Page 1 of 7
How do you Justify Conservatism?
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:15 pmby Feriq
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? What value is there in tradition for tradition's sake? I can understand holding some conservative/traditional stances/opinions (Favoring the Nuclear family, Maintaining a strong standing military, Spending money prudently) but not as a worldview. The value in tradition lies in its
effectiveness ability to effectively contribute to the advancement of humanity and the search for objective truth. Otherwise, it doesn't have value. Reform should always be actively sought out because nothing is ever finished, etc.
So conservatives of Nation States, how do you justify conservatism as an overarching philosophy?
Edit: Honestly, I think my problem in understanding this lies more in the fact that it seems liberalism and conservatism have become meaningless terms that exist solely to encourage group think and ad homs. Conservatism should be taken literally as is defined, and its application as a political indicator should be given a specific context.
I used to literal definition of conservatism in this thread
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConservatismI don't really see how anyone can justify these perspectives as being valuable for their own right. But again...
Honestly, I think my problem in understanding this lies more in the fact that it seems liberalism and conservatism have become meaningless terms that exist solely to encourage group think and ad homs. Conservatism should be taken literally as is defined, and its application as a political indicator should be given a specific context.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:20 pmby United Marxist Nations
It would depend what you mean by conservatism. I would call myself a conservative in that I think Christian morality should be encouraged and preserved, because I think that morality is good in-itself.
I would say that the argument that tradition is only good if effective doesn't make sense. Effective at what, precisely? It is certainly effective for what it is designed for, the problem is that many people in our society want to abandon what it is designed for (e.g. the traditional family, organized religion, etc.).
It is a much bigger issue than what you are making out to be, because it isn't just "reform vs tradition", it's an entire system of values and thought against another.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:24 pmby Yorkers
Feriq wrote:I think most people can agree that the status quo is almost always awful
lmao
Feriq wrote:so how can anyone subscribe to a political ideology that basically scorns reform?
Because not all reforms are good.
Feriq wrote:What value is there in tradition for tradition's sake?
Because traditions provide a sense of identity, community, and stability, and are often preferable to an alternative.
Feriq wrote:I can understand holding some conservative/traditional stances/opinions (Favoring the Nuclear family, Maintaining a strong standing military, Spending money prudently) but not as a worldview.
Here, you demonstrate you have no idea what conservatism is.
Feriq wrote:The value in tradition lies in its effectiveness, and if it isn't effective, it doesn't have value.
How do you decide if it isn't effective? What if people disagree with you?
Feriq wrote:Reform should always be actively sought out because nothing is ever finished, etc.
A pretty dangerous way to view the world.
Feriq wrote:So conservatives of Nation States, how do you justify conservatism as an overarching philosophy?
Because it is superior to liberalism.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:30 pmby Aelex
Quite easily. Conservatism is all about taking your time to think and weight the outcomes both positives and negatives of reforms so to only adopt the most beneficial ones for society at the best time rather than rushing them all just for the sake of rushing them all as not everything that is newer is better.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:36 pmby Feriq
Aelex wrote:Quite easily. Conservatism is all about taking your time to think and weight the outcomes both positives and negatives of reforms so to only adopt the most beneficial ones for society at the best time rather than rushing them all just for the sake of rushing them all as not everything that is newer is better.
"a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics."
Doesn't seem synonymous with cautious.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:43 pmby Aelex
Feriq wrote:Aelex wrote:Quite easily. Conservatism is all about taking your time to think and weight the outcomes both positives and negatives of reforms so to only adopt the most beneficial ones for society at the best time rather than rushing them all just for the sake of rushing them all as not everything that is newer is better.
"a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics."
Doesn't seem synonymous with cautious.
Nice definition you pulled out of your ass. Still doesn't invalidate in the slightest the fact that if people are conservatives it's because they aren't ready to buy up on any new trend immediately just because it's new.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:05 pmby The United States of the South Pole
I'm tying myself to them for now as I don't like the newly founded globalist yet still highly regulated economy the democrats set up and I'm looking forward to the right protectionist economy young republicans are for. Overall though, I consider myself more Libertarian on social issues than anything with a few more nationalist and environmental ideals. However, I do heavily disagree with you claiming Conservatism is the status quo as of society right now. We may have a Republican in house, senate, and presidential office, but I see that more as failures on the Democrats part, being unwilling to listen to the rural worker or the older, more moderate democrat. The Education system and the Entertainment Industry will still be largely liberal so we can't expect any big cultural changes. The History books would sooner call out America's Red Scare than go into how bad Russia or China started their Communist revolts, English Teachers will still claim to be against Gun Corporations making profit off the war while being against "Inwards thinking politicians", Youtuber and Indie bands will write political tweets directed towards children.
In my solid blue state at least, the average republican has a lot more to say, and a lot more structured criticisms of their own party than the average democrat in the area has to say about the republicans or the dems. I think it's important to remember the party is not the people, and to remember that the Republicans and Democrats are both big tents with many different factions and groups they have to compromise with in between them.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:11 pmby The United States of the South Pole
Aelex wrote:Feriq wrote:"a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics."
Doesn't seem synonymous with cautious.
Nice definition you pulled out of your ass. Still doesn't invalidate in the slightest the fact that if people are conservatives it's because they aren't ready to buy up on any new trend immediately just because it's new.
Have to agree there. I believe it's natural, healthy even, for the next generation to want more freedom than the last. But there are a lot of issues I have no idea why Democrats are against. Right to decline service is understandable, the most they've probably ever heard about it was a movie or joke in which an openly homophobic man would be both for right to decline service and against gay marriage, then profoundly state he wouldn't let a homosexual in his store to dehumanize the issue even more. Gun control is the biggest one though. Many view taking away all assault weapons, shotguns, or even just pistols away from the people as perfectly reasonable. Missing the intent of the amendment to allow the people to start a revolt when the people deem it necessary.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:20 pmby Ashmoria
true conservatism is a good ideology. it advocates stability and gradual change. that's a good idea for a big stable country like the US where our problems are solvable with gradual changes.
what passes for conservatism in the US today is a horrorshow of radical reactionaryism. that's a very bad thing and indefensible on the grounds of being bad for the country.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:25 pmby Crylante
British-style one-nation conservatism is tolerable in my mind, as it advocates a sense of community and social equality, and it's not completely against change. Reaganist conservatism is a terrible way to run a country in my mind, as it leads to a disaffected and discontent lower class who struggle to live on much while a small elite own about half the country's wealth.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:46 pmby The Liberated Territories
I favor a minor form of conservatism that can be utilized like an auto break in order to keep progress happening at a reasonable rate. Of course, if it weren't for modern conservatives (and socialists), I wouldn't be pushing for any sort of progress at all, and in fact become a conservative myself.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:59 pmby Telconi
What we have now is passable, if not perfectly ideal. I mostly identify with "conservatism" because the only "progressive" party is actively seeking policies which are detrimental to my family and myself.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:02 pmby Old Tyrannia
I'm a conservative because I find much about my country's existing institutions to be good and worth defending against those who seek change for change's sake. A true conservative in the Burkean mould is not totally averse to reform, but demands that reform be carried gradually out through the existing political process, and in response to clearly defined issues rather than in the pursuit of abstract and subjective principles. Conservatism is based on the rejection of the Whig view of history as a linear sequence of progressions, with society continually improving, and of the idea that policies should be driven by grand ideological ambitions to construct an idealised society. Conservatives acknowledge that not all change is for the better, are sceptical of the notion that an ideal society is achievable or even a valid concept, and view tradition as a better basis for governance than rationalistic ideology; humans, after all, do not behave in consistently rational ways, and as Burke said, "the individual is foolish, but the species is wise."
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:13 pmby Aclion
Well for a start, constant reforms make it very hard to plan for the future. It's very disruptive when those in power upend society every time they get a new idea. This disruption can forfeit all the good that might be done by the reforms. Of course there is also no guarantee that reforms will do good at all, so some standard of evidence needs to be applied to reduced that risk. Those would be reasons to oppose reforms as a matter of course.
Of course I don't believe real conservatism exists. at least not as you understand it. There's not some group of people who are happy with the status quo and want nothing changed.
There are just some people who believe that some change or another will be beneficial and then there are those that disagree. Those that disagree will naturally prefer the status quo to something that will make things worse, but they will likely have their own ideas about how the status quo should be changed; ideas which the first group opposes.
So the question is who is the conservative? Both of you oppose the others' reforms. And are you not also favoring status quo over their reforms?
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:22 pmby Central Asian Republics
I think it's less about tradition for tradition's sake and more about tradition for the sake of having something that works.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:32 pmby Feriq
Aelex wrote:Feriq wrote:"a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics."
Doesn't seem synonymous with cautious.
Nice definition you pulled out of your ass. Still doesn't invalidate in the slightest the fact that if people are conservatives it's because they aren't ready to buy up on any new trend immediately just because it's new.
It's literally the first definition on google.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:37 pmby Central Asian Republics
Feriq wrote:Aelex wrote:Nice definition you pulled out of your ass. Still doesn't invalidate in the slightest the fact that if people are conservatives it's because they aren't ready to buy up on any new trend immediately just because it's new.
It's literally the first definition on google.
So are the words "literally" and "ironic" but you don't see people actually using them for their intended purpose.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:38 pmby Free Republics
Conservatism does not mean supporting the status quo. That's the definition of a centrist. A conservative is somebody who supports the traditional values and beliefs of their nation. In the American context, this means somebody who supports the ideals of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and regards Judeo-Christian religion as a mostly positive force in society (this most certainly is not the status quo in America in the 21st century). In other contexts, conservative means something different because different nations have different traditions.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:46 pmby Feriq
Honestly, I think my problem in understanding this lies more in the fact that it seems liberalism and conservatism have become meaningless terms that exist solely to encourage group think and ad homs. Conservatism should be taken literally as is defined, and its application as a political indicator should be given a specific context.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:05 pmby Aclion
Feriq wrote:Honestly, I think my problem in understanding this lies more in the fact that it seems liberalism and conservatism have become meaningless terms that exist solely to encourage group think and ad homs. Conservatism should be taken literally as is defined, and its application as a political indicator should be given a specific context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_doAV8bx0xg
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:12 pmby Southerly Gentleman
Feriq wrote:The value in tradition lies in its
effectiveness ability to effectively contribute to the advancement of humanity and the search for objective truth. Otherwise, it doesn't have value.
What exactly do you consider the advancement of humanity? Why does tradition only have value to this end? Isn't tradition important for its role in shaping our identities as people?
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:17 pmby Escape from Trump
Many are conservatives not because they oppose all change, but because they disagree with the changes proposed by most liberals.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:25 pmby Angleter
Conservatives don't support tradition for tradition's sake, much less the status quo for the status quo's sake - much as non-conservatives (for want of a better word, progressives) don't support change for change's sake. The main difference is that when a change is proposed, while progressives start from the standpoint of 'why not', conservatives start from the standpoint of 'why'. We believe that before a change is implemented, it should be closely scrutinised for potential unintended side-effects across society, and a seriously compelling case must be made for its necessity. And when we look for possible changes, we look, as a priority, to what lessons we can learn from the past.
Obviously there's more to it than that, and conservatism does have the disadvantage that it can't be distilled into a pithy summary like, say, socialism or libertarianism or nationalism, but I think that's how we stand on issues of change vs the status quo. Roger Scruton is probably the leading living author on defining conservatism -
here's a review of one of his recent books.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:18 pmby The Emerald Legion
Feriq wrote: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? What value is there in tradition for tradition's sake? I can understand holding some conservative/traditional stances/opinions (Favoring the Nuclear family, Maintaining a strong standing military, Spending money prudently) but not as a worldview. The value in tradition lies in its
effectiveness ability to effectively contribute to the advancement of humanity and the search for objective truth. Otherwise, it doesn't have value. Reform should always be actively sought out because nothing is ever finished, etc.
So conservatives of Nation States, how do you justify conservatism as an overarching philosophy?
See. That's your problem. You hold different values. The status quo is awful. But it's pretty darn good compared to what it used to be. Conservatives are the ones who remember
things could be worse. And as such, are skittish of changing things, because we've got it pretty good. Sure it could be better, but we should be careful before rocking the boat.
Not that we HAVE many conservatives here in the states anymore. What we have here are Theocrats that are every bit as 'progressive' as the Democratic party. The difference being they're progressing in a different direction towards a different radical ideal.
Posted:
Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:20 pmby Luminesa
Feriq wrote:Aelex wrote:Quite easily. Conservatism is all about taking your time to think and weight the outcomes both positives and negatives of reforms so to only adopt the most beneficial ones for society at the best time rather than rushing them all just for the sake of rushing them all as not everything that is newer is better.
"a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics."
Doesn't seem synonymous with cautious.
That's...not what he said at all. That's your definition.