How do you Justify Conservatism?

[Great Minarchistan]

Economical conservatism or cultural/social conservatism? Because while the first is benefitial, the second is.... ugh, bad.

[Brisketistan]

Simply, obey by the law and abide by the Constitution.

[Great Minarchistan]

Simply, obey by the law and abide by the Constitution.

Not everything written in Constitution is good/true. Follow the Constitution blindly without any different thought is the best way to form a generation of narrow-minded, degenerated people.

[Aelex]

And that's not a compelling justification, insofar as it reveals that conservatism is useless as a tool to improve circumstances. It's a glorified obstacle, cowardly inaction in ideological form.

>Implying liberalism is not a glorified reckless rush, rushing reforms just because they're new without any second thoughts on whether they will be positive or not. Better be an Oblomov than a blind man joyfully running toward a cliff.

[Pandeeria]

Simply, obey by the law and abide by the Constitution.

You must be quite the free-thinking, independent individual that doesn't mindlessly follow orders from the top, no. I bet you that you'd be one of the self-aware, good guys in dystopian books. Yeah, definitely.

[Feriq]

And that's not a compelling justification, insofar as it reveals that conservatism is useless as a tool to improve circumstances. It's a glorified obstacle, cowardly inaction in ideological form.

>Implying liberalism is not a glorified reckless rush, rushing reforms just because they're new without any second thoughts on whether they will be positive or not. Better be an Oblomov than a blind man joyfully running toward a cliff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

[Aelex]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

How so very kind of you to provide sources backing up my point. :^D

[Feriq]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

How so very kind of you to provide sources backing up my point. :^D

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Whereas classical liberalism emphasises the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality.[4] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.
Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, South America, and North America.[13] In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism later survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state.[14][15] Today, liberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world.

None of that even remotely translates to: "Liberalism means rushing out stoopid reforms we don't know will work!"

[Slopuba]

How so very kind of you to provide sources backing up my point. :^D

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Whereas classical liberalism emphasises the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality.[4] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.
Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, South America, and North America.[13] In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism later survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state.[14][15] Today, liberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world.

None of that even remotely translates to: "Liberalism means rushing out stoopid reforms we don't know will work!"

You are very good at Copy-And-Paste.

No, It doesn't say that but how this guy described it and the interpretation of an ideology largely contributes to the factor that everyone believes that Liberalism is like rushing off a cliff.

For me change is not always good as change involves removing things that were there beforehand and might be lost forever. Conservatism is for me most of the time the answer to any political issue.

[Settrah]

Conservatism can literally mean several different things depending on what country, context or branch of conservatism it's applied to.

Like, say, I would support fiscal conservatism more than I would social conservatism, so I would justify the former but not the latter.

And the context of my country, the UK, is more progressive than say that of (at random) Australia. So I would support conservatism in the UK but not in Australia.

It's not as simple as just saying you support or are against conservatism globally and universally.

[Aelex]

None of that even remotely translates to: "Liberalism means rushing out stoopid reforms we don't know will work!"

Please, don't be so proud of your "gotchas!" when they're so awfully bad. None of that copy-pasted shit disprove in any way the points I made, quite the contrary rather.

[Feriq]

I think your argument is a strawman. Feriq is criticising the anti-reform mindset of conservatives whilst you are equating that means Feriq is advocating for reforms 24/7/365. I don't think Feriq anywhere mentioned undergoing reforms because of reform's sake.

And you'd be wrong. The very first sentence is nothing more than "new is always better"

I think most people can agree that the status quo is almost always awful, so how can anyone subscribe to a political ideology that basically scorns reform?

Status Quo:

Predatory lending run rampant
http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... dator.html

Unsustainable Correctional facilities
http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content ... ctions.pdf

Horrendous Health
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Atrocious Secondary Education
https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11 ... on-america
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015144.pdf

My statement was not at all that change is always better. My statement was that stagnation is always horrible. Everything can be improved and everything should be improved, I don't understand how people can be satisfied with the status quo regardless of their political philosophy. You can disagree with certain changes but I don't understand how you can be opposed to change in general when it is so patently obvious that inefficiencies moral wrongdoings are everywhere.

[Feriq]

None of that even remotely translates to: "Liberalism means rushing out stoopid reforms we don't know will work!"

Please, don't be so proud of your "gotchas!" when they're so awfully bad. None of that copy-pasted shit disprove in any way the points I made, quite the contrary rather.

What in the text specifically backs up your point.

[Slopuba]

And you'd be wrong. The very first sentence is nothing more than "new is always better"

I think most people can agree that the status quo is almost always awful, so how can anyone subscribe to a political ideology that basically scorns reform?

Status Quo:

Predatory lending run rampant
http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... dator.html

Unsustainable Correctional facilities
http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content ... ctions.pdf

Horrendous Health
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Atrocious Secondary Education
https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11 ... on-america
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015144.pdf

My statement was not at all that change is always better. My statement was that stagnation is always horrible. Everything can be improved and everything should be improved, I don't understand how people can be satisfied with the status quo regardless of their political philosophy. You can disagree with certain changes but I don't understand how you can be opposed to change in general when it is so patently obvious that inefficiencies moral wrongdoings are everywhere.

The point of Conservatism isn't to halt Improvement but to halt rampant rise of other ideologies, societies and ideas of some sorts that are a threat to current values and ideas that the nation holds dear. Sometimes improvements can be made by Conservatism because of its rational view on politics as while Liberalism fanfares its progressive behavior while running a nation to the ground.

I despise the Status Quo but Liberalism in my country has brought this Status Quo by being a subordinate of the European Union and abiding by its laws instead of the laws of my country.

[Feriq]

Status Quo:

Predatory lending run rampant
http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... dator.html

Unsustainable Correctional facilities
http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content ... ctions.pdf

Horrendous Health
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Atrocious Secondary Education
https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11 ... on-america
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015144.pdf

My statement was not at all that change is always better. My statement was that stagnation is always horrible. Everything can be improved and everything should be improved, I don't understand how people can be satisfied with the status quo regardless of their political philosophy. You can disagree with certain changes but I don't understand how you can be opposed to change in general when it is so patently obvious that inefficiencies moral wrongdoings are everywhere.

The point of Conservatism isn't to halt Improvement but to halt rampant rise of other ideologies, societies and ideas of some sorts that are a threat to current values and ideas that the nation holds dear. Sometimes improvements can be made by Conservatism because of its rational view on politics as while Liberalism fanfares its progressive behavior while running a nation to the ground.

I despise the Status Quo but Liberalism in my country has brought this Status Quo by being a subordinate of the European Union and abiding by its laws instead of the laws of my country.

What laws are set by the EU that violate your Country's laws?

[Slopuba]

The point of Conservatism isn't to halt Improvement but to halt rampant rise of other ideologies, societies and ideas of some sorts that are a threat to current values and ideas that the nation holds dear. Sometimes improvements can be made by Conservatism because of its rational view on politics as while Liberalism fanfares its progressive behavior while running a nation to the ground.

I despise the Status Quo but Liberalism in my country has brought this Status Quo by being a subordinate of the European Union and abiding by its laws instead of the laws of my country.

What laws are set by the EU that violate your Country's laws?

Oh, you see, just our whole democratic system. I come from Switzerland and we have a direct democracy. That means the people can vote nearly about everything. European Laws forbid that because if Switzerland would have a vote about, say, Schengen or current Freizügikeit we simply couldn't. Current Liberals and socialists are strictly against any votes on these topics and we currently had one. The Masseneinwanderungsinitiative in which immigration would have been a bit strighter and a maximum for immigrants would have been set. It passed and it was on the Bundesrat (Which is still highly socialist and liberal) to actually make this reality. They didn't do jackshit and said that the European Union is way to harsh and strict on their own terms which actually meant that they sat on their arses and went on about trade agreements even if our very democracy is at risk there. That is why I hate socialists and liberals. Anti-Nation and Anti-Democratic hypocrits, all of them.

[Liriena]

And that's not a compelling justification, insofar as it reveals that conservatism is useless as a tool to improve circumstances. It's a glorified obstacle, cowardly inaction in ideological form.

>Implying liberalism is not a glorified reckless rush, rushing reforms just because they're new without any second thoughts on whether they will be positive or not. Better be an Oblomov than a blind man joyfully running toward a cliff.

I wasn't consciously implying that... but if you really want to speak about liberalism, I would say that you are wrong, insofar as you seem to be under the impression that (a) liberalism and conservatism are mutually exclusive and (b) liberalism generally and inherently embraces radical reformism.

One can be simultaneously conservative and liberal in circumstances where liberal ideals and policy represent the status quo. Such was the case, for instance, with the Generation of 1880 in Argentina: a formerly liberal elite that became the conservative elite once they became the ruling class and their ideals reshaped the nation.

[Hyggemata]

Conservatism, defined as the arrest of progress, can be quite alluring for people who can't see a better future.

Or for people who see a better future that is NOT the one currently envisioned by mainstream liberalism at the moment.

Are we actually talking about progressive/reactionary or liberal/conservative? There is a difference; the Nazis deemed themselves very progressive. The USA mainstream is anything but liberal in the whole world's opinion. Not all progress is beneficial, but the rejection of progress itself or endorsement of retrogression is simply intolerable. As a whole mankind is better off now than 40,000 years ago, and I can't accept that conservatism has actually advanced us this far.