Talk:Conservatism: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Content deleted Content added

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Conservatism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Conservatism at the Reference desk.

A bibliography is more useful if it is selective rather than exhaustive. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add page. Its on page 16. 81.0.166.183 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Other major priorities within American conservatism include support for the traditional family, law and order, the right to bear arms, Christian values, anti-communism and a defense of Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments'." The above quote should say "nuclear family" and not "traditional." Traditional is an entirely subjective term placing one tradition over others. The link goes to the "Family" page, which itself discourages the use of such a politically loaded term. 4Tildes 208.125.143.178 (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph in the Psychology section fabricates a tendency of political conservatives to possess right-wing authoritarian “RWA” values. This is based on the claim that conservatives are likely to score higher than liberals on the RWA scale. Well, no shit. Every conservative is, by definition, closer to RWA than a liberal. That would be like listing communist tendencies under the psychological section of liberalism. This is a politically-active passage disguised as scientific research and should be removed. Sidotl (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i do not understand your objection. If conservatives score higher on the scale than liberals, isn't that evidence that the scale works? In comparison, heavy objects score higher on a weighting scale than lighter objects. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the scale. TFD (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source on the statement on the first paragraph that "...depending on the particular nation, conservatives seek to promote a range of social institutions such as ... parliamentary government" and I don't think the source supports this statement. The only time the source mentions "parliament" in the chapter on conservatism is in the following places:

• "[Tzar] Nicholas’ successors stubbornly refused to allow their power to be constrained by constitutions or the development of parliamentary institutions. In Germany, constitutional government did develop, but Otto von Bismarck, the imperial chancellor, 1871–90, ensured that it remained a sham"
• "The unwillingness of continental conservatives to come to terms with reform and democratic government extended well into the twentieth century. For instance, conservative elites in Italy and Germany helped to overthrow parliamentary democracy and bring Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler to power by providing support for, and giving respectability to, rising fascist movements."
• "‘Tory’ was used in eighteenth-century Britain to refer to a parliamentary faction that (as opposed to the Whigs) supported monarchical power and the Church of England, and represented the landed gentry; in the UsA, it implied loyalty to the British crown."
• "Christian democratic thinking has nevertheless had a wider impact, affecting centre-right parties in France, the Benelux countries, much of Scandinavia and parts of postcommunist Europe which are not ‘confessional’ parties or formally aligned to the Christian democratic movement. This certainly applies in the case of the European People’s Party (EPP), the major centre-right group in the European Parliament and the Parliament’s largest political group since 1999"

I'm going to remove the statement about parliament, but if anyone objects then feel free to revert it and explain your reason for doing so. --Spekkios (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two paragraphs under the heading "Reactionism", about the difference between those conservatives who support the status quo and those who support the status quo ante, originally added to the article by JohnAdams1800 a few days ago, and as yet not discussed here in Talk, have been twice removed. When the two paragraphs were removed, the picture of former president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, was also removed.

Both of these items seem clearly to the point and well referenced. The reason given for the original removal was "removal of newly added section due to irrelevance: "reactionism" is not the same as conservatism and is therefore not one of the major themes in conservatism; also "reactionary" is an obscure term that is mostly used pejoratively".

While not all conservatives are reactionary, many are, especially today, when many conservatives call for and enact legislation requiring a return to the days before Roe v. Wade, before rules requiring Black votes to count as much as White votes, and so on. Far from being "obscure", I hear the word "reactionary" often on the daily news.

For the removal of the picture of Jair Bolsonaro, no explanation has been offered.

I think both belong in the article. I post this here in hopes of gathering a consensus. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problems associated with the ”Reactionism” section are too many to even count, but I will do my best to enumerate as many as come to mind. They are all very grave and exclude all possibility of reasonably including this section in the article.

1. ”Reactionism” is not even a word, the real term is reactionary.

2. The term is normally used as an ideological buzzword by political opponents, never ever used by conservatives themselves and only rarely used by neutral commentators. It is the equivalent of calling left-wingers degenerates.

3. The term is loose and obscure and is possibly not limited to conservative politics. Many communists believed in the idea of primitive communism – that the primordial social order was communistic and that society should return to this way of living. Paul Johnson claimed that no British politician has ever won an election on any other promise than that everything should become like it used to be. Does this mean that all of these people are reactionary?

4. It is a fallacy and a prejudice to suggest that conservatives are opposed to change or creation. After all, it was conservatives who created the European Union (Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi, Robert Schuman). It was conservatives who created the first welfare states (Otto von Bismarck in Germany, Benjamin Disraeli in Great Britain, Rudolf Kjellén in Sweden etc.) National romanticism was primarily a conservative cultural project. In literature, J. R. R. Tolkien was a conservative traditionalist who basically created the modern fantasy genre. And so on and so on.

5. There are many more principal themes in conservatism than ”reactionism”. As an authority on the subject, who is familiar with most of the best literature written about conservative philosophy, I can name plenty: family values, patriotism, loyalty, authority, faith, culture, property rights, monarchy, law and order etc.

As for the picture of Jair Bolsonaro, it had to be removed because it interfered with a template. And templates have priority over images. Trakking (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed the edits in question, but this response gives me pause because it's a collection of what appears to be personal opinions about the concept. What should be focused on instead is the quality of the sources used. If an editor is "an authority on the subject," then the best way to express that is to lay out verifiable sources to support these positions, or in the alternative, sources that demonstrate why the sources that were introduced regarding "reactionism" are not verifiable. Show, don't tell. ~TPW 14:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TPW. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree. The title of the section should be "reactionary", not "reactionism".

2. The term "reactionary" is a perfectly good English language word. Conservatives rarely call themselves "reactionary" and liberals rarely call themselves "pro-abortion". People usually phrase their beliefs using words that will make those beliefs sound good. Instead of calling their view that we need to return to the status quo ante "reactionary" a conservative might call their beliefs "moral". Instead of calling their belief that abortion should be legal "pro-abortion", a liberal might call their belief "Right to Choice". Reactionary is a well-understood, relatively neutral word.

3. "Reactionary" is not loose. Merriam-Webster defines it as "relating to, marked by, or favoring esp. political reaction" and defines "reaction" (4) to turn back or revert to a former condition. The word is not obscure. Most people understand perfectly well what it means. You are right that "reactionary" is not limited to conservatives. Neither are "patriotism", "loyalty" or any of the other words you say are "principal themes of conservatism" limited to conservatives.

4. Wanting to return to a former condition not "opposed to change". It is in favor of change. You list a number of conservatives. Pointing out that not all conservatives want to return to a former way of life does not change the fact that many conservatives are reactionary.

5. The article mentions most of the qualities you describe as "principal themes in conservatism". It should also mention the reactionary views of many conservatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are better ways to fix a picture that interferes with a template than deleting it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Reactionary"—an adjective—as a subheading? That is awkward and unconventional.

2. You just admitted that it is not a neutral word: "Conservatives rarely call themselves 'reactionary'…" If it was neutral, then no conservatives would have any problem of using the label. Thus, it is not neutral.

3. My dictionary defines the term reactionary as "strongly conservative". This is how the term is normally used. And yet, used in a broader sense, it could be applied to proponents of all ideologies. Consequently, it is a loose and obscure term.

4. Do you have any sources that indicate that "many conservatives are reactionary?" Who says that they ought to be labeled reactionary (whatever this even means) and not—plain and simple—conservative, traditionalist etc.?

5. There definitely are more themes to add to the list—with more reliable sources. I have thought about discussing this for a while. But "reactionism" is not among them. Scholarly works on conservative philosophy mention themes such as authority, family values, moral order, etc. Trakking (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A rather futile discussion. We already have an article on the term reactionary and its history, and it is part of the template on conservatism. And "reactionism" is perfectly good English.:

• • "In ideology, reactionism is a tradition in right-wing politics;^[1] the reactionary stance opposes policies for the social transformation of society, whereas conservatives seek to preserve the socio-economic structure and order that exists in the present.^[2] "
  • Try using relevant sources, instead of silly dictionaries. Dimadick (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dimadick: The term reactionary is included on "Related topics" on the template for Conservatism, which indicates its peripheral place within the ideological tradition. It is a related term, that's all.

  If you're so fond of relevant sources, try to find one that explicitly identifies "reactionism" as one of the major themes in conservatism. You won't. But there are many scholars that claim the exact opposite, that "reactionaries" are outside mainstream conservatism or that they even are anti-conservative. Here's a quote from Andrew Sullivan in The Reactionary Temptation (2017):

  Reactionism is not the same thing as conservatism. It’s far more potent a brew. Reactionary thought begins, usually, with acute despair at the present moment and a memory of a previous golden age. It then posits a moment in the past when everything went to hell and proposes to turn things back to what they once were. It is not simply a conservative preference for things as they are, with a few nudges back, but a passionate loathing of the status quo and a desire to return to the past in one emotionally cathartic revolt. If conservatives are pessimistic, reactionaries are apocalyptic. If conservatives value elites, reactionaries seethe with contempt for them. If conservatives believe in institutions, reactionaries want to blow them up. If conservatives tend to resist too radical a change, reactionaries want a revolution.

  And here's a quote from Mark Lilla in The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction (2016):

  The reactionary is anything but a conservative. He is as radical and modern a figure as the revolutionary, someone shipwrecked in the rapidly changing present, and suffering from nostalgia for an idealized past and an apocalyptic fear that history is rushing toward catastrophe. And like the revolutionary his political engagements are motivated by highly developed ideas.

  I will remove the section on "reactionism" in the article as it clearly is not supported by the authoritative literature. In fact, the literature states the exact opposite, that "reactionism" is revolutionary and anti-conservative. The term does not represent mainstream conservatism and it is absolutely not one of the major themes within the ideology. Trakking (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it looks bad for me to be the only one reverting this poster. I hope some of the other people who have posted here will restore the referenced sentences Trakking repeatedly deletes. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, your obstinacy looks really bad.

  The burden of proof lies on you for changing an article. And you have proven NOTHING. The "Themes" section is restricted to the central themes in conservatism, and "reactionism" is not among them. You have no reliable sources behind you that indicate such a thing. All the most authoritative literature on the topic refute your thesis with brutal force. See my former post: the quotations are written in stone.

  The most well-established and oft-quoted summary of conservative philosophy is made by Russell Kirk, who developed six canons of conservatism:

  • A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
  • An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
  • A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize natural distinctions;
  • A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
  • A faith in custom, convention, and prescription; and
  • A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

  Other users as well have urged you to support your edits with reliable sources. Please educate yourself thoroughly on a topic before you take action. Other authoritative scholars on conservatism are Robert Nisbet, Yoram Hazony, Roger Scruton, and Peter Viereck, who have written encyclopedic works on the topic. Start there. Trakking (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Rick Norwood has the stronger argument here. I've restored the content in question and provided an additional scholarly source: Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald (Oxford University Press, 2018). Generalrelative (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought this discussion was settled, but okay… I will invite some people who have written extensively or authoritatively about conservatism lately: @GreenLoeb, @Gondolabúrguer, @Alejandro Basombrio, @Mureungdowon, @JPratas. You should have more objective expertise on the topic than Rick Norwood and Generalrelative, who both are left-wing activists and whose only source (Corey Robin) is another left-wing activist, which is just poor scholarship. Robin's The Reactionary Mind has suffered scathing criticism, whereas Mark Lilla, whom I quoted above, is known as a serious scholar on the political left, and he refutes the notion that conservatism is the same thing as ”reactionism.”

  The question here is whether ”reactionism” is one of the central themes in conservatism—and the answer is that it simply is not. No reliable sources are cited that indicate such a thing. In fact, the most reliable sources state the exact opposite. They identify "reactionism" as revolutionary, utopian, and strikingly non-conservative.

  Literally NONE of the most prominent conservative politicians were ”reactionaries,” trying to restore some old order from a bygone age—not Disraeli, not Bismarck, not Adenauer, not Gaulle, not Reagan, not Thatcher. In fact, all of these people transformed their societies in new and adaptive ways: Disraeli managed to combine Toryism with socialism, Bismarck unified the Germans into an empire, Adenauer was one of the architects behind the European Union, Gaulle created a syncretic ideology (Gaullism) in the aftermath of WWII, Reagan became the forefather of modern American conservatism, and Thatcher liberalized the entire nation.

  The history of conservative thought is complex and dynamic and it ought to be treated with respect and discretion. ”Reactionary” is a term that conservatives themselves abhor and that serious scholars criticize. It is normally used as an insidious slur by left-wing activists to refer to things like good old historism and traditionalism. In a similar way, articles on socialism should not dedicate entire sections on GODLESSNESS and LEVELLING, when the neutral terms are secularism and egalitarianism. Trakking (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The core of Conservatism is that there is a stable human nature and that, as a consequence, some things should never change. If these things change for a person, they benefit the persons who have not "touched" the thing. For example: every human being needs a family. If a person does not have a family, then others - with functional families - will have power over him. (This is happening right now in the whole world, for the benefit of a few hundred super-powerful, billionaire families.)

  The core of Conservatism is not the reaction towards Leftism. This reaction is a natural consequence. However, the measures against families done by Leftist activists, politicians, writers, even priests, are something new in the history of the world. Therefore it brings attention, like a "political Sep. 11, 2001". So, the reaction against this gathers attention, too. And, then, Conservatives are seen only as persons who react against the Leftists.

  Deceased (Jan. 24, 2022) professor Olavo de Carvalho wrote that the Leftist actions are extremely effective by themselves, but also by their newness in the history and their malignant character. He is a major reference for Conservatives in the Lusophone world. Olavo wrote extensively to warn Lusophones about the catastrophic effects of Leftist politicians and professor in Brazil, in special. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Friend, @Trakking, do you have a private channel, so that we can talk? I see that you need more attention. And I would love to help you. But this page is not the place for talks. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also it is important to mention that Conservatism is not a new political thought. (I avoid the term "ideology" here because Conservatives do not have a "to-do list for a New Human(ity)". There never was a proposal for a Homo conservativus; persons stereotypically Conservative have always existed. However, there was a proposal for an Eurasian - at least an Eurasian - communist human(ity): the Homo sovieticus).

  However, certain Conservative actions were linked, in the past, with positions not much associated with the modern Conservatism. Thus, the modern Conservatism is viewed, publicly, as a reactionary action against the Left.

  Let me give you an example: there were Conservative politicians during the Empire of Brazil, such as José Bonifácio. But their actions do not resemble those of modern Conservative politicians, like Jair Bolsonaro. Why? Because there was no need for a "fight against the destruction of families" in the 1800s, for example. There was no struggle to keep Christianity in Brazil in the 1800s, too. These two main aspects of Leftism, the disaggregation of families and the "erosion" of Christian religion, were not part of the agenda of the Liberal politicians in the 1800s in Brazil. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a good example of an accusation of reactionarism by Leftists: six youtubers accuse Jordan Peterson of mixing self-help and reactionarism. youtu.be/3lZt2ZXzluE Gondolabúrguer (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've invited more participation in this discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Should the article Conservatism have a section on Reactionism?. Generalrelative (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here from NPOV/N. Reactionary politics is clearly relevant to conservatism, and the section is sourced to support such a claim (and even includes a rebuttal opinion which may or may not be due). Trakking has not made a valid argument for its deletion, and as said above, appears to be ignoring the cited sources in favor of personal opinion and their own analysis. I'm restoring the content, and I strongly suggest that Trakking consider Wikipedia policies on WP:Edit warring and WP:Canvassing before taking any further action. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have the most authoritative sources behind me. There are more to quote, if necessary. And no one has cited a source that explicitly states that reactionism is one of the central themes of conservatism. Trakking (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    On the complex relationship between reactionism and conservatism, I'd suggest taking a careful look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Conservatism. While Wikipedia's articles should be based primarily on secondary sources, WP:TERTIARY sources like the SEP can be useful guides for determining WP:DUE balance. In this case it is clear that a thoughtfully weighted presentation of the scholarly debate over the relationship between reactionism and conservatism is due for inclusion in the article. The current section could be substantially expanded to accomplish that, and I would suggest considering the sources marshaled by the SEP article as references. Generalrelative (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another excellent source here would be "Conservatism: A State of the Field" by Kim Phillips-Fein in Journal of American History (2011). That one shows a clear affinity and frequent slippage between the concepts of conservatism and reactionism, as well as scholarly criticism of a simple equation between the two in all contexts. Generalrelative (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Generalrelative: Very well. The article by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is often cited as a trustworthy source on the philosophy of conservatism. Their stance is aligned with my own:

    • "As we have seen, it is generally recognised that conservatism is not dogmatic reaction."
    • "For conservatives, vital political relations are organic. Unlike reactionary thinkers, they regard traditions not as static, but as in a gentle and gradual flux, encouraged by the astute reformer."
    • "To reiterate, reaction is not Burkean conservatism."

    Also—let me thank you, @Generalrelative, for being the sole person on the "opponent" side of this debate who handles it like a professional editor by providing sources and trying to view the complex topic from different perspectives.

    I can imagine being positive to the addition of a section on "Reactionism," if it is solidly referenced and thoroughly discussed. Then I would like to add some some important things, which are already mentioned in the article for the term reactionary:

    1. A clarification that the term is often used as a simple invective by anti-conservatives.

    2. The fact that some prominent conservative thinkers, e.g. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Nicolás Gómez Dávila, have adopted the label willingly and tried to cleanse it of pejorative connotations.

    3. Some illustrative examples of the application of the term—preferentially concerning major events like the Bourbon restauration or the Congress of Vienna. Trakking (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The contention that it's irrelevant is meritless. There is significant risk of over-weighting it or abusing MOS:LABEL, but the text currently in the article seems fine. Sennalen (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section does not belong under "Themes," since it is not an essential theme of conservatism. Although "reactionary conservatism" is a form of conservatism, there is already a section for "Authoritarian conservatism," which identifies "reactionary conservatism" as an alternative name. So I do not see that the section is required.

Also, the article is about conservatism, not modern U.S. conservatism, the Right or the far right. All of those topics have their own articles.

TFD (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point made by @The Four Deuces: there already is a section dedicated to that particular form of conservatism, making this new addition superfluous and unnecessary. @Gondolabúrguer also made an excellent point, namely that "reactionism" is about conservatives defending things like religion and family values, which are the real core themes of conservatism, not the "reaction" in itself. Trakking (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trakking.

The way the Left uses the term "reactionary" is part of a defeatist strategy. Defeatism means: the Left promotes the loss of hope of its enemies by claiming that the Left's initiative - the Socialist revolution - cannot be defeated, that any reaction will be fruitless.

«You cannot stop us! "Fascistas no pasarán!"»

«The revolution will not be stopped!»

«Our tremendous momentum is like a Titanic at full speed.»

Translating the three phrases: «Give up, Right-wingers. There is nothing that you can do. Your reaction will never hit us.» And there are Conservatives who believe that Socialism is unavoidable, thus proving the success of this strategy!

Jeffrey Nyquist wrote an article: Defeatism and Revolutionary Strategy (2022-09-08), about the use of defeatism by Putinists in the West, after the invasion of Ukraine. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Conservatives who say "the Left will win, tomorrow or some day in the future", act as traitors. Defeatism stimulates this. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True. My first post above mentioned this as one of the critiques against adding the term: it is often nothing else but an ideological buzzword.

Also—do you think that it is a coincidence that all of the people who want to add the term "reactionary" to the article are left-wingers themselves? Rick Norwood has been reprimanded by other users for writing stuff about left-wing politics without providing sources, Dimadick identifies as a leftist, Sennalen openly supports far-left movement Black Lives Matter etc. And the only author who supports their theory is Corey Robin—an anti-conservative left-wing activist.

Yet the worst refutation of their entire assault comes from someone who is a moderate left-winger himself, the political scientist Mark Lilla, who clearly states that classical conservatism is nothing like violent "reactionism." (See quote above.) And then there are Andrew Sullivan and authoritative source Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy who argue the same point.

Please, @Gondolabúrguer, feel free to revert the latest reversion made by Rick. His main objection is that I am just one individual reverting, as if what feels to me like a mob of left-wingers ganging together gives him any authority. That's not how Wikipedia works. The sources have been cited, the experts have spoken—and they reject the conflation of conservatism and "reactionism." Trakking (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]