MennoNet.com

I would like to see what people judge to be the essence of political Conservatism. What is it at the root, where does it begin, what are the guiding principles, who are the leading figures and what did they contribute. This is intended to be a look back, hence the placement in the history forum.

barnhart wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 11:12 am I would like to see what people judge to be the essence of political Conservatism. What is it at the root, where does it begin, what are the guiding principles, who are the leading figures and what did they contribute. This is intended to be a look back, hence the placement in the history forum.

It depends on whatever it is you're trying to conserve. In Russia it might be Communism. In the USA it might be The Constitution and the Founders. In religions it might be the founder's writings like Menno Simons for the Mennonites. For Free Will Baptists it would be conserving the writings and teachings of Thomas Helwys and Paul Palmer.

I'm thinking you're aiming to discuss Conservatism and not Conservatives.

A historical overview created with GPT:

How “Conservative” Has Changed Over Time in the U.S.
The word "conservative" has meant very different things across American history. It’s not a fixed ideology, but a shifting label based on the values people want to conserve in a given era.

---

Late 1700s – Revolutionary and Federalist Era
Conservatives = Loyalists and Federalists
Many Loyalists (Tories) wanted to conserve ties with Britain. After independence, Federalists like Hamilton wanted a strong national government.

What they wanted to conserve:

• Social hierarchy and property rights
• Political order and elite leadership
• Ties to traditional authority
• Rule of law and limited democracy

---

Early–Mid 1800s – Jacksonian to Civil War Era
Conservatives = Southern Democrats, Some Whigs
Defended slavery, agrarian values, and states’ rights.

What they wanted to conserve:

• Slavery and the plantation economy
• State sovereignty over federal power
• Racial and class-based social order
• Traditional gender and family roles

---

Late 1800s – Gilded Age and Industrialization
Conservatives = Business-aligned Republicans and Bourbon Democrats
Supported capitalism and opposed labor unions.

What they wanted to conserve:

• Free markets and property rights
• Limited government and low taxes
• Protestant cultural norms
• Social order based on wealth

---

Early 1900s – Progressive Era & New Deal
Conservatives = Anti-Progressives, New Deal Opponents
Fought government expansion and social safety nets.

What they wanted to conserve:

• Individualism and self-reliance
• Religious morality (often anti-alcohol, anti-communist)
• The free market
• A minimal welfare state

---

Mid-1900s – Post-War Conservatism (1945–1980)
Conservatives = Cold War Hawks, Religious Right, Free Marketeers
Defined by Reagan and thinkers like William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman.

What they wanted to conserve:

• Anti-communism and military strength
• Free-market capitalism
• Traditional family structures
• Christian moral values
• Law and order

---

1990s–2000s – Culture Wars and Neoconservatism
Conservatives = Evangelical voters, Neocon foreign policy supporters

What they wanted to conserve:

• Christian values in public life
• Pro-life policies and “family values”
• American global leadership (e.g., Iraq War)
• Opposition to immigration and globalization

---

2010s–2020s – Populist and Trump-Era Conservatism
Conservatives = Populists, Nationalists, Anti-Globalists

What they want to conserve:

• National sovereignty and identity
• Anti-“woke” cultural narratives
• Immigration restrictions
• Distrust of federal institutions and media
• A strong executive branch

---

Summary:
Conservatism = Protecting what people feel is worth protecting
But what that is has changed dramatically over time:

• 1800s: Slavery, state power
• 1900s: Markets, moral order
• 2000s: Family, military, religion
• 2020s: Cultural identity, strongman leadership

I'm not so interested in which AI thinks, but rather what people think. Does anyone wish to put forward a theory for the roots and substance of Conservatism.

barnhart wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 4:51 pm I'm not so interested in which AI thinks, but rather what people think. Does anyone wish to put forward a theory for the roots and substance of Conservatism.

I think conservatism is a flexible label that refers to preserving some real or imagined past. What that past is has changed significantly over time. Sometimes that past is very real, sometimes it is more imaginary.

Because of that, the set of values and positions associated with conservatism in one period may be completely different than the conservatism of another period. There is not one root or one substance. For instance, those of us who were close to Reagan conservatism may be baffled by what people call political conservatism today. I don't see a lot of common root and substance. If someone were to claim that today's conservatives want to go back to slavery or want America to go back to being a colony of England, we would rightly call that nonsense.

Biblical conservatives are basically people who trust the Bible and think we should use it as our guide in life. That has a real root and substance. It sometimes overlaps with what the political conservatives are doing, depending on what they mean by the label at a given time.

In general, I don't find political labels like "conservative" or "liberal" helpful because they do not have a clear, fixed meaning.

Some examples:

- Free trade was considered conservative under Reagan, it seems to be considered liberal now.
- Free speech was more of a liberal issue, then more of a conservative issue, and now more of a liberal issue again.
- In the 1960s and 1970s, liberals were the ones who were suspicious of government, now it is conservatives.
- Liberals used to be the ones who most identified with the working class, now that is often conservatives.
- Conservatives used to be the ones who warned most about Russian authoritarianism, now it's liberals.
- The rule of law used to be more of a conservative issue, now it's liberals.

It looks like Boot doesn't see any fixed ideology underlying Conservatism, it is what Conservatives want it to be.

Can anyone else offer a competing vision.

barnhart wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 5:36 pm It looks like Boot doesn't see any fixed ideology underlying Conservatism, it is what Conservatives want it to be.

Can anyone else offer a competing vision.

I honestly don’t know the historical roots. I started caring about politics because my Mom would explain to us why we had to keep communism from our country. Of course in school same thing- at that time I don’t recall hearing liberal or conservative. I just started paying attention what was happening in the schools & why homeschooling was beginning to get popular.

So I identify as a Christian first. As a conservative politically, but not based on historical roots but the direction I saw the liberals encouraging which I felt was not at all Christian values, whereas what I was hearing from conservatives were more so. That’s a pretty simplistic view I realize but I had deep concern for the direction of the country.

In the context of anthropology, I would say that it represents "the way it was when I was a child". That is the rather brief window of experience that forms one's concept of "How things should be". So in that sense, it varies with each generation. HOWEVER, perhaps this applies more to 'Traditionalism' that to 'conservativism'. (What would say is the difference between these two concepts?)

One of the Banawa men often came to me and 'complained' that the 'traditional' feast or observance we had just witnessed was 'not done right'. That was valuable information for ethnological research, but I wonder if his parents might have felt the same way. (His parents would have grown up during the rubber boom that brought many outsiders into that area, and so there was a great deal of outside exposure to other cultures, and new things.)

In the (Christian) spiritual sense, I would define 'conservatism' as Biblical fidelity - for example, a very strong belief in creationism, family relationships that made the husband responsible for the well-being of his wife and children, and a deep sense of 'willing duty' to provide the standard list of food, clothing, and shelter. His wife would generally feel a sense of fulfillment in care for the children, her husband, and the home. Is this just my own 'window of childhood experience'? Perhaps.

[Note: I did not consult any outside sources, so this is basically 'off the top of my head'.]

barnhart wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 5:36 pm It looks like Boot doesn't see any fixed ideology underlying Conservatism, it is what Conservatives want it to be.

Can anyone else offer a competing vision.

I don't think there is a fixed ideology either, and if one looks at European conservative parties, one sees quite different ideologies in play. Generally, conservatives and progressives are both "liberal"; the differing questions is how to get to a liberal destination, and how quickly to get there.

It does seem that various ideologues like to convince everyone that their policy is "conservative". For example, free trade didn't used to be a conservative platform plank at all. (Paleoconservatives never adopted it, for example.) At some point, Republicans adopted more of a free trade approach, in opposition to Democrats. Eventually, Democrats adopted free trade as well. (I would argue Democrats have long been far more conservative on issues that affect labor conditions, at least during my lifetime.)