How conservative are you?

[MaggieMae]

I have to clarify my understanding.

I come from a culture that has a parliamentary system that until a few years ago had at its core the idea that the public service ("civil service" in the UK) was nonpartisan (pause for laughter) and that the public service (government departments and their permanent heads) simply carried out whatever policy positions the government of the day required (after those positions had been approved by the parliament via the legislative process).

I'm used to political parties having distinct philosophical differences (again at least until a few years ago).

In a sense those philosophical differences - historically - could have been described as "conservative" or "progressive", at least in terms of their innate tendencies. Policy could be analysed, discussed, dissected and presented without positions being pre-fabricated. Conservatives would take, unsurprisingly, a conservative position on an issue; progressives would take a progressive position. But the issues didn't define the tendencies, the tendencies defined the issues. So, for example, abortion wouldn't be automatically opposed by conservatives and approved by progressives; there had to be discussion and debate on the issues rather than their being held up as shibboleths to be defended or attacked as the case may be.

I see American politics as defining itself by its positions on issues and not by its tendencies. Anti-abortion is "conservative", pro-abortion is "progressive". This leads to confusion.

I am a conservative therefore I'm against women being able to choose an abortion (within medically approved limits).

I am a progressive therefore I approve a woman being able to choose an abortion (within medically approved limits).

The issues aren't discussed, sandbags are arranged, ammunition is readied, war is declared.

Conservatism is a philosophy that can be applied to any public policy issue quite satisfactorily to devise a rational policy position. Authoritarianism is an attitude which sets up a pre-determined approach to any public policy issue without regard to proper analysis of the issue itself.

Many Americans who call themselves "conservatives" are not conservatives at all. They are authoritarians who pretend to be conservative.

It's indeed a strange phenomena that we're lumped into these little boxes with either/or on the labels, when in fact I think many Democrats oppose abortion and many Republicans are pro-choice (using only your example, but there are tons of others). Maybe it's the way the public has come to rely so heavily on polls being an accurate measurement on the issues. Polls, after all, are only a snapshot but we're all guilty of eagerly posting ones that favor our personal opinions as if the latest poll is the "last word," so shut up.

 

[MaggieMae]

You're right ed - what's needed is a good theory of historical change, it seems to me that the terms we continually use - conservative or progressive - are relative to the times in which they're used. Having said that though I am always drawn to Burke when it comes to trying to define what a "conservative" is at any time or indeed in any place. It's a philosophy and not simply a set of policy views rooted in time and place.

Conservatism and liberalism are NOT a phiosophies.

They descrive propensities toward wanting things to remain the same or to change.

If you live in a communist or capitalist dictatorship and you like it?

You're a conservative.

If you live in a communist or capitalist dictatorship and want it to change?

You're a liberal.

If I don't like change I can be called conservative. If I want change I can be called a progressive. I could also be called (a) a grumpy stick in the mud or (b) a starry-eyed dreamer. Any of those labels can be applied - but they're essentially meaningless because they describe a tendency and not a policy position.

In Poland just before the end of communism Lech Walesa was seen as a radical. The communist government was seen as conservative. Solidarity was economically liberal (or neoclassical in the economic sense) while the government was Marxist. The neoclassicals were, in this instance, radical, the Marxist government was conservative. But those terms - radical and conservative - are defined in relative terms, they aren't objectively describing the policy positions of each.

My point is that people who claim to be "conservative" can actually be radical (or more likely 'reactionary'). While conservatism in the Burkean sense emphasises individual liberty (and let's not forget that J.S. Mill was an economic as well as a philosophical liberal) and government-light, Americans who call themselves "conservative" can actually hold policy positions which are authoritarian and anti-individual, anathema to the Burkean conservative. Authoritarian reactionaries is what they really are.

I had forgotten about that period and how it confused a lot of people. Lech Walesa was a Socialist (by today's standards) fighting against a Marxist government? My parents had a hard time sorting through that one, but most Americans rallied for Walesa, the underdog rebel who took on his entire government.

 

[ErikViking]

This thread went overboard in the first post. It is my fault. The idea of using the label "conservative" was stupid, it only stirred things up. I even asked this thread to be locked since it ended up having no ground for discussion.

I should also have been more clear about the purpose and specified I was thinking American history. Also mixing "soft values" failed. Perhaps it had been better off with "Size of government" or something. Enough with the apology.

Anyway, the poll as it went was interesting in one way: I could never anticipate that there would be votes going in for 100 and 200 years back. That is pretty cool in a way. If I wanted to go there I would talk about decentralization, a network based union where states would be nodes where the government perhaps stood for wiering. Self sufficiency and local stability.

Maybe we can put this thread to rest now. I am going to make another poll on another matter, much more elaborated and thought through!

 

[Diuretic]

I thought it helped clarify a few things Erik. May be it didn't go where you intended but I think it has had some benefit.

 

[EriktheRed]

If you live in a communist or capitalist dictatorship and you like it? You're a conservative. If you live in a communist or capitalist dictatorship and want it to change? You're a liberal.

Thank you so much. I am so encouraged to find others who understand what these terms really mean and don't allow pundits/political hacks to re-define the terms in order to try to advance their own agenda.

I would suggest that if the original posters wants to find out how far back people have to go to find a period in American history that is more closely aligned with their own political philosophy, it would be accurate to say, "How reactionary are you."

Conservative = A desire to maintain the status quo
Liberal = Someone who supports incremental change
Reactionary = Someone who wants to turn back the clock
Radical = Someone who advocates sweeping change

First off there are many different definitions over both geografy, context and time regarding the terminology. But for some people - and today in the USA you would probaly call yourself conservative - there has been a time in the past that suites their view of how society should be.

Some people say that America, during the eighties saw a great time and would love to see it come to that again. No one seriously think we can travel through time: of course a strive for the eighties requires a progressive push forward - but with goals from the past.

A little OT, but I'm curious: Do you have a vocal minority in Sweden who argues for bringing a more laissez faire economic policy like we have in the U.S.? And do they get as nasty as some of the Cons here do?

 

[ErikViking]

A little OT, but I'm curious: Do you have a vocal minority in Sweden who argues for bringing a more laissez faire economic policy like we have in the U.S.? And do they get as nasty as some of the Cons here do?

I had to do some reading of what laissez faire economic mean... I am not sure I understand it fully though. We have a government moving for less government control in that more and more things are transferred to private enterprice. That ranges from industry to retirement funds.

In the time of economic crisis however, the government try to inject tax money where it would serve best. Like supporting banks by lending money and things like that.

There is no vocal minority/majority to speak about, although some think the "privatation" goes too fast. Remember, administrating Sweden can't be compared to administrating USA. Sweden has a population close to that of Georgias.

What is most similar to American conservatives would be the christian democrats party and they focus mainly on family issues from what I can tell.

Someone with a foot in both countries can probably give you a better comparison though.

Hoped this helped in any way?