What is the nature of Conservatism

[Neto]

Liberals/Progressives see things getting better as we progress along. Conservatives see them getting worse and wish for the good old days.

This is likely residual from Hegelian thought, that societies take predictable courses of development, but I'm not so sure Hegel would recognize it. I read him as predicting development but not offering the moral component that progress is inherently better. That came later with thinkers like Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot etc...

I previously mentioned the Banawa, but in case some do not realize this, it is a very small society - just 59 people when we first went there (1986 for me). The man I mentioned as 'complaining about celebrations not being done right' - he himself was also an innovator. (It may not sound like a big thing to Westerners, who have probably heard of this being done in other societies, but he 'invented' the use of a cord tied to his harpoon point, so that he didn't have to jump into the river to grab it after spearing a large fish.) They accepted the use of some outside goods w/o any complaint. It is the ceremonially significant things where change is most often resented by some members of a society. (Of course, a personal 'confession' - 'fessin' up - is in order here, as I do prefer some older technologies, and regularly 'complain' about the new ones that have taken their place.)

[barnhart]

I am a little disappointed no one is available to step up and give a philosophical vision for political Conservatism, where is HK? Robert? Isn't it a little dangerous to support an empty category, an ambitious person is bound to fill it with something to further their own personal goals.

[JohnH]

I am a little disappointed no one is available to step up and give a philosophical vision for political Conservatism, where is HK? Robert? Isn't it a little dangerous to support an empty category, an ambitious person is bound to fill it with something to further their own personal goals.

I don't think there is really anybody significant left who wants to make some kind of defense of Conservatism, Inc. as embodied by George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or John Boehner. It's about as relevant to present-day current events as the Whig Party.

There is a major realignment. New ideologies have emerged (including a certain realpolitik of being more pragmatic and less ideological).

[HondurasKeiser]

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.)

I agree. I think at root, and unlike Progressivism, Conservatism is not an ideology at all but rather temperament, an inclination and reaction to change.

[JohnH]

Ernie has talked about how different people in plain circles have different temperaments. (Ernie, please correct anything I got wrong.) It would be interesting to add their general political alignment.

• Progressives: For them, change is never happening fast enough. They embrace brand new ideas and want to see them enacted as quickly as possible. In today's environment would vote Democratic, but might vote for fringe third parties. 50 years ago, they would have voted for Republicans.
• Mainstream: They accept changes. They might not really like them, but accept it happening anyway. They don't agree with the conservative's mindset who wants some things to never change, and don't agree with the progressive's mindset that wants everything to change. Generally votes Republican. 50 years ago, they might have voted for Democrats, and would generally vote like their neighbors do.
• Intentionalist: They think we can read principles in the Bible that may feel extreme, but we should try to structure our lives to achieve those principles. This might involve change in some areas, and rejecting change in other areas. Most of these wouldn't vote; if they did, they would probably be independent.
• Radical: (or "Reformer", "Restorationist", etc.) They perceive that things need to return to the way it used to be, with "used to be" some idealized idea of (for example) early Anabaptism, or the 1st century church. Most of these wouldn't vote, but a handful would, and could fall on the far left or far right of things, and more likely might also be seen attending political protests.
• Conservatives: They prefer change to happen slowly, and like the feeling that they are rejecting most changes. Most of these people wouldn't vote, but some do, and if they do, invariantly Republican.
• Old Order: They perceive change as both inevitable, but also perceive change as a bad thing. They consider it their duty to make changes happen as slowly as possible, yet they also have a certain humility that change will happen, and they will not be as good as their ancestors were. Most of these people don't vote, but some do in local elections, and occasionally national ones. Invariantly Republican.

I would add my own new one to the list, a "Pure Church" temperament: some principles are worth dying for, even if you are the last person on earth left that believes in them. They will go and form a church very dedicated to some principle like, e.g., refusing to use LED headlamps. They feel the principles handed down from their ancestors had a value that, with humility, they cannot fully understand the value of. They do not accept outside change. These people would never vote and would go so far as to avoid service on juries, etc. even under the threat of incarceration, such as happened in recent memory in TN.

(The above list is in order of how fast vs. how slowly they become assimilated with the outside world; that is, accept changes imposed from the outside.)

[temporal1]

Not that long ago GK Chesterton offered the "Chesterton's fence" analogy of Conservatism to illustrate the reluctance to tear things (institutions) down until you have a comprehensive understanding of why it was built in first place.

^^ahh. yes. and this is where many progressives don’t want to go. there’s a risk logic and facts might interfere.

I really don't think there is a fixed ideology.
Hence the vacillation between things like free trade and protectionism, a dynamic foreign policy and isolationism, libertarianism and quite a few "pet" rules...

Some people feel it is rooted in Biblicism...but I don't know...

^^another possibility. outside this forum and similar places, there are loads of people who no longer remember what a force the Bible was in western European life for hundreds of years. The Bible remans the best seller, now in digital form.

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.)

I agree. I think at root, and unlike Progressivism, Conservatism is not an ideology at all but rather temperament, an inclination and reaction to change.

In the wild 60’s-70’s, the political word, “Conservatism” and variations, as i recall, weren’t commonly used. The daily mantra was about “The Establishment” “Anti-Establishment”, etc. “Tradition” wasn’t used, “New Wave” was. “Guru” was far favored over God. Eastern religions were the mesmerizing shiny objects. Honestly, like literal play-toys of youth and beauty. Esp for the rich kids, with abundant discretionary time, no real worries about money. Life was their playground.

The throwing out of everything-customary was rampant, from marriage to faith, experiments with drugs-sex, whatever was known, it had to go. i’d almost forgotten how that was.

Strange now that progressives are The Establishment.
(Thanks, Dad, for warning me.) i certainly doubted it could ever happen. He warned it would happen, AND the new Establishment would be more intolerant than the older one. He called it in the moment.

i’m not sure how life went from that to the present. Now, of course, Conservatism, conservative, are words commonly found wrt religion, politics, as HK says, inclinations, regardless of religion or politics. Many do not follow any religion, many ignore politics and do not vote, not due to religious convictions, probably more due to apathy.

Some are horrified that Gen Z are not showing up for progressives, some prefer Trump. unthinkable!
i’m encouraged that they’re thinking. i don’t have a real sense of it. i’m hopeful they will trend toward common sense, even more so, toward Biblical guidance and Truth. They are so precious.

i noticed young people turning away from TV years ago. When our family left the nest, TV was not a priority.
i was glad for it.

Of course, now tech and social media have eclipsed TV. My family is careful with it.
The pandemic worsened things a lot, when schools went remote. My grdaughter had a hard time with it, wanting “real books”.
Still her preference. And IRL teachers.

Funny, obama is now coming across as grumpy Old Father Time, Trump is The Wild One.
Ordinary people just want things cleaned up, not so concerned with who does it.

[barnhart]

It seems like yesterday I was hearing presentations of Conservatism that included ideas like expanding individual liberty by reducing government, a defence of law and order, family values, the right to free flow of capital etc... I guess that is the past.

[temporal1]

It seems like yesterday I was hearing presentations of Conservatism that included ideas like expanding individual liberty by reducing government, a defence of law and order, family values, the right to free flow of capital etc... I guess that is the past.

i wouldn’t jump to any conclusions just yet.

[JohnH]

It seems like yesterday I was hearing presentations of Conservatism that included ideas like expanding individual liberty by reducing government, a defence of law and order, family values, the right to free flow of capital etc... I guess that is the past.

Conservatism has already been analyzed into chiefly paleoconservative and neoconservative camps. What you describe sounds like the latter (paleoconservatives would not want free flow of capital between nations, and were against going off the gold standard, for example).

[Neto]

Ernie has talked about how different people in plain circles have different temperaments. (Ernie, please correct anything I got wrong.) It would be interesting to add their general political alignment.
....
I would add my own new one to the list, a "Pure Church" temperament: some principles are worth dying for, even if you are the last person on earth left that believes in them. They will go and form a church very dedicated to some principle like, e.g., refusing to use LED headlamps. They feel the principles handed down from their ancestors had a value that, with humility, they cannot fully understand the value of. They do not accept outside change. These people would never vote and would go so far as to avoid service on juries, etc. even under the threat of incarceration, such as happened in recent memory in TN.

(The above list is in order of how fast vs. how slowly they become assimilated with the outside world; that is, accept changes imposed from the outside.)

I am saying this ONLY in the context of the Kingdom. (I do not claim or acknowledge any "political temperament".) But since you used the term "Pure Church", here I am again. (This was a central 'doctrine' or priority in the Dutch "baptism-minded" development. I do not intend to imply that I think it was NOT a central aim in the Swiss Brethren anabaptism. I do not intend for anyone to draw any inferences in regards to what I might or might not think about that part of anabaptism. I simply do not know enough about them, even though at this point I have lived among them for decades. Some things remain a mystery to me.)

So, here goes about what you called a " 'Pure Church temperament": It's uncanny how much I see myself in your description. HOWEVER, I don't look to "the values handed down to me from my ancestors", except in the sense and to the extent that I see those values as reflecting Biblical principles and direct commands of Scripture.

Recently one of our pastors gave a short talk on information he had gathered from consulting with the local authorities, specifically in regards to jury duty. It used to be that their pool of names was limited to those who have registered to vote, which I have never done in any state. So far I have never been called for jury duty, although both my wife and at least one of our sons (both of whom are registered to vote) have been called more than once. Our son's letter requesting exemption was ignored - never responded to - and he was summoned for jury selection, and it was a murder trial. He and the others who had been summoned were waiting to be interviewed when the defendant accepted a plea-deal, and they were all sent home.

As you describe, I would accept a jail sentence before I would consent to serve on a jury. I don't think I would pay a fine, either - I would go to jail. (I'm not totally certain about this last part, if it were given as an option. This was only recently presented to us - around 2 weeks back. I haven't fully thought it through yet.)

Why am I so 'hard-nosed' about this? I think mainly because I was once so taken with love of country that tears would come to my eyes when the flag came past in a procession. It was an idol to me, and, I openly admit that I still feel the draw toward that, as a temptation that I often face. But I am convinced by Scripture that those 'loves' must stay out of my life.