What is the nature of Conservatism

[JohnH]

When I say "pure church" type of people, I am referring more to Peter Hoover's excellent article where he describes 90 or so Pure Church groups. They are interesting to consider, because whilst they may seem to an outsider to be the most "conservative", I think they have a very different mindset. They aren't "radical" (as in returning to the roots), "intentional", or "Old Order" either.

One defining characteristic is that all of them are horse and buggy (or, more accurately, some kind of horse or pony pulling some kind of cart). This is simply an observation: all of these groups see no value in adopting the car, and indeed do not feel particularly comfortable fellowshipping with those who do.

They do see maintaining a pure church as very important, and are willing to practice excommunication and avoidance in the manner of the Dutch Anabaptists. (This is despite most of them being, by blood, of Swiss Brethren background, although "Pure Church" groups tend to have a lot of seekers - probably more so than any of the other alignments I listed.)

You will not see the very neat and tidy architectural styles of the Old Order, or their carbon-copy buggies: you might instead see a cart being pulled that has some spare tires and axles grabbed from a junkyard; although some would certainly take a stand against pneumatic tires, some would not. They tend to be focused far less on aesthetics and outward appearance than the Old Orders and the Conservatives are.

Bringing the conversation back to politics (or political history, as the case may be), something I think that is notable about political conservatives is that they are indeed very focused on appearances: they might place a high value on decorum and politeness. They prefer people to be dressed "neatly". They don't like changing hairstyles too much. The actual substance of political ideology often is of less concern to them than that people's looks don't stir up too much.

The political conservative is, thus, quite easy to fool; simply dress and comport one's self in a manner that soothes him. The conservative Anabaptist is, likewise, impressed by someone who dresses and talks the part. We need look no further than our own circles and our broader society to see where such a focus takes us.

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

That sounds a lot like neoconservativism. From Reagan to Trump they essentially were Conservatism Inc. Since Trump though the Right has fractured and that fusion that held the various strands of the Right together has largely but not completely dissolved. That’s why it feels as though the ideological positions conservatives staked out 20 years ago have melted away. But not so. The Neocons still preach Free Market, strong defense, strong institutions, etc. it’s just that they’re no longer holding the megaphone or any real positions of power.

[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.

That sounds a lot like neoconservativism. From Reagan to Trump they essentially were Conservatism Inc. Since Trump though the Right has fractured and that fusion that held the various strands of the Right together has largely but not completely dissolved. That’s why it feels as though the ideological positions conservatives staked out 20 years ago have melted away. But not so. The Neocons still preach Free Market, strong defense, strong institutions, etc. it’s just that they’re no longer holding the megaphone or any real positions of power.

There are still some bleating we need to invade this country or that country, to whit:

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us ... iran-bill/

“I am grateful to introduce the Free Iraq from Iran Act,” Rep. Wilson (R-SC) said in a post on X on Thursday. “This critical bipartisan bill will support the Iraqi people’s efforts to liberate their country from Iran.”

The difference now is that nobody is really listening to them, and the national appetite to get involved in random wars is at an all-time low. A new ideology has emerged to replace the old one.

[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.

That sounds a lot like neoconservativism. From Reagan to Trump they essentially were Conservatism Inc. Since Trump though the Right has fractured and that fusion that held the various strands of the Right together has largely but not completely dissolved. That’s why it feels as though the ideological positions conservatives staked out 20 years ago have melted away. But not so. The Neocons still preach Free Market, strong defense, strong institutions, etc. it’s just that they’re no longer holding the megaphone or any real positions of power.

What has replaced neoconservatism.

[barnhart]

Accidental double post.

[Neto]

When I say "pure church" type of people, I am referring more to Peter Hoover's excellent article where he describes 90 or so Pure Church groups. They are interesting to consider, because whilst they may seem to an outsider to be the most "conservative", I think they have a very different mindset. They aren't "radical" (as in returning to the roots), "intentional", or "Old Order" either.

One defining characteristic is that all of them are horse and buggy (or, more accurately, some kind of horse or pony pulling some kind of cart). This is simply an observation: all of these groups see no value in adopting the car, and indeed do not feel particularly comfortable fellowshipping with those who do.

They do see maintaining a pure church as very important, and are willing to practice excommunication and avoidance in the manner of the Dutch Anabaptists. (This is despite most of them being, by blood, of Swiss Brethren background, although "Pure Church" groups tend to have a lot of seekers - probably more so than any of the other alignments I listed.)

You will not see the very neat and tidy architectural styles of the Old Order, or their carbon-copy buggies: you might instead see a cart being pulled that has some spare tires and axles grabbed from a junkyard; although some would certainly take a stand against pneumatic tires, some would not. They tend to be focused far less on aesthetics and outward appearance than the Old Orders and the Conservatives are.

Bringing the conversation back to politics (or political history, as the case may be), something I think that is notable about political conservatives is that they are indeed very focused on appearances: they might place a high value on decorum and politeness. They prefer people to be dressed "neatly". They don't like changing hairstyles too much. The actual substance of political ideology often is of less concern to them than that people's looks don't stir up too much.

The political conservative is, thus, quite easy to fool; simply dress and comport one's self in a manner that soothes him. The conservative Anabaptist is, likewise, impressed by someone who dresses and talks the part. We need look no further than our own circles and our broader society to see where such a focus takes us.

I went back to the opening post, and see that yes, this is a discussion of politics. I had forgotten that, and none of my own comments here have been on that topic. So I apologize for unknowingly "topic bombing" this thread. But I certainly fail to see how a term like "pure church" has any relationship to anything political. The description you give now sounds like about the farthest a group can get from politics. But I also realize that part of the reason for my lack of perception here goes back to my own background, in that in the Mennonite Brethren use of terms like 'liberal' & 'conservative', the context is always theological, not reflecting on designated styles of dress, mode of transportation, or other suchlike 'church guidelines'. For us, conduct guidelines focused on behaviors for which guidance can be found in the Scripture. (I use the past tense because I have not been MB now for many years. I know that there has also been some drift, perhaps considerable, and don't really know where they stand anymore.)

[JohnH]

I think humans are relatively universal and that the principles of the various types of people apply to other spheres, too - in particular, the “conservative”.

[Bootstrap]

I think these labels often mix several different concerns. It's clearer if we separate them. One set of labels is related to change, and if we use them consistently with their original meaning, it looks like this:

• Progressives see change as hopeful and urgent, to fix what's broken.
• Conservatives want to protect what has proven to be wise and good.
• Radicals want to tear down and rebuild or return to a purer past.
• Populists focus on power: giving it back to “the people,” not necessarily with a consistent vision.

But the "progressives" of the 1960s managed to pass a great deal of their agenda, and they want to protect it now. They still call themselves progressives, but that's a bit ironic. And the "conservatives" of the 2020s want to burn it all down and rebuild or return to a past that they imagine. They still call themselves conservatives, but that's a bit ironic.

I think we need reform, so I think we should add another category:

• Reformers believe that systems and institutions need to be reformed, but also believe in the wisdom of stability and history. We need to remember the original intent, and think about how to make these things function in keeping with their purpose.

Suppose we create labels that directly reflect values, not feelings about change or political tribes. Here's one possible set of labels, created with help from GPT. I find them clearer and more helpful:

Temperaments by Core Values

• The Traditionalist
  Values: Stability, heritage, time-tested ways
  Seeks: To preserve community traditions, manners, and roles that have proven reliable over generations
  Fears: Losing identity, unraveling of moral order
  View of change: Slow, reluctant, often resisted
  Loyal to: Ancestors, inherited wisdom, local culture
• The Constitutionalist / Principled Order-Seeker
  Values: Structure, fairness, rule of law, restraint
  Seeks: To live under consistent, just principles (legal, biblical, or moral), not personalities or trends
  Fears: Corruption, overreach, erosion of checks and balances
  View of change: Acceptable if grounded in principle, not emotion
  Loyal to: Foundational texts (e.g., Scripture, Constitution), long-term integrity
• The Restorer
  Values: Purity, faithfulness to original design
  Seeks: To recover lost truth or practices, especially from early Church, early nation, or founding movement
  Fears: Compromise, drift, lukewarm living
  View of change: Wants to undo change, go back to something better
  Loyal to: Founders, early models, sacred origins
• The Intentional Disciple
  Values: Faithfulness, obedience, thoughtful living
  Seeks: To shape all of life around biblical principles, even if it looks strange to the world
  Fears: Hypocrisy, half-hearted Christianity, cultural conformity
  View of change: Embraces change when Scripture demands it, resists it when culture does
  Loyal to: Jesus’ teachings, Scripture, church community
• The Reforming Steward
  Values: Integrity, compassion, justice
  Seeks: To repair broken systems, align institutions with moral or biblical ideals
  Fears: Injustice embedded in tradition, complacency
  View of change: Deliberate and deep, guided by truth
  Loyal to: God's justice, the conscience, the Spirit’s call to action
• The Community Harmonizer
  Values: Unity, peace, shared norms
  Seeks: To keep the group together by accepting gradual shifts and avoiding conflict
  Fears: Division, extremism, isolation
  View of change: Accepts change when most people are ready
  Loyal to: Community sentiment, relationships, peace
• The Pilgrim / Exile
  Values: Separation, holiness, conviction
  Seeks: To be faithful even if no one else is, no matter the cost
  Fears: Compromise, being shaped by the world
  View of change: Rejects all external change unless God commands it
  Loyal to: God alone, the remnant, eternal truth
• The Righteous Dissenter
  Values: Truth, conscience, courage
  Seeks: To speak out or live differently in protest against corruption or falsehood
  Fears: Silence in the face of wrong
  View of change: Embraces disruption for the sake of truth
  Loyal to: Conscience, justice, prophetic voice

[JohnH]

Boot,

I think you have a lot of valuable things to say - would you mind participating in these threads in your own words, instead of using AI?

If I wanted to read AI opinions of things I would simply go use AI myself. It is particularly frustrating when your own viewpoints are intermixed with an AI’s, and you don’t share the prompt you used.

Perhaps you could highlight AI generated text in a different color?

[joshuabgood]

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.

That sounds a lot like neoconservativism. From Reagan to Trump they essentially were Conservatism Inc. Since Trump though the Right has fractured and that fusion that held the various strands of the Right together has largely but not completely dissolved. That’s why it feels as though the ideological positions conservatives staked out 20 years ago have melted away. But not so. The Neocons still preach Free Market, strong defense, strong institutions, etc. it’s just that they’re no longer holding the megaphone or any real positions of power.

What has replaced neoconservatism.

A sort of blue collar populism. At its highs, it represents noninterventionist foreign policy, and less taxation, and a stricter constructionism. At its lows it represents xenophobia, a low moral denominator with the end of decency, confusing economics and unstable leadership (a lot of position switching).