things probably bother you then a bit more than they bother me. I just accept this as a fact of political life on the internet. I forgive and accept their better side and listen to what people have to say. I have a kind of emotional bluntness here because I just don't know these people. If intellectually their ideas speak to me, that's kind of it. If he'd planned a murder that'd be different (BoJo had a journalist assaulted, for instance, when still young).

But in the main, I kind of just come to accept that not all of my intellectual sources will be saints.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I will be honest in saying these things probably bother you then a bit more than they bother me. I just accept this as a fact of political life on the internet. I forgive and accept their better side and listen to what people have to say. I have a kind of emotional bluntness here because I just don't know these people. If intellectually their ideas speak to me, that's kind of it.

I prefer to leave forgiveness for such things up to those affected most by the actions and words in question. It's not my call to make, and he hasn't apologized for what he did to begin with.

While people like him will always exist, I don't think that means it should just be okay to legitimize or settle for him as a good spokesperson for a political camp or a good example thereof. Such actions and misunderstandings don't bother me for merely emotional reasons; they bother me because they carry real harm to a lot of people, including ones I care about (e.g., Jewish and LGBT friends).

 

[Rival]

I prefer to leave forgiveness for such things up to those affected most by the actions and words in question. It's not my call to make.

While people like him will always exist, I don't think that means it should just be okay to legitimize or settle for him as a good spokesperson for a political camp or a good example thereof. Such actions and misunderstandings don't bother me for merely emotional reasons; they bother me because they carry real harm to a lot of people, including ones I care about (e.g., Jewish and LGBT friends).

I think you're looking at this from an angle I would reject.

I don't hold him up as an example or a representation or spokesman. I just said he gave a good answer to what conservatism is. If Jacob Rees Mogg, who I dislike, had given such an answer I'd have alerted you to his video. Carl's actions don't affect whether his answer to 'what is conservatism' is correct. It has no bearing whatsoever. I'm not saying 'and this means I support everything else Carl did' or that he's some kind of conservative saint.

We live in a culture that has a huge focus on representation but I don't care about representation. Carl doesn't represent me. I am more than willing to throw people out as much as I am willing to accept what they say as intellectually good, despite having thrown them under the bus for other things.

If one wants to learn about Communism, at some point or other one will come upon Lenin, who was pretty horrible. Yet this doesn't deter from the fact that his writings have propelled modern communists and are still read and held up as examples of Communist ideology. It doesn't man they support the Red Terror.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think you're looking at this from an angle I would reject.

I don't hold him up as an example or a representation or spokesman. I just said he gave a good answer to what conservatism is. If Jacob Rees Mogg, who I dislike, had given such an answer I'd have alerted you to his video. Carl's actions don't affect whether his answer to 'what is conservatism' is correct. It has no bearing whatsoever. I'm not saying 'and this means I support everything else Carl did' or that he's some kind of conservative saint.

We live in a culture that has a huge focus on representation but I don't care about representation. Carl doesn't represent me. I am more than willing to throw people out as much as I am willing to accept what they say as intellectually good, despite having thrown them under the bus for other things.

If one wants to learn about Communism, at some point or other one will come upon Lenin, who was pretty horrible. Yet this doesn't deter from the fact that his writings have propelled modern communists and are still read and held up as examples of Communist ideology. It doesn't man they support the Red Terror.

That's fair enough if we just focus on his definition of conservatism rather than his overall worldview. I do think presentation matters for public figures and influential people (at least if they want to be drivers of positive social or political change), but I agree that borrowing some points from someone doesn't have to entail supporting them in general.

 

[sun rise]

I'm mostly a liberal, but can appreciate conservatism as an ideal and as a practice in it's original form. Every society needs to be able to preserve and maintain it's core values and processes or it will soon disintegrate. And I believe this is the original intent of conservatives.

That being said, however, every society also needs to be able to adapt to the constant changes and innovations of time and human ingenuity. And the conservatives tend to want to stand in the way of that, as it is their nature. And they must not be allowed to do so indefinitely. Or society will stagnate, and wither, until it becomes irrelevant.

So what we really need is a reasonable balance between the strength of conservatism and the adaptability of liberalism.

By the way, what is currently being called conservatism in the U S these days is not conservatism. It's radical rightist extremism falsely claiming to be conservatism. Jan 6 proves that in spades.

I basically agree. Any healthy organism and that includes people and nations needs to flexibly adapt to change but not chase after unproven ideas. For the most part and over the long term, the UK's political evolution was reasonably close to that. France, OTOH, lurched between extremes for quite a while.

And I really agree with your last paragraph. SCOTUS has turned from a basically conservative institution that put great stock in precedent into a radical overthrowing of precedent and acting to make law rather than interpreting it.