Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The Progressive Era

I've done some work on the progressive era. The two very short sections following have no references at all, so I'll look for some references for them next. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear from the section what was the dividing line between conservatives and non-conservatives. When Roosevelt split from the conservatives, in what did he change his ideology? TFD (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

the main issues originally involved conservation (esp in Alaska) and tariffs, but it grew much larger in 1910-12 to cover a wide range of topics. Rjensen (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are just policies. Comparing them with the 19th cent. Liberals and Conservatives in the U. K., who were also divided over tariffs, we could say that they disagreed because the liberals supported the free market ideology of manufacturers, while the Conservatives supported landowners and colonialism. Why would these issues divide U. S. conservatives and their opponents? TFD (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

good question. Take the court issue. Teddy Roosevelt & the liberals of 1910 (to use 2010 terminology) believed the courts were obstructionist and blocked the creation of a new, better and more liberal (in 2010 terms) society; conservatives believed the courts were the experts on fairness and were needed to block the foolish demands of demagogues. TR called for court reform and was opposed by nearly all conservatives but supported by most insurgents. (Both sides in 1910 called themselves "progressives" but that word in 2010 means the left.) So I would say that on the court issue you have a very important and clearcut left-right divide. Rjensen (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that describing the divide as left-right is helpful. There was a divide, but not along the same lines as the divide in modern politics nor along the same lines as the older meaning of Left and Right. It was somewhere in the middle, and so more descriptive words are better than ambiguous words. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

we're just following the RS here--I think all the biographies of TR and Taft cover the court issue in terms of Taft as the conservative and TR as the radical. Indeed TR made his attack on the judiciary in the town of Osawatomie, Kansas. best known for being the base of radical abolitionist John Brown. For example, the Richard Current textbook says, "Roosevelt's famous August 1910 speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, was the most radical of his career and openly marked his break with the Taft administration and the Republican leadership." Rjensen (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Family

We need to mention the family. As Critchlow reports in Phyllis Schlafly and grassroots conservatism (2005) p. 217: Schlafly "laid out fundamental reasons for opposing the women's liberation movement, arguing that the family is "the basic unit of society, which is ingrained in the laws and customs of our Judeo-Christian civilization."Rjensen (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But we should be clear that we are referring to modern conservatism. Usage of the term judeo-christian by conservatives is fairly recent. They used to say "protestant". TFD (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

the term came into common use in the 1940s. Before that they said "Christian" not "Protestant." Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, we should be careful not to apply the term judeo-christian to pre-modern conservatism. Yes they usually said Christian, but they meant protestant. Notice how the "protestant ethic" has been transformed into the judeo-christian work ethic. TFD (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Before Buckley, conservatives were as opposed to Catholics as they were to Blacks and Jews. Buckley, and JFK, made it acceptable to be a Catholic, and I still remember the conservative politicians who said JFK would take his orders from the Pope. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian and anti-communist

In order to be politically correct, some conservatives say "Judeo-Christian" and "anti-Radical", but those are weasel words. When you look at what they actually support, it is Christianity. They are not in favor of Jewish prayer in the public schools. They want specifically Christain prayer in the public schools. In Jewish law, a man who beats a woman so severely as to cause an abortion has to pay a fine. The anti-abortion movement is strongly Christian. As for "radical", by any rational standards it is the conservatives who are the radicals (they call for a drastic change in the American government) and the anti-conservatives who are, well, conservative and want to keep the government we have. As for "socialist" that has become a word with no meaning, mere name calling, as when the Rupert Murdoch media call Obama an "extreme socialist" for allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire. And that's the more rational Murdoch media! Fox News calls Obama a Nazi! Should we say "Conservatives are opposed to Nazis?"

But the point here is that words have meanings, and the purpose of this article is to report what the sources say, not to try to spin the sources. To that end, when a word has no meaning any more, we shouldn't use it.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two edits under discussion here, and they need to be kept separate, because my objections to them are different. The lede, after much discussion here in Talk about what American conservatives believe, came to be based on this quote: "Postwar conservatives set about creating their own synthesis of free-market capitalism, Christian morality, and the global struggle against Communism." (2009); Gottfried, Theologies and moral concern (1995) p. 12" That is a good, stable, brief statement of what American conservatives believe, from a respected academic source. To try to spin this is misleading.

Let us take the two topics one at a time. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

judeo christian

In fact the conservatives use "Judeo Christian" all the time (as given in multiple cites). They in fact do call for Old Testament (Jewish) Bible readings and the Ten Commandments (also Jewish). They in fact have opposed socialism vigorously. Norwood disagrees with the well-documented conservative positions but he does not say where he gets his info. He adds a novel new criteria to Wiki: when a word has no meaning any more, we shouldn't use it. And where is his proof that "socialism" and "Judeo Christian" have no meaning???? Norwood wants to read the Jews out of the conservative movement--including big names like Milton Friedman and the Commentary crowd (like the Kristols).Commentary of course is explicitly Jewish and is published by the American Jewish Committee. In foreign policy the conservatives--especially the Christian ones--have been very strong supporters of Israel. That is not fake it's reality.Rjensen (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

..."as given in multiple cites"

Which cites? My advice is that presenting that list could clear up the issue pretty neatly, or at least present something for other editors to weigh-in upon. BigK HeX (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 2 (Gottfried) gives "Judeo-Christian" as does footnote 3 ("Phyllis Schlafly argued that the family is "the basic unit of society, which is ingrained in the laws and customs of our Judeo-Christian civilization."); footnote 60 (Hartmann) shows statistically that "Judeo-Christian" has become a favored term on the right. Note the 2010 RS cited at footnote 61: " "The Christian Right is an attempt to restore Judeo-Christian values to a country that is in deep moral decline. ....[They] believe that society suffers from the lack of a firm basis of Judeo-Christian values and they seek to write laws that embody those values." citing Clyde Wilcox and Carin Robinson, Onward Christian Soldiers?: The Religious Right in American Politics (2010) p. 13. Rjensen (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Rick Norwood's basic point could be an insightful one, but the quotes you've presented support your edits. If there is a distinctly Christian tilt in conservatism (and that the "Judeo" part really has only gotten short shrift within the conservative movement), then I'd say that would need to be sourced and discussed in addition to the Judeo-Christian coverage in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Since most of the writers at National Review and the founders of neoconservative were Jewish or Catholic it is understandable that they would use the liberal term "judeo-Christian" and it has become part of conservative jargon. But although Father Coughlin and Joe McCarthy were Catholic, the Old Right was mostly anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and racist, and the embrace of Catholics and Jews is part of modern conservatism, not previous versions. TFD (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The embrace of Judaism, as part of the US Conservative movement very likely has changed over time. Assuming that's the case, I'd agree that the article should make that point clear. BigK HeX (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Starting with "Christian". I think most conservatives in the United States would agree with this quote from Patrick Henry, "“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” Or this more modern quote, "Several Fox News media figures, including Fox News contributor Karl Rove, Hannity host Sean Hannity, America's Newsroom co-host Megan Kelly, and Fox News analyst Newt Gingrich, have paraphrased or replayed President Obama's remarks during an April 6 press availability with the president of Turkey, during which he made factual comments about religion in America, saying, in part: "[W]e do not consider ourselves a Christian nation," and used those comments to criticize Obama and generate outrage. For example, Gingrich asserted Obama "was fundamentally misleading about the nature of America"; Hannity stated that he was "offended" and that Obama is "out of touch with the principles that have made this country great"; Rove suggested that Obama denied the reality that "we have historically had, you know, a robust presence of faith in our public square"" In short, while some conservatives sometimes use the phrase "Judeo-Christian", especially together with heritage, because the heritage of Christ was Judism, the major speakers for the Right in America stress Christian values, and to pretend otherwise is to turn a blind eye to the evidence. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

1) the Patrick Henry quote is a modern fake; it was invented around 1990. The statement that "the major speakers for the Right in America stress Christian values" seems to omit people like Ronald Reagan, Phyllis Schlafly and Milton Friedman as well as the whole neoconservative movement. Norwood gives zero examples and zero RS; People who do not use RS wind up using junk sources. (2) "anti-communism and anti-socialism mean the same thing" is nonsense. All the conservatives knew that the Soviet Union was Communist and places like Britain and Sweden were socialist. Many American socialists joined the anti-Communist cause, like Sidney Hook (a favorite of the National Review crowd).

If the Patrick Henry quote is a modern fake, please provide evidence, so I can withdraw it. Two minus one leaves one, and one is not zero, so your statement that I give zero examples does not make sense. We still have one long quote in which several leading spokespeople for modern American conservatism object strongly to the statement that America is not a Christian nation. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

there are jillions of fake quotes out there. go to books.google.com and enter the quote and look for citations before 12990. None. First citations is about 1994. Obama seemed to reject the notion that the US is a Judeo-Christian nation and that caused the complaints. Rjensen (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Obama said America is not a Christian nation and that caused the complaints. And, since you object to the first Patrick Henry quote, here is another one, "The people of this commonwealth...ought to pay a moderate tax or contribution annually, for the support of the christian religion...", Son of Thunder: Patrick Henry and the American Republic, page 361.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

radicalism

How about the "anti-radicalism"? BigK HeX (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

From the late 19th century onward, conservatism was "dedicated to preventing the rise and spread of socialism and communism" and fear of socialism and communism was "a persistent theme in conservative literature" says Allitt (2010). I think perhaps this point should be expanded to include radical social reforms at home.Rjensen (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My objection to "radicalism" and to "socialism" is on different grounds. Originally, "socialism" meant communism, and in that sense anti-communism and anti-socialism mean the same thing. But now the word "socialism" is used to describe people who favor Social Security or free lunch for poor kids. As for "radical", both sides have radical wings. So, anti-communism is clear and everyone understands what it means. Opposition to "radicalism" and "socialism" is unclear and means different things to different people. The lede should be clear. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Originally, "socialist" meant "communist", as in "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". It came to have other meanings and is now used to losely that it has no universally understood meaning at all. That's why we should avoid it. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

These were also themes in American liberalism. It is a bit like saying from the late 1700s conservatives supported the United States. TFD (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

They don't mean the same things and never did. Socialism was the path, Communism was the destination. Under Communism there is no private ownership of anything. Everything is shared. All work to provide goods to the state to which the state distributes equally. Socialism allows private ownship of property but the state is responsible for the social well-beling of all. Resources are collected (taxed) and then distributed to those based on their need. One wonders if those that proclaim the untopia of Communism would ever give up the power and privilage provided to them during the transition through Socialism and actually make the final transistion..... Arzel (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope this, from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, will help explain why I want to avoid the word "socialist" in the lede. "socialism A political and economic theory or system for social organization based on collective or state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. ... The word was first used in the early 1830s...(and) denoted a vast range of remormist and revolutionary ideas. ... doctrines such as anarchism, communism, and social democracy drew on the key values of socialism, and it was often difficult to separate the various schools and movements from each other." Rick Norwood (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

the article is about what the conservatives thought and did. They thought they were opposed to both red socialism in the U.S. and (Soviet) Communism abroad (and Communist spies). They were not especially opposed to the Shakers (a "communist" religious group of the 1820s). It's essential to understand Conservatism to realize that they endlessly opposed these movements, and continuously did so for the last 100+ years. All the RS make this opposition a major point (and yes you can hear it today on Fox news). Rjensen (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if Conservatives have opposed communism (and maybe even socialism "proper"), this still doesn't seem like enough to warrant the term "radicalism", which encompasses more things still. BigK HeX (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is equivocation in the Conservative opposition of "socialism," then I guess that could be cited and then noted in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The "liberals" were even more anti-socialist and anti-Communist, e.g., the Palmer raids, Roosevelt's jailing of Communists and Trotskyists, Albert Wohlstetter's aggressive Cold War policies, the invasions of Russia, Korea, Vietnam, etc. The Kennedys certainly had strong anti-Communist credentials. TFD (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

the liberals belong in another article. By the way, FDR locked up Japanese Americans, not Communists and Trotskyists. Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Trotskyists and Communists were prosecuted under the Smith Act during the Roosevelt-Truman years. The point is that anti-Communism only became part a defining conservative value after Buckley and Meyer decided it would be the "glue" that united libertarians and traditional conservatives. TFD (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

History Section

The history section needs to completely rewritten. It's too focused on party labels, and reads more like a history of the Republican party, rather than a political philosophy. This becomes brilliantly clear when talking about slavery and equal rights in the conservative position (i.e. maintenance of the status quo, private property rights sacrosanct from government (especially federal government) intervention) switches parties from Democratic to Republican. 67.169.32.224 (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that conservatism in the United States is a modern concept that was developed after the Second World War. The attempt here was to trace the different threads that make up modern US conservatism. However modern writers differ on what was conservatism in the past. Some see it as Toryism, Federalism, or conservative liberalism (which is essentially the Republican Party plus Southern Democrats.) Any sugestions? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a good bit of difficulty in getting through the history section, as well. There is very little sense of tense and meaning with all of the labels in the section. I find it difficult to gauge whether references to "conservative Person X" indicate that the person was called "conservative" at the time, or whether the label is being applied retroactively under the current understanding of US conservatives. If these people considered themselves to be "conservatives" within their own era, then did US conservatism still hold the same connotations back then; alternatively, if the conservative label is being applied retroactively, then it would probably help to make it explicit who is applying the label. It'll make it somewhat ugly, but I guess tagging the instances will help to get the issue straightened out. BigK HeX (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess the biggest problem is that the lead seems to describe modern conservatism in the US, while the article is about much more than that. There seems to be little text dedicated to describing the actual changes in the concept of "conservatism" from era to era. BigK HeX (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The term was introduced into the U. S. by Peter Viereck and Russell Kirk. The National Review originally opposed the term, because it referred to European reactionaries, but eventually accepted it. No one before them called themselves conservatives, and it is doubtful where modern U. S. conservatives are really conservatives. TFD (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson's image

If I were to list the hundred most important topics in Conservatism in the United States, Jefferson's image would not be one of them. This article is not a book. Rjensen says this has been "of interest" on the talk page. It's been "of interest" because tried to claim that Jefferson is a conservative, then that Jefferson is admired by conservatives, and now that Jefferson is "of interest" to conservatives.

Does anyone other than Rjensen think this section is an important part of the history of Conservatism in the United States?

Rick Norwood (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson is one of the 2 or 3 most important political thinkers in American history, and the RS give him attention on his political beliefs. We need to be adding good info to Wikipedia, not erasing it. People not interested in Jefferson or the 1930s or the self image of conservatives can skip the section easy enough Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be there but should be better explained. The "conservative Democrats" were of course in the tradition of Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland. Democratic policies had allowed entrepreneurs with no pedigree to attain wealth and power which made them side with the Republicans in opposition to further reform. However they continued to honor their early leaders. It is similar to the French process of sinistrisme where news parties emerged on the Left and forced the older parties to the Right, except of course the U. S. retained a two party system. They would claim that the Democratic Party had changed, not that they had suddenly become admirers of Hamilton. TFD (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Will you do the rewrite, TFD? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I will see if I can find sources for this. TFD (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Here http://books.google.com/books?id=0QNrZoAgGAsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA356#v=onepage&q&f=false] (pp. 355-379) is a link to the book used in the article, which was written by Merrill D. Peterson in 1960. TFD (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to work on that section right now because, as I've said, compared to the other topics under History: The Guilded Age, Empire, World War I, and so on, it seems like a minor topic, and one that potentially opens the way to a plethora of other minor topics, as everybody puts in his favorite. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

take a second look

i was just wondering where the statement in the intro "The meaning of conservatism in America has little in common with the way the word is used in the rest of the world." comes from... i dont mind the statement, but could someone please give it some sort of backing. it seems like an opinion.

Spcgettel (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wilson

the consensus of most experts for many decades is that Wilson governed as a liberal. See Eric Goldman Rendezvous with Destiny: A History of Modern American Reform (1956). That puts Wilson outside this article, but he does need brief mention because it impacted conservatives. (For example, TR moved to the right in fighting Wilson and rejoined the GOP). Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't that depend on how we define the terms? TFD (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

wiki does not define the terms. The RS do that, and we report and summarize them. Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think most of the RS say that Wilson governed as a liberal (while noting that he had been pretty conservative before 1908) Rjensen (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC).

Aren't they just using these as relative terms? T. Roosevelt was more conservative than W. J. Bryan but more liberal than Taft. In every election one candidate is more conservative than the other and that candidate is normally a Republican. TFD (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

we need to explain why close allies--TR and Taft--became foes, and formed movements. Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist of trying to lable Wilson, Rjensen. This is simplistic. He does not fit any any of your categories. He was very liberal in some ways and very conservative in others, including after he became president. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

the RS generally agree that Wilson governed as a liberal or progressive president. The main point is that the conservatives opposed him on most issues. Rjensen (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wilson was liberal in some ways and conservative in others. Conservatives opposed him on some issues and supported him on others. For examples, the Southern Conservatives supported him strongly on increased segragation of the races, but opposed him on the League of Nations. You objected to the article spending much space on Wilson. I agree. But we cannot become simplistic in the interest of saving space. Either take enough space to accurately portray a complex and controversial man, or mention him without labling him. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree Wilson was a liberal

his racism is rather thin argument for him being conservative, 2/3 of the opposing votes for civil rights reform were democrat. are there any other examples of his conservatism? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to interrupt another one of your strange objections, but those democrats who opposed Civil Rights [the CRA] were almost all considered to be the conservative Democrats of the South ... those Bible Belt Conservatives. But, nevermind. Carry on building your point from this foundation. BigK HeX (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is not whether Wilson was a liberal or not. He's usually considered a progressive because of his support for the League of Nations. The point is that the article should not treat "liberal", "progeressive", "Democrat", and "left-wing" as if they were synonyms. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

bigk, how is agreeing with the section creator an objection? my comment was agree? rick, what are the differences between left-wing and liberal? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Answering Darkstar1st's question: "the Left" -- "Characterized by a desire to reform or overthrow the established order." "Liberalism" -- "A belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties." Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking me how your direct response to Rick Norwood is an objection? Baffling... BigK HeX (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

perhaps you have an example of wilson being conservative? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wilson was a Southern Democrat (conservative), part of the (conservative) Cleveland wing of the party, who continued the progressive policies of the conservative presidents T. Roosevelt and Taft, and incorporated the (social conservative) views of the populists. He was responsible for pioneering two conservative traditions: anti-Communism (incarceration of Communists at home and war against Communists abroad) and interventionism (neoconservatism). Hofstadter called him "The conservative as liberal".[1] TFD (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wilson incarcerated communist? are you referring to Eugene Debs, the lone social democrat convicted of sedition? i agree he was interventionist, a tragic flaw. ww2 was a direct result of wilson's misguided effort to equalize the social classes of europe via ww1. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No I was not referring to Communists, although Wilson incarcerated socialists and others as well for speaking out against war, using a law that was in violation of the Bill of Rights. However Communists were convicted on the basis that they were Communists under legislation that was also in violation of the Bill of Rights. Interventionism is of course a conservative value (see:War in Iraq), and Wilson did not bring America into the war in order to "equalize the social classes of europe" but to protect U. S., British and French financial interests. Compare and contrast United States occupation of Haiti (1915) and 2004 Haitian rebellion.) TFD (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

which communist did he arrest? "Interventionism is of course a conservative value" You consider Bush a conservative? libertarians are for the Iraq war? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The number of fallacies apparent in many of your responses is pretty shocking.

A) Bush is far from the only person to support the invasion of Iraq.

B) Conservatism is NOT equal to libertarianism

My hat to anyone who maintains the patience to humor you when your responses are afflicted with so many logical flaws.

In any case, on the matter at hand, I tend to agree with Rick Norwood, that classification of Wilson should be handled with a bit of care. BigK HeX (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Gitlow, Wilson Bross Lloyd (son of Henry Demarest Lloyd, Charlotte Whitney, to name three of the better known among hundreds arrested. (See also Palmer Raids. TFD (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

the number of shopping carts at walmart is equally shocking, after a count, i determined if all the carts were inside at the same time, there would be no room for people. Ron Paul voted against the war, and he is the most fiscal conservative in congress. i do remember all of the "non-conservative" democrats voting for the iraq war. and republicans getting us out of vietnam. which fiscal conservative is not libertarian? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism is NOT the same as fiscal conservatism, and further ... fiscal conservatism does not encompass the meaning of US Conservatismm which is ... ya know, the actual topic we're discussing on this talk page. Your determination to equate US Conservatism and the topic of your favorite article [Libertarianism] is pretty apparent and pretty perplexing. BigK HeX (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Iraq War resolution was supported by 82 congressional Democrats and 29 senators and opposed by 126 congressional Democrats and 21 senators. Six Republican congressmen and 1 senator voted against. Most Democrats voting for the resolution were conservatives, as were most Republicans. TFD (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

bigk: so did you have an example of how wilson is conservative, or which fiscal conservative is not libertarian? tfd: "Most Democrats voting for the resolution were conservatives" you consider VP Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Daschle to be conservatives? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There are PLENTY of fiscal conservatives who don't consider themselves libertarian. Practically any fiscally conservative evangelical (of the right) could fit the bill -- Pat Robertson, being a prime example. Your responses indicate a pretty narrow worldview, which is not really helpful here. Also, it might not be wise to constantly soapbox about libertarianism on article talk pages. For some strange reason, you behave as if you can trade away the privilege of actively editing articles for a license to freely soapbox on talk pages --- that is not the case, and you're almost certain to draw more scrutiny to yourself by doing it. In any case, my patience is exhausted for this silliness. Good day. :o) BigK HeX (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I said, "Most Democrats voting for the resolution were conservatives" (my emphasis). Harry Reid was not btw considered a liberal in 2003. Notably the vote was not a vote for the war but to allow the president to use war as a last resort. Kerry and Biden voted against the 1991 war resolution. The majority of liberals and almost all progressives in Congress opposed the war, while the overwhelming majority of conservatives supported it. TFD (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

what is silly is not being able to produce any data on wilson being conservative, my original point. Pat Robertson is a fiscal conservative, explain? he does believe in mythology, "the devil punished Haiti with a hurricane". how is agreeing wilson is a liberal mean i am soapboxing? i would be willing to trade you away though. i will log out from wp for good, if you will do the same. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't trade away what you don't have. One of us still actively edits articles ;o)

This talk page is not your personal forum, but I'm sure you'll have fun trying to turn this one regardless. Cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

bigk you are coming up on your 9th month as an editor, congrats! having never created an article yourself, i recommend you give it a shot, trust me, far more rewarding than debating my pov. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"9th month" lol .... this guy wants to lecture me on Wikipedia editing from an account with roughly 600 edits. The amount of weirdness you place into the talk pages is just too funny! BigK HeX (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hofstader considered Wilson a conservative who was forced to govern as a liberal while Eldon J. Eisenach considered him a conservative for having rejected progressivism. Of course he is the acknowledged ancestor of neo-conservatism, and the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act were both Wilsonian. TFD (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

lol@ "forced" to govern as a liberal. The man who brought us the income tax and a central bank rejects progressivism? The Patriot act opposed by Ron Paul in the house, yet supported by all progressives and liberals in the senate. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please name one member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the Senate who supported the Patriot Act. The central bank idea was taken from Hamilton and the income tax from Lincoln and both were necessary to protect the Eastern establishment and an interventionist foreign policy. In fact both had been pioneered by the British Empire. TFD (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure, but here are the names of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who voted in 2010 to extend the patriot act, without reforms:

• Marcy Kaptur of Ohio
• Bennie Thompson of Mississippi
• Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas
• Alan Grayson of Florida
• Corrine Brown of Florida
• Charles Rangel of New York
• Louise Slaughter of New York
• Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan
• John Hall of New York
• Luis Gutierrez of Illinois
• Robert Brady of Pennsylvania
• Bobby Rush of Illinois
• Lucille Roybal-Allard of California
• Eric Massa of New York
• Chakka Fattah of Pennsylvania
• Danny Davis of Illinois
• Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas
• John Conyers of Michigan
• William Lacy Clay of Missouri
• Jesse Jackson, Jr of Illinois
• Andre Carson of Indiana
• Diane Watson of California
• Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut
• James Moran of Virginia

Darkstar1st (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the original Patriot Act, which had no progressive support. The 2010 vote, which you have seen shows that 95% + of conservatives supported renewal, while only 75% of progressives opposed it. Your claim that the Patriot Act was supported by progressives wand opposed by conservatives is a myth. If every congressman and senator had been a progressive there would have been no war in Iraq or Patriot Act, because there would have been no support of conservative programs. TFD (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

what actions did wilson take that convinced you he was not a liberal? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said he was not a liberal, I said he was an American conservative (which means he was a liberal). Althought Taft and Roosevelt were more conservative than he was, they were more opposed to free trade and more supportive of interventionism than he was, he was still in that group. His Palmer raids and support of a central bank and income tax secure his conservative credentials. TFD (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I answered Darkstar1st's question to me above, and TFD and BigK HeX have answered several of his questions, but when he gets an answer, he just repeats the question, and so now my advice is, "Don't feed the trolls." Rick Norwood (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

your answer was a bit of a riddle Rick, and if you call me a troll again, i will go outside, dig up worms and eat them. he was both a liberal and conservative? "Southern Conservatives supported him strongly on increased segragation of the races" Did you have any other evidence he governed as a conservative? Does wilson's racism make him conservative? Perhaps you have uncovered the major flaw with this article, us conservatives could mean social conservatives, or fiscal conservatives. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My answer to your question above was a quotation from a dictionary. And the article extensively discusses the differences between social and fiscal conservatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we uncovered the major flaw a while ago, and that it exists in your approach to this talk page. You apparently have an idea of an archetypal US conservative (and given your defensiveness, it's likely that you've classified yourself as one), and now you appear to want the article to be molded to fit your personal conception of the term. If that's the case, I count at least 3 egregious errors in that thinking.

Anyways, feel free to stop treating this page as your personal forum. It looks like people have tired of humoring your games, since it's gotten pretty obvious that if you were actually interested in the topic, you would have investigated it for yourself a long time ago, since Google is only one click away. I'm sure you'll continue to disregard both WP:NOT#FORUM and the Google link though. BigK HeX (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I followed your link, but it was to a book selling website? If you have a specific example of anything wilson did in office you consider conservative, please share, if not i will proceed in correcting this error. apologies if i misconstrued your wp activity. from your talk page i gather you are fairly new to wp, and not yet a creator of articles, something i think you would do well. wilson was a leader of the progressive era, describing the constitution as "pre-modern, cumbersome" Darkstar1st (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Founders were not conservative?

I see a few attempts here to remove any association of conservative beliefs with the founders. While this may have some minor merit, some may not notice that in articles about some of the founders subtle attempts are being made to associate them with liberal beliefs (in the 20th century sense). This of course is completely incorrect as anyone should know the founders were generally conservative libertarians by current definitions. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide specific examples. TFD (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Founding Fathers" head a wide variety of beliefs, and discussed them at length in, for example, "The Federalist Papers". To try to say that "The Founders" as a group held some particular belief is misleading. However, one thing they all were is revolutionaries, so they could hardly be called "conservative", which means "supporting the current system or a return to some earlier tradition". Rick Norwood (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe his point was that most of the founding fathers are not to be associated with current liberal opinions, which include gun control, abortion, etc. Most (not all, but most) are known by many to hold more current libertarian views, which include most things stated in the constitution (considering that some of them had a hand in making the constitution of the united states.) His point was not what they were called back when they were alive. --DrStrangelove64 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But Libertarian doesn't mean Conservative (and, incidentally, few of the Founders were at all Libertarian -- they feared the Mob at least as much as they feared a King). The alliance between American Libertarians and American Conservatives is a political alliance that has nothing to do with the core beliefs of either group.

What's going on here is "claiming". If I want to influence people to adopt my personal political beliefs, I may try to find famous people and associate them with my beliefs, based on something they once said that corrosponds to some part of that belief. It is the opposite of what Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, called "candor" -- freedom from bias and cant. It is propaganda. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fiscal US Conservative and Social US conservative

Fiscal conservatives care less about gay marriage, victim-less crimes, or the moral fiber of us citizens. fiscal conservatives are against nation building, foreign wars, and excessive government spending. Social conservatives are almost polar opposites on these issues. Is there support for creating a distinction between the two? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that fiscal conservatives demand less spending and lower taxes, and do not talk much about foreign policy. Social conservatives seldom focus on economic issues, though they also have an interest in religious matters in foreign policy (including religious freedom and Israel) Neither talk much about nation building or warsRjensen (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The two types are already in the article. TFD (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ron Paul and other fiscal conservatives do object to nation building and foreign wars. Mike Huckabee, and other social conservatives support of the war on terror. @tfd, indeed, however, i suggest disambiguation. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are already articles about Ron Paul and Libertarianism. TFD (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

as there should be, a featured article none-the-less. us conservatism suffers from an identity crisis, like describing a war as civil, or a president being both liberal, and conservative. to be both, one must separate how, ex: socially liberal, fiscal conservative, or the opposite. Huckabee thinks gays are bad, yet, a liberal on taxes. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please observe that the talk page is for improvement of the article not for general discussion of the subject. TFD (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please observe that the talk page is for improvement of the article not for general discussion of the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Big Business

I can't believe that such an obviously necessary change would be rapidly reverted. Nevertheless, let me explain what's wrong with this line.

First, there's no page number given to verify where Irving Kristol even said that, and I can't find a matching statement in the Google Books preview. Certainly he liked to say that "big business is good for America," and even wrote an essay with that title. But "I, Irving Kristol, believe that big business is good for America" is not the same as "conservatism in the United States often extends to active support for big business."

Second, a single statement in one book by Irving Kristol does not establish authoritatively what conservatism in the United states actually is. Kristol may well have said "conservatives ought to actively support big business" or even "conservatives really do actively support big business," but that wouldn't somehow settle the discussion; it's just Kristol's own judgement. To define the beliefs of conservatives, we should be relying only on generally-accepted claims that are well-supported by evidence, not picking out individual statements from individual conservative writers (even influential ones.)

Third, it is not clear what "active support" means; it seems to imply giving subsidies and legal breaks for big business, but that would directly contradict the previous line about supporting free-market capitalism. So, in context, it's very vague.

Fourth, a recent Gallup poll found that only 57% of US self-described "conservatives" have a positive view of "big business;" scarcely more than the overall average of 49%.

Fifth, one can easily find many strong critiques of "big business" coming from sources which designate themselves as conservative, and would generally be accepted as conservative; FrontPageMag, The New York Press, The American Conservative, Roger Scruton, Rod Dreher, I could go on...

Sixth, and finally, that was really more detail than I should have needed to go into, and I hope this silly argument ends here. EvanHarper (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me just add that one good thing has come out of this silly dispute. The more I look at the lead section the more I am convinced that it is utterly worthless. It either cites whole books to support its point (often non-scholarly works of opinion and political punditry) or it cites individual conservative authors giving their personal views. It is rambling, redundant, poorly written and poorly formatted. Time to start from scratch. EvanHarper (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be right on that but unfortunately the article suffers from a disagreement over what U. S. conservatism is. My own view is that term is meaningless except to describe modern U. S. self-described conservatives. Can you point to any sources for a good intro? TFD (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that conservative support means opposition to regulation and taxation for "Wall Street" and "Main Street" (ie national and local, or big and small business)Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But, as I've pointed out many times before, this is only "conservative" in the sense that it supports the upper class. When, for example, the Obama administration lowered taxes for the middle class but discontinued some of the Bush tax cuts for the upper class, American conservatives said that Obama raised taxes. When the Democratic congress tried to pass tax cuts for small business, the Republican filibuster blocked that because it didn't cut taxes for big business. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The same issue has come up with anti-intellectualism. One definition of conservatism is the party of the elites, and that definition allows us to link Hamilton, Lincoln, and TR as conservatives, who of course were not anti-intellectual. Another definition is the group that arose in the 1950s and called itself conservative, which was anti-intellectual and anti-elitist. TFD (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 99 remark

I have a remark about the audience of the Show, in the german edition of the article about Rush Limbaugh claims the audience is not well educated white and old. Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh Footnote: http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio21880.html [german audio source] This source brought up is from 2008 so its 4 years after the footnote 99 used in this article. I would recommend to watch out for a new source for this fact, as they contradict each other.

Greets my_ip_is_my_identity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.23.214 (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The relationship between conservatism and small government.

People who have read mainly libertarian sources seem confused when I object that "conservatism" has nothing to do with "small government". It does in the sources they read. But not in the mainstream.

I came across the following example in a book I'm reading, The Rise of Theodore Moosevelt by Edmund Morris (page 383-384). The subject is Teddy Roosevelt's book about Gouverneur Morris. "Morris is presented as the Constitution's most brillian intellect, as well as its dominant conservative force." And then, quoting Roosevelt, "Morris championed a strong national government."

At the time of the American Revolution, conservatives wanted a strong government, to protect the upper classes from the mob. Today, conservatives want a small government, to protect the upper classes from taxes and government regulation. But the common thread is not big government vs. small government. The common thread is status quo vs. change.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

At present, Republicans (and Democrats) follow a neoliberal paradigm, but it is not a core belief system, merely what they believe is the best policy under current circumstances. In the past they followed other policies and may adopt different policies in the future. And while neoliberalism draws on libertarian theory, it has major differences, and has not led to smaller government and free trade. TFD (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

let's use some numbers. The weak government of the Articles of Confederation scored perhaps, 10 on a scale of 100. Gouverneur Morris wanted a much stronger government--he aimed for, maybe, 30. Today the national government scores perhaps a 70. I would guess conservatives today want a 65, and liberals want a 75.Rjensen (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be more about the degree of centralization in the federal government. Conceivably many of the functions of the federal government could be performed by state or local governments, but that would not make government smaller, only the federal government. TFD (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives favored a stronger federal government in the 18th and early 19th centuries when it had a tiny fraction of the power it has now. That certainly doesn't mean that the "small government" issue is just a device to favor the "upper classes" and oppose "change." (How Marxist is that formulation?) The Tories fled to Canada during the Revolution, which left the U.S. without an aristocratic party. There is a pro-business conservative thread that goes Federalists, National Republicans, northern Whigs (1833-1856), Lincoln/Radical Republicans (1856-76), Bourbon Democrats (1884-1896), and modern (McKinley) Republicans (since 1896). In the 19th century, North vs South was more important than left vs. right, so the Democrats could switch from being the party of plantation aristocrats in the Civil War and Reconstruction periods to pro-business conservative under Cleveland and then to pro-labor populist under William Jennings Bryan. Kauffner (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that support your unusual interpretation of U. S. history? Why do you include Cleveland as a conservative and Bryan outside the family? Was Cleveland not in the radical tradition and Bryan the first social conservative? TFD (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That McKinley refounded the Republican Party as a conservative organization is the thesis of William McKinley (2003) by Kevin Phillips. Bryan is very closely associated with populism. If anything, he is the ur-populist, the model of what it means to be a populist. He was endorsed by Populist Party and supported an inflationary monetary policy. Do you think he can't be a man of the left because he was an evangelical, argued for creationism and so forth? Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement as well as many other reform movements. It was the abortion issue that made them conservative in the 1970s and later.

Russell Kirk mentions Cleveland as a conservative in The Conservative Mind. In the 19th century, the word "conservative" brought to mind Calhoun and the southern Democrats. The McKinley campaign gave the word an economic spin so they could appeal to former Cleveland supporters who favored "sound money" and other McKinley agenda items.

The radicals were Republican supporters of President Grant who favored continued military occupation of the South to protect the civil rights of Blacks. I don't see that this relates to Cleveland, who was elected mostly by White southern votes. Kauffner (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Kirk did not call Cleveland a conservative. He certainly was not in the conservative tradition of e.g. Hamilton, but rather of Jackson. Both he and Bryan were opposed to foreign intervention and Tammany Hall, and Cleveland was the more conservative of the two, but neither was left-wing. Bryan btw did not campaign for equal rights. TFD (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So you don't recognize Bryan as a populist, or you don't consider populism to be a left-wing philosophy? Jackson was the triumph of the West over the East, more a cultural than an ideological issue. Cleveland had "pro-business, limited-government views," according to Britannica. Kauffner (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Populism is just the people against the elites, and despite different solutions was basically the same message as Jackson. Cleveland certainly had "pro-business, limited-government views", but his big business constituency was the new rich not the traditional establishment. He differed from the conservatives (and sided with Bryan) over tariffs and imperialism. TFD (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The word "populism" has more than one meaning, but the original and primary meaning is the movement that Bryan led. (The word is Anglicized from Populares, the left of center party in ancient Rome.) In a democracy, every successful politician appeals to the common man or he wouldn't get elected, now would he? There is another reason Bryan is compared to Jackson, namely that they both had issues with the banks. But this is a superficial reason as well. Bryan advocated currency inflation because he believed it would raise agricultural prices and help farmers. Jackson didn't have an economic theory of that type. He inflated the currency because he didn't understand how banks worked. The Specie Circular shows that Jackson was in fact a hard money man at heart. Kauffner (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Left opposed silver: it would benefit the silver mining interests and increase the cost of food for working people while leading to unemployment among farm hands who would then compete with other workers for jobs. You are reading too much into the name, they called themselves the People's Party as in "We the people", and the populist tag came later. The Klondike gold rush made their bimetalism redundant and they concentrated on promoting social conservatism. The Tea Party today makes the same appeals against the elites. TFD (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with conservative history, is that conservatives will label statesmen of the past as conservatives, regardless of the actual circumstances, and reject others who should be included. TFD (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The labor movement was split on silver. Like Cleveland, Kinley was also critical of imperialism. It was just that circumstances forced his hand.

You think it is ahistorical to call politicians in the 1890s conservative? The word has been used in US politics since the 1830s and certainly existed at that time. You can look on Google News archive. There are contemporary accounts of how "the Times and Staats-Zeitung, conservative Democratic organs" broke with Bryan to endorse McKinley. (Chicago Tribune, Jul 11, 1896) Burke is universally considered a conservative, although the word did not exist as a political description in his time.Kauffner (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually many writers consider Burke, who was a Whig, to have been a liberal, as he was long viewed before late 19th Conservatives rediscovered him. His synthesis of support for both aristocracy and free markets fit in with the new Tory policies and they removed royalist and mercantilist writers from the pantheon. And yes the term "conservative" was occassionally used but there was no identification with Toryism certainly none with French or German conservatism. TFD (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Progressive movement, as we know it today, didn't even start until Teddy Roosevelt. So prior to that, "BIG" government was small. So in the scheme of things, a discussion about big government comparing the colonial times with the 1800's and today respectively, is like comparing the size difference between two fleas and a dog, respectively. Trying to cast Jefferson as a progressive would be utterly ridiculous. Classic liberalism was conservative by any standard today. Not even Alexander Hamilton could be seen as a modern liberal/progressive. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You're still locked in to the idea that liberal/conservative is about big/small government. Read a dictionary! Rick Norwood (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently that view is going into the school history books.[2] TFD (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The publishers of textbooks now provide textbooks that will say anything you want them to say, so they provide American history from a conservative viewpoint for schools in Texas but the New York version of the same book provides a liberal viewpoint. You want facts? Just tell us which facts you want, and we'll provide them. A good book on the subject is Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

recent changes

The lede has become much too long and is trying to argue the case for conservatism instead of objectively reporting what conservatives think. Note also the repetition (paragraph seven repeats paragraph two), the rapid changes of tense, and a lack of organization. I've done a little, but much more work needs to be done. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead is too long - it should provide a brief summary of the topic. I have looked back to find a better lead, but it seems that they have been too lengthy as well. [3] This lead from 1st August seems better although it too has problems. The phrase "oppose world government (including the UN)" for example does not seem to represent mainstream conservatism. TFD (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

citations

I think the article has enough citations now for us to remove the request for additional citations. Any thoughts on this subject? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree Rjensen (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I have removed it. TFD (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Federalists

The Federalists seem unjustly neglected, so I have added a section. As Allitt and Samuel Eliot Morison demonstrate, their ideas resonate with conservatives today--who are forever claiming close ties to the Founding Fathers. Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The lede.

The lede was rife with repetition and did not observe chronology. I've shortened it, arranged the paragraphs in chronological order, and combined sections that said the same thing. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Major American Conservatives

A large number of names has been added to the already long list of Major American Conservatives at the end of the article. I only recognize two of the names, Oral Roberts and Sun-Myung Moon, and I'm not sure that the Reverend Mr. Moon is what we would usually call a conservative. Are these names appropriate to the list?

And, while we are on the subject, the introductory paragraph to the list seems to be out-of-date, and about a form of conservatism that is not what is usually meant by conservatism today. Should it stay or go?

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The list will continue to expand, and the only solution is to move it. I would rather have a section that mentions Rossiter and others and what their views are. I do not think that Rossiter would have identified most of these people as conservatives. TFD (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

we need to keep the list to allow people to link to leaders; but I dropped the people who are primarily religious leaders since the article is about politics (there are a few who do overlap, like Rev Robertson, who ran for president). Moon is based in Korea.

If individuals are important they will be in the article and readers may follow the internal links. However, any list will expand indefinitely and come to inclue anyone that anyone thinks was a conservative. TFD (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has hundreds of names, and there is no way of telling which are the MOST important unless we use a RS to tell us that. Americans after all love "top 10" and "top 100" lists. Four Deuces says the list may "expand indefinitely" -- that shows a fear of the future of the sort that many conservatives have, but let's worry about the 2012 article in 2012, not now. Rjensen (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Tone of article and NPOV

Sentences like "The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and outright contradictions" are very controversial. It would be just as fair to say that "The term 'conservative' has been used throughout the history of American politics by several different contradictory ideologies but American conservatism as it is known today became a distinct political movement in the early 1950s with Barry Goldwater." As it is, it suggests (implicitly) that conservatism is a self-contradictory belief system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article goes on to say that conservatives share the values of the founding fathers, and then say that the founding fathers would have considered preserving "slavery in every colony" a "conservative" point of view, thereby implying that modern conservatives support slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

on contradictions in conservatism -- yes there are many of them; an example would be the debate in 2010 on balancing the budget versus not raising taxes, or the tension between religious conservatives who want the government to tightly control/prohibit abortion, and the Libertarians who want few restrictions or none. It was Abraham Lincoln, especially in his famous Cooper Union speech of 1860 who argued that the founding fathers were indeed conservatives, and that they envisioned the eventual disappearance of slavery.Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:American Conservative Movements

A few days ago, User:RomanHistorian created the navbox American Conservative Movements. Since then, I've been working to improve it and hopefully turn it into a useful companion to this article. I would appreciate the input and assistance of everyone who contributes to or is interested in subjects relating to American Conservatism. I've listed a couple of suggestions at the relevant talk page including renaming the navbox to Template:Conservatism in the United States (to match this article) and restructuring the navbox based on the format of Template:Conservatism. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party continued

The Tea Party did not oppose the Bush bailout. They did not form to oppose bailouts until there was a Democrat in office. Now, they say they would have opposed it, but the people who are now in the Tea Party were silent during the Bush presidency, and while they claim to be independant, in every case they support Republican candidates. I think that puts them squarely on the Right, to the extent that the word means anything at all these days. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The word "Tea Party" didn't exist at that time, but the same people had the same opinions. McCain's campaign went into a tailspin after he endorsed TARP. Kauffner (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Tea Party = conservative. But so is George W. Bush--hence the conservatives are split on this issue in 2010. (They also split in Oct 2008, when half the GOP in Congress resisted voting for the TARP bailout.) Lipset by the way was retired and died before the Tea Party formed.Rjensen (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the article confuses two distinct modern uses of the word conservative. The first, used by Rossiter and other social scientists of his era referred to elitists from the federalists to the modern Republican leadership. The other group was called radical right and extended from Cotton Mather to anti-Masons, Know-Nothings, Klansmen, McCarthyites, Birchers and (although most of them did not live to see it) the Tea Party. The second group was anti-elitist, did not support mainstream Protestant churches, mistrusted big business, and was generally irrational and paranoid. While in the U.S. these two groups have usually worked together, that has not been the case in other countries. In other countries, where this second group is described as right-wing populism and forms separate political parties, the traditional Right generally refuses to work with them, even preferring to work with social democrats, which is similar to how Bush worked with the opposition on TARP, the stimulus, immigration, education. TFD (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Four Deuces that there is an elitism element in American conservatism, and a populist element; there are some other elements too, such as religious traditionalism and fundamentalism; then there is the strong libertarian element to notice, and add in big business. America is missing some very important elements you see in Europe and Latin America, such as an established church, or a dominant military, or powerful landowners who control the great majority of our farmers. In a word, it makes for a complicated story, especially when you stretch it over 300,000,000 people over a couple centuries. Rjensen (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems though the sources are referring to elitist conservatism although they differ on when it ended. Kirk says Jeffersonian democracy and the defeat of the south ended political conservatism, while Allitt and others saw it continuing largely in the Whig/Republican parties. None of them include these other elements that form part of today's conservative movement although obviously conservatives have always had to appeal beyond their core constituency. TFD (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that what Four Deuces is alluding to are the Constitutionalist segment of the Conservative Movement (currently seen in the Tea Party Movement) that makes up a huge component of conservatism in the US. These people are not elitists but just want the federal government to function according to the Constitution (no more, no less) as originally envisioned by the Founders. This to me constitutes the majority of modern conservatism. It has nothing to do directly with large corporate interests except as a fallout of maximizing personal and general liberty. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you square this with, for example, the conservatives on the Supreme Court ruling that corporations have all the rights of individuals -- clearly that is not in the Constitution. And the fact that, with no exceptions I'm aware of, no Tea Party candidate has ever made any statement that is against the interests of multinational corporations? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Corporation, here's something worth reading. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court 124 years ago ruled [Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)] that the 14th amendment protected "persons" and "person" it said included corporations. The recent Court ruling was that all persons have the right of free speech, so that includes corporations. Specifically official federal law states: the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals US Code section 1 online Rjensen (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I found that hard to understand too. The radical right really do believe that they are defending the rights of the common man against the elites who have subverted the constitution. (Of course their view of the common man is fairly narrow, and they disingenuously group disadvantaged citizens with the elites.) Elites see them as a threat both against them and to social cohesion and suppress them. But in the U.S. where the elites are more fragmented and the population itself is anti-elitist, the elites need these groups for support and try to incorporate them into their parties, which they did with Anti-Masons, Know-Nothings, Wallace supporters, etc. Why they would believe the elites is puzzling, but various writers have written about this under right-wing authoritarianism, etc. The reverence for the constitution itself is also puzzling, since the founders anticipated that future generations might wish to amend aspects to reflect changing times. TFD (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

124 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were people. 154 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that Negroes were not people. Both rulings were rulings by activist judges, who ignored what the constitution actually says. This article should not report as fact the pretense that conservatives favor originalism -- they only favor orgininalism when they like the results. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Activist judges ruled on Roe v Wade, so what's your point? I'm not going to argue your points here, since they are conjecture and irrelevant to this article. This is not a forum. If you want to debate this, you are welcome to initiate something on your talk page. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion Rick. Soxwon (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems strange that to object to original research is labeled original research. The burden of proof is on the proposer, and as it stands the section on the Tea Party has only one reference, which is a news report of what the Tea Party says. And the article as it stands goes far beyond even what the news report says. It presents Tea Party claims as if they were objective facts. Certainly the article needs a section on the Tea Party movement, but it should be based on a respected academic source, not on a news story about what the Tea Party says. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He who makes the assertion has the burden of proof. The edits are assumed to be made in good faith. If there is a reference that supports it, it is not OR. You can improve the content with more refs. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the section is POV and too long. Unfortunately the Tea Party is fairly new and academic study is in its early days. TFD (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding a map

I would like to add this map (on the right) to the article. Are there any objections or suggestions before I do so? I can change the coloring scheme if there are any strong feelings. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

yes that is an excellent map and it adds some color the article really needs. Good job! Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Founding Fathers

Conservatives today talk a lot about the Founding Fathers --for example the name of the Tea Party movement--so more details on conservatism in the late 18th century is called for. Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. But watching Glenn Beck, I do not think all these people are seeing them correctly. The Tea Party seems to have more in common with the original Boston Tea Party than with the Federalists. TFD (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't keep close track, but it seems to me that you misread the TPers. Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values gives the following mission statement:

The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

It seems to me that those core values are not out of line with the thinking of the Founders.

There are other TP groups (see here); I'm not familiar with details group-by-group but my impression is that that mission statement or something very like it would be descriptive of most of them.

I think that the Tea Party movement deserves more than an External Link in the article; Perhaps a new subsection under Post 1945 headed Obama with some brier introductory material and a summary style subsection something like:

Tea Party movement

Main article: Tea Party movement

The Tea Party movement is a populist political movement in the United States that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally-coordinated protests. The stated purpose of the movement has been to stop what it views as wasteful government spending, excessive taxation, and strangulation of the economy through regulatory bureaucracies.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The federalists certainly did not see things in that way, although the mob in the Boston Tea Party and the revolutionary army that was drafted may have. That is why it is important to explain how the federalists saw things. TFD (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We're treading on WP:NOTFORUM territory here. WP:GTL says that the See also section of a of a less developed article contains a reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article, from which I infer that integrating those links into the article body is generally an improvement. I've suggested above integrating the Tea Party movement link currently in the See also section into the body of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There weren't any Federalists at the time of the original tea party, but here is what the future leader of the party had to say: "The Dye is cast! The People have past the River and cutt away the Bridge! last Night Three Cargoe of tea were emptied into the Harbour. This is the grandest Event which has ever happened Since the Controversy with Britian opened! The Sublimity of it, Charms me!" -- John Adams, Dec. 17, 1773. Kauffner (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Very careless edits

Repeatedly Norwood has made very careless edits regarding teh Rossiter material. In listing his "giants of American conservatism" Rossiter starts with George Washington. In the era of the American Revolution says Rossiter, four men "loom above all other men of their age as models of conservative statesmanship and wellsprings of conservative thought. The first of these, as he is the first of Americans, is George Washington." Norwood erases Washington from the list. then erases he Lincoln too. Deliberately injecting POV and distorting a source is pretty serious business. Rjensen (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we have Rossiter's entire list? Was that in the article before the edits? BillMasen (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My "careless" edit reports what Rossiter actually says, supported by quotes from Rossiter. Here are a few more quotes. "They, like all Americans, cherish Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln...". Rjensen ignores the clause "like all Americans". This is, in any case, not his list of "giants of American conservatism". Here is his complete list: "Adams, Hamilton, Marshall, Webster, Calhoun, Root, and Roosevelt—these are the giants of American conservatism." Because those are the names he actually lists, those are the names that should be included. He does go on to say "...no conservative need ever feel reluctant to stack them up against the giants of American progressivism, especially since he may argue with some conviction that Washington and Lincoln can also be added to his list." but "may argue that (they) can be added" is not the same as adding them. Rossiter also says, about Lincoln, "Yet the modern conservative has much to learn from the ideals that guided Lincoln. If he cannot claim Lincoln for his own..." Wikipedia should not exagerate what a source actually says.

Rjensen also removed Rossiter's definition of conservatism. Because conservatism is used to mean so many different things, it is important to understand, in reading Rossiter, that to him conservatism means rule by the upper class.

I really think this whole section gives too much emphasis to someone who is not a major figure in the history of American conservatism. But, if we are going to report what Rossiter said, it must be what he actually said, in context. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Rossiter's opinions should be presented, accurately reporting what he said and reporting them as his opinion, not as facts. I also think that the article fails to distinguish between conservatives as defined by Rossiter and right-wing populism. Both have existed throughout history and have usually worked together but are separate trends. Rossiter would likely have included McCain as a conservative, but not Palin. TFD (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please scan or transcribe his actual words, so that we can all judge best what goes in the article? BillMasen (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link: http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1955/6/1955_6_56.shtml Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Having now read the article, I have to agree that it is clearly an opinion piece, and I don't think Rossiter was pretending otherwise. Rossiter was a scholar and that makes his opinions notable, but it certainly doesn't of itself make his opinions fact.

The history of American conservatism may be said to date from the decision of a group of Revolutionary leaders—conservatives all—to end the uncertainties of the post-Revolutionary years by establishing a national government that would secure peace and order[.]

(My empahasis) Conservatives all? Thomas Paine? He admits throughout that calling these anti-royalist rebels 'conservatives' is 'incongruous', but he doesn't explain why this incongruity doesn't matter.

What's wrong with presenting this simply as Rossiter's opinion?BillMasen (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of leading experts is what Wikipedia is all about. On Tom Paine, he was not part of the post-Revolutionary group that wrote and adopted the Constitution (Paine was in political retirement and left for Europe in 1787). Rossiter was a leading proponent in the 1950s of the theme--since adopted by most historians--that the American revolution was essentially a conservative move to protect traditional rights against a new tyranny being imposed by London. That is the paradox: to be conservative in terms of values in 1775 Rossiter says you had to be a rebel (he said: The American Revolution is now being interpreted as an essentially conservative event, as a large-scale rebellion to preserve rather than gain liberty). Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I read the article, and I don't need reminding about WP:RS. My point is that Rossiter was clearly representing this as his own personal opinion; you're trying to represent it as fact. That's wrong, in my view. You should present it as his opinion.

If you think I'm too lazy to go out there and find a bunch of RS people who say that each fella on his list wasn't a conservative, you're absolutely right. But I think somebody probably will. BillMasen (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The "conservative revolution" is a fringe theory. Kirk et al. compared the U.S. revolution to the Glorious Revolution where the leaders argued that their traditional rights had been violated. But no one claims that the Whigs were Tories, that liberals were conservatives. TFD (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

[this is a reply to The Four Deuces dated 3 Oct 22:32--my apologies if I accidentally over-wrote it. RJ] On the historiography of the American Revolution. In the early 20th century the Progressive historians, led by Charles Beard (and Carl Becker, J. Franklin Jameson, Arthur Schlesinger Sr, Merrill Jensen, etc) argued that the revolution was democratic, and the Constitution of 1787 was anti-revolutionary or conservative. This interpretation was rejected after 1950 by a new generation of historians, including Rossiter, Edmund Morgan, Bernard Bailyn, and many others. All historians agree that the leaders of the American Revolution talked a great deal about the rights of Englishmen, and the historic traditions that legitimized the patriot position. However, the Progressives argued that this rhetoric was superficial, and was meant to hide class conflict. On the contrary, argued the younger generation, the rhetoric was the essence of Republicanism and forms the core of the American Revolution. The old Progressive interpretation has largely died out, although you can still find it in places like Zinn's People's history. Rjensen (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A book I mentioned earlier, Canada's origins: liberal, tory, or republican?,[4] claims that arguments by J. G. A. Pocock and Bernard Bailyn have returned to the view of a political contest in the U.S. between radicals and liberals. Whether progressive, consensus, this newer theory, Russell Kirk, or Lipset, they all seem to show a division strong or weak, between two competing groups. TFD (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

yes there were indeed divisions--people fought over it to the death--but they were not class divisions or rich/poor as the Progressives of 1910-1940 believed. Rjensen (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless Rjensen himself has become a WP:RS for the consensus of historians, dissenting views should be noted in the article.

Yes, AL claimed to look back to the past to find his inspiration for emancipation. Communists believe that humans originally existed in a state of 'primitive communism'. Does that make Communists conservatives?

Whether lincoln called himself a conservative hardly seems relevant, since the meaning of the word has changed. The point is, did he take positions more-conservative-than-average-for-his-period, leaving aside slavery?

Proslavery (or pro-segregation) politicians were always more socially conservative than their peers, even though the modern conservative movement (rightly) wants to disown them.

I realise that I'm whistling in the wind by telling the plain truth on a talk page without sources; I want someone with better resources at their disposal to substantiate this. BillMasen (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason Lincoln has to "take positions more-conservative-than-average-for-his-period" to be considered a conservative. Other people at the time were conservative. Lincoln was conservative. There is no contradiction. Kauffner (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The conflict has been described as between established wealth (the upper middle class) and lower middle class, e.g., Wall Street vs. Main Street. No this is not class conflict or ideological dispute, which was acknowledged by Engels, but it does accept a left-right tension of which only one side could be described as conservative. TFD (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at one of the biggest issues of 2010: the federal bailout of the big banks. George Bush did it & Wall Street supports it. Tea Party opposes it. I suggest both sides are "conservative" --or is George W Bush now on the Left?? Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Under Rossiter's definition, the Wall Street types are the conservatives, and the Democrats would be the liberals. In this case, as in many others, e.g., recognition of China, immigration, they agreed. Of course the problem is how to classify the Tea Party. I suggest that they would come under Lipset's term radical right, although in his later essay, "Fascism - Left, Right and Center", he classified them as centrists. TFD (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When did Conservatism in the United begin.

Two major references, Allett and the Britannica, both say that as a political movement Conservatism in the United States began in the late 1940s or early 1950s. Should this article reflect that? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly modern conservatism began then and perhaps it should have its own article, as modern liberalism does. There is literature about earlier U.S. conservatism, although the term used may be misleading. I found an interesting comparison of U.S. elitist politics with Canada (although it could be any country):

In the United States, the masses could not be swayed by the Federalist-Whig appeals to anti-egalitarian sentiments. In Canada the masses were swayed by these appeals; the role of the Compacts was to save "the colonial masses from the spectre of republicanism and democracry".[5]

So throughout history they have had to make a populist appeal, which appears confusing. TFD (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is the history of conservatism in the United States, which Alett and most RS date back two centuries. Allett (2009) for example has 280 pages of text, and reaches 1945 only on page 158. Schneider (2009) spends a third of his history on the period 1900-1950, and notes there was a strong conservatism before 1900, typified by people like William Graham Sumner. Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But Sumner was a liberal, which is confusing. TFD (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Allitt wrote, "...only one author...has attempted to tell the whole story of American conservatism...." (p. ix) "...before the 1950s there was no such thing as a conservative movement....Writng about conservatism throughout American history therefore creates organizational and semantic problems.... I make the case that certain people throughout American history can be understood as conservatives...." (p. 2) So while we may have the article it is not as straightforward as say conservativism in the UK. TFD (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In the 1950s, conservatives who were dissappointed with Eisenhower's "Modern Republicanism" created organizations and publications distinct from those of the Republican Party (as well as from the Birchers and related groups), hence a "movement." Later on, these groups became the heart of the party. This is hardly a basis for claiming that John Adams, John Calhoun, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley and the rest were not conservative. Calhoun and the Whigs were self-identified conservatives, so this isn't all hindsight. Kauffner (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The traditional, lower case c, conservatives in the United States were those who favored the upper class, property requirements for voting, a strong federal government, and big city business interests -- in short, the Federalists. They were all, without exception, also liberals. Washington and Hamilton were conservative. But they were not Conservative. The modern, uppercase C, Conservative movement began around 1940, in opposition to the New Deal, communism, labor unions, and the mixing of races. They put "In God We Trust" on our coins, added "under God" to the pledge of allegiance, and called communism "Godless Communism". They held some views in common with the lower case c conservatives but disagreed with them in other ways. They usually supported the upper class, but not property requirements for voting. They supported big business, but not big government. They tended to find popular support in rural regions, but not in cities. But the biggest difference was that lower case c American conservatives were all liberals, while upper case C Conservatives opposed liberalism, civil rights, and separation of church and state, and supported censorship, book burning (and record burning!), and tax cuts for the rich. The modern Tea Party conservatives are even further from the little c conservatives, in ways that are often bizarre, and are closer Andy Jackson than to George Washington. Abraham Lincoln, born in a log cabin, asserted the power of the federal government over the states, and was not any kind of conservative. Once, trying to win the votes of people who considered themselves little c conservatives, who were accusing him of being too progressive on the slavery issue, he claimed to be a little c conservative, but one cannot take everything any politician says to win votes seriously. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Kauffner, Russell Kirk claimed that conservatism had stopped being a political force following the election of Jefferson and the defeat of the Confederacy. The Whigs (which coincidentally was the name of an English party that would merge into the Liberal Party (UK)) only used the term conservative to describe their policies and dropped the term in their last platform. Cleveland was not even a Whig/Republican, but a Democrat in opposition to conservative protectionism and imperialism. Essentially conservatives use a selective reading of history and conveniently ignore undesirable groups like Know-Nothings and Klansmen. TFD (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What was split between Taft and Teddy Roosevelt about if Taft was not a conservative? You would be hard pressed to find any account of the 1912 election that doesn't use the words "conservative" and "progressive" to describe the split. Classifying 19th century politicians may present some difficulties, but what about Coolidge? He is often considered the ultimate conservative president. He was a member of Taft's "Old Guard" faction, used the word "conservative" to refer to himself, was Reagan's idol, and was famous for saying, "the business of America is business." He also continued, "the conservative pro-business policies of his predecessor" (Britannica). Yet in this scheme, he is somehow not a conservative at all. Kauffner (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Both Taft and Roosevelt called themselves "progressives". Coolidge never called himself a "conservative" and in fact was a liberal. TFD (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Coolidge the liberal.....Perhaps some kind of joke that I'm just not getting? But just in case you are serious, this is what Taft wrote when he learned Coolidge had been elected president in 1924: "It was a famous victory and one of the most useful lessons that can be drawn from it is that this country is no country for radicalism. I think it is really the most conservative country in the world."[6] I also recommend looking at these cartoons. Kauffner (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Taft called himself a liberal.[7] Because he died in 1953, we cannot know whether he would have become a conservative, although he probably would not have supported the Great Society either. Since his time the definition of liberal has narrowed. And the farther back we go, the more difficult it is to determine who was a conservative. TFD (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Taft was the son of President William Howard Taft, so not really relevant here. But Robert's conservative credentials are, if anything, even better established than his father's. The conservative movement was founded by the people who supported Robert Taft against Ike in 1952. His self-description as an "old-fashioned liberal" suggests he that didn't consider himself liberal in the modern political sense of the word. The word "liberal" has a lot of different meanings, including both pro-free market ("classical liberal") and pro-command economy, as the essay you link to points out. The stuff about the word "conservative" doesn't make much sense. It is easy enough to show that the word was in circulation before 1960. The "Conservative Manifesto" of 1937 was a political turning point, and it was certainly known to contemporaries by that name.[8] As for Cleveland, in 1908 the New York Times described him as "that conservative of conservatives."[9] (The article is about Cleveland endorsing Taft, BTW.) The populists and the labor unions (as well as big business) rose to prominence in the 1890s, so their opponents became "conservative". The basic dynamics of American politics has remained the same since that time, so it's fairly straightforward to classify politicians from Cleveland onward. Kauffner (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that there was that much continuity between old and new right. And one can always find quotes to support any view, but the terms were rarely used then and certainly not in the same way as today. The fact that there was little to separate ideologies before the New Deal, and the fact that party divisions were more likely to be driven by region, makes it difficult to apply the term conservative. Conservatives in the U.K. and Canada never called themselves liberals, either old-fashioned or modern. Cleveland btw opposed the old money elites. TFD (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Liberal Party in Australia is quite conservative even by U.S. standards. You really don't know much about Canada. They once had a Liberal-Conservative Party. This later became a "Progressive Conservative Party", a name which may be even more peculiar. Kauffner (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Who doesn't understand that pro-businesses, pro-capitalism, and pro-corporations is nothing more than a left wing political gimmick? Who here really believes that the left could truly afford to alienate business? To use these as serious labels in serious political conversations is not only unhelpful, it's ridiculous. Underneath the feigned hate for businesses is the reality that all prosperity comes from business. People trading goods and services is the prosperity machine, and there is nothing else. So let's stop the irrelevance of pigeon-holing certain presidents here and there. The real argument is how each side wanted to control business, whether through govt or private entities. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps health care and so forth is the gimmick, a pretext for bankrupting private business and riding us of the evil profit motive. I thought it was joke when Michael Moore held up the Cuban health care system as a model. But with Obamacare, technology-free health care is no longer a laughing matter. Kauffner (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Take it to a blog. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Kauffner, "Liberal Conservative" was a name adopted by Canadian Tories after they were able to attract some liberal supporters who opposed free trade and supported strong central government, limitions on democracy and British imperialism, and basically shared a dislike for everything about the United States. In the UK they joined with the "Liberal Unionists" to form the Conservative and Unionist party. In Australia, conservatives were too weak to form their own party and have been incorporated into the Liberal Party. The fact that conservatives have worked with liberals to defeat radicalism and socialism does not mean that conservatism and liberalism are the same thing, and these divisions continue with the UK and Canadian Tories and the Australia Liberals. TFD (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This is all explained in other articles. Liberal parties arose to challenge the elites and conservative parties then formed to defend them. The decline of the elites and the rise of democracy and socialism often pushed more conservative liberals to join conservatives. Whether this analysis can be applied to the U.S. is controversial. In most countries conservative parties never formed, and most historical conservative parties have ceased to exist, while the parties that we might today call conservative developed from liberal, christian democratic or non-ideological parties. TFD (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)