Conservatism is the ideology of justifying a usually oppressive status quo (4.00 / 2)

Be it based on money, power, race, gender, sexuality, etc. For every aspect of social human experience where inequality has been or is sought to be imposed, conservatism is the ideology that seeks to justify such imposition.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 20:24:00 PM UTC

What is Conservatism And What Is Wrong With It? (4.00 / 4)

Philip Agree, professor at UCLA has the most lucid and exacting definition What is Conservatism and What is Wrong With It?:

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

   Q: What is conservatism?
   A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

   Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
   A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

You can see this today in the cultural mindset of every conservative. Why should poor Southern white-trash venerate George Bush? A man who not only graduated from Yale and Harvard, but whose entire family for generations was part of the New England aristocracy of privilege? Why should they "want to have a beer" with a man who not only didn't drink, but who had open contempt for them and everyone of their class -- and who declared that the "haves and have-mores" were "my base"?

Deference to social elites as long as they mimic cultural norms: i.e. reflect rural white Southern values. It doesn't even matter if they are blatantly hypocrites -- whoring, drinking, divorcing their wives (as Reagan did). As long as the PUBLIC face is proper, it doesn't matter what the inner man is like.  

---

by: Cugel @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:18:55 AM UTC

Conservatism is pattern of (0.00 / 0)

generally negative or harmful psychological reactions to change.  

---

by: Yetimonk @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:28:27 AM UTC

Schadenfreude (4.00 / 2)

My theory is that you can't be a conservative without taking satisfaction in the sufferings of some large class of unfortunates.

For a religious conservative it would be unrepentant sinners. For a Social Darwinist, Nietzschean, or free-market conservative it would be the losers, "the botched and bungled", and the uncompetitive. For a born aristocrat it would be the low-born, especially those who aspire above their station or protest their lot. For the predatory criminal, ideologue, or entrepreneur it's anyone who can be taken advantage of or defeated.

The root is the belief that your own well-being, regardless of its source, is God's will and unchallengeable, and that everyone badly-off deserves it. The justifications above don't mesh (Christianity vs. evolution vs. the free market vs. the criminal law of the jungle) but conservatives from all four groups can agree that the poor and miserable have it coming to them.

This is the part of genteel, civilized British Conservativism that is intolerable. A lot of people profess to admire the British Conservatives as compared to American Republicans, but they could be mean-minded too (as Orwell knew).

There's also the masochistic conservativism of some unsuccessful people, so it's not as simple as I just said. But usually these either blame themselves for their lot, or believe that they'll be successful one day, or else blame liberals and socialists for their own failure.

In the conservative scheme, suffering (like unemployment) is a good thing in its place, and if suffering and misery are reduced they get upset. In the extreme case they welcome AIDS and syphilis as the judgments of God and resist preventative measures (the whole condom argument we're having already took place already decades ago with regard to gonnorhea and syphilis.)

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:43:41 AM UTC

They ARE mean-minded (as Orwell knew). (0.00 / 0)

A lot of people profess to admire the British Conservatives as compared to American Republicans, but they could be mean-minded too (as Orwell knew).

They ARE mean-minded. Ironic understatement is a bad habit of mine. One kind of Conservative (called "wet") is quite favorable to ameliorative measures, but mostly as a kind of noblesse oblige and to forestall serious change. They still tend to accept suffering and repression as inevitable, natural, and in some degree ultimately good.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 11:21:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

it comes (0.00 / 0)

From their view of the world as zero-sum.   Even as they extoll markets and endless growth and so forth, their actions belie a sort of implicit assumption that anyone else making gains hurts them, and that suffering is necessary anyway, so if people are suffering, the important thing is not to end their suffering, but to make sure it doesn't affect them.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 14:39:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Conservatism is household centric (4.00 / 1)

The basic idea is contained is Fustal de Coulanges 19th century work 'The Ancient City'. Fustal saw the city of antiquity as a series of circles radiating out from the hearth and the boundaries of the household/ the 'familia'. The hearth was literally the heart of the household, it was the abode of the family spirits (in Latin 'Lares' and 'Penates') and so was both the symbol and place of worship for the family. Almost equal reverence was placed on the boundaries ('limines') of the household which would equally be ceremonially walked.

And what was true for the individual household was true for the village, the town, the city, each had their equivalent of hearth, protective spirits, and boundaries.

Examined from this angle much of what seems incoherent about conservatism falls into place particularly once you understand that the 'familia' took in everything in the confines of the 'limines': the house, the gardens, the livestock, the servants and most certainly the children.

If we go down the list of values and beliefs associated with conservatism we can see all falling neatly within this household centric model:

Patriarchy
Property Rights
Family religion
Xenophobia/Border Control

With the latter you can see the origins of conservatism's willingness to fully accept the need for common defense yet rejection of the need to provide for the common welfare, it takes common action to defend the limines whether that be of the state, or the walls of the town, or simply whatever marked the boundaries of your settlement. But having protected the exterior responsibility for the interior of each household reverts to the householder.

The advantage of this definition is that it allows us to see conservatism in operational terms without immediately interjecting moral dimensions. The moral objections to conservatism are injected via new systems of ideology based around equality between the classes and the sexes which are inherently challenges to the authority of the Master and the Father.

So Kovie has the right concept here, he has just privileged Enlightenment values over a much older set. One that is not evil by nature, but is certainly antithetical to modern ideas of freedom, a concept that in antiquity properly was reserved for the head of the household.

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 14:09:54 PM UTC

Assimilating other comments (4.00 / 1)

Kovie: justifying oppression
Cugel: domination by aristocracy
Yetimonk: psychological resistance to change
Emerson: satisfaction in suffering

All of these are seen through a post-Enlightenment filter that doesn't quite grasp that conservatism is a hell of a lot older than the 17th century and operated in societies and countries not really marked by any of these modern pathologies.

For example medieval Iceland may have been resistant to change, that is pretty much truly in the nature of conservatism (as the name suggests), but it was not particularly marked by oppression, or an aristocracy, or in that much suffering per se. Nor was any of that a particularly marked feature of either town or country life in pre-modern Europe, the kind of exploitation needed to generate these phenomena could only develop in the context of a fully monetized capitalist economy and can never fully explain rural and small town conservatism even now.

I don't suspect there are many towns or rural counties that don't have some measure of social stratification, there is always going to be someone in the top dog position whether that be mine owner or major farmer/rancher, but that doesn't make that man be ipso facto Simon Legree. No doubt there is always some tension there, range wars and water wars and oil wars and brutal suppression of organizing efforts in the mines whether in Kentucky or Idaho certainly happened, but the underdogs in those wars settled out as conservative in most ways as the capitalist oppressors. And you don't get to the root of 'Conservatism' without trying to grasp why that should be. It cannot simply be reduced to masochism.

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 14:32:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rural Iceland WAS "marked by an aristocracy" (4.00 / 2)

Of course medieval society was dominated by an aristocracy at all points --- either Thane, or Church. Many traditional societies are very poor so the difference between social classes is narrow (the "wealthy" don't have a lot more worldly goods than the "poor" -- and this is especially true of frontier societies like Iceland, but they have a VAST difference in social standing). Since in this static view of society what matters is birth status, it doesn't matter whether the aristocrat has great wealth or not.

Examples of this abound: Republican Rome (where Senators and plebes lived side by side but had vastly different social standing and governmental power), ancient and medieval tribal societies (ruled by warrior clans), etc.

In today's more fluid society, where birth status is only of de-facto importance, it's wealth itself that matters.

Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Social mobility in the U.S. never stops the INTENT of every current elite to constitute itself as a permanent aristocracy -- if it can.

Hence the endless efforts to reduce taxation of the rich, especially estate taxation they call the "death tax." This strikes directly at the creation of an artificial hierarchy of wealth and privilege and must be eliminated.  

---

by: Cugel @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 17:04:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The cons' message and agenda are different (4.00 / 1)

I think conservatism is two things that are very different (though they do have some overlap), and that is why it seems so contradictory. On the one hand, it is the message that is publicly proclaimed by conservative politicians, and believed by most voters who call themselves conservative. On the other hand, it is the actual agenda that the conservative politicians attempt to carry out -- an agenda which they cannot proclaim publicly, since it is anti-democratic.

The conservative voters want to conserve forests and churches. They yearn to return to a golden past that actually never was. They love watching "Gone With the Wind,"  and they never think about the fact that most people in that era actually were poor.

The conservative politicians, on the other hand, are authoritarians. Their highest priority is to preserve the hierarchy of power. This is why they praise the bible more than they read it. The natural order is that the strong are more deserving than the weak; this is why humans eat cows and not the other way around. To question the natural order is to disrespect it; that is not only stupid (in the eyes of the conservative) but immoral, because you are weakening the very foundation of society. This "natural order" is believed in not only by the strong and powerful, but also by some of the underlings -- e.g., conservative women, conservative minorities. They too believe that society would fall into chaos if not held together by a strong hand.

---

by: LeftyMathProf @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 14:49:47 PM UTC

Conservatives DO have ideas (0.00 / 0)

Bruce Webb's comments get to the heart of conservatism: to preserve and protect, to preserve for children and future generations, to protect what they have and plan to acquire. But family centered societies also operate on the value of mutuality, neighbor helping neighbor and the helped reciprocating at some point. In these societies it is far better to give AND receive than to give or receive.

Specific American populist conservatism is based on the social and moral structure of small town America: at the top, the business owners/employers; in the middle the strivers who work hard and persistently to improve their financial and property status; the non-strivers, people who might work hard but do not strive for better plus the neer-do-wells who live for pleasure (or tension release).

In small town America the worst crime against  the moral basis of society would be to reward the non-strivers "at the expense o those who have worked hard to get what they have." The perception is that liberalism stand s for rewarding the non-strivers. Many city-dwellers have their roots in small town America.

The conservative agenda from the corporatist/political point of view is well stated in the "Cornerstone Speech" (Google it) made by J. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America. This speech outlines the libertarian ideal of of unrestricted private enterprise and of citizens freely entering contracts with each other. This unrestricted freedom to make contracts naturally leads to the powerful having the ability to dictate to their workers (no unions) and others. The conservative extremist concept of "freedom" leads to bondage. This point might be conceded, but with the provision that those who let themselves fall into bondage deserve what they get.

Intellectually many conservatives hold that only employers contribute to society and therefore should control it. Those on salaries are often called parasites living off the noble employers. They deserve no respect and no government assistance.

Liberalism/progressivism does need to figure out how to enable the less fortunate to make a contribution to society rather than be taken care of by society. In many ways the worst moral failure of or society, from a progressive point of view, is how so many are denied the resources they need to make their contribution. This theme needs to come out loud and clear in progressive rhetoric.

---

by: Citizen0 @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 16:23:10 PM UTC

I am not contesting (4.00 / 1)

That there are ideas and ideals that conservatives hold, only that conservatives are unwilling or unable to succinctly articulate what it is that makes one a conservative.  My explation for that would be twofold:  Some conservative thinkers just can't figure it out, and second, those that do don't like the answer they come up with so they avoid it and can't find anything more plausible and positive to hang it all on.

I also can't accept your "heart" of conservativism without some caveat:

to preserve and protect, to preserve for children and future generations, to protect what they have and plan to acquire.

In which case conservatives should be more concerned about the environmental damage their preferred mode of economic activities entails.  Particularly acute problems like climate change seem to be beyond their capacity to even accept the existence of, never mind try and solve.  It's well and good to note that the richest conservatives won't suffer much under climate change, but plenty of middle class and below conservatives are leaving their children a big mess.

But definitely acquisition and preservation of wealth is core to what drives them.  

I resist definitions that rely on American features ("small town life" etc) because I can plainly see conservatives and liberals in every society and posit from that they are representations of something more fundamental to humans.  Cultural factors influence how they manifest but their very existence is deeper.

In other writings I have embraced Alan Wolfe's definition of liberalism which is "as many people as possible should have as much autonomy as feasible" - where autonomy is the key concept you are getting at in the tragedy of people who are stuck relying on others for survival and not empowered to make their own way in life.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 18:02:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]