Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Lead 1950's?

I almost cried when I read this relic of Bullcrap. "has played an important role in American politics since the 1950s" 1950's?!?! As if the Republicans have done nothing significant before that point? Thomas Jefferson was a Jeffersonian (sometimes referred to ass Democratic-Republican) and is the first republican and he made drastic changes before, during, and after his presidency. It cannot be side that they have played an important role since then as if everything else important was done by other parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing the Republican party with Conservatism. Before about 1950, many Republicans were Liberal and many Democrats were Conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland was the first notably conservative president, "that conservative of conservatives", as the New York Times (1903) put it. Nineteenth century politics wasn't ideological. Mainstream politicians can be considered as either all conservative, or all liberal, according to the taste of the author. Kauffner (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Cleveland was within the radical tradition, supporting equality and free enterprise in opposition to the elitist capitalism of the Republicans. But his version of liberalism would join the Republicans, breaking with with populism and reformist liberalism. TFD (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Imperfections

I propose that in the "Other Topics" section of the article a new subsection be added, about the philosophical or logical or other imperfections of Conservatism Philosophy. That is, if this article is to be complete, then the WP:NPOV policy cannot be distorted by making the article one-sided/rose-colored. And no, discussing liberal views is not the same thing as pointing out how certain aspects of conservatism clash with each other (or clash with actual facts; an article on liberalism should have its own "Imperfections" section. So, with respect to this article, there are whole books out there (reliable sources, right? http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Conservative-Hypocrisy-successfully-conservatism/dp/1452014345 ) that talk about problems. Just to get started, here is a specific example. First, something that might not quite be a Reliable Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/financial-focus/201007/clean-your-mess --do we need RS to support the extremely common issue of getting children to learn to clean up the messes they make? Maybe we do, because, more specifically, do Conservatives teach their children to clean up the messes they make? Assuming they do, then why, as adults, have Conservatives who run polluting industries been so unwilling to clean up the messes they make? The evidence suggests that "naked greed" is a major factor of Conservatism in America, yet the word "greed" isn't in the article even once! But then, greed is an Imperfection, see? V (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I need to apologize for "jumping the gun". I started posting to the main article enthusiastically and hurriedly --and then I ran out of time (other commitments) before I could finish. I will not complain about the reversion per se, but I will note that the comment associated with the reversion specified "opinions" --keep in mind that this article contains a very large number of opinions. Posting some relevant opposing opinions is not in-and-of-itself a reason to delete them. And who defines "poorly sourced", anyway??? V (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a grand total of one sentence in your addition that was sourced - a statement of fact. The opiniony statements in this article should be sourced to respected scholarly analysis or cited as the opinion of someone with particular relevancy; if you find violations of that, feel free to call for a citation. This is not a place for your own "logical analysis", as that qualifies as original research. Your contribution reads more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia entry - and personal essays are great, the Internet is full of places for them, this just isn't it. (You may want to look more carefully into what you're basing your essays on, however; Muller did not find - nor, admittedly, reject - that the rise in temperatures were related to growth, so linking his findings to The Limits of Growth is making a strong leap.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The only opinions that should appear in articles must be sourced. TFD (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Part of a series on" table

why is there not one of these for Liberalism in America, or Modern Liberalism in America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.160.159 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is up to editors to set up these projects. Modern conservatism lends itself to this type of project because it is fairly well-defined, while modern liberalism and liberalism in the U.S. are not. However, that is better discussed in the Liberalism project. TFD (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The conservative network

Something should be said in the article about the interconnected network of Conservative pressure groups, think tanks, and especially conservative media (Fox/talk radio) and how it has shaped conservatism, and some believe distorted/harmed it, in recent years. I've tried to add a quote by conservative/critic of conservatism David From. Also talking about the issue (not as a conservative but as a liberal although that should not disqualify his comments) is columnist Paul Krugman. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

inconsistency in introduction

The opening sentence of the intro says that conservatism has played an important role since the 1950s; the closing sentence says that a conservative coalition ran Congress starting the in the mid-1950s. I find it hard to accept that running Congress is not playing a major role. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean "mid-1930s". That is a good point. The references disagree. How do you suggest we resolve this? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, mid-1930s (like most errors in my life these days, that was due to being distracted by a two year old demanding monster truck videos). I believe that the problem is with the opening sentence, as it does not actually reflect the reference as quoted. The reference does not say that there was no conservatism before the 1950s, merely that there wasn't a movement - individuals of power holding conservative beliefs could well have impact without having organization identified as such. (And, despite the seemingly inappropriate capitalization in the last sentence of the intro, the conservative coalition in Congress was not an organization and was a mere functional effect.) For that matter, it doesn't say that the movement had a significant impact in the 1950s, merely that it existed. Considering that the rest of the article talks about conservatism's place in America throughout its history, and uses various definitions of conservatism to label a variety of prominent people and groups conservative - including ones sourced to the same historian as made the claim which is supporting the first sentence. Looking over the article, I have to say that if there's anything that should capture the gist of what is said, it won't be about conservatism in any one segment of US history, but rather about its changing nature ("The meaning of political conservatism in the United States has changed broadly over the centuries, but at all times has differed from classical notions of conservatism", perhaps, just to toss something out there.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you will be able to make more contributions. Your edits so far have been excellent. (Many of the edits to this article have shown more heat than light.)

It may be that the biggest problem in the article is the statement that conservatives favor small government. But conservatives, when they are in power, almost always favor big government. They make the case for small government only when they are not in power. During the administration of George W. Bush, it was the Democrats who called for "small government". The conservative coallition (were they called that at the time?) favored small government because the government was helping the working class rather than the upper class. Before FDR, I can't think of any example of "conservative" being used to mean "favoring small government". Can you? In all of my reading, and I read a lot of old books, whenever I encounter the word "conservative" it seems to be used to mean support for nationalism, religion, and existing class structure, never support for small government. The quote at the end of this article, by Rossiter, seems to capture the way the word is actually used, before 2008. ""The Right of these freewheeling decades was a genuine Right: it was led by the rich and well-placed; it was skeptical of popular government..." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The idea that "Conservatism = Small Gov't," or the converse, that "Liberalism = Big Gov't," is nothing but a propaganda line...especially on social issues. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

you might look into William Graham Sumner and Milton Friedman, or to be up-to-date perhaps Ron Paul. Rjensen (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You're making a logical fallacy. That Ron Paul is somewhat Liberal/Libertarian on some of his social issues does not make Conservatism "small gov't." It simply makes him more Liberal/Libertarian on those issues. That's like saying that if a Liberal is for gun rights, it makes Liberalism supportive of gun rights. On the other hand, being against LGBT rights and gay marriage, for example, as most US Conservatives are, is an extremely "big gov't", anti-Libertarian position. Friedman was also pretty Libertarian, which the Cato Institute describes as being, "Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative." (And they would know...wouldn't they?) Libertarianism is incompatible with Conservatism (or Liberalism, for that matter), as they are competing ideologies. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You have the cart before the horse. Conservatives have started to embrace the Libertarians now that they are out of power. When they were in power, they gave scant respect to Dr. Paul. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

the question is what do the RS say? They typically INCLUDE the libertarians in their histories of conservatism.Rjensen (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Do they? What is the oldest book you know of that makes that connection? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

yes they do. start with George Nash, The Conservative Intelelctual Movement in America (1976) ch 1 pp 1-35 entitled "The Revolt of the Libertarians" on Hayek, von Mises, Hazlett, Friedman etc. --this continues today in CATO, US Chamber of Commerce, Heritage Fdn, Am Enterprise Inst., Chicago School of Economics, Freedom Works, Koch Foundation, and columnists like Sewell. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny that you'd mention the Cato Institute, considering the fact that I've already pointed out that they have defined Libertarianism as, "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" multiple times. Here's one instance: [1]

Indeed. I could easily point to many RS that would disagree, as well as most primary source Libertarian sources. Just because recent Newspeak propagandists have tried to "rebrand" Libertarianism as some kind of Conservatism, doesn't make it so. I've not met many "Conservatives" who were in favor of gay marriage, strict non-interventionism, and the legalization of drugs, or who were opposed to all forms of government censorship, or the promotion of religion by the government...all of which are Libertarian positions. Just because they agree with Conservatives on economic issues...does NOT make them "Conservatives," any more than it makes them "Liberals" because they agree with Liberals on social issues. Logical fallacy is fallacious. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bryon Morrigan knows perfectly well that we have to rely on the RS, not on personal experiences. He should watch the GOP presidential debates and primaries, where Ron Paul is doing quite well among self-styled conservatives, as in Iowa. Rjensen (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is not helpful to improvement of the article. Modern libertarianism is part of the conservative movement even though they have major disagreements with social conservatives. Murray Rothbard for example supported Pat Buchanan in 1992. One could also argue that conservatives failed in their stated goal of reducing government or even that they were hypocritical in stating their goal. But it does not mean that we cannot say that conservatives claim to support small government. TFD (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the point that "conversatism", even in the United States, does not mean "libertarianism" is made when, in response to a request for the oldest book that makes that connection, Rjensen cited a book from 1976! Before that, the main "conservative" issues were anti-communism, segregation, and law based on Christian Fundamentalism. The Soviet Union is gone, though over at Mass killings under Communist regimes you wouldn't know that. No major conservatives still support segregation (though in the day, William F. Buckley, Jr. did). And while staunch conservatives still want law based on Biblical truth, that idea is no longer in the mainstream. In short, the meaning of "conservative" has changed so much that it hardly has any meaning left. The programs of the major "conservatives" are so radical that the use of the word "conservative" can only be taken as ironic. You only see continuity with the old meaning of the word when you observe that, when in power, the main goal of "conservative" politicians is tax cuts for the very rich. There we see a continuity in the use of the word that goes all the way back to the French Revolution.

With all this in mind, the current (9:06 EST Dec 17, 2011) introduction seems to me to do a good job of capturing these often conflicting views that are the modern state of US conservatism.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Crick wrote, "It is more than a mere matter of the different American usage of the word 'conservative': the American democratic-liberal in not having a conservative tradtion to attack, so as to explain the contradictions in his own world, is forced to invent one. What is now interesting is that this tactic has been pursued so successfully that those who were attacked as conservatives are now wearing the false appellation openly and proudly." ("The strange quest for American conservatism", 1955) There has of course always been a left-right division in U.S. politics, but there was no clear dividing issue unil the New Deal. In other countries where the issue was support of or opposition to monarchy, the division is much clearer. TFD (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The tradition is clear in the US as well. Read the Founding Fathers on the need for strong government to control the mob. The contradiction appears when the conservatives, proponents of strong government to keep the mob under control, but out of power, pretend they are for small government. Here's a nice quote by Alexander Hamilton from The Federalist Papers. "...the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty...of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what they (Conservatives) might claim, Social Conservatism is far more Statist, "Big Gov't," and Authoritarian than anything ever proposed by American Liberals. It goes beyond gov't control of one's money...to gov't control of one's relationships, marriage, religion, morals, etc. And recent history has shown that even the most ardent proponent of the Tea Party or "small gov't," once elected...usually makes something like gay marriage his/her main agenda, leaving all of that "small gov't" rhetoric far behind in the dust. Letting them "get away" with claiming to be for "small gov't" is like letting the Nazi Party be defined as being "for the people." A Big Lie is still a lie. Social Conservatism and Right-Wing Authoritarian "Big Gov't" has been the main driving force of American Conservatism for decades, from the Moral Majority to the Contract With America, to people like Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, etc. And if you search Google Books for "Libertarianism" and "Socially Liberal," you'll see quite a lot of books backing up my earlier statement that Libertarianism is incompatible with Conservatism. See: [2]. You might as well "claim" them as Liberals on the Liberalism in the United States page, because there's just as much "evidence" painting them as "Liberals" as there is for the idea that they are "Conservatives." In other words, they are neither...and Wikipedia should not be assisting modern Conservatives with their Newspeak propaganda campaign to claim that "Libertarian" is just another word meaning "Conservative," when it clearly is not. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Rick, that is confusing two distinct uses of the term. One refers to pro-elitist politics from Hamilton to Bush who can and do use the full power of the state at times, while the other refers to the movement that coalesced after the Second World War with a commitment to small government. TFD (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's part of a key problem in this article; it (to varying degrees) treats everyone who has flown the flag of being a "conservative" together as if they are, at worst, subsets of some larger coherent movement. Varying groups of self-labeled conservatives have overlapped, or have sometimes had marriages of convenience, but that doesn't make them part of one continuity. On some level, it's like having an article on the "Cardinals 2010 season" that covers both the Arizona Cardinals and the St. Louis Cardinals (which would be football and baseball, respectively, for those who have better things to do than follow sport.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the "small government" meme is employed by whichever party is out of power at the time. When has any Republican in office actually done anything to reduce the size of government? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Reagan, according to his Wikipedia article, substantially reduced income tax rates, cut local government assistance by 60%, and cut public housing and rent subsidies in half. Many more programs were cut, including food stamps, education programs and the EPA. TFD (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet, government outlays in 1980, the last year pre-Reagan, were $591 billion, versus $1064 billion for 1988. Some programs may have gotten cut under him, but government was clearly not smaller. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing the reason for policies and the results of their execution. TFD (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The question was about what he actually did. What he did was play lip-service to smaller government while enlarging it substantially. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan was the first person in history to run up a debt of one trillion dollars. He was also the first person in history to run up a debt of two trillion dollars. Yes, he cut benefits to the poor, but he did not cut benefits to the rich, which were much more expensive. This is not smaller government.

We have something similar going on today, when the Tea Party, who swore never to raise taxes, and who swore that failing to extend tax cuts was the same as raising taxes, failed to extend the payroll tax cut. Both parties pay lip service to smaller government. Neither party ever does anything about it. Occasionally the Democrats will cut welfare for the rich or the Republicans will cut welfare for the poor, but at the end of the day, the government is still bigger. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ian Gilmour explained it in his book, Dancing with dogma, which was about the Thatcher administration. If a government reduces social benefits, while at the same time increasing unemployment and poverty, then overall social spending wil increase. But that was not the expectation, because the benefit cuts together with the abolitiion of the minimum wage were intended to create full employment, while tough on crime policies were intended to clear the prisons by setting effective deterrents. It is more accurate to say that the policies failed to meet their objectives rather than that they achieved their stated objectives which had been misrepresented. NatGertler is repeating the argument of the FNC hosts, that Republicans in power were closet statists, and a real conservative would have been able to achieve smaller government. TFD (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You make it sound as though cutting those programs was the only thing he was doing. He was also increasing spending on other programs, notably in the military. We cannot say that someone who cuts a program has the goal of a smaller government when they are simultaneous pumping up government even more elsewhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The beliefs of the leaders vs. the beliefs of the followers.

Another problem with this already difficult article is the contrast between the beliefs of the leaders and the beliefs of the rank-and-file. The conservative leaders, judged by their actions and as occasionally revealed by leaks, have as their primary objective the traditional conservative goal of increasing the power of the upper class and of the established church. As recently as the 1940s, they made no bones about this. But in today's climate, when liberalism is the basis for all public discourse, they need to state other goals to attract followers. Thus the modern attempts to redefine the words "liberal" and "conservative" to make the latter more palatable to the electorate and stir up hate against the former. If they were really motivated by a desire for "small government", why would they call their movement "conservative"? Why not call it libertarian? The reason, obviously, is that small government is only popular when people don't have to say which government programs will be cut.

But this article has to report what conservatives say they believe, and thus it reports that conservatives oppose abortion and sometime birth control, even though the current Supreme Court, with five Republican justices, could have overturned Roe v. Wade with the stroke of the pen. It reports that conservatives favor small government, even while Republicans hand out vast amounts of free money to Big Pharma, Big Agra, and Big Banking.

How should the article report, in an honest and unbiased manner, the disconnect between conservative rhetoric and conservative policy?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 December 2011

This source explains that there is a division between what it calls "Wall Street" and "Main Street" Republicans, with Wall Street Republicans more likely to secure presidential nominations (p. 74 ff). Other sources say that Wall Street Republicans will appeal to the Main Street majority in order to win the nomination. But these two strands have always existed. TFD (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

George Wallace

If you dispute his inclusion on this page, you might want to check out:

• The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics, by Dan T. Carter, Ph.D.
• From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963-1994, also by Dr. Carter
• George Wallace: Conservative Populist, by Lloyd Rohler, Ph.D.

(And those are just the ones with both his name and "Conservative" in the title! LOL.) --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

that is a misreading. Carter does NOT call Wallace a conservative. He says Wallace broke the whites away from their historical Dem party allegiance and that made them available to appeals from conservatives. Rjensen (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Carter addresses directly the kind of denial Rjensen practices here. From "George Wallace to New Gingrich", p. xiv: "The reluctance of neoconservatives to claim Wallace--with his gamy aura of racism-- is understandable. But the fundamental differences between the public rhetoric of the Alabama governor and the new conservatism sometimes seem more a matter of style than substance." I'm not going to quote the entire paragraph, but it is worth reading, since if focuses on the undercurrent of racism that is so much a part of conservative politics, from Eisenhower's condescending attitude toward Martin Luther King, Jr. to the current drive to require "picture ID's" of voters, something most whites have and many blacks lack.

Wallace was not a conservative when he first entered politics, and he became less conservative after he was shot, but when he ran for president, he ran as a conservative.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wallace (in 1968) did have support from fringe conservatives who had been repudiated by the conservative spokesmen (eg John Birch Society), but he ran as a populist and made a strong appeal to two Democratic core groups that had been quite liberal for decades: blue collar workers and poor Southern rural folk & farmers. The great majority of conservatives in 1968 supported Nixon. Rjensen (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My view is that he is seen as leading a segment that would be incorporated into conservatism, similar in some respects to Senator Henry M. Jackson's followers. TFD (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wallace's rhetoric, as many scholars have noted --such as George Wallace: Conservative Populist, by Lloyd Rohler -- is based on populism = strong attacks on elites who control the government to nefarious ends. It goes back to the American revolution -- it's Jefferson denouncing King George III in the Declaration. Lots of conservatives have a similar rhetoric. But that does not make the Populists into conservatives (they are pretty far to the left). It does put Wallace in a classic leftwing tradition of the Populists & Huey Long. Rjensen (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Populists...are pretty far to the left."  ??? Examples, please. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the 1890s party that vigorously fought banks and railroads and linked up with militant labor unions. Or likewise Huey Long in 1930s. Rjensen (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

One could also make a good case that the Tea Party is extremely Populist...and they're hardly Left-Wing...so it's not like Populist=Left. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading resource, from The New York Times Book Review

from Talk:William F. Buckley, Jr. ...

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/books/review/buckley-william-f-buckley-jr-and-the-rise-of-american-conservatism-by-carl-t-bogus-book-review.html ‘Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism’ by Carl T. Bogus, Reviewed by Geoffrey Kabaservice. "Carl T. Bogus traces the making of the man who remade conservatism."

99.181.143.108 (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion doesn't violate any rules, except that it's not useful for improving the article. It's primarily about Buckley, and the bogus (I mean, Bogus) book is more likely to be a potential reference than the review, and even that is unlikely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The book seems relevant. There are lots of books however, so use your judgment whether this one is notable. TFD (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

it's useful to keep readers up to date on the latest books, but I think after a few months it can be replaced with what is then the newest.Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Eisenhower

The article describes Eisenhower as a fiscal conservative and as being in favor of limited government. Is this correct? Government spending under Eisenhower was almost double that under Truman, and almost three times that under FDR, even during WWII. Eisenhower did balance the budget, but he did it with high taxes, not with low spending. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The source says he was.[3] TFD (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV?

"White Southerners took a lesson from the Reconstruction era that the radical experiments by Northern reformers violated the rights of white men and were inevitably tied to corruption." Seriously doesn't seem all that neutral.24.115.19.178 (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

how is it not neutral ?? It's a statement of how a group evaluated an event showing how that led to anti-radicalism in the white South. Rjensen (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You might accurately say that White Southerners believed that treating the Negro as a human being, and offering the Negro educational opportunities, violated the rights of White men, and that all people who believed in racial equality were corrupt. As recently as the 1960s, J. Edger Hoover believed this, and Fox News today reports that all "liberals" are motivated by prejudice against White people. But don't state it as if it were a fact. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

a tangle of misinformation. There was a wide range of southern views on blacks (1880-1960 era) from very hostile to friendly and paternalistic. For example, all the southern state legislatures funded low tuition state colleges for blacks and never shut any down. As for Hoover, he was fixated on Communist influence on ML King. Rjensen (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"took a lesson" suggests that accurate information was imparted; perhaps better rephrased as "The Reconstruction era left white Southerners feeling that the radical..." (haven't checked the sourcing on the blanketly-presented claim.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

they did indeed take Reconstruction as a lesson, repeatedly using it as evidence for many decades. That does not say thyat historians in 2012 agree with that lesson. Rjensen (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

2004 County Election map

Before we get into an edit war, let us get a consensus going. Presently one editor is reverting its addition, while two editors are bringing it back into the article.

A similar map is used in the in Liberalism in the United States#American Liberalism, 1970 to the present day section regarding the 2008 election. It appears to me that it would only be fair to use the 2004 election map in the appropriate section here as well. Furthermore, it does a good deal at exposing the myth that some states are all democratic, or all republican which one would see if we were only to use state based maps with Texas solid red, and California solid blue. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the purpose of maps and is to illustrate information in the article, this map appears to have no function. Would it not be helpful instead to say that while Democrats did better in urban areas, Republicans did better in rural areas? And the text questions whether Bush was a conservative. And why is the 2004 presidential election so important that it warrants two maps? TFD (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It is to provide information regarding the 2004 election, which is part of the section in question.

The rural urban statement is not entirely correct, as San Diego (one of the United States's ten largest cities) voted for George Bush in 2004, narrowly for Obama in 2008, and in the 2010 mid-term went predominately for GOP candidates.

The second map is only regarding the tea party movement and those who self-identified as conservative in 2010. The two maps are separate, and not an issue. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The 2004 election is a single sentence in that section (and an unsourced one at that); the image doesn't convey any information about the topic of this article, an election between a non-conservative and someone whose conservativity is deeply in question. If there is a map in that other article that is equally pointless, then the appropriate way to address that is to delete it from there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The questioning of former POTUS Bush conservatism is there for WP:NEU & WP:DUE considerations. The map does provide information not stated in the article regarding an election which is discussed in the article.

As the section is about former POTUS Bush specifically, a map showing his electoral victory in 2004 is appropriate. If there is consensus that a county map of the 2000 election be used instead, such as this one, I would not be opposed to the change.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is where the Bush 2004 VOTERS are located -- not whether or not Bush was consistently conservative in 2007-8 after the election. Rjensen (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would where the Bush 2004 VOTERS are located be of particular relevance to an article on conservatism? This veers several layers away from the topic at hand. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

because Bush made a conservative appeal and had a conservative base winning 84% of their votes, and this is the closest we can get to a map of them. Rjensen (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

And if the closest we can get is "not at all", which is what this is, we should skip it. This map doesn't show where the 34% who claimed to be conservative were, much less where the 84% of the 34% are. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

historians use the best data available. The idea that only "100% perfect" historical sources can be used is not accepted by the RS. Here it's 85% perfect (and visually, given the very small scale with the US three inches wide on the monitor, it looks almost the same as a 95% or 99% perfect map.) Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

An 85% perfect what? How does a map of relative densities of folks who voted for Bush versus those who voted agin' him show us where the half of Bush voters who were conservative (or the 10% of conservative opposition voters) live? It gives us no idea if the folks who identify as conservative are those in the very red, relatively empty places in the middle, or if they're the ones who keep the places on the edge from being a solid blue, or if it's some mix then what the mix is. It isn't intended to say anything about conservatism and unsurprisingly it fails to say anything about conservatism. It's not that it's not accurate, it's that what it's accurate in is not relevant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Because we know 85% of conservatives voted for Bush and (about) 85% of the liberals voted against him. We also know the proportions are about the same by state (from state exit polls). In statistics, this is called using an indicator to map a phenomenon. Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if what you say were true, the map still doesn't indicate where the conservatives are, because mixed in with the vote are not just the votes of conservatives and liberals, but also moderates - who make up a large portion of the electorate (in about a third of the states, self-identified moderates are the biggest group), and who are not consistently distributed, and who may have voted in varying proportions in different areas. That's an awful lot of sludge in the figures. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the map from Liberalism in the United States. Since I've already removed it from this article, I'll let someone else remove it now. We can take turns. The map is clearly propaganda, intended to mislead rather than inform. The map shows an America that is almost entirely Republican. But votes are based on population, not on area, and so a map of Republican counties has nothing to do with the distribution of party affiliation in the only meaningful way of counting that distribution, by population. It is true that Bush won in 2000, but he did not win the popular vote. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Note to RightCowLeftCoast: Nobody is saying that the map isn't accurate. Information can be accurate and still misleading. If I say you eat mangled embryos that is probably accurate, but misleading. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC) PS: Sorry to be adding here, and not at the end of the Talk page. Attempts to add anything at the end of Talk fail. Bug? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The other map for the 2004 election appears under Conservatism in the United States#electoral politics. Note however that Bush also won the 2000 election (which historically was a more significant election) and there have been over 50 presidential and over 100 congressional elections and you need to explain why this election is of particular importance. TFD (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

regarding 2004, I added details about the voters from exit polls (Exit polls in 2004 showed that 34% of the voters identified themselves as "conservatives" and they voted 84% for Bush. By contrast, 21% were "liberals," of whom 13% voted for Bush; 45% were "moderates" and they voted 45% for Bush. Almost the same pattern had appeared in the 2000 exit polls.[cite] See [htt As the map demonstrates, Bush carried most rural counties. The exit polls show Bush won 57% of the rural vote, 52% of the suburban vote and 45% of the urban vote.[cite]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2012

Maybe Rick Norwood is saying there is a better map out there -- but he does not tell us about it. If there is no better map we can keep the best we have until some day a better one becomes available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 21:24, 19 January 2012

Rjensen: why, in an article on a large topic, does this particular election loom so large. If the election is, in fact, of great and lasting importance, why is a map, of all things, the best way to express the election result? What valuable information does the map contain, that overcomes its tendency to mislead people into thinking there are more Republicans than there really are? Rick Norwood (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it's the best data I have seen. the issue here is not who won in 2004--that's well known--it's the geographical distribution of Bush/Kerry, which is not well known, but which overlaps 85% with conservative liberal. It would be nice to have a 95% overlap and someday we might get that data. I think Norwood wants to erase a map with too much red in it because he strongly dislikes the reds. That's his explicit POV. The result of his POV is that readers will be left in ignorance of the geographical patterns. Rjensen (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what you meant by 85% accurate? Because no, it doesn't overlap 85% with conservative/liberal. Roughly half of the votes were neither, roughly half of the Bush votes weren't conservative. If you want data on where people identify as conservative, that information is out there. If you want information on where conservatives voted for Bush, that information is not in this map. Information merely on where people voted for Bush does not belong in this article, although there are certainly articles where it is appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The text added by Rick Norwood is fine; that being said the image/map goes to support said text, and is appropriate for the section which focuses on the George W. Bush administration. In the context of this article, it provides a visual image of what areas supported the election of a President (and his policies) who was at the very least not as liberal as that of his opponent, and at most (as some may argue) is a conservative (of course some do not, I am not saying what my personal opinion is (as that shouldn't matter in my editing)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've stated my reasons for reverting the map, and must once again ask Rjensen to avoid mindreading. Do I need to buy a tinfoil helmet?

The many qualifications that RightCowLeftCoast adds to his argument in favor of the map are evidence that the map is not sufficiently important to the topic of Conservatism in the United States to be added to the article.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's too many steps removed, and placing the map here gives it the illusion of significance which it doesn't have. (And if we start including every election where one candidate was perceived as more conservative than the other -- why, that's every election.) This article could definitely use a good map, and if I had any mapcrafting experience I'd be looking at doing one based on the Gallup information about where people identify as conservatives. As for tinfoil hats, Rick, you should never use the storebought ones. They're all manufactured by companies belonging to The Great Cabal; who knows what they have planted in them? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

the map is the best we have right now; no doubt a better one will turn up some day. --Norwood's complaint is that is suggests there are more conservatives than liberals in the country--but that's a fact attested by many polls. Rjensen (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If the best one has is crap, then it's better to do without. And if you need to invent a stance for those whom you disagree with (as you just did with Norwood) in order to make your case, doesn't that attest to the weakness of your case? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not "crap" --it's quite exact--and it's the technique political historians & political scientists have used for over 100 years. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the map has nothing to do with convervatives vs. liberals. It has to do with Republicans vs. Democrats. And that's pretty equally split. The map, by pretending area is more important than population, distorts that view. I will not remove it, but I hope someone will. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

the way statistics works is that statisticians use proxies X for Y--such as life expectancy X as a proxy for overall health Y. That works if X and Y are highly correlated--here it's X=GOP and Y= conservative and correlation = 85% which is reasonably high for historical data. Rjensen (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell me how statistics work. I teach statistics. If one of my students made a claim like the one above, they would get a very low grade on that assignment. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Rick might want to read up on how historians use statistics--say my book on Historian's Guide to Statistics. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the correlation 51% (.34 * .85)? While conservatives are 85% likely to vote for Bush, Bush voters are only 51% likely to be conservatives. TFD (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Only slightly more - under Norwood's numbers, 55% of Bush voters identified as conservative, 5% as liberal, and 39% as moderate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen: I looked up your book on amazon. The only book with that title was published in 1974 but on amazon it has no reviews and no ratings. There might be a reason for that. But, seriously, Rjensen, sometimes you do valuable editing on Wikipedia. But about statistics, you have no business writing a book, if your comment above is typical of your understanding of the subject. And you do yourself no credit when you argue points that are easily refuted. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The way scholarly publishing works, is that if you write an advanced textbook for the university audience, you're doing well if it goes into a second edition. The best sellers (like the Blalock statistics book) go into four or more editions. The 1974 version listed at Amazon was my second edition. The reviews appear for the first edition, which Rick Norwood did not check--try the Journal of the American Statistical Association review, or the many reviews in history journals. Rjensen (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't want to critique your book. The mistake you made above was to argue that since conservatism and voting Republican are highly correlated, a map showing that most of America (by area!) is Republican shows that most of America is conservative. But while most conservatives vote Republican, more voters identify themselves as either independents or moderates than identify themselves as either liberal or conservative, which means the map is misleading in two ways, by lumping moderate Republicans in with conservative Republicans, and by confusing area with population. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Although the map doesn't do a great job in separating non-conservative Bush voters from conservative Bush voters, if one looks at the key, one can see that each county has a different shade that corresponds with the key; therefore, for areas it is not misleading IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a consensus for removal of the map, but the map was removed any way by an editor who said they would not remove the map. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

USA Today resource

• Column: Is compassionate conservatism dead? by Amy Sullivan, page 7A in-print.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Conservatism

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page for Conservatism. Editor Rick Norwood has proposed changes to the section entitled United States which I feel may lend undue weight to the conservatism-slavery relationship, and which describe conservatives as " ... skeptics toward reason and science ... ". I have reverted RN's changes and requested that further discussion take place. Because this is the main article to which the summary links, I would be grateful if interested editors here would please evaluate the proposed changes, particularly if these issues have been already dealt with in this main article. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You need references. But you keep as a reference the book quoted in the paragraph, while rewriting the paragraph to state a view almost diametrically opposed to the reference. Please do a little research -- you will find that the statements in the paragraph correctly describe the history of conservatism in the United States. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

well no, Norwood used a very poor source (a book that spends one sentence on slavery is his source on slavery). And the source got it wrong. He did not know that most historians see the South in 1860 as highly democratic (for white men), not as a rigid hierarchical traditional "conservative" place. The South was not trying to "preserve" slavery where it existed, they were trying to expand it to new places (esp Kansas), which conservatives in the North (like Lincoln), as well as radicals in the North (like the abolitionists) could not tolerate. Rjensen (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ Rick; I asked for clarification on the reference you used so that verification would be easier. Although I will attempt to locate the book in question just to satisfy my own curiosity, I trust that you didn't mis-quote. My stated issue is that references to slavery comprise only a small part of the main article. Your statement would require an expanded discussion, which does take place in the main article. Out of respect for your assertion that the current text is unsupported by the reference, I have proposed the expedient solution of using the summary paragraph from the main article as a basis for the section in conservatism.

Let me offer another quote from Barry Clark that I think sums up my entire objection to claims that "conservatism" means "classical liberalism". "When Classical Liberalism is called "conservatism", genuine Conservatism tends to be forgotten or ignored." (p. 72) Rick Norwood (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on the text I have proposed on the talk page of Conservatism? I have - I hope - eliminated the issue with the contested reference. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the text you propose on Talk: Conservatism is fine. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, since you raised the issue and proposed the initial change, and barring objection from TFD, I'll change the text. If you have the opprtunity, I would appreciate it if you would comment at the talk page to make it clear in that thread that we sought and reached consensus. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You and I reached an agreement. That does not mean that all the parties involved reached a consensus, though I hope that is the case. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, as I noted on the Conservatism talk page. After the last round of edits, I think that everyone's reasonably satisfied that the issues have been addressed in an acceptable manner. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this not mean he was a conservative?

How was Eisenhower a conservative if he "kept the regulatory and welfare policies of the New Deal, with the Republicans taking credit for the expansion of Social Security."?--24.62.109.225 (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have sources that say he was not a conservative/was a liberal, then please present them. We do not make judgments based on our own interpretations. TFD (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this not mean he was a liberal?

How was Eisenhower a conservative if he "kept the regulatory and welfare policies of the New Deal, with the Republicans taking credit for the expansion of Social Security."?--Johnny 42 (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have sources that say he was not a conservative/was a liberal, then please present them. We do not make judgments based on our own interpretations. TFD (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ike was a fiscal conservative & did not have the votes to repeal any of the New Deal (the GOP had a small margin in Congress &there were liberal Republicans who supported the New Deal.) Social Security was not controversial in 1953, but the Dems were claiming credit so the GOP expanded part of the program to get some credit, rather like George Bush & GOP 10 years ago. Basically Ike agreed with Taft (the conservative leader) on domestic policy (In foreign policy they disagreed, for Taft was an isolationist & Ike was NATO commander in 1952) Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

On the "liberal Republicans" who supported the New Deal-why didn't they join the Democrat Party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.109.225 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The split between the parties along liberal and conservative lines did not exist, then. There were liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans and conservative Republicals. The extreme polarization we see today represents a later development. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How many Conservative talk show hosts are 'notable' ?

Most talk show hosts in America are middle-to-conservative or very conservative like Rush Limbaugh. Liberal talk show hosts do not last, have you noticed? With this in mind, we cannot add all of the 'Conservative' talk show hosts. Here is one that is notable: Joe Pags who substitutes today for Glenn Beck from his own show in Texas: Talk:Joe_Pagliarulo#Joe_Pags_substitutes_for_Glenn_Beck. So how many do we add? Obviously, it is the decision of editors. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Religious Freedom?

Are you serious? I mean...you've GOT to be kidding, right? The idea that US Conservatives are in any way in favor of "Religious Freedom," for anyone but Christians (and maybe Jews...as long as they're Conservative Jews, of course...) is so utterly absurd and devoid of any merit as to be laughable. US Conservatives are pretty openly opposed to the religious freedom of Muslims, Wiccans, Pagans, Asatruar, and often even Hindus and Buddhists. This can easily be backed up with RS and statements from Conservative leaders. If you want that "Religious Freedom" bit in there, you need to back it up with RS showing Conservative support for Muslim/Wiccan/Pagan/etc. religious freedom (LOL)...or you need to qualify it with the words "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian." Otherwise, it's not even remotely NPOV or factual. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, but please avoid baiting those you disagree with ("LOL"). Rick Norwood (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious you have know idea what American Conservatism is.--Southronite (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bryon Morrigan is right. An absurd number of U.S. conservatives think Christianity should be the state religion, and that we should drive all of teh evil Mooslums out of the United States. If you don't believe me, look at the comments on Fox News articles. Peacock28 (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If conservatives oppose the religious freedom of any group, references should be cited (as are always called for here). Particularly, any attempts by prominent conservative groups to pass or garner support for any sort of law restricting religion, or any of the other things mentioned; "we should drive all of teh evil Mooslums out", "U.S. conservatives think Christianity should be the state religion", etc. It should be kept in mind that conservatism is a political ideology and the reason for garnering support on an issue is ultimately to either pass or repeal laws or to change public opinion in some way. If a group says it supports religious freedom - and helps to remove laws that discriminate, or helps to pass laws that support religious freedom - and it was also biased toward some particular religion, it would certainly leave a paper trail that proves the bias. The fact that the most popular religions in the US are forms of Judeo-Christianity does not prove any sort of bias on its own. The majority of religious liberals are also Judeo-Christians. On the other hand, if conservative groups support/pass legislation that supports religious freedom generically (Of which there are many examples [the argument over whether or not to use public funds to purchase contraceptives (including day after pills that many religious groups view as abortion) and arguments over the public funding of Planned Parenthood would be some current examples.] Many forms of Christians, Jews, Hindus, and many Muslims and Buddhists share religious objections on abortion related issues.]), that [conservative support of generic religious freedom] would seem to contradict your claims and should also be noted if there is to be an unbiased perspective on the subject. I also think the opinions of Supreme Court justices are an excellent barometer for mainstream political thought - as the justices are appointed for life they have little reason to hide any biases. Here is one very good example that directly contradicts the claim that, "Conservatives are pretty openly opposed to the religious freedom of Muslims, Wiccans, Pagans, Asatruar, and often even Hindus and Buddhists." In this case, not only does every conservative justice (and every liberal justice) return an opinion supporting religious freedom, but they also supported the religious freedom of the very groups you say they oppose, including a Satanist, which if a Christian were to oppose any religion, it would certainly be Satanism.: Cutter v. Wilkinson -- The case was brought by five residents of an Ohio prison, which included two adherents of Asatru, a minister of the white supremacist Church of Jesus Christ Christian, a Wiccan and a Satanist. The court unanimously ruled that prisoners in facilities that accept federal funds cannot be denied accommodations necessary to engage in activities for the practice of their own religious beliefs. I know what you're thinking; 'The conservative justices only ruled that way because of the white supremacist' -- right? That may be your opinion, but if it were the opinion of the justices they would have ruled that way. They certainly could have given an opinion that only the white supremacist should be allowed to pray - the justices are not subject to elections or public opinion. In fact it is their duty to interpret the law as they see it without pressure from outside sources. Previous courts found backward means of upholding slavery, many members of the current court are arguing that it is Constitutional to compel an unwilling private citizen to engage in a contract and purchase a product he or she does not want, and this court could certainly find a way to support any opinion it has as well. If you look through the List of United States Supreme Court cases I think you'll find that the conservative justices supported religious freedom in nearly every case. On the contrary, the liberal justices were more likely to rule that people could not exercise religion under certain contexts. In some cases some people (I'm thinking of liberals) may disagree that religion should be allowed to be practiced in certain circumstances (like praying at school for example) - but in this discussion that opinion is not important. The question is whether or not the conservative supported religious freedom, not whether or not they supported religious freedom within the particular guidelines you prefer. I don't think an argument could be made that the overwhelming majority of conservatives in the United States don't _say_ they support generic religious freedom. The accusation that is being made here is that US conservatives have a hidden agenda. If it is true, it needs to be proven but - ya'll should also keep in mind that this page is supposed to describe "Conservatism in the United States". If the page is saying that US conservatives support things that the conservatives themselves say they do not support, (And I can tell you, I take issue with much of this page but I know from experience that it is futile to try to build an unbiased document covering a political topic on Wikipedia with the never-ending swarm of liberal editors. If my challenge isn't immediately deleted I will be amazed.) then either the conservatives are lying and Wikipedia editors know better and this should be stated plainly in the main document as a statement of fact - or the editors are biased and are putting words in the mouths of people they disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.229.203 (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read . Most Americans do not believe that the president should appoint bishops. TFD (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservatives would agree. No argument here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.229.203 (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln

Norwood is at it again with POV edits. He does nlot recognize "conservatyive historians" as Reliable Sources because of his own pov--he has provided zero sources for his position. Historians of all shades agree Lincoln called himself a "conservative" at Cooper Union (his most famous prewar speech), and during the war was the leader of the moderate + conservative GOP element in opposition to the Radical Republicans, who denounced his polciies as too conservative. Furthermore at all times in his career he was a champion of banks, railroads and high tariffs = conservative economic policies. Rjensen (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. We have been over this countless times, and your continued mind-reading forces me to don my tinfoil cap. Let's just pretend that you cannot read my mind, and do not know why I make the edits I do, but address the issues based on evidence. No major Lincoln scholar calls Lincoln a conservative. He tried to win over a conservative audience in the Cooper Union speech, because he was being branded as a radical. He was small "c" conservative, but not a part of a Conservative movement. Also, the "conservative" economic policies you cite were not called Conservative at the time. There are probably more books about Lincoln than about any other American. If he were a big C Conservative, the major books on the subject would say so. Shelby Foote, himself a conservative, in his three volume history of the Civil War, does not say Lincoln was a Conservative. In order for this article to state that Lincoln was a conservative, that should be supported by the major writers on the subject. Finally, it is not up to me to provide evidence that you are wrong, it is up to you to provide evidence that your edit is correct. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

countless times Norwood refuses to use the scholarly literature which has been cited. Shelby Foote does not deal with politics. Start with Norman Graebner, "Abraham Lincoln: Conservative Statesman" in The Enduring Lincoln (1959) then move up to Lincoln and the Radicals by T. Harry Williams (1972). those are RS Rjensen (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes with the preponderance of the evidence. Shelby Foote is a historian, and certainly deals with politics in a historical context. The most reliable academic evidence is the evidence of people writing in their area of expertise. When major and minor writers disagree, Wikipedia reports what the major writers say. "Abraham Lincoln: Conservative Statesman" was a lecture delivered at the University of Illinois. Lectures are not usually subject to peer review. The collection in which the lecture appeared has no scholarly reviews that I can find. "Lincoln and the Radicals" is a more respectable, though not a major, source. It was published by an academic press. I can't find a copy. I did search T. Harry Williams "Lincoln and his Generals", and that book does not call Lincoln a conservative. Please cite a quote from Lincoln and the Radicals where it states that Lincoln was a conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

One can easily find just as many examples of RS calling him a "Liberal." At the end of the day...he wasn't really a good example of either a "Liberal" or a "Conservative," and attempts by modern historians to place him in such a context is fallacious thinking. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

it is not true that one " can easily find just as many examples of RS calling him a "Liberal." -- not in the last 30 years! (the term "liberal" in the 19th century was similar to "libertarian" today so you can get references to that, as in "Liberal Republican" party of 1872.) Modern liberals (since 1980) mostly gave up on Abe several decades ago--he was too white, too racist, too nationalistic, too militaristic, too pro-business--for their taste. I challenge Bryonmorrigan to cite those cites that he says he can find easily. Rjensen (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for Pete's sake... It's pretty easy to do. Frankly, I challenge YOU to find some modern Conservatives with something "nice" to say about President Lincoln. Most Conservative pundits and organizations have long been arguing that he was the perfect example of the federal gov't "intruding" on "States' Rights." Exhibit A: [4] But, for the sake of comedic interlude, I quickly searched Google Books and came up with: The Lincoln Persuasion: Remaking American Liberalism, by J. David Greenstone, University of Chicago, 1994.

A simple Google search of "best conservative presidents" yielded endless results written by all sorts of conservatives and every list I found included Lincoln. At best, some of the more libertarian types included him with an asterisk.

Gallup Poll: [5] (Republicans rank Lincoln #3, Democrats rank Lincoln #5) (My prediction of your response - 'these are Republicans, not conservatives' ... but we both know better.)

Conservapedia: [6] quote, "Lincoln, along with George Washington, is the chief icon of conservative American values."

Human Events: [7] - List of top 10 Presidents. #4 is Lincoln, he is included with an asterisk here but he is still #4.

Wikipedia: [8] - Cites a poll that has conservatives voting Lincoln as their favorite President.

Finally, I'm a conservative - and I'd put Lincoln at #2 behind George Washington. Your challenge was to find a modern conservative with something nice to say about Lincoln; consider it answered. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that someone who doesn't know that Lincoln is a conservative favorite has anything to contribute to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.229.203 (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Even Guelzo's Lincoln: A Very Short Introduction, which, while trying to distance Lincoln's Liberalism from modern US Liberalism, fails due to the author's ridiculously biased "definition" of modern Liberalism: "an unpopular combination of sentimentality, hedonism and a selective conviction that problems are the fault of social systems and that solutions are the province of government." Lincoln was certainly to the Right of the (Far Left) Radical Republicans...but to categorize him as "Conservative" is to say that President Bill Clinton was a "Conservative" because he wasn't really all that Far Left. It's a complete logical fallacy. It's like "claiming" Cicero on the page for modern Republicans or something. Stop trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.

And let's be honest about the term "Classical Liberal," which does indeed line up with the modern term "Libertarian," and is defined by the Libertarian think-tank the Cato Institute as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." [9] [10] [11] You can't claim that Libertarianism, or Classical Liberalism, is in any way analogous to "Conservatism." The change in Liberal economic policies that resulted from the influence of Marx, et. al., changed only the fiscal policies of the Liberals. Trying to equate Conservatives with Classical Liberals is as fallacious and absurd as trying to equate modern Liberals with Classical Liberals. Both groups are only halfway to Classical Liberalism, and therefore not the same at all.

And now I'm going back to my Spring Break goofing off. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I take it Bryonmorrigan is saying that he can't find any recent liberals who claim Lincoln as their own. The issues of the 186os found Lincoln and his coalition (conservatives and moderates & War Democrats & his "10%" Southerners who supported the Union) fought hard against the Radicals on the left. Even Bryonmorrigan agrees that was a big deal. Lincoln also was a major supporter of pro-business, pro-bank, pro-RR programs for his whole career, which is close to 2008 conservatism (it fits Romney but I'm not too sure about Santorum--he seems anti-big business). As for Greenstone, his book is about 19th century liberalism (by which he means individual rights, private property, and government by consent). As for modern libertarians most RS include the libertarians like Milton Friedman (and Ron Paul & his son Rand Paul) & the Koch brothers & CATO & Heritage Foundation in the 2012 conservative camp. All in all Lincoln is about an 80+% fit for conservatives today, with the 20% a matter of racial issues on which in 2012 liberals are more supportive of blacks than conservatives. As for other minorities--Indians in particular-- Lincoln hated them, rather like conservatives looking at Muslims or Mexicans today.Rjensen (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul is mostly, but not completely, Libertarian. In fact, it's his Libertarian ideals that make him such a target of Conservatives (Anti-War, Anti-Drug War), and has some Liberals supporting him! Rand Paul is much less Libertarian than his father, as he supports a lot of Social Conservative positions, like opposition to gay marriage. The Koch Brothers are just plain "Conservatives" who are trying to take over CATO and push it more in line with their Conservative views. [12] The Heritage Foundation isn't even close to being Libertarian, as they are marching firmly in line with the Authoritarianism of Social Conservatism. (If they are "Libertarians," then the word ceases to mean anything. Might as well call Santorum one at that point.) CATO, as cited above, defines Libertarianism, and themselves as "Socially Liberal," so trying to call them "Conservatives" is absurd. The Libertarian Party (United States) is "Socially Liberal," as noted by the RS on that page. Just because a few recent Conservative activists have tried to paint Libertarianism as "Conservative," does not make it so. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Russell Kirk wrote the [http://www.amazon.com/The-Conservative-Mind-Burke-Eliot/dp/1607960699/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331637523&sr=8-1 most notable history of American conservatism], so he's a pretty good source on who was a conservative and who wasn't. Kirk writes that Lincoln was a, "conservative democratic, a statesman after Burke's heart." (p. 299). I also think John Adams, another Kirk favorite, should also be added to the list. The question of whether Lincoln was liberal is separate from whether he was a conservative. He can be both, depending on the author's definition of the word "liberal." Liberal historians who deny that America has a conservative tradition obviously have an ax to grind. Kauffner (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Claims that writers who are writing in favor of the conservative cause are reliable while writers who write in favor of the liberal cause "have an ax to grind" is not helpful. Wikipedia does not favor writers with a cause, but rather the preponderance of evidence. Here, however, is what Russell Kirk actually said. He was giving the opinion of poet James Russell Lowell. "His eulogium of Lincoln (which did much to establish the enduring popular veneration for the President), is praise of the conservative Democrat, a statesman after Burke's heart, who combined a disposition to preserve with an ability to reform." Clearly, this is a use of the word "conservative" as an adjective meaning moderate, not radical. Of course Lincoln was a moderate not a radical. That does not say he was a member of a capital C Conservative movement." Rick Norwood (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious from the the context that Kirk agrees with Lowell; he was "quoted approvingly," as the book reviewers say. "A statesman's after Burke's heart" does not mean a liberal or a moderate. Shouldn't an article prefer sources whose focus is the subject? If a historian doesn't believe that American conservatism exists, we don't need to ask how he classifies Lincoln. Kauffner (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, Burke explicitly denied that he was a conservative. He is considered a major influence on the later conservative movements, but considered himself a moderate. In short, Kirk is praising Lincoln for his moderation. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Kirk also wrote that conservatism disappeared from Northern politics after the election of Jefferson in 1800. He does not call Lincoln a conservative, but a "conservative democrat". Kirk's conservatives - Adams, the southern planters, Burke - were not democrats. TFD (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD makes a useful point--the modern conservative movement (since the 1950s) is democratic and populist and rejects the upper class elitism expressed by earlier intellectuals on the right like Mencken, Babbitt, Viereck and Russell Kirk. Listen to the 2012 GOP rhetoric every day to catch the hostility to elites and "snobs". That is, the movement today is Lincolnian: of the people/by the people/for the people. Rjensen (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly a lot of hair splitting. If Kirk thought that conservative democrats were "after Burke's heart," it follows that he considered Burke a conservative and a democratic. Burke "championed conservatism", or so says Britannica. As far as moderation goes, Burke was noted for, "violent emotion and abuse, lacking restraint and proportion." The word "conservative" wasn't used in a political sense in English until the 1830s, so Burke didn't have the opportunity to deny that he was one. It sounds a little like the story about Marx denying he was Marxist. The title of Kirk's book is The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. Is this a book about moderation in politics? Kauffner (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Kirk wrote well, and owned a dictionary. He knew the difference between the adjective conservative and the Conservative movement. According to The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "conservative, 1. PRESERVATIVE 2. disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions 3. MODERATE, CAUTIOUS."

To argue that Burke did not praise moderation because he was not personally moderate is a classic logical fallacy. It takes the form, Burke lost his temper, therefore Burke is in favor of people losing their temper.

To argue that Lincoln was a Conservative because he believed in government by the people, and Conservatives believe in government by the people, is a classic logical falacy. It takes the form: Lincoln liked to fish, Conservatives like to fish, therefore Lincoln was a Conservative.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Norwood is focused on the conservative movement (post 1950), but that is not the topic of this article. Lincoln was anti-elitist and populist--that is a major theme of conservative Movement in 2012. (Abe's opponents the Radicals (after his death) used the US Army to control the South--which was not "government of/by/for the people." Abe rejected that during the war in his "10% plan" which the Radicals strongly opposed.) Rjensen (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Tsk. Tsk. Your analysis of "government of/by/for the people" is completely OR. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic of this article is not the "conservative Movement in 2012", which, alas, Lincoln was not part of in any case. You may admire Lincoln. Most people do. But you can't coopt him as a part of your movement. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Abe died some time back but his ideas and influence are part of both "Conservatism in the United States" (the article title) as well as today's organized movement. Is this Original Research (OR)?? (as Bryonmorrigan suggests) -- no -- it's standard scholarship: see Smith's book on the anti-tax movement of 1990s (much like the tea party of 2012): "A populist message must be, in the words of Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, "of the people, by the people, for the people." [Daniel Smith, Tax crusaders and the politics of direct democracy (1998) p. 46][ Likewise Ronald Formisano, For the People: American Populist Movements (2008) p 1] Or Abe Lincoln's opposition to Supreme Court activism: "'This country,' Abraham Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address, 'with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.' Populist constitutional law takes that to heart." says Tushnet, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts (2000) p 181 . So it's in the standard RS that Lincoln was populistic and hostile to elite experts (such as the activist Supreme Court)Rjensen (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This artice isn't about "populism in the United States". --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

it's about conservatism in the US, which before 1950 or so was very elitist and anti-Populist (say the RS, using people like Babbitt & Mencken & Cass Gilbert. and in 2012 is very populist and anti-elitist-- (listen to Gingrich & Santorum). Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused about your argument here. You state that Lincoln was "populistic and hostile to elite experts," and that Conservatives were elitist and anti-populist until 1950 or so. Doesn't that mean that Lincoln would have been the opposite of a "Conservative" in his era? Or is your entire argument based on the modern US definitions of "Conservative," rather than applying a historical lens? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 11:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As I read the RS, the leading conservatives in the 1900-1950 era were upper class snobs and anti-Democratic (Kirk himself is a good example). In those days the New Deal liberals and left claimed Lincoln (the American Communists in the Spanish Civil War in 1937 called themselves the "Abraham Lincoln Brigade"). That changed in the 1950s--Joe McCarthy & the National Review were anti-elitist for example and political leaders like Goldwater and Reagan projected a MUCH less elitist image than Robert Taft. (Today Romney gives off an elitist image--with his multiple cadillacs and friends among NASCAR team owners. Likewise University Professor Obama) ) In the 1960s the liberals became much more elitist (for example the working class element in unions and city machines faded) & lost interest in Lincoln and (among historians) made the Radical Republicans (of 1860s) into heroes. Meanwhile the conservatives picked up Lincoln's populism --for example they started to attack activist judges like Earl Warren, and began pushing voter initiatives like Proposition 13 on California taxes. Rjensen (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

National Review, populist! I read National Review in the 1960s and there was no more elitist magazine on the newsstand. Don't try to immanetize my eschation! In any case, that is beside the point. Neither populism nor anti-elitist rhetoric characterizes conservatism. And I've never heard a liberal say they "lost interest in Lincoln", so I have no idea where you get that. As for unions, read the news coming out of Wisconsin, and which side the conservatives are on. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Buckley was famous for his attacks on intellectuals -- and indeed on Yale itself (his God and man at Yale for example forst gained him fame) ... he often made fun of high-falutin language ("go ahead, immanetize my eschation!"). On liberals losing interest in Lincoln--there are entire books on how that happened. see [http://www.amazon.com/Abraham-Lincoln-Post-Heroic-Era-Twentieth-Century/dp/0226741885/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331826059&sr=1-1 Abraham Lincoln in the Post-Heroic Era: History and Memory in Late Twentieth-Century America by Barry Schwartz (2009)] which stresses civil rights movement and Vietnam War as major factors. Abe was too pro-war. too racist. Conservatives have always opposed unions--nothing new there. It was the New deal in 1930s that loved Abe-as-common-man and that theme was dropped by liberals and picked up by conservatives. Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The argument seems to be that if a person was any of the things that would have been considered "Conservative" in any era of American history, he is therefor a Conservative in the eyes of this article... and given the descriptors, all he has to have been is elitist or antielitist or populist or antipopulist. In other words, everyone's a conservative! Forgive me for thinking that this does not seem adequate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Posthumous Conservative Baptism!" I love it! But yeah, the above is basically what I was thinking. Whether Liberals or Conservatives "claim" him would seem to be irrelevant to the historian. Nobody EVER wants to "claim" their "villains," so if we use that kind of criteria, modern Communists will be able to "un-claim" Stalin, modern Fascists will be able to "un-claim" Hitler and Mussolini, and modern Conservatives will "claim" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Oh wait...they already do that, don't they...even though he clearly denounced Conservatives on multiple occasions. LOL.) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing posthumous about it-- Abe insisted in 1860 he was the true conservative (Cooper Union Speech). The question is how people today use his ideas and his leadership. Folks who downplay intense nationalism, for example, will not like Abe at all. Rjensen (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You keep making points that have already been answered, and don't seem to notice that you contradict yourself.Rick Norwood (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rick ways the Conservative Movement started after WW2 and Lincoln therefore was not part of it. This article is not solely on the Movement, it goes back to colonial days and Lincoln was indeed a very prominent leader of "conservatism in the US" Rjensen (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this article, like its parent article conservatism is about political conservatism. On the disambiguation page, this usage of conservatism is described as "Conservatism is a set of political philosophies that favour tradition." In the Cooper Union speech, Lincoln was not laying out his political philosophy, he was trying to win votes, by convincing his listeners that, in opposing disunion, he was supporting "the tried and true" (union) over radical change. But slavery was a tradition. And when he became President, by outlawing slavery, Lincoln was overthrowing a long-standing tradition. Rjensen, I don't know how to break this to you, but not every word a politician says in a stump speech is necessarily his considered opinion. Sometimes Honest Abe was just trying to win votes. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Norwood has the history wrong. It is false to say he was proposing in 1860 "overthrowing a long-standing tradition." Lincoln at that point (before the war) insisted he was not trying to in any way tamper with slavery as it existed in the states. He said -- and he meant it--he was trying to stop the EXPANSION of slavery into new territory (such as Kansas). He argued that the Founding Fathers mostly agreed with his position--for example they stopped the expansion of slavery into the NW territory in 1787. When the war came he in 1863 abolished slavery in the territory controlled by the Confederacy--but NOT in loyal states like Kentucky. Rjensen (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is so easy to argue when you make up both sides of the argument. I didn't say Lincoln was proposing in 1869 to "overthrow a long-standing tradition". I clearly said "when he became President" he in fact overthrew a long-long standing tradition. But it pleases Rjensen to pretend I said otherwise, so he can say I was wrong.

I'm well aware that Lincoln was a conervative man (see the dictionary definition above) and was willing to tolerate slavery if by doing so he could preserve the union. But he was not a Conservative, and your specious arguments will not make him one. You have, as Byron Morrigan points out above, cast your net so broadly that everybody is a conservative.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

to summarize: his positions that resonate with conservatism in history (& esp since 1945): strong positions on nationalism, patriotism. Low emphasis on civil liberties when they conflict with repression of subversives (not Communists of course but he jailed 18,000 secessionists without a trial); willingness to fight a war (with Confederacy of course but he also threatens Britain & France if they recognize Confeds); heavy emphasis on Founding Fathers; intense devotion to Constitution; strong support for military; support capital punishment; hostile to Indians; opposed to activist supreme court; pro-business, pro-banks, pro-RR; opposed to Radicals; voter control of state govt (as opposed to control by Army or Congress); cite James G. Randall, a leading biographer: "his preference for orderly progress, his distrust of dangerous agitation, and his reluctance toward ill digested schemes of reform." Randall concludes that, "he was conservative in his complete avoidance of that type of so-called 'radicalism' which involved abuse of the South, hatred for the slaveholder, thirst for vengeance, partisan plotting, and ungenerous demands that Southern institutions be transformed overnight by outsiders."; add also Lincoln's liberal (2012 terminology) positions: strong support for rights for blacks. Rjensen (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rick, John Graves Simcoe, a Tory and supporter of Wilberforce, wrote, "The moment that I assume the government of Upper Canada under no modification will I assent to a law that discriminates, by dishonest policy, between the natives of Africa, America or Europe". True to his word, the first act to which he assented as lieutenanat-governor was the Act Against Slavery 1793. TFD (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It'd be nice if conservatives were allowed to describe themselves, and liberals were allowed to describe themselves. They could easily include their own opinions of the other side without allowing political enemies to define one another. That is why no conservative will ever say, "You'd like to know more about conservatism? Check out that great Wikipedia article." I think if there was a stated goal for articles like this, it would be that the article be a trusted reference source for people of all stripes. Honestly, the only time I read political topics on Wikipedia is when I want the liberal [academic] point of view. We all know that people who aren't liberals take these pages with a block of salt. I find it to be an excellent example of liberal vs conservative behavior though, so in a way, I guess it does serve a purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.229.203 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what changes you wish to be made to the article. TFD (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

ToC

A recent edit moved the Table of Contents to the right side of the page, presumably to avoid the large blank space, but the large blank space was still there, and most Tables of Contents are on the left. Also, most Tables of Contents are not this long. Can any of the sections be combined without loss of clarity? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

An editor moved the ToC back to the right side of the page, explaining that it removed the white space on his browser. It does not remove the white space on my browser. What do other editors see and think? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It does remove the whitespace for me, as would using Template:TOC left (which would leave the TOC in its traditional and I believe more appropriate left-hand position). However, the documentation for both that and Template:TOC right say that they are not for use to create wordwrap around the TOC. As such, we should eliminate those tags, rather than seek sexiness in that manner. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you know more about this than I do. I hope you will fix the problem. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)