Talk:Conservatism in the United States

The introduction should represent the article as a whole

This is a lengthy, thorough and well-sourced article. The introduction ought to be as concise as possible—and represent the article as a whole. Right now a fifth of the introduction is devoted to the topic of some conservatives' opposition to some sciences, for example climate science which is a heavily ideologized—and thus controversial—topic. In the article this topic is presented under a minor section under a subheading called "Other topics". It is not representative for the article as a whole. We should scratch it from the introduction and incorporate it into the already existing minor section, where it belongs. That sort of negative highlighting of controversial information also comes off as very provocative, biased, and unprofessional. Trakking (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the lead is too short to do a good job of summarizing the article, and major parts of the article (e.g. History, Race and culture) are given no summary. In an appropriately sized lead, I think a short mention of the data on conservative views on science is due. I would support shortening it but not cutting it entirely. How about "21st-century American conservatives question epidemiology, climate science, and evolution more frequently than moderates or liberals." Takes us from 31 words to 16. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the lead should be elaborated extensively, which would justify including this little piece of information.

Please shorten it down to the suggested sentence and don't forget to add a "tend": conservatives tend to question climate science etc.… because it is not like the statement is true of all conservatives all the time. Trakking (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding "tend to". I'd prefer to leave this up for a bit to see if anyone else weighs in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to talk about this exact sentence. I think it's okay, but whether conservatives "tend to question epidemiology ... more frequently than moderates or liberals" is really a very nuanced take (maybe even cherry picked or jaded by current events). Before COVID, definitely not true. The quintessential antivaxxer was a white liberal. It's only because of responses to COVID specifically that someone might say that. This is overly simplistic. They certainly question government health recommendations lately, but they don't question the broader science of epidemiology in the way they tend to question evolution and climate change. 209.248.155.179 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Deleted subsection on psychology

My subsection on Pychology was deleted by Trakking here with the summary

(Undid revision 1169827941 by Louis P. Boog (talk) - removal of newly added information which has nothing to do with the specific topic at hand, namely AMERICAN conservatism; in fact, American conservatives, with their strong belief in personal responsibility, score higher on Openness to Experience than traditional conservatives in many other countries; also—Oakeshott was British).

Here is the offending text:

Psychology

The main predictor of conservatism for subjects of a "Big Five” personality test is a low score on “openness to new experiences”. Where liberals/leftists want to tear down structures and overturn normalcy with exciting new utopian concepts, conservatism is the "defense of the normal”.

Michael Oakeshott coined the term “conservative disposition” in the 20th Century, to describe conservatism as a way of reacting to the world. To him, to be conservative meant “to prefer the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible (…) present laughter to utopian bliss”.

In my defense

• much of the content from my deleted text is from an American conservative outfit called New Conservatives; and
• I'm not sure what devotion to Personal Responsibility has to do with high scores on Openness to Experience,
• and even if it is true that "American conservatives, ... score higher on Openness to Experience than traditional conservatives in many other countries", do they score than moderates or liberals? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it should be included in this article as opposed to the Conservatism article which already has a Psychology section. The only thing connecting this to conservatism in the U.S. is the fact that an American conservative outlet published it in an opinion article on their blog, but I've never heard of them, they don't have a wiki page, and they haven't published anything for a year and a half. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree it does not belong here because it is not specific to U.S. conservatism. It's also questionable whether U.S. conservatism necessarily is motivated by support of the status quo rather than the specific tenets of individualism, private property, etc. TFD (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Limited Federal Government

This article leads with saying American Conservatives want a limited federal government. That's a controversial subjective view that both conservatives themselves and critics of conservatives would debate 2600:1008:B030:3A3:4573:AF5B:4DA9:1A57 (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide us with any sources that say that? TFD (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)