The Basic Qualities of Right/Conservative Sensibilities

Caveat: I differentiate between "conservatives" and outright "reactionaries".

That said, some of the touchstones of conservative thought and culture in general from ancient times until now seem to me to be:

Authoritarianism

Respect for social tradition

Suspicion of things novel or different

Desire for "order" and clarity

These are not necessarily "bad" or "evil" things in and of themselves. The Amish, for example, demonstrate all of these qualities in dramatic fashion and yet, are they not after all among the most peaceful and "decent" communities in the world?

IMO, much trouble comes when conservatives try to express these qualities inside a system such as capitalism that values only some aspects of "authoritarianism" and "order" but otherwise demands a lack of respect for social tradition, a forced embrace of the novel and the different at an increasingly faster pace and an unruly "war of all against all" and the pell mell tussling of competition. When this happens, conservatives can feel "under attack" and then try to compensate by suboptimal means. You can see this now quite openly in the traditional Muslim countries who are facing the challenge and "threat" of secular, capitalist modernity.

 

I've found a few common traits in the "right wing" and the "consevatives".

1)How much will I be taxed??

2)Do I have to help anyone out in society that won't turn around and help me in an immediate and monetary manner??

3)Will this further my religion's place in our political system, despite the fact that our constitution says it shouldn't be there??

4)Hey!! The constitution says that we have the right to bear arms!! Don't you believe in constitutional rights?? Are you some kind of communist or something??

5)Is this going to affect my pocketbook??

 

What Joe said is quite a good description of “small c” conservatism.
I would say that political right-wingers have the following believes as well.
Pride in country/patriotism
Belief in Free Markets
Dislike of organized labour.


Again, none of these are inherently wrong. As someone who is considering voting conservative for the first time in the forthcoming Scottish elections (talk about a wasted vote) the parts of conservatism, in the UK at least that tend to put me off voting for them are:
Suspicion of immigrants
Paranoia about crime leading to mindless tough on crime proposals rather than effective solutions
Failure to realize that there has to be a balance between allowing everyone to reach their potential through self-starting & allowing a safety net for those who cannot make the leap.

 

Can I propose the following additions;

1) interpret any criticism of the US or a republican administration as "treasonous", or at least wrong - especially in our current permanent state of war. Unless a democrat is elected president in 2004(well, some would revert to Delay/Gingrich mode, others would blindly follow the authory figure)

2) complete lack of comprehension of alternate points of view, often leading to exaggerated distortions of other people's opinions. Complete and utter belief that their own opinions are right and that there are no other resonable alternatives. (see previously cited thread, and other threads where it is proposed that liberals wanted US troops slaughtered)

3) typically an emotional response when confronted with certain alternate opinions or ideas, which typically lowers debate even further.

Or is that just on this board?

 

OK, I gave a general description of "small-c" conservatism and I recognize that there are variations on the small-c riff that are more extreme than and/or just plain different from my description. We live in a time when the extremists are in power in the USA and I think that the Reeps have overshot their target and moved to the Far Right and that this is recognized by intelligent mainstream conservatives.

Anyway, I don't think the divide is between "short-term" and "long-term". Anyone weho has followed the rise of the Far Right in America knows that the Right is perfectly capable of long-term planning. And, although I don't like admitting this, it's not as if the Left hasn't come up with a few ill-advised "quick fixes" of its own on occasion.

Look at the most recent globally-scaled neo-con project: the conquest of Iraq which is, after all, only part of an officially long-term plan for, well, several things from pacification of the Middle-east to economic control of the world's most immediately vital resource to long term "security" for the American Empire. If that's not long-term thinking (we'll see what ends up happening in practice), then what is?

 

I've always thought that the dialectic process works extremely well in US politics, and that the left cannot function effectively on its agenda with the right to keep things in check. The opposite should be considered true, too.

The conservatives effectively brought forward several agenda items that deserved consideration. Fiscal caution, reduction in activist government, and forcing the issue with Iraq. (It was definitely time to defecate or decomode.)

The progressives effectively brought forward the social safety net, environmental protection, and social justice. Unfortunately, the left has been marginalized since the first Reagan administration, and the primary battles in US politics have been between the centrists of the Democratic party and the right wing of the Republican party.

 

Seriously? You've got one out of three.

We're running huge deficits while increasing spending (so much for fiscal caution); Bush et al have created a huge government bureacracy in the Dept. of Homeland Security, and don't get me started on the Patriot Act (so much for a reduction in activist government).


We did indeed force the issue in Iraq. It still remains to be seen what issue we forced.

 

I see the primary characteristic of a conservative approach to government is a belief in government as a protector of property/security rights (whether by use of police, armed forces or laws enforcing economic freedoms or limiting taxation. Call it Hamiltonian

Liberals on the other hand rely on government to protect personal freedoms and promote social welfare or societal benefits. Call it Jeffersonian.

 

I think you have those backwards... Hamilton was of the strong government ilk, while Jefferson was the believer in government as simple protector of rights .

 

I would say your post is a fair assessment, although I am not suspicious of immigrants. The first three were right on, although i don't know why liberals can't be patriotic.

 

Sensationalism at its worst. You might want to listen to Raj, becuase he seems to know what a conservative is.

 

You're probably right - I was stretching for labels. My main point was between government as basis for protection of property rights versus innate individual rights as a primary differentiation between conservative and liberal mindsets.

 

One of the things I was interested to read lately is the split between neo-conservatives and other conservatives. Even though moderate Republicanism has for all practical purposes been completely stamped out, there do seem to be fault lines in the modern GOP. From where I sit, it's like one group of plague-bearing fleas sniping at another, but I think I can break it down:

On one side, we have the crooks, the cronies, the corrupt, and the criminal. Their mission is to loot the planet.

On the other, we have the Bible-thumping theocratic busybodies who think "Handmaid's Tale" was a comedy and whose pages of "Left Behind" are all stuck together.

The very real policy differences are between whether we should establish the religious police state before stealing everything that's not nailed down, or afterwards. This is a very important issue. Theocracy first means that there wouldn't be as much to steal, since entire industries would flee Falwellistan for, well, anywhere else. But theocracy would make the theft far more palatable, in much the same way Pat Robertson is able to use religion to defraud millions of senior citizens.

The factions have united behind the figurehead of Dubya, but it will be interesting to see which group gets sent to the death camps once all the liberals, intellectuals, and halfway decent human beings are all taken care of. I'm sure I'll be a lampshade by then, though.

 

I'm sure many conservatives aren't. However, growing up in the UK there was always a suspicion that a number of conservatives would have been equally happy in the National Front (a racist party that existed in the 1970s). My dad, for example, became a UK citizen in the first Thatcher term because there was a real fear that permanent residents, as opposed to naturalised citizens, would loose their rights to vote etc. This never happened but the fear was obviously there.

Can liberals be patriotic? Of course they can. However, there is far more scepticism about the use of national power amongst the left & centre left than amongst the right & centre right.
Having said that , patriotism is far less prevalent in the UK than in the US anyway. Often people are almost ashamed to be British, feeling that the past of Empire is something to be ashamed of.

 

At its worst?

No way - I was much briefer than Karl's post. I wasted much less of people's time.

 

From SoFlaMetro

"Seriously? You've got one out of three.

We're running huge deficits while increasing spending (so much for fiscal caution); Bush et al have created a huge government bureacracy in the Dept. of Homeland Security, and don't get me started on the Patriot Act (so much for a reduction in activist government).


We did indeed force the issue in Iraq. It still remains to be seen what issue we forced."

On the last point, sanctions weren't working and many on the left weren't paying attention. Sanctions were punishing the people of Iraq without the effect of eliminating the regime in charge. It was a good idea for force the issue. The Bush policy is very much flawed, but that is another story.

As for the other items, fiscal caution was always a buzz-word by the right, yet they never properly implement it. Both Reagan and Bush II ran up huge deficits. I really think this is a big problem, and conservatives brought this issue to the forefront, only to blow it. Republican adminstrations make terrible managers. Ford, Reagan, BushI and BushII were/are all very poor at the finances of government. Clinton did a much better job than any of these.

And Bush II is definitely promoting activist government, getting the feds involved in countless state cases. My point?

Bush is a terrible conservative.

 

655321 and Dan are right. Religion is bad and all conservatives are evil people trying to kill you.

 

We can settle the Conservative | Liberal divide once and for all. Let's have a second civil war, winner takes all. Put your life where your mouth is.
Liberals win then you can have your Utopian Socialist State. If Mr. Cam survives and the Conservatives win, Mr. Cam can then personally liquidate every liberal on BigSoccer.Com. Fair Enough?

 

Only a conservative would suggest solving everything via war. FOOL!

 

Not on your life Danny boy, Mr. Cam will work damm hard to make you his pet BITCH!!!

 

Then we will simply call it a family argument that went awry. Stop using Mr. Cam's moniker.