Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Leaders or celebrities

I think it's wise in a historically oriented article to avoid inclusion of current celebrities. Instead focus on people whose career is entirely or almost over (G.W.Bush and Cheney fit the latter category, as does Sowell, who's 80) Jefferson Davis was not exactly an exponent of expanding liberty--instead he used enormous state power to keep millions of people enslaved. Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson and Lincoln?

Liberals in recent years have often disowned Jefferson and Lincoln--but conservatives have not. Jefferson was a hero to small government folks and those suspicious of judges. Both he and Lincoln fit the 19th century liberalism modethan most conservatives claim. See for example, Schweikart and Allen, Patriot's History of the United States (2004) p 145; on Lincoln see ibid ch 9 and also recent work by Guelzo, Jaffa, Harris and Belz (cited in the article) --all prominent conservative historians. Rjensen (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In no way was Lincoln a conservative. If he is listed on this page, he should be removed. --William Saturn (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On Lincoln as an economic "conservative" (in terms of this article) see Gabor Boritt, Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream (1994) as well as Schweikart-Allen (2004). Keep in mind that 19th centtury "liberal" (Lincoln) = 20th century "conservative". Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln advocated a high protectionist tariff, massive public works projects, and favored a strong centralized federal government at the expense of states' rights. These are not conservative policies. --William Saturn (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Better read Allen C. Guelzo , "Our Lincoln: Obama, He Was Not," National Review. February 23, 2009. He argues, "Lincoln was a torchbearer for free markets, individual liberty and economic mobility, the rule of law, natural rights, and prudence in governing." and explains that these are the core values of conservatism. Lincoln did NOT "favored a strong centralized federal government at the expense of states' rights" --that's neo-Confederate poppycock. He favored a strong military to defeat the nation's enemies in battle, and did so. Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to read The Real Lincoln. There's no dispute that Lincoln favored the American System and that he did not believe in a state's right to secede. --William Saturn (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) Djensen, you have finally admitted that "American conservatives" are liberals. There is no difference between English Puritans, Whigs and Liberals and American Puritans, Whigs and liberals, and they are not English Royalists, Tories and Conservatives. 19th century liberals supported government support of public health, welfare and education, and the only difference between modern US "liberals" and "conservatives" is the degree to which they think the state should provide these services. Since the foundation of the Republic, there have been many political re-alignments and it is now impossible to trace the history of "conservatism" in America. TFD (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

William Saturn refers to the neo-Confederate hatred of Lincoln for preserving the Union and ending slavery. In the nation's greatest war, Lincoln favored victory for the U.S. and the neo-Confederates favor victory for the enemies of the U.S. As for freedom, the neo-Confederates favor keeping 4 million Americans as real slaves, and Lincoln wanted individual freedom for everyone. As for the tariff issue, Lincoln and the great majority of conservatives (in the GOP) favored high tariffs until the late 20th century. After 1970 modern conservatives switched positions on this issue and became low-tariff. Lincoln was in the conservative mainstream of his day on tariffs. As for TFD's comments, I think that since 1776 all Americans agree on most core values, but that it is indeed possible to study the complicated history. Rjensen (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Like modern day Conservatives, Confederates believed in local control and defended themselves against an invasion. And the GOP was a liberal party for a large part of the 20th century.--William Saturn (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern conservatives do NOT believe in local control of the US military. They would be aghast the way the Confederate states undermined the Confederate war effort. They do NOT endorse efforts by some states to keep National Guard troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan-- in 1861-65, governors of Georgia and Texas refused to allow their militia to leave the state to help Lee. Rjensen (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither do modern liberals. But some conservatives believe in non-intervention. An interventionist foreign policy derives from the Wilsonian (liberal) world view. --William Saturn (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) If Americans agree on core liberal values, how can you distinguish US liberals from conservatives? And what does slavery have to do with this? It obviously is unacceptable today to both US liberals and conservatives, but it was essentially a liberal institution, i.e., private property. TFD (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Private property rights are supported by modern conservatives. Liberals tend to feel that government needs to be more aggressive in its regulation of private property.--William Saturn (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether we call the opposing parties conservative and liberal, liberal and radical, Whig and democrat, right and left, or Girondin and Jacobin, is it not accurate to say they correspond to the two major political parties that existed throughout US history? The Right has at times been unsuccessful in organizing (e.g., before the Civil War and in the South) and has often appealed to populism, while the Left has always included members of the commercial elite, and regional, ethnic and religious divisions have played major roles. But analyzing the policies of Jefferson and Lincoln by today's standards is ahistorical. TFD (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

we're saying something different: that various historic figures have inspired and influenced today's conservatives. (We don't want to suggest that their policy solutions to the problems of their day are the same as conservative policy solutions to today's problems because the problems have a different context.) That is, Reagan of 1980 inspires conservatives 3 decades later, just as FDR of 1933 inspires liberals 8 decades later Rjensen (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This claim has been made before: that conservatives are the true liberals. Also, conservatives are the true conservatives. Therefore, the only people who are not conservatives are -- what? However, words have meanings, and conservatives should make their case based on the standard meanings of words, not on attempts to rewrite the dictionary and rewrite history. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

keep in mind out job here is to follow the experts on the history of conservatism--I suggest the most useful are Buckley (1970); Schneider (2003); Allitt (2010); Filler (1987); Frohnen (2006); Nash (2006); and Rossiter (1982). It's a little baffling to note there really are very few if any recent histories of liberalism in America, but in any case Wiki does not call the balls and strikes, it reports what the RS umpires called.Rjensen (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The WP:Weight policy says, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Since the theories run from there never were any conservatives in America to everyone except modern liberals were conservatives, I do not think we should make statements about anyone except people identified as part of modern conservatism. It seems it would be more helpful to explain how modern conservatives adopted the liberalism of Jefferson and Jackson, and even rejected Hamilton's economics, rather than label them as conservatives. The article would benefit from an explanation of the various theories. TFD (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

the notion that "there never were any conservatives in America" has not been supported by any RS in the last 50 years--that makes it defunct. Jefferson has a certain appeal to modern conservatives: Jefferson opposed strong federal government, opposed elites, opposed powerful courts, and supported democracy--pretty close to Palin in that regard! (He had many other ideas that appealed to liberals, to be sure--he's a very complex thinker.) Jackson is not on the conservative list. I argue that we should follow the lead of the major RS, which I suggest are Buckley (1970); Schneider (2003); Allitt (2010); Filler (1987); Frohnen (2006); Nash (2006); and Rossiter (1982).Rjensen (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is mostly liberals and progressives who are more supportive of democracy. Most conservatives talk about how democracy is "mob rule" and how "we are not a democracy, we are a republic." Conservatives don't oppose elites only college professors. The basis of historical conservativism and classical liberalism is that elites govern best and we can't trust "the mob" to control government. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) Here are some recent sources:

• "In their origins both parties are Liberal parties; despite the fact that many Republican politicians and voters today would describe themselves as conservatives, the Republican Party is not a Conservative party.... Liberalism lacked an opponent, and remained the American ideology even during the period of industrialization." (Political Parties and Party Systems (1996) Alan Ware, p. 60)

• "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been." (Political ideology today (2001), Ian Adams, p. 32)[1]

• "Because of these divergent backgrounds, the term "conservatism" came to acquire a different meaning in both countries. Rather than to European notions of conservatism, the American version relates to classical liberalism." (Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America (2003), Rainerp-Olaf Schultze and others, p. 15.)[2]

• "In this book, I intend to investigate another equally blatant mislabeling, one that pertains to American "conservatives"." (Conservatism in America (2007), Paul Gottfried, p. 2)[http://www.amazon.com/Conservatism-America-Making-Sense-American/dp/1403974322#reader_1403974322]

While the populism of Sarah Palin and others has precedents, it seems closer to the original Tea Party and its leaders than Jefferson, and there has been no continuity or consistency in American populism. Anti-masons, copperheads, nativists, all grew spontaneously then disappeared. TFD (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing effort to portray a minor view as a mainstream view.

We have been over this so many times, citing so many standard reference works, that I'm not sure there is any point in going over it again. But, I am willing to try.

Conservatism means support for tradition. American conservatism means support for American traditions. The opposite of conservatism is progressivism.

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, libertarians decided to throw in their lot with conservatives, and so some American conservatives are libertarians. But to apply that alliance retroactively, to people who lived before the alliance was made, is anachronistic. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal who believed in revolution and in small government. Abraham Lincoln was a liberal who opposed the conservative tradition of slavery and believed in a strong federal government. Neither is identified as a conservative by any source that is not trying to push one particular and minor view of conservatism. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Rick Norwood seems to be saying that the overwhelming preponderance of reliable RS agree with him regarding Lincoln. I cited numerous conservative historians on Lincoln who identify him with modern conservatism (which does not support slavery)--perhaps he will now tell us the RS he is relying upon so we can have a concrete discussion. Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

All the sources I listed above would group Lincoln as a liberal. However if you define conservative as upper-middle class liberalism, then Lincoln would be a conservative. He differed from other conservative leaders however by appealing to radical instead of reactionary voters. Today's Tea Party is clearly in the tradition of Copperheads and Confederates, while progressives are clearly in the radical tradition. TFD (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The important adjective above is "conservative". Yes, conservatives claim Lincoln and Jefferson, but mainstream historians do not agree. In fact, the very idea that there is "conservative" history and that this is different from mainstream academic history is to apply an unacceptable relativism to the writing of history. Both Lincoln and Jefferson are famous as champions of liberty, not as champions of tradition. Attempts to claim them by conservatives are part of the ongoing attempt by a minority of American conservatives to change the meaning of "conservative" to support their own views. It would be better to defend their ideas instead of attacking the dictionary meaning of words. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well at least Rick Norwood now agrees that conservatives claim Lincoln--which is the main point of listing their heroes. He adds that "mainstream historians do not agree". I think that is false--I think that most mainstream historians consider Lincoln more a conservative than a liberal (using 21st century terms here). Which "mainstream historians" does Norwood have in mind?? Conservatives are champions of liberty--they all do say that. Liberals say the conservatives go to far, especially in opposing regulation of business and Wall Street (a debate going on right now). As far as champion of tradition--well that depends on the tradition--conservatives dislike lots of (liberal) traditions! Rjensen (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think repeated erasures without citing any RS is pretty serious behavior--Rick Norwood says he is sure that Lincoln was really a liberal--and should not be a conservative hero. he admits that Lincoln actually is a conservative hero but so far he has not told us about the RS he is using to prove Lincoln is a liberal--David Donald, Richard Hofstadter, David Potter, Guelzo, Harris, Boritt etc---they all call Lincoln a conservative. Rjensen (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary to provide evidence against a given assertion. The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. You need to show that the preponderance of evidence supports your claim. The very fact that you say "using 21st century terms" casts doubt on your claim. The 21st Century is only ten years old. If the meaning of words changed every ten years, we would rapidly become unable to communicate at all. Please note that I did not "admit" that Lincoln was a conservative hero. I said that some conservatives try to claim that Lincoln was a conservative hero. However, I wnat to give you every benefit of the doubt, and so I'll check your first three references. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

All editors need RS to make changes. If you think a statement is false and lack your own RS, use the FACT tag, please, don't erase information. People who challenge cited statements need at least ONE little source, especially if they make very strong claims like Norwood does about mainstream scholars. One more time for some RS who consider Lincoln a conservative: on Lincoln see Schweikart and Allen, Patriot's History of the United States (2004) ch 9 and also recent work by Guelzo, Jaffa, Harris and Belz (cited in the article) all identify Lincoln as a conservative. On the other side historians who say he is a liberal in terms of the language in use since the 1950s: well I have not read them and I think no one here has read them--the last historian making Lincoln a liberal was Randall in the 1940s; then there was conservative political scientist Willmore Kendall in the 1950s who thought of Lincoln as a liberal. But Rossiter (1955) explained that "liberal" changed meanings in the 1930s--before then people like Hoover were called 'liberal". Now they are called conservative. Interestingly, the terminology changed in the US but not in Europe--where say Milton Friedman is called a "liberal". But this article uses American usage, of course. Add a few more cites: Allan Nevins: "We tend to forget what a conservative man Lincoln was." Norman Graebner wrote an essay entitled "Abraham Lincoln: Conservative; [[Bruce Catton}: "Abolitionists considered Lincoln too conservative"; McPherson "This provoked many conservative ex- Whigs in the North to vote for Lincoln as the lesser of evils;" White (2007) "Lincoln's ideas were conservative"; Boritt (2002): "Lincoln has now emerged as a tempered conservative"; Benjamin Thomas: "Lincoln was deliberate, easy-going, cautious, and conservative;"; Eric Foner (2006) Lincon combined the fervor of the abolitionists "with the respect for order and the Constitution of more conservative northerners;" Foner (1991): "Lincoln revered the Union and the Constitution";does Norwood need more?? Rjensen (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, if the terms liberal and conservative only came to be used in their modern forms in the 1930s at the earliest then the article should explain why these terms should be applied to earlier periods. If the liberal-conservative divide predates these terms then we would expect that another set of terms would have been used. The article should say what they were and why they were abandoned. TFD (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

this article starts out by defining conservative characteristics (using 2010 language), so I suggest that people in the past who generally fit the characteristics can be called conservative for the purpose of this article. Rjensen (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There are three problems with that: (1) the definition in the lead is drawn uncritically from the self-description of modern conservatives and is therefore biased, (2) the definition is drawn so wide that it could describe any political figure in the United States, and (3) it is original research for us to determine who was or was not a conservative. You are aware of the difference between academic and polemical writing and I would suggest that the article resembles the latter. TFD (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, you are flatly wrong in denying that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative position. Check any textbook on logic. If someone posts in Wikipedia that the moon is made of green cheese, that can be deleted as unreferenced. It is not necessary to cite an authority that the moon is not made of green cheese.

I read a little of Lincoln by David Donald. Excellent book. Like most mainstream authors, he does not paint Lincoln in black and white. He describes Lincoln as more conservative than those who would tear the country apart to end slavery, such as John Brown, and describes those who would allow the South to succeed as more conservative than Lincoln. Every politician has some conservative views, that doesn't make them all conservatives.

You seem to think conservatives favor freedom. Conservatives in the United States are most notable for their oposition to freedom: oposition to freedom of religion, oposition to freedom of choice, oposition to freedom from censorship, oposition to freedom for gays and lesbians, and so on. On almost every issue involving freedom, the only freedom the conservatives support is freedom for corporations: freedom to polute the environment, freedom to run unsafe factories and mines, freedom to refuse insurance when people get sick. Your claim that people who love freedom are called 'conservative' goes against not only the dictionary, but even the most post-modern definition of conservatism. Of course, all political parties pay lip service to freedom, but as well define a "conservative" as someone who loves Mom and apple pie as to try to position conservatives as lovers of freedom. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I gather that Rick Norwood has strong negative views about American conservatism. Well everyone to their own taste, but the discussion here is about Lincoln. Rjensen (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, I apologize for my rant. I was out of line. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

origins of American conservativism

This section had become a collection of unrelated sentences, many off topic. I've tried to put it in better order. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading the origins section, one can conclude that in the late 18th century conservatives were the loyalists, the federalists, all major political groups or none of them. The section should explain this better. Also, the significance of entailed estates and slavery is overstated. The Colonial Debtors Act 1732 made land and slaves subject to seizure for payment of debts, and therefore capitalist not feudal property, and slavery was an extension of indenturement, not feudal vassalage. Under feudalism of course property and vassals cannot be sold or seized by sheriffs, and are ultimately the property of the Crown, not the landlord. TFD (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Four Deuces makes some good points and I attempted to clarify the section and added cites. Feudalism is not mentioned but the patroon estates are now mentioned. The point is that the "old" conservatism system was expelled or grossly weakened by the Revolution, which brought in new republican political values. (Both Liberals and conservatives adhere to these republican principles, but, for example, they define "corruption" differently. ( for example in the current debate over Wall Street, liberals see Goldman Sachs as corrupt and conservatives say it was Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.) Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I did my best to write a referenced section. It was reverted in its entirity, and in its place we once again find the absurd claim that people in America had more freedom than, for example, people in Amsterdam, and that "most" Americans had the right to vote even though, for example, no women or Blacks or Native Americans had the right to vote. I am trying to work with others on this article, but when all my work is reverted and absurd claims restored, it is difficult to see any alternative but a fruitless edit war. If anyone can suggest an alternative, I'd like to hear it. As for the bit above about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, I can only shake my head in disbelief. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What country had more freedom--one city in Holland perhaps (what is his RS for that assertion, by the way?--does he know of elections in Amsterdam in 1750 like those in Boston, New York and Charleston? I suspect he invented that claim as OR.) As for voting there are lots of studies that demonstrate that a majority of Americans could vote. (what about the women--well what about the children? Some people will not be happy until 12 year-olds get the vote, I suppose, meaning there is no democracy anywhere in the world today. The criterion of course is citizenship and independence. I added cites that have I read and I invite Norwood to read -- he says he wants to cooperate but he over and over refused to tell us what if any RS he is using--suggesting he has none to offer us, and none to refute the text that is cited here. Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Slavery is freedom and women are children, cited references are uncited references. Did you even read what I wrote before reverting it? I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm going to be able to hold a serious discussion with any editor who equates votes for women with votes for children. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We should take time out and find out how best to state that American colonists had more freedoms by finding neutral sources for this that clearly explain what this meant. The US Revolution has become part of the American mythology and it is often difficult to see it in neutral terms. BTW I think the taxation issue should be more clear - the Crown ended taxation without representation in 1775 and Parliament enacted legislation against it in 1778. It might have been a rallying cry but surely there were deeper causes for the Revolution, such as free trade and western settlement. TFD (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki uses the established scholarly literature. As the Oxford History of the British Empire explains, the colonists "lived under the freest government in the European world." (1999 vol 5 p 107)-- and they wanted to keep it that way. London sent in troops and passed new laws (the Intolerable Acts) to end that freedom. Rjensen (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not the same as saying "the colonists enjoyed far more freedom than counterparts in Britain or anywhere else". They had freedom from arbitrary actions by the Crown. I suggest we use the phrasing in the source. But whether or not the Crown intended to take these freedoms away is disputable. The source says that the colonists' "ideology [was] riddled with paranoid fears of ministerial conspiracy against the liberty of the people".[3] Apparently one way they intended to do this was by providing civil rights to Catholics. TFD (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Britain did not move against the other 12 colonies but they were VERY afraid that would happen. Would Britain have made the move--nobody knows. Most historians think the British goal was to scare all 13 colonies and in that they certainly succeeded. The point is that the Americans revolted to protect their traditional freedoms, which were greater than anywhere else.Rjensen (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Take two deep breaths and call me in the morning.

I'm going to try to take this very slow and see if some improvement of the article is possible. Conservatism, like every other "ism", has good points and bad. There are many points on which libertarian wing of the conservative movement in the United States is not in accord with the beliefs of social conservatives. In general, the anti-intellectual conservatives -- the conservatives who criticize Obama for attending a private prep-school or who want creationism taught in the public schools -- are not part of the libertarian wing. I've restored the brief, referenced paragraph on this important subject. It is where it belongs, in the "social conservatism" section. There is no implication that fiscal conservatives agree with these positions. Let's see what happens next. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

link to blog

Twice an editor has added a link to this blog. My reaction is that if the blog were any good, it would be titled "Modern Discussions as they relate to American Conservatism", but maybe I just need to get used to the post-grammatical age. Does anyone have any evidence that this blog is noteworthy? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

+ *Modern Discussions As It Relates To American Conservatism Today

There is no information on the website stating who is behind the blog and I cannot find any third party sources to establish its notablity. Apparently it was created 18th April, 2010.[4] Therefore it fails to meet the criteria for inclusion for external links. TFD (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Still discussing Lincoln and Jefferson.

Are Lincoln and Jefferson conservatives, or "especially admired by conservatives"? The consensus seems to be that they are not, with one determined editor repeatedly putting them in. While this isn't the biggest problem in the article, it seems important enough to insist on evidence before this view can be included. And by evidence, I mean the preponderence of the evidence. Articles in National Review are not mainstream evidence. Even William F. Buckley, Jr's son quit National Review because of their extreme views. If I look up Barry Goldwater in any standard reference work, the very first paragraph will include the word "conservative". There is no reason to think that this article should include a list of every person ever "especially admired by conservatives", a list that would presumably include Babe Ruth. For names to be on this list there should be a mainstream source that says that these people were important conservatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there evidence that modern conservatives especially admire Lincoln? Well yes indeed, the 2004 GOP convention nominated George W. Bush--quite the hero to conservatives and enemy to liberals" and strongly emphasized his Lincolnian roots at the national convention. Let me quote from a scholarly article by Mary E. Stuckey, "One Nation (Pretty Darn) Divisible: National Identity in the 2004 Conventions," Rhetoric & Public Affairs v8 #4 (2005) 639-656 quoting p 647:

For the Republicans, the story of America, like the story of the party, essentially began with Abraham Lincoln. This reliance on Lincoln allowed them to ground their claims concerning the present in the values of the past. General Tommy Franks quoted Lincoln on the importance of character; Senator Sam Brownback referenced him as the touchstone of the Republican's continued fight "for the defense of human life and dignity"; former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani drew a direct line between "the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush"; while Senator Elizabeth Dole's historical trajectory connected the two by way of Ronald Reagan. Maryland's Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele traced the lineage of Republican support for civil rights from Lincoln to Eisenhower to Senate Republicans, including in his pantheon of civil rights heroes the rather remarkable grouping of "Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan and Maebell Turner"; California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, after calling Richard Nixon a "breath of fresh air," named the other heroes of his party from Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.

The platform began with clear references to Lincoln at Gettysburg: "One hundred and fifty years ago, Americans who had gathered to protest the expansion of slavery gave birth to a political party that would save the Union—the Republican Party . . . Every day we strive to fulfill Lincoln's vision: a country united and free, in which all people are guaranteed equal rights and the opportunity to pursue their dreams. His legacy goes beyond the borders of America. It can be seen in free governments all over the world." The Republican vision, grounded in principles associated with Abraham Lincoln, was international in scope, universal in application. Under the Republicans, Americans would be dedicated to freedom and willing to make sacrifices for it. They would understand their country and its government as symbolizing and enacting a universal morality that had to be both protected and spread throughout the world. Republicans understood Americans as a missionary people, who properly brought missionary zeal to both domestic and international affairs. By grounding the party's present in the Lincolnian past, the Republicans placed their principles (freedom as the basis of both equality and opportunity) as representative of the best of American political traditions. [ end quote from Stuckey] Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the Republican party with conservatism. Of course Lincoln was a Republican. Nobody denies that. None of your quotes mention conservatism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through the list using a desk encyclopedia, and removed names that either were not listed at all or were not identified as conservatives. A list such as this could expand indefinitely if it were not limited to major figures commonly identified with conservative ideas. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please find one standard reference work that identifies the people you want to list as major conservatives before you list them. Wikipedia is based on standard references. Please do not group more than one reference in a single footnote, and cite a reference by giving the author, title, page number, publisher, and date. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

we can do a lot better than a little desk encyclopedia, which makes no pretense of thorough coverage of conservatism. Wiki rules recommend AGAINST using general encyclopedias because they are tertiary sources . What we want are "Notable historical political and intellectual leaders held in high regard by modern conservatives" and to do that we look at the standard mainstream scholarly books that cover what the modern conservatives actually think--they have been listed before but there they are again: Buckley (1970); Schneider (2003); Allitt (2010); Filler (1987); Frohnen (2006); Nash (2006); and Rossiter (1982). All the bibliographical info is fully covered at the end of the article and we should not clutter footnotes with useless duplicate info. As for the the overlap between Bush's GOP and the conservative movement there has been little doubt as explained by Micklethwait, and Wooldridge, The Right Nation (2004)Rjensen (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The encyclopedia I'm using is The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, hardly "little". I'll check the Britannica if you want me to. But, as I've said before, it is not up to me to prove that these people are not conservatives, it is up to you to show they are. And it is not reasonable to expect editors of Wikipedia to look through more than seven books by seven different authors to find out if any of them actually says what you claim. Also, just because conservative authors claim that a person is a conservative doesn't make him one. Still, what I've asked of you should not be difficult for you to accomplish, if you are correct in your assertion. Just find one mainstream academic source that says these people are conservatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia recommends against tertiary sources like general encyclopedias. I quoted at length from a recent scholarly article to show that the 2004 Bush campaign--the centerpiece of conservate politics in recent years--made and intense and enthusiastic effort to link up with Lincoln, See Mary E. Stuckey, in Rhetoric & Public Affairs vol 8 #4 (2005). That's as mainstream as scholarship gets (Most of the contributors are pretty liberal). I also cited numerous well-regarded scholarly books that make the same point. Norwood rejects these without examining them. That is unreasonable. Norwood wants citations. I provide citations. No good, says Norwood, because he will not look at them. Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The subsection "Civil War and Reconstruction" is unclear about identifying conservatism or conservative influences from that time. This would be the section to explain Lincoln. TFD (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen's edit

I've made a few small changes in Rjensen's recent edit ("socialism" unless part of a party name, is not capitalized) but I want to praise his edit on the "Types" section, which he much improved. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow edit

I reverted your edit, not because I necessarily disagree, but because it seems to me that the various camps in the conservatve tent each want to emphasize a part of Conservatism in the United States and deemphasize the rest. Since Obama's election, the hot button issue has been the Tea Party Movement and Low Taxes (and anti-immigration, but that doesn't fit in a neat category). But druing the Bush administration, it was teaching evolution, prayer in the public schools, anti-abortion, and anti-affirmative action. Under Reagan, it was anti-communism. And so on. I think the lede needs to at least try to reflect the big tent, and be careful not to emphasize whichever part of conservatism the author thinks is most important. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No no no. abortion has been a top issue for decades but evolution pops up locally, prayer in schools has been a minor issue for over a decade, and "anti-affirmative action", has been a Supreme Court issue rather than a popular issue for over a decade. Some people on the left emphasize those points for their own reasons--but not most conservatives. Hafta read National Review and Wall Street Journal. The hot issue last year was Obama's health care and spending.Rjensen (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know what the hot issue this year was. But this article is about Conservatism in the United States, not about Conservatism in the United States this year. Of course, all of our views are shaped by our experiences, but I live in Tennessee, and very few of my friends and neighbors read National Review or "Wall Street Journal. They go to church every Sunday, are staunch Republicans, and when they say they are conservative, they mean that in their view America is a Christian nation. These people are an important part of Conservatism in America. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm really glad Norwood has nice conservative neighbors. I strongly suspect they believe in what Norwood erased--that is traditional social values, and lower taxes. Please ask them. However when it comes to citations at Wiki we rely on reliable sources on conservatism like the National Review and Wall Street Journal to identify the conservative positions. Rjensen (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lede based on reliable sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should put it in broader terms. US conservatives want to use the coercive powers of government to enforce nonconformist (and to a degree Catholic) moral and religious values at all levels and interpret their constitution as divinely inspired. Sara Diamond wrote: "In the realms of culture and morality, traditionalists back the state as enforcer of a religious moral order, through laws regulating sexual practices, reproduction, childhood education, and mass media content.... To be right-wing means to support the state in its capacity as enforcer of order...."[5] Obviously the issues will vary over time. It is important not to confuse it with the conservatism in Catholic countries. TFD (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

yes but everyone wants to use the state to enforce their moral code. Liberals are currently attacking Wall Street with criminal investigations--as FDR did back in 1933. Liberals made it a crime, for example, to refuse service to a black customer (civil rights law of 1965). Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That does not detract from the statement that conservatives use state power to enforce traditional values. Liberals may in fact hold the same values, such as opposition to atheism, yet do not normally expect government to enforce conformity. Whatever the ulterior motives of liberals, their arguments are usually phrased in terms of protecting individuals as the terms "criminal" and "civil rights" imply. The same sex marriage debate is a clear example where conservatives have tried to pass constituional amendments that reflects their view of marriage. TFD (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-communism

Please note that the paragraph about anti-communism states that conservatives and liberals united in anti-communism. Carter gave arms to Islamic terrorists so they could fight the Soviets. Reagan sold arms to Islamic terrorists to raise money to fund anti-communist terrorists. Both were motivated by anti-communism. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson and Lincoln

"Conservatism in the United States is an umbrella term for an array of related positions on political and economic policy, generally favoring free-market capitalism, Christian morality, and anti-communism." Please explain the repeated claim that Jefferson and Lincoln were in some sense conservative. Were they free-market capitalists, were they Christians, or were they anti-communists? As this article explains, conservatism in the modern sense is a modern movement, started by people such as William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater.

Were they then conservatives in the older sense? Were they in favor of the status quo? Did they favor a return to some earlier form of government? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a modern movement, but one that developed from previously existing groups and that has developed its own history. While I am in favor of explaining the various histories, it is ahistorical to refer to anyone before the 1950s as a conservative. I notice too that Grover Cleveland is listed as a conservative in the article, although his support of free markets and progressive taxation and opposition to imperialism puts him in the radical tradition, against establishment support for tariffs and US expansion. TFD (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and suggest that most historians of conservatism cover the period before the 1930s-- for example: Allitt, The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History (2010); Filler, Dictionary of American Conservatism (1987); Foner, . "Radical Individualism in America: Revolution to Civil War," '(1978); Frohnen, American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (2006); Genovese, The Southern Tradition: The Achievement and Limitations of an American Conservatism (1994); Guttman, The Conservative Tradition in America 1967; Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind (2001); Rossiter, Conservatism in America. (1982) and Viereck; Conservatism: from John Adams to Churchill (1978). It's most common to start with the era of the American Revolution & Constitution, which of course conservatives in 2010 harken back to. Rjensen (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look through these. But are they really consistent with one another? Viereck and Kirk saw the federalists and the antebellum South as conservatives, and Viereck rejected the claim that modern conservatives were conservative at all. Is there one account that shows conservatism as a continuing force throughout US history? TFD (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I recommend the new book by Allitt, The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History (2010). It is certainly true that each historian emphasizes different themes and different people. Kirk and Viereck, for example, are much more interested in literature and much less interested in economics. Viereck was a historian of Europe and he meant the Americans were unlike the European conservatives (which I think we all agree is true--no king, no aristocracy, no established church, no powerful army, etc etc). Rjensen (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I read part of Allitt's book and some of the reviews. He mentions that only one other author had attempted to trace the history of American conservatism, but his work seems to confirm the cleavage described by earlier writers. One thing I noticed is that he considers Jefferson a radical who became an inspiration to southern conservatives and says that laissez-faire was originally radical but became adopted by conservatives as radicals moved to interventionism. That seems to preclude grouping Jefferson with the conservatives and would probably exclude Cleveland too. And while I was unable to read most of the book, would this not mean that Dewey and Rockefeller were conservatives too, and that the Goldwater conservatives merely redefined the ideology rather than re-introduced conservatism? TFD (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To say that Jefferson and Lincoln were conservatives is like saying that 4 and 6 are odd numbers. It is contrary to fact. No respectable reference work makes this claim. The books you cite are by avowedly conservative authors trying to make a case for conservatism, not by mainstream historians trying to report history as it actually happened. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Which reliable sources on the history of conservatism does Norwood recommend? Rjensen (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Allitt wrote, "The passage of time could also bring about odd re-configurations, such as the elevation of Thomas Jefferson, once dreaded as a dangerous radical, into the hero of anti-big government southern conservatives in the twentieth century". TFD (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than using works specifically about "history of conservatism", I prefer to use works on American history written by mainstream historians. A couple that I have read recently, and strongly recommend, are Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, about Lincoln, and John Adams by David McCullough, which has a lot to say about Jefferson. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

yes but neither book talks about modern conservatism-- and they do not use terms like "liberal" or "conservative" to describe Jefferson or Lincoln . The books listed are all RS by Wikipedia standards --they come from reliable publishers and have been well reviewed. Denigrating them on the basis of personal hatred of conservatism is OR and is does not meet Wiki standards . Allitt's book is published by Yale University Press and is praised in its reviews as "nuanced, thoughtful history". That's called mainstream RS Rjensen (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is exactly the point. Neither book talks about modern conservatism because it didn't exist at the time of Jefferson and Lincoln. In Jefferson's day, to be conservative meant to support a king and an established religion. In Lincoln's day, to be a conservative meant to support slavery. Modern conservatism does not support kings or slavery, and caution should be used in applying words in ways that are anachronistic.

And I respectfully request that you observe the requirement to assume good faith. I am not motivated by "hatred" of anything.

By all means, let's take Allitt as an example. In The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History, Allitt says (p. 23), "To be sure, not every slave owner, nor every Virginian, should be thought of as a conservative. Thomas Jefferson, for example..." So Allitt says, explicitly, that Thomas Jefferson should not be thought of as a conservative. You can't get much clearer than that. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Rick Norwood (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still confused about what these authors consider conservatism to be. Was there a conservative consensus until the New Deal or does the liberal-conservative divide date from the Revolution? TFD (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "liberal" changed meaning in the 1930s in the US. Before then it usually meant more like "libertarian" (small-government). Since then liberal means New Dealer/Big Government. Note that "conservative" in the sense of "she had conservative tastes in clothes" or "he was too conservative to accept the changes in the Catholic Mass" is a different sense than used here. Likewise we are not using "liberal" like this "his parents were liberal in setting his curfew". This article is about politics and public policy, not individual behavior. Rjensen (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Prior to the New Deal was conservatism the sole political tradition in the U. S., or was there any opposing tradition and if so what was it? TFD (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

there was plenty of what we now call "liberalism"--esp anti-business themes; but in the days of Shays Rebellion (1787), Loco Focos (1830s), Andrew Jackson (1830s), Populists (1890s) William Jennings Bryan (1896-1912) etc it did not have a standard name. "progressive" came into use c. 1900 but there were both liberal (Bryan, Wilson, TR, LaFollette) and conservative (Taft, Root, Stimson, Hoover) wings of Progressives. Probably the most common term for the non-socialist left before 1930s was "agrarian" (which conveyed a sense of hostility to cities, industry and rich farmers as well)Rjensen (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives often claim that "liberal" used to mean "small government" and now means "big government", but that is incorrect. That's propaganda. "Liberal" used to mean "in favor of freedom" and now means "in favor of freedom". The big battles of liberalism in my lifetime have been freedom of assembly for union members, freedom for Blacks to vote and go to school, freedom of women to have control over their own bodies, freedom of homosexuals from harassment, freedom of citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures (as in Arizona today), freedom from unlawful inprisonment and torture, freedom from censorship, freedom of religion, ... the list goes on, liberals on one side and conservatives on the other side. If you don't believe me, look in any standard reference work. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The list just presented is pretty old stuff--mopstly 1960s and 1970s. This is 2010 and anyone following the news will see the main liberal-conservative issues these days are actually about health care (esp. people being forced to buy insurance), regulation of finance, high government spending, higher/lower taxes, cap-and-trade. As for torture, liberals indeed made a lot about that when Bush was president but Obama has followed the same policies and liberals have been pretty quiet. "Freedom of assembly for union members" = "card check issue" = conservatives want secret union elections and liberals oppose secret elections. "freedom of religion" for conservatives means freedom to pray in school and have religious clubs. "Freedom for Blacks to vote" was settled decades ago in bipartisan fashion. "Freedom for Blacks to go to school" today means school vouchers, which conservatives support and liberals oppose. Rjensen (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue of health care is not really about liberalism, it is about whether the government should provide social services. It is true that the Democratic party, which is on the liberal side on most issues, is also in favor of government services, such as health, education, old age pensions and unemployment benefits, but this article should not confuse liberalism with what the Democratic Party supports. None of the issues you mention fall on the liberal-conservative divide. Some can be characterized by social welfare vs. individual responsibility. Should everyone be forced to buy health/auto/liability insurance? Some have to do with the question of who should pay for things like derivative trading, the BP oil spill, or the cost of global warming. The only sure thing is that somebody is going to have to pay for them.

And then we have some red herrings. I'm not aware of Obama condoning water-boarding. The days when Union organizers were killed or deported are long in the past. School prayer has always been legal in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. What isn't legal is for teachers (or altletes) to lead students in prayer, which puts a lot of pressure on students who don't want to take part. Freedom for Blacks to vote and attend school was extremely partisan. School vouchers has nothing to do with the days when blacks were murdered for trying to attend a white-only school, and the divide on school vouchers is not along liberal/conservative lines.

The point is, issues matter, and you don't solve a problem by sticking a label on it. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

jensen, are you not agreeing with the liberal consensus theory, that the U. S. has a single continuous political tradition (which you call conservative), that is periodically challenged by non-socialist radicals, actually arguing from the same shared principles of freedom and equality? That modern liberals, like Obama, are not even radicals. TFD (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

no--there were plenty of non-conservatives (like Shays people in 1780s, the communal groups in 1830s, Radical Republicans in 1870s, the Populists in 1890s, Tillman & LaFollette in early 20c; Huey Long in 1930s; many labor unions; etc). However, I do believe that (almost) all Americans adhere to Republicanism in the United States, and all adhere to the Declaration of Independence. Rjensen (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

These are mostly groups that arose in reaction to crises, had no coherent ideology, quickly faded and there is no continuity between them. Some radical groups were not left-wing at all: anti-masons, nativists, klansmen, although they too argued from the same Republican principles. These groups do not represent a continuing tradition, as a coherent alternative to the consensus, whether ones calls it liberal, conservative or republican. TFD (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, not everybody agrees with the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal", witness Senator Knotts' recent remark "We already got one raghead in the White House, we don’t need a raghead in the governor's mansion." as just one of many examples. But this article needs focus, and that focus should be Conservatism in the United States. There are other articles for the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and so on. And we should stick to standard reference works, not attempts to spin the word "conservative" to fit the current political scene -- that changes every eight years if not sooner. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We could use Lipset's book, The politics of unreason: right wing extremism in America, 1790-1970‎ (1970),[6] which is on Questia as our guide for the history of conservatism. Clearly a great number of modern conservatives belong to this tradition, rather than any tradition of the Founding Fathers or Lincoln. TFD (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lipset was himself a leading neoconservative after 1980 and supported Reagan; "right wing extremism" is, as the title suggests, outside the mainstream of conservative thought and practice. For the post 1960 era Lipset has two chapters on the John Birch Society and two chapters on George Wallace, for example. He does not include people like Sen Taft, Sen, Russell, or Reagan. Lipset does not deal much with intellectuals--there is no mention of Hayek or Friedman or Mises or Russell Kirk. He does note that Buckley's National Review fought hard against the Birch Society and Wallace. Rjensen (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase my question. You said that "Americans adhere to Republicanism in the United States". Do we include the "agrarians" and the "right-wing extremists" as republicans? Is republicanism liberalism or conservatism or does it contain both? Did the virtue/commerce divide continue throughout history?

From what you have written, it seems you see one political tradition throughout history, and that Democrats, beginning with FDR but with some historical precedents have rejected that tradition, which is conservatism. Rick Norwood seems to see modern conservatism as basically a continuation of J. McCarthy and G. Wallace, and outside the republican tradition. If there is only one tradition however, it makes no sense to have separate liberalism and conservatism histories, since until the mid-twentieth century they are the same.

Incidentally do you know why so mainly modern conservative intellectuals, like Lipset, had a background in the YPSL, SWP or CPUSA? Hitchens is the latest convert. I read Burnham and Shachtman's article "Intellectuals in Retreat" (1939),[7] where they discussed this, but they came to no conclusions and unfortunately did not revisit the subject after they themselves moved to the Right.

TFD (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Whig Party was a grass-roots party

Is that true? From what I have read US parties in the 19th century were cadre parties. TFD (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

grass roots. It was based on thousands of local township organizations which then selected county, district and state candidates from the bottom up. Almost all parties since 1796 have been that way (except for the "Progressive Party" of 1912, 1924 and 1948, which were "cadre" or top-down. See Grass Roots Politics (1984) online Rjensen (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We may be using different terminology. Here is an example of a source calling US parties cadre parties (Political Parties in the American Mold (1989). As your book points out, grass roots organizations have had influence over parties, but I thought the term would better describe some third parties, like the populists. TFD (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Epstein (a political scientist) was talking about the 1940s and I was considering the 1840s. The "cadre" designation in Europe refers to at few hundred people who control a party. In the case of the Whigs that was tens of thousands of local activists--the higher levels (state and national) did not control the local parties, unlike Europe, and the "Boss" or "machine" system was rare in the Whig party at any level. Third parties varied, but often (Greenback, Socialist, Progressive, and to a less degree the Populists) they were controlled by a a small elite cadres not the grass roots.... as for example TR in 1912 and LaFollette in 1924 (along with 20-50 henchmen) dictated to their parties.Rjensen (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism, the Republican Party, and the political Right.

Conservatism, the Republican Party, and the Right are three different things, and while the popular press does not always make a distinction, an encyclopedia must.

Conservatism is a tendency to preserve the status quo or to return to the past, often an idealized past. Few US conservatives today like the status quo.

The Right supports strong government, especially (post Marx) strong anti-communist government.

The Republican Party -- well, read their platform, but keep in mind it changes every four years.

Rjensen wrote "(Right-wing extremism is) outside the mainstream of conservative thought and practice." I agree.

He also wrote, "Buckley's National Review fought hard against the Birch Society and Wallace." True. Here is a great article on the subject. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/goldwater--the-john-birch-society--and-me-11248, But the National Review strongly supported Joe McCarthy, and to the end of his life, Buckley thought McCarthy was right.

He asks, "Is republicanism liberalism or conservatism or does it contain both? Did the virtue/commerce divide continue throughout history?" It contains both. And a virtue/commerce axis does not exist. Both sides are in favor of both. The axis is regulation/deregulation. Honest businessmen favor honest regulation.

The Four Deuces wrote, "Rick Norwood seems to see modern conservatism as basically a continuation of J. McCarthy and G. Wallace, and outside the republican tradition." Not at all. I see modern conservatism as calling for a return to a "Leave it to Beaver" past that never existed outside of Nick at Night. Couples sleep in twin beds and there are no Negores. Most modern conservatives reject McCarthy and Wallace. Even George Wallace came around after he was shot, and asked the forgiveness from the Negroes.

And, sadly, I find "modern conservative intellectuals" an oxymoron. Gone are the Buckleys and Goldwaters of yesteryear and few people have heard of Lipset. The public face of modern conservatism is Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Dick Chaney.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Norwood certainly has his opinions ; what he lacks are RS. It's best to read the scholarship and summarize that. As for intellectuals, he might note people like Scalia and Roberts and Posner in law, to take one field, or look at economics. Or consider the intellectuals at Heritage, Hoover, AEI, and a couple dozen other think tanks. Rjensen (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware that there are conservative intellectuals, but they are no longer the spokes-people for the conservative movement. I miss Buckley and Goldwater. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A recent (2009) PhD thesis confirms the mainstream view that traditional conservatism did not exist in the U. S. until after WW2 (p. 38), Taft and the Old Right have their origins in mid-western populism (p. 63) and that social conservatism became part of the coalition later (p. 67).[8] Today the line between conservative and liberal is clear. What is less clear is whether this division has existed throughout history. In Canada for example the difference between early nineteenth century liberals and conservatives is clear, because they continued the cleavages that existed at the time of the revolutions in the U. S. and France. We can trace those traditions to the modern parties and see that conservatism has disappeared in most of the country while the new U. S.-style conservatism developed separately from populism which itself developed from liberalism, not conservatism. TFD (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

>::the link does not seem to work. The traditional view is that Taft and Goldwater were linked to Herbert Hoover (and Taft to his father President Taft), none of whom had any links to Populism. Rjensen (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I had always thought of the Taft and Goldwater Republicans as being mid-western and middle class small business types in competition with the upper middle class "Eastern Establishment" big business Republicans. (BTW the link works for me, although it can be slow, but here is the url: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/19031/11/Farney_James_H_200911_PhD_Thesis.pdf ) Whether or not that is true, the genealogy of modern conservatism is disputed and not a matter of academic consensus. TFD (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

the Populists were farmers who hated the town elites like Golwdater (owned biggest department store in Phoenix) and Taft (leading lawyuers in Cincinnati). Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he is using the term generically, meaning the people vs. the elites, the West vs. the East, etc. The source says "they could trace their roots back to earlier mid-Western populist movements (Reinhard 1983, Rae 1989)".

• Reinhard, David W. 1983. The Republican Right since 1945. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
• Rae, Nicol C. 1989. The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Republicans from 1952 to the Present. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

TFD (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Farney is writing about Canada and seems to have garbled gthe American analogies; Reinhard for example does get the story right but provides no mention whatever of "earlier mid-Western populist movements", nor does Rae. Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln and Jefferson again!

While there is no problem with mentioning conservatives who admired Lincoln and Jefferson, the new section on Lincoln is much too long for this article, and Jefferson does not deserve a separate mention. As an acting director once told me, it's a difference between foreground and background. Minor characters do not belong center stage.

Consider: in this article about American Conservatism, the only other people with named sections are Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, and they share one section. There is no section heading for Goldwater, none for Buckley, but Lincoln and Jefferson, who are not usually described by mainstream historians as conservatives, get their own sections.

I really don't want another edit war, but these sections need to be combined into the sections where they best fit, and the material on Lincoln needs to be greatly shortened. I would rather the person who wrote these sections did the rewrite.

Looking at the bigger picture, the modern conservative movement in the United States did not really exist before 1950. We should do one of two things. We should keep this article but focus on the older meaning of conservative: pro-slavery, anti-immigration, pro-religious fundamentalism, anti-evolution. In which case we move most of the modern material to another article titled Modern Conservatism in the United States. Or we should make this article mostly about the modern conservative movement, with a much shorter history of what conservatism meant prior to 1950. Either choice is fine with me.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Norwood is right that we need more coverage of Buckley and Goldwater, and that will get added. He's wrong about neglect of mainstream scholarship--the Lincoln section for example, if fully referenced to many mainstream scholars. He is wrong to say that conservatism did not exist before 1859 because he has not looked at the many RS already cited on the issue--like Kirk, Allitt, Rossiter, and Fronen, all of which (and others) discuss the pre 1850 period at great length. His notion that the "older meaning of conservative: pro-slavery, anti-immigration, pro-religious fundamentalism, anti-evolution" is a personal opinion not based on any cited RS. Rjensen (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are some sources: "Roosevelt dubbed his New Deal programs as liberal and labelled his adversaries as conservatives... (Himmelstein 1990: 26)" (Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America (2003) p. 16[9][10] Peter Viereck wrote, "In the 1930s, when the present author still a student, was writing an article for the Atlantic Monthly urging "a Burkean new conservatism in America," and to some extent even as late as his Conservatism Revisited of 1949, "conservatism was an unpopular epithet.... For ecample the author's Atlantic article, written in prewar student days, was denounced more because the word used ("conservative") was so heretical....[11] Trilling famously wrote that there was only liberalism in the U. S., in Why I am not a conservative Hayek noted the term was recent, Ayn Rand reflected his views, and the source I provided above points out that traditional conservatism did not exist in the U. S. until Burke/ Kirk. Presumably the term "conservative" was a synonym for reactionary, at least when applied to the U. S. TFD (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

the citations prove that "conservative" was a negative epithet in 1930s--yes indeed, just as "liberal" is today. But it did exist and made a comeback by 1938, defeating FDR and the liberals in elections and in Congress. See for example Conservative Coalition. Rjensen (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it was not called the Conservative Coalition until the 1950s or 1960s and the Conservative Manifesto was not its actual name. TFD (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

the term "conservative" in the 2010 sense was in common use--TIME magazine archives are on line: for example "Harvard History Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, pondering the moony tides of U. S. politics, last winter came to a conclusion that sent a little wave of gloom through U. S. conservatives. His conclusion: that the revolt against conservatism which began in 1931 will last until 1947-48" from TIME April 15, 1940 online same issue: "John Nance Garner. Cactus Jack is 71, sound in wind & limb, a hickory conservative who does not represent the Old South of magnolias, hoopskirts, pillared verandas, but the New South: moneymaking, industrial, hardboiled, still expanding too rapidly to brood over social problems. He stands for oil derricks, sheriffs who use airplanes, prairie skyscrapers, mechanized farms, $100 Stetson hats. Conservative John Garner appeals to many a conservative voter."online Rjensen (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

and yes, "Conservative coalition" was in use back then. "Five Southern Democrats and four Republicans sat smiling at a lady one day last week in the cramped, dim-lit House Rules committee-room on the third floor of the Capitol. The nine smug gentlemen, key bloc of the conservative coalition now dominating the House, could afford to be gracious to hard-plugging Mary Norton, Labor committee chairlady, because they had just finished trampling roughshod over her." TIME Aug 7, 1939 online Rjensen (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

John Garner appealed to Texas conservatives. In the way the term was used at the time, that didn't prevent him from supporting the federal income tax, because the Tea Party Movement didn't exist yet, and he understood that a thriving economy depended on tax revenue. Time magazine used the phrase "conservative coalition", but that is not the same as the organization that later came to be called the Conservative Coalition. Conservative apologists try to claim the most admired figures in American history as conservative, and they play around with the language in order to do so, but it still remains that no mainstream historian calls Lincoln conservative and no mainstream reference book calls Lincoln conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "conservative" was sometimes used following Roosevelt's adoption of the liberal label, but notably Hoover and Taft called themselves liberals. As Hoover said in 1928 (before what Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn calls the "Great American Semantic Confusion"), "The problem of government is to maintain true expression of liberalism to the American people"[12]. Regardless, the conservative Republicans were mid-western and not part of the Establishment. Would it not make more sense to call the northeastern liberal Republicans the conservatives? Aren't elitism, paternalism and pragmatism core conservative values? Historically their connection with Hamilton and Adams would be stronger. TFD (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "paternalism" is quite the word you want. "Noblesse oblige" maybe, or "the White Man's Burden"? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Old or new?

Norwood wants the article to assert that modern conservatism is a brand new thing started in the 1950s by Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley. But both Kirk and Buckley emphasized that they were continuing a historic conservative traditioon than began 200 years earlier--and Kirk's book is a history of that tradition. That's a basic contradition. Nash furthermore shows that the ideas of Kirk and Buckley were firmly rooted in many previous people and ideas. Rjensen (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Kirk claimed that there was a conservative tradition in the U. S., but that it had retreated from political life in the early 19th century, defeated by Jefferson's election and Lincoln's defeat of the Confederacy, and called for a (traditional) "conservative revival". Meanwhile libertarians were calling for a revival of classical liberalism, which they believed the New Deal had attacked. Frank S. Meyer was able to unite these two groups through fusionism, creating modern conservatism. The Heritage Foundation historian, Lee Edwards, acknowledges this history. Both the consensus historians and libertarians challenged the existence of a conservative tradition and the traditional conservatives have challenged whether modern conservatism is true conservatism. While the consensus theory itself has been challenged, using the analysis of J. G. A. Pocock, the latest theory is that the U. S. has both a "constitutional liberal" and a "civic republican" tradition, neither of which is conservative. Yes of course modern conservatism is rooted in earlier ideas: liberalism, capitalism, and nonconformism, TFD (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of Rjensen's improvements, and thank him for them. But please, Rjensen, don't assume what "Norwood wants to assert". The statement that there was no conservative movement in the US before the fifties is a quote from Allitt, who you recommended. Of course, the ideas of Kirk and Buckley had a history. New ideas are rare. But that history was not called "conservative". This article needs to distinguish clearly between what conservative means now in the US and what conservative meant before the fifties in the US, and it needs to at least mention that this change in meaning did not, to any large extent, take place outside the US.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of material about America before the Revolution, which uses the word "conservative" in several ways, all of them entirely different from the way it is used in the United States today. Sometimes it uses the word in the sense of "conservative aristocracy", sometimes in the sense of "conservative psychologically". These uses have nothing to do with the meaning of the word in US politics.

I'm going to pause for a while, because I don't want to do too much at one time.

Rick Norwood (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Today I'll do a little more, working toward two goals, keeping the article referenced, and keeping the article on topic. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

History

I've done some work on the history section, especially removing entire paragraphs that did not even mention conservatism. This article is not the place to give a summary of all of American history. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the people on the "conservatives" list don't belong there

Ayn Rand, H.L. Mencken, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek don't belong on a list of "conservatives", nor does the Cato Institute. These people and groups are libertarian. I won't delete any names or groups from the list, though, without first getting input from others. Thoughts, anyone? -Fellinifan (6/15/10)

keep. conservatism is a coalition of lots of groups, of whom the libertarians are quite prominant esp on economic issues. Rjensen (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Some people on the list are conservatives. Others have chosen to be called "conservative" because it was politically expedient. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would keep Rand and Hayek (and possibly the others) because they became part of modern U. S. conservatism, slthough they rejected the label. But I object to including earlier free market types like Cleveland who opposed the conservatism of their day. Over time the Republicans have come to use free market language while some Democrats speak of protecting people from the excesses of the free market. But the Republicans have never accepted free market principles and Democratic policy does not reject them. Both accept some degree of government involvement, including massive subsidies to industry, military action to support Americans' overseas investments and federal support for health, welfare and education. TFD (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln

Turning now to the section claiming that Abraham Lincoln was a conservative.

The only way to test this assertion is to consult the references provided.

The first reference is to James Randall's book Lincoln the Liberal Statesman. This out-of-print book was published in 1947, long before there was a conservative movement in the United States. Randall uses the word "conservative" to mean "cautious". And, according to Michael Burkheimer's 100 Essential Lincoln Books, Randall is wrong to call Lincoln conservative even in that sense. Burkheimer writes, "Lincoln had proposed a compensated emancipation plan for the Border States. Not surprisingly, Randall admires this seemingly conservative approach. ... (but) he misreads it as conservative, since it was really an enormous change in Federal policy toward slavery."

The second reference is to The Ethics of Rhetoric by Richard M. Weaver. This book is not about politics but is, as the title indicates, about speechmaking. The first two referenced pages, 56 amd 91, do not mention the word "conservative" but only describe Lincoln's speechmaking style as "generic", meaning that he argued from definitions rather than from specific cases. On page 112-113, we do find a statement that Lincoln practiced "conservative statesmanship". But, since this book was published in 1953, we need to see in what sense the word "conservative" is used. Weaver defines conservative as follows. "The true conservative is one who sees the universe as a paradigm of essences, of which the phenomenology of the world is a sort of continuing approximation." This is not the sense of the word in this article. Incidentally, Weaver mentions Randall, and says "Randall has written an unconvincing book on "Lincoln the Liberal Statesman." So the second reference contradicts the first.

The third reference is to Harry Jaffa, but no source is mentioned, so there's no way to check.

The fourth reference is to Allan Guelzo's Lincoln: A Very Short Introduction. The word "conservative" does not appear in the book.

The references do not support the section, and so the section should be deleted.

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC):

Harry V. Jaffa's views on Lincoln are well known (see his WP article). The most that can be said about these two sources is that some modern conservatives include Lincoln. When we mention them, we should include their reasons. What about Rossiter's Hall of Fame? Do you know how he categorized conservatives? I do not have access to his writing. TFD (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph above after doing some research in the library. Since the references do not support the claims, I'm doing to delete the section. I'll try to discover more about Rossiter.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read the article by Rossiter cited in this article, and it is very interesting reading. His men who "loom over all others" are four, not six, though he does mention the other two. The view he puts forth in the article is that conservatism favors tradition, and that democracy is the enemy of tradition. His conservatives held to the constitution, and resisted attempts to extend the sufferage to the working class. He saw this as a tragic, loosing battle. In the context of 1955, this is a very interesting view. I don't know if he belongs in this article at all -- he seems a minor figure, though his views have undergone a revival and he is popular with the Tea Party activists, some of whom also reject democracy -- I've heard that the Texas schoolboard recently voted to remove the word "democracy" from Texas history books. Incidentally, Rossiter also says explicitly that Lincoln was not a conservative, but we already knew that. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1945 history I think could best be presented by having different sections for the different narratives:

• (1) The progressive, consensus and post consensus historians who do not see conservatism as a force in U. S. history.
• (2) Theories that see a continuing conservative tradition, e.g., Rossiter, Allitt.
• (3) Viereck and Kirk, and Frank S. Meyer's fusion of traditional conservatism with libertarianism.
• Discussion of loyalists, the Old South and Lincoln could be fitted into these categories depending on which group of scholars were discussing them.

TFD (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article by James Seaton where he explains the views of Randall, Weaver, and Jaffa about Lincoln. TFD (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservative history vs. consensus history.

Interesting article. Thanks for the link. However, as I understand it, Seaton, like Weaver, uses the word "conservative" to mean "adhering to a moral principle". This is, of course, one of the claims of the conservative movement, that they are moral and liberals are immoral. But we need to distinguish between the "conservative movement" in the US, and people in the US who were conservative in the more general sense of moral, traditional, or simply cautious. The difference is that the conservative movement is not just "moral", they hold a specific set of "morals" which they hold to be universal: That Christianity is the one true religion. That sex outside of marriage is a sin. That abortion is the murder of a child. That books, films, and music should be censored to serve a moral purpose. And that property rights are more moral than caring for human needs.

But these are not the morals on which America was founded. The liberal moral imperitives: That all people are created equal, that the government should provide for the general welfare, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion are in conflict with the conservative moral imperitives. And so the conservative movement (as distinct from "conservatism" in the more general sense), must rewrite history to make it conform to its worldview. I don't think that the history section should, in good postmodern fashon, present both worldviews as equal, especially since the conservatives don't agree among themselves, and we would have to give half-a-dozen "histories" of the United States to present them all. Rather, I think the history section should give the academic consensus, and the other views, if given at all, should be given in the section about the particular writer who holds those views.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The pre-modern conservatism section does not need to present different chronologies but should explain how different writers view the past. For Viereck and Kirk for example we can explain that they saw the U. S. Revolution as conservative, and the federalists and southerners as conservatives, and explain their reasoning, and of course include criticism of their views. By the way, we should find something about the history of "social conservatism". In British and Canadian history the advocates of "social conservatism" were liberals (e.g., Cromwell and Gladstone) and the term (in its present definition) seems to be recent. In the 18th and 19th century U. S., social reform and social conservatism seemed to go together, for example with the temperance movement and W. J. Bryan. TFD (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Guilded Age

The first thing to note is that the title of this section is misspelled. I've fixed it.

Throughout this section, the word "conservatism" is used to mean "classical liberalism".

Tomorrow I'll attempt a rewrite based on the references. Unless, of course, TFD would like to do it.

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The robber barons were in the radical tradition (laissez-faire, non-conformist, anti-elitist) and challenged the Eastern Establishment. I would not consider them the conservatives of their time. TFD (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and certainly McKinley was not a classical liberal or a conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've finished my edit of this section. I've taken out material that had nothing to do with conservatism, but included material that retroactively applies the term "conservative" in a sense that was not in use at the time. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Imperialism

I do not see what the material in this section has to do with American conservatism, but I'll give it further thought and do further reading. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

At at time when conservatives elevated the Queen of the U. K., the King of Prussia and the President of France to emperors, is there any evidence that the term "conservative" was generally understood in the U. S. to mean anti-imperialist? TFD (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Imperialism certainly happened and it was led by Roosevelt, McKinley, Taft, Elihu Root, John Hay, Henry Stimson and others--most of them conservatives. (TR was conservative in foreign and military policy though not in domestic policy). Liberals like Bryan led the anti-imperialist cause. HOWEVER there was a group of conservatives who opposed imperialism. They included Cleveland and Carl Schurz, for example, as well as Carnegie. Rjensen (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

When you say "conservative", Rjensen, it is hard to know what you mean. It seems to be this. If the word conservative had meant then what it means now, then these people would have been called conservative. But even with that construction, the evidence is against you. McKinley, who you call conservative, passed the highest tarriffs in American history. What we are left with is something like, these people expressed one or more idea that modern conservatives agree with. But that is probably true of everybody, and so calling these people conservative is unhelpful. It does not provide the reader with any useful information.

You've recently done a large edit, which seems to me to have made the article much less clear. Assuming good faith, I'm going to try to work with what you have done instead of reverting it. But please understand the problem with using words like conservative with two different meanings, and switching meanings in midparagraph. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I think every historian calls McKinley and Taft and Root

"conservatives" see for example: Elihu Root and the Conservative Tradition by Richard Leopold (1963); and Conservatives in the Progressive era: The Taft Republicans of 1912 by Norman M Wilensky (1965). The tariff issue split the conservatives along party lines--Democrats (like Cleveland) were for low tariffs and GOP for high tariffs, until the issue faded away in 1930s. (The GOP got their high Smoot Hawley tariff in 1930 and it worked very badly, so they stopped pushing it.) Rjensen (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

McKinley certainly was not a conservative. The first reference I looked up for Root doesn't mention "conservative", so "every historian" is an exageration. I do find a reference for this characterization of Taft: "more conservative than (Teddy) Roosevelt". But that's not the same as calling him a conservative. In any case, Root and Taft were influential long after the Gilded Age. So we can deal with them when the time comes.

I've done an edit of the Gilded Age section that I can live with. It makes it clear that the use of "conservative" in that section is a usage which was not current at the time. I still think the section is too long, and not really on-topic, but if you can also live with it, I'll move on to the next section tomorrow. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I already cited Elihu Root and the Conservative Tradition by Richard Leopold (1963); and Conservatives in the Progressive era: The Taft Republicans of 1912 by Norman M Wilensky (1965) which make pretty strong cases indeed. McKinley was a hero in the George W. Bush administration--Karl Rove cited him all the time. Rjensen (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

McKinley as conservative

McKinley has long been a symbol of conservatism. Here are 4 quotes from recent historians: (1) "In more recent decades scholars have concluded that although McKinley was a kindly and compassionate man, he did have a mind of his own and a sincere dedication to conservative principles." in Thomas Bailey Presidential saints and sinners (1981) Page 143; (2) "The Republicans nominated William McKinley, governor of Ohio and a conservative, who stood for a high tariff against foreign goods and sound money tied to the value of gold." in Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey M. Berry, Jerry Goldman The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America (2008) Page 237; (3) "In 1896, the American people had a clear choice between a solid, conservative Republican and a "radical"..." Max J. Skidmore Presidential performance: a comprehensive review (2004); Page 177. (4) Note that McKinley was important to Karl Rove and George W Bush: "Rove saw the parallels between Bush and William McKinley, whose conservative activism (for example, intervening in coal mine strikes in Ohio; promoting high tariffs and the gold standard) had generated widespread support a century ago" Robert Maranto, Tom Lansford, Judging Bush (2009) Page 80. Rjensen (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that promoting high tariffs is an example of conservtive activism. Also that people admired by Bush, the first person in history to run up a trillion dollars in debt, are considered conservative. What seems to be going on here is that the definiton of conservative changes depending on the way the wind is blowing. Since there are now so many definitions of conservative, everybody is a conservative in some sense of the word. Did you know Karl Marks was a conservative? "Although fundamentally realistic, with a definite conservative bent, Karl Marx comes across as rather liberal and open-minded..." [[13]]

But that is not helpful. The article needs to not just pop in the adjective conservative, but make it clear in what sense that adjective is being used.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be applying the term conservative to two different groups: one was elitist, statist and imperialist and supported high tariffs, while the other was anti-elitist, anti-statist and anti-imperialist and supported free trade. TFD (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"free trade" had little support in US apart from a handful of writers; the conservatives of 1890s were all elitists (as opposed to populist) and none were "statist." Imperialism was seized upon at the time by conservatives in the US, Britain, Germany etc, but was dropped by American conservatives by 1910 because they felt it was peripheral to the national interest. Rjensen (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

All of which sounds perfectly reasonable, except that you do not say in what sense you are using the word. The meaning of the word has changed. All I am trying to do is have it clear to the reader, when the word is used, In what sense it is being used. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Imperialism

It is hard to see what this section does other than provide a transition. All of the figures on both sides of the major issues of the day were conservative in some ways and anti-conservative in others. The divide simply did not fall along modern lines. I've contented myself with shortening the section slightly, and removing claims that both sides were the conservative side, but if somebody wanted to remove it entirely, I would not object. Here I'll pause. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

well I suppose every major figure in 2010 is conservative in some ways and liberal in other ways, if you look hard enough. :) Rjensen (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. So this article needs to say how it is applying the word. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this article remains that there is no explanation as to what conservatism means. In countries that have a conservative party, we can see an initial event that led to the creation of the party and track the divisions between them and the parties to their left. The article Politics of France is able to identify the French Right even though it has not had a continuing two party system. For example, although the Radical and Socialist Party is now part of the Right, it was part of the Left in the 19th century and the article does not group them with the Right just because they later joined them. Similarly while modern conservatives have adopted the ideology of 19th century liberals, it is ahistorical to consider 19th century liberals to be conservatives. TFD (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I found an article from the US History Encyclopedia that manages to present U. S. conservative history in a neutral way. While it cannot be used as a source, it provides an example of how this might be done.(It is the second article.[14] TFD (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Before 1830

After this introductory sentence, "The term "conservative" as applied to politics was rarely used in the United States before the 1830s." there is a very long section which projects various modern views back into the past, anachronistically. Most of this seems to have nothing to do with the topic of this article. I would appreciate help in editing this material to keep the article on topic. TFD?

Rick Norwood (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a good argument, the terms liberal and conservative only came into widespread use in English in the 1830s. But it does create anomolies: the article argues that conservative patriots and loyalists were divided on whether to take up arms against the conservative Briish government, and following the revolution the patriots split into conservative federalists and conservative anti-federalists. In the 1860s, the conservative north went to war against the conservative south. Afterwards, elections were contested between the conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats, but in 1933 the "liberals" came to power (except real liberals are actually conservatives). TFD (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In short, the "history" section says that everybody is a conservative. Are you sure you wouldn't like to try to improve it? If you're not so inclined, I'll try to tackle it, but I think you would probably do a better job. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My solution would be to begin the history section with the National Review, then list the various theories about conservative history, rather than presenting it as a single narrative. What is important is explaining why various groups are considered by some to be conservative. TFD (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No RS begins with the National Review. Most begin with late 18th century, and Wiki has to follow them & not invent a new chronology. It would help if people working on history articles would look at the history books dealing with the topic--they start 230 years ago (Allitt, Filler, Rossitter, Fronen, Viereck, Kirk, etc etc) Rjensen (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to base the history section on the work of William Allitt (with the amount of material in each part roughly proportional to the space he devotes to it). Of course, using more books is better, but we need to be careful to distinguish between historians such as Allitt and conservatives who are arguing in favor of the conservative cause, whose views need to be placed in that context. I hope that Rjensen and TFD will contribute to this effort. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Viereck and Kirk claimed that political conservatism died with the federalists and the antebellum South. Rossiter sees Lincoln and T. Roosevelt as conservatives. Allitt apparently expands on Rossiter's list. The liberal consensus theory of course usually considers none of these as true conservatives and Canadian conservative scholars, including George Grant see only the Loyalists as conservatives. Critics of Hartz, like James T. Kloppenberg, do not claim that there was a conservative tradition. (See: The American liberal tradition reconsidered (April 28, 2010) University Press of Kansas[http://www.amazon.com/American-Liberal-Tradition-Reconsidered-Contested/dp/0700617086#reader_0700617086] RS do begin the history of modern U. S. conservatism with the NR, although they may mention the Old Right as a precursor. Why should we take Allitt as the final word? He published his book in 2009, acknowledges that no comprehensive history of U. S. conservatism had been written before and it is too early to know what degree of acceptance his views will obtain. WP:NPOV states that we must present "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". TFD (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No reason at all we should take Allitt as the final word. I'm looking for a generally accepted academic source. If not Allitt, who? Grant? Should we remove the history section entirely and create an article titled "Precusors of American Conservatism?" Rick Norwood (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Historiography". We encounter the same problem with the histories of conservatism and liberalism if we try to trace them back before the English Civil War. One could argue for example, that Plato and Confucius were conservatives, while Aristotle and Lao Tse were liberals, and find reliable sources for it, and the Optimates and Populares resembled conservatives and liberals, but one would not begin the history section in "Conservatism" with antiquity. The article actually reads, "From the beginning of written history there have been political and philosophical ideas that modern historians have labeled "conservative"...." I think all the views should be presented and it makes more sense to have a section for each narrative, rather than retell the history of the U. S. and add comments on how different writers view them. TFD (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, if you want to attempt it. Meanwhile, I want to cut through some of the undergrowth in what has become a long, off-topic essay. We should not have more than half the article devoted to a discussion of the topic "people who might have been conservative". What this article needs most is to be shorter. I'm going to attempt to cut everything that isn't on topic. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Norwood lacks RJ for his personal opinions about what "conservatism" ought to mean. Anyone with a narrow perspective will want to exclude and cut and reduce coverage, but that will hurt our readers. For an encyclopedic perspective I recommend looking through the Fronen and Filler encyclopedias.Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)