TheRPGSite

Fan Forums => The RPGPundit's Own Forum => Topic started by: shuddemell on August 24, 2020, 08:04:20 AM

Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: shuddemell on August 24, 2020, 08:04:20 AM
This subject came up on another thread, and it was suggested that it would make a good topic of discussion itself. I present an article that I believe pretty well sums up what I (more or less) believe sums up what ideas are most important to conservative thought.

THE SIX CORE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATISM
July 31, 2018 By Russell Kirk
The following is excerpted from The Essential Russell Kirk, a collection of his finest essays and writings.

"What is conservatism?" Abraham Lincoln inquired rhetorically, as he campaigned for the presidency of the United States. "Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" By that test, the candidate told his audience, Abraham Lincoln was a conservative.

Other definitions have been offered. In Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary one encounters this:

"Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." . . .
Although it is no ideology, conservatism may be apprehended reasonably well by attention to what leading writers and politicians, generally called conservative, have said and done. . . . "Conservatism," to put the matter another way, amounts to the consensus of the leading conservative thinkers and actors over the past two centuries. For our present purpose, however, we may set down below several general principles upon which most eminent conservatives in some degree may be said to have agreed implicitly. The following first principles are best discerned in the theoretical and practical politics of British and American conservatives.

1. TRANSCENDENT ORDER
First, conservatives generally believe that there exists a transcendent moral order, to which we ought to try to conform the ways of society. A divine tactic, however dimly descried, is at work in human society. Such convictions may take the form of belief in "natural law" or may assume some other expression; but with few exceptions conservatives recognize the need for enduring moral authority. This conviction contrasts strongly with the liberals' utilitarian view of the state (most consistently expressed by Bentham's disciples), and with the radicals' detestation of theological postulates.

2. SOCIAL CONTINUITY
Second, conservatives uphold the principle of social continuity. They prefer the devil they know to the devil they don't know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long and painful social experience, the results of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the lifeblood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke's reminder of the social necessity for prudent change is in the minds of conservatives. But necessary change, they argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never "unfixing old interests at once." Revolution slices through the arteries of a culture, a cure that kills.

3. PRESCRIPTION
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. "The wisdom of our ancestors" is one of the more important phrases in the writings of Burke; presumably Burke derived it from Richard Hooker. Conservatives sense that modern men and women are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very frequently emphasize the importance of "prescription"--that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so "that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary." There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity--including rights in property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. "The individual is foolish, but the species is wise," Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for "the great mysterious incorporation of the human race" has acquired habits, customs, and conventions of remote origin which are woven into the fabric of our social being; the innovator, in Santayana's phrase, never knows how near to the taproot of the tree he is hacking.

4. PRUDENCE
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative holds, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be effective. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are perilous as sudden and slashing surgery. The march of providence is slow; it is the devil who always hurries.

5. VARIETY
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality in the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society longs for honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences among people are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality. Similarly, conservatives uphold the institution of private property as productive of human variety: without private property, liberty is reduced and culture is impoverished.

6. IMPERFECTION
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectibility. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent--or else expire of boredom. To aim for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are forgotten, then the anarchic impulses in man break loose: "the ceremony of innocence is drowned."

Such are six of the major premises of what Walter Bagehot, a century ago, called "reflective conservatism." To have set down some principal convictions of conservative thinkers, in the fashion above, may be misleading: for conservative thought is not a body of immutable secular dogmas. Our purpose here has been broad description, not fixed definition. If one requires a single sentence--why, let it be said that for the conservative, politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal.

Edmund Burke turned to first principles in politics only with reluctance, believing that "metaphysical" politicians let loose dreadful mischief by attempting to govern nations according to abstract notions. Conservatives have believed, following Burke, that general principles always must be tempered, in any particular circumstances, by what Burke called expedience, or prudence; for particular circumstances vary infinitely, and every nation must observe its own traditions and historical experience--which should take precedence over universal notions drawn up in some quiet study. Yet Burke did not abjure general ideas; he distinguished between "abstraction" (or a priori notions divorced from a nation's history and necessities) and "principle" (or sound general ideas derived from a knowledge of human nature and of the past). Principles are necessary to a statesman, but they must be applied discreetly and with infinite caution to the workaday world. The preceding six conservative principles, therefore, are to be taken as a rough catalog of the general assumptions of conservatives, and not as a tidy system of doctrines for governing a state.

How would your definition differ?
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Pat on August 24, 2020, 06:58:13 PM
Haidt's moral foundations, most popularly expressed in The Righteous Mind, are probably worth mentioning:
(Above quoted from: https://moralfoundations.org/)

Western culture is unique, because it has a group that de-emphasizes Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity and focuses almost exclusively on Care and Fairness (e.g. modern American liberals). Nearly every traditional culture around the world, as well as conservatives in Western culture, put roughly equal emphasis on all five.

Those are the core five discussed in the book. There are some additional proposed foundations, like:
[list=0]
(Same source.)

Liberty/oppression is basically an attempt to explain libertarianism, which puts overwhelming emphasis on that foundation. Both modern American liberals and traditional conservatives also support it, though only as one of their preferred values.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

Basically, moral foundations theory's interpretation of conservatives boils down to the idea that they seek to preserve existing traditions and institutions, because those support the community. Things like respect for authority, group loyalty, and disgust are all about group cohesion over the individual.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on August 25, 2020, 01:13:30 AM
I find a lot of the tension between conservatism and progressivism is embodied in this Chesterton quote, one of my favourites:

Quote
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
-- from G.K. Chesterton's The Thing, 1929.

For me conservatism is a firm belief in, and respect for, the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Pat on August 25, 2020, 02:22:18 AM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146334
For me conservatism is a firm belief in, and respect for, the Law of Unintended Consequences.

I rarely find it's the subtraction of things that leads to unintended consequences, and the barriers preventing removal are already so high that it almost never happens anyway. It's the feeble barriers to the addition of new things that has led to the ever-growing excrescence of the modern regulatory state.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Shardenzar on August 25, 2020, 06:38:56 AM
Quote from: Pat;1146340
I rarely find it's the subtraction of things that leads to unintended consequences, and the barriers preventing removal are already so high that it almost never happens anyway. It's the feeble barriers to the addition of new things that has led to the ever-growing excrescence of the modern regulatory state.


Good thing that the barrier remaining unassailable is not the point of the principle... understanding the intended purpose of the barrier before arbitrarily decided its fate because it offends your sensibilities is the point, and a sound one.

Jeff
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on August 25, 2020, 07:50:15 AM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146334
I find a lot of the tension between conservatism and progressivism is embodied in this Chesterton quote, one of my favourites:


-- from G.K. Chesterton's The Thing, 1929.

For me conservatism is a firm belief in, and respect for, the Law of Unintended Consequences.

I was waiting to reply until I had time to look up that exact quote.  For me, that embodies the very idea that conservatism is not so much a political philosophy as it is an attitude about life which sometimes informs one's politics.  It's a key part of conservatism that not everything is political, and certainly rejects the idea that "the personal is political".  

Of course, Chesterton didn't consider himself a conservative.  During his day, the label wouldn't have fit.  However, his "Little Englander" idea is not so different from Jefferson's thoughts on an agrarian society, though with a different emphasis given the relative availability of land in their respective nations.

If I had to put my own ideas into a nutshell, you wouldn't be far off with "classical liberal with a conservative attitude".  My main differences from Chesterton are in the areas of economics where I'm mostly a realist--I think most political systems have ideas about economics that improve their adherents prospects rather than dispassionately leading to the best outcome for the nation.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Pat on August 25, 2020, 12:09:46 PM
Quote from: Shardenzar;1146345
Good thing that the barrier remaining unassailable is not the point of the principle... understanding the intended purpose of the barrier before arbitrarily decided its fate because it offends your sensibilities is the point, and a sound one.

Jeff
You completely missed my point -- the quote is rather one-sided. It's focused on the removal of things, when it should also be concerned about the addition of things, which is generally a more important consideration.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Shardenzar on August 25, 2020, 02:10:39 PM
Quote from: Pat;1146378
You completely missed my point -- the quote is rather one-sided. It's focused on the removal of things, when it should also be concerned about the addition of things, which is generally a more important consideration.


I did not miss your point. You are missing Chestertons point as his gate is figurative in nature and could just as easily have been the need to bridge a gap. I think your reading of the passage is too narrow.

Simply put, Understanding the possible outcomes to change applies equally to additions as well as subtractions.

Jeff
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Pat on August 25, 2020, 02:30:48 PM
Quote from: Shardenzar;1146391
You are missing Chestertons point as his gate is figurative in nature and could just as easily have been the need to bridge a gap. I think your reading of the passage is too narrow.

Simply put, Understanding the possible outcomes to change applies equally to additions as well as subtractions.
That doesn't change the fact that it explicitly addresses subtraction, not addition. Metaphors have utility because of the associations they evoke, and Chesterton's channels thought in one direction and not the other, which weakens its broader utility.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Shardenzar on August 25, 2020, 02:57:54 PM
Quote from: Pat;1146396
That doesn't change the fact that it explicitly addresses subtraction, not addition. Metaphors have utility because of the associations they evoke, and Chesterton's channels thought in one direction and not the other, which weakens its broader utility.



You are free to read that passage as narrow as you wish.  


Reforming as distinct from deforming doesn't read as a subtraction to me.
"Let us say for the sake of simplicity a gate or fence."  Reads as an arbitrary example to me.

I guess we just have different biases.

Jeff
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Pat on August 25, 2020, 04:34:38 PM
Quote from: Shardenzar;1146401
Reforming as distinct from deforming doesn't read as a subtraction to me.
"Let us say for the sake of simplicity a gate or fence."  Reads as an arbitrary example to me.

It's a metaphor, and all metaphors have limits. While I think it's a reasonable effective piece of prose, I think it misses a significant aspect. And the way he contrasted reforming with deforming makes it sound like deforming is what happens when the gate is torn down without reflection, not in any way that would expand the metaphor. Though the quote is separated from its context, which could change that.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on August 25, 2020, 05:28:16 PM
Quote from: Pat;1146415
It's a metaphor, and all metaphors have limits. While I think it's a reasonable effective piece of prose, I think it misses a significant aspect. And the way he contrasted reforming with deforming makes it sound like deforming is what happens when the gate is torn down without reflection, not in any way that would expand the metaphor. Though the quote is separated from its context, which could change that.

It is very rare that Chesterton should be read literally.  He is after the central idea under the metaphor--preferably portrayed in a vivid way. Shardenzar has the correct sense of it in context.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on August 25, 2020, 05:31:33 PM
Quote from: Pat;1146340
It's the feeble barriers to the addition of new things that has led to the ever-growing excrescence of the modern regulatory state.

True, mostly because passing new regulations is one of the only ways a politician in a luxurious, peaceful civilization can justify being elected and paid.

This then leads onto another element of conservatism: the belief that there are areas of internal social management which the formal apparatus of state is neither qualified nor entitled to oversee, regardless of whatever negative consequences might accrue from that lack of oversight. Put simply, you're a conservative if you believe there are areas other than the bedroom where the State has no place.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Pat on August 25, 2020, 07:39:20 PM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146427
This then leads onto another element of conservatism: the belief that there are areas of internal social management which the formal apparatus of state is neither qualified nor entitled to oversee, regardless of whatever negative consequences might accrue from that lack of oversight. Put simply, you're a conservative if you believe there are areas other than the bedroom where the State has no place.

That's more a classic liberal view, which I would argue is not conservative.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Shasarak on August 25, 2020, 08:02:15 PM
I dont know if it is conservative pov, but I believe in personal and fiscal responsibility.  And when people need it, give them a hand up not a hand out.

And keep your hand out of my pocket especially if you dont even have the decency of being able to run your own successful business.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on August 25, 2020, 10:06:23 PM
Quote from: Pat;1146448
That's more a classic liberal view, which I would argue is not conservative.

Fair point, although if "conservative" means "anything that resists progressivism", then the defense of classical liberalism becomes conservative in practice.

And it might well be argued that classical liberalism is conservative compared to the ideologies and philosophies now battling it.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Pat on August 25, 2020, 11:42:09 PM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146470
Fair point, although if "conservative" means "anything that resists progressivism", then the defense of classical liberalism becomes conservative in practice.

And it might well be argued that classical liberalism is conservative compared to the ideologies and philosophies now battling it.
OTOH, modern progressivism advocates things like curtailing individual rights (freedom of speech), bringing back the sins of the fathers (reparations), and throwing out legal protections. All of which are reactionary, reversions to the pre-Enlightenment era, not progressive in any real sense. Is opposing a reactionary conservative?

The right is associated with conservatism, but I think trying to define conservatism via the left-right political axis is a bad idea. The axis encompasses numerous ideologies and specific policies. In my mind, conservatism is broader than that. It's not a specific set of ideas -- though conservatives of any era always support a specific set of ideas -- as it is an approach. It's the go-slow, skeptical take on societal change. An appreciation for what's been accomplished, instead of neophilia. The expression of this varies by person and culture, and may be diametrically opposed to other conservatives.

And to answer my own question, a conservative is reluctant when it comes to radical changes of any kind, whether they're forward or back. So it is conservative to oppose reactionaries.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on August 26, 2020, 11:00:47 AM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146470
Fair point, although if "conservative" means "anything that resists progressivism", then the defense of classical liberalism becomes conservative in practice.

And it might well be argued that classical liberalism is conservative compared to the ideologies and philosophies now battling it.

It has been argued more than once (by people a lot more thoughtful than me) that the constitutional American approach is exactly that--the tension worked out by the founders between classical liberalism and conservatism.  In the ideal, of course, they didn't want parties.  They did see a healthy debate going on all the time between advancing liberty and respecting the traditions and institutions that would prevent mob rule or the problems of oligarchs (in their many historical forms).  The relative success of the USA has allowed both parties to largely abdicate this responsibility.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on August 26, 2020, 07:27:32 PM
Quote from: Pat;1146478
I think trying to define conservatism via the left-right political axis is a bad idea. The axis encompasses numerous ideologies and specific policies. In my mind, conservatism is broader than that. ...And to answer my own question, a conservative is reluctant when it comes to radical changes of any kind, whether they're forward or back. So it is conservative to oppose reactionaries.

Makes sense. "Conservative" and "reactionary" are both difficult in that they're transitive adjectives; to be politically meaningful you have to know exactly what is being conserved, or reacted to.

(Likewise, it might seem that one fatal weakness of "progressivism" would be that it's equally vulnerable to the question, "What are you progressing to, exactly?", but most people appear tragically willing to accept the answer, "Something better!" at face value.)
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Pat on August 26, 2020, 08:02:48 PM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146596
(Likewise, it might seem that one fatal weakness of "progressivism" would be that it's equally vulnerable to the question, "What are you progressing to, exactly?", but most people appear tragically willing to accept the answer, "Something better!" at face value.)
Modern progressives talk about the "right side of history" a lot, which strikes me as a serious blindspot. They don't seem to realize that history isn't a straight arrow, progressing always toward something better. That it's full of backsliding, different paths that are hard to judge because they involve subtle trade offs, good things that happen in conjunction with bad, and sheer irrelevancies; and that we can never be sure that something was good or bad until decades or centuries later, and even then we might think back and change our minds. It's a sign of an ahistorical and ascientific worldview.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: SHARK on August 26, 2020, 09:51:50 PM
Greetings!

I sit at the right hand of Ghengis Khan.:D

I'm patriotic, and support our military, and law enforcement.

I love our national anthem, and our flag, and what they symbolize.

I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America.

I am a Christian, and support a broad social foundation of morality and virtue. I also love the King James Bible. I am in most all respects pro-morality, pro-marriage, pro-family, and pro-life. Criminals should fucking swing from a rope.

I generally support a small government, with limitations into economic influence and institutions.

I am pro-Capitalism.

I am passionately pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment, and believe in being armed to the teeth.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on August 26, 2020, 10:19:16 PM
Quote from: Pat;1146601
Modern progressives talk about the "right side of history" a lot, which strikes me as a serious blindspot.

Much of the lingo of modern protest progressivism, I think, derives from the Civil Rights era of the '60s, and the irony of the phrase "right side of history" is that it makes most sense when deployed in the context of a moral worldview that believes in eternal verities and absolutes to which mortal society can get closer, or fall back from. When Martin Luther King said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice," he was speaking out of a strong Christian sensibility (albeit one that he himself fell short of in other ways, but then we all do that) that justice was a real thing that human societies which genuinely sought the good could move closer to.

Ironically, however, that quote itself is a rhetorical paraphrase of part of an abolitionist sermon by minister Theodore Parker in 1853, and what Parker actually said was, "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by experience of sight. I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice." Most tellingly, Parker's original words lack the implication of inevitability that King's rephrase suggests; King's inadvertent genius was to mix the Christian surety of righteousness with the Marxist conviction of historical inevitability, which gave too many post-60s progressivists a fatal certainty that nothing done in the name of social justice could really be all that counterproductive as long as it kept the Vision alive.

This would be another key distinction between progressivism and conservatism as I understand them: in conservatism the ends alone can never justify the means, and it is possible to disagree upon means even while one agrees upon ends.  In modern progressivism, by contrast, any objection to means is always (or at least in the majority of my observation and experience) taken to represent a rejection of the ends; if you don't value a goal enough to consider "by any means necessary" a valid approach to realizing it, you don't really value that goal, goes the thinking.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Pat on August 27, 2020, 12:51:51 AM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146613
Much of the lingo of modern protest progressivism, I think, derives from the Civil Rights era of the '60s, and the irony of the phrase "right side of history" is that it makes most sense when deployed in the context of a moral worldview that believes in eternal verities and absolutes to which mortal society can get closer, or fall back from. When Martin Luther King said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice," he was speaking out of a strong Christian sensibility (albeit one that he himself fell short of in other ways, but then we all do that) that justice was a real thing that human societies which genuinely sought the good could move closer to.

Ironically, however, that quote itself is a rhetorical paraphrase of part of an abolitionist sermon by minister Theodore Parker in 1853, and what Parker actually said was, "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by experience of sight. I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice." Most tellingly, Parker's original words lack the implication of inevitability that King's rephrase suggests; King's inadvertent genius was to mix the Christian surety of righteousness with the Marxist conviction of historical inevitability, which gave too many post-60s progressivists a fatal certainty that nothing done in the name of social justice could really be all that counterproductive as long as it kept the Vision alive.
That parallels the March of Progress, a famous piece of art by Rudolph Zallinger showing apes becoming proto-humans, who in turn become modern humans. The idea was immensely imitable, with endless variations popping up; for instance, some showed humans starting as fish and then transforming through the other Linnean classes. The original and its imitators appear to be pro-evolution, because yes we did evolve from apes, and yes we're all cladistically fish, but the way it's presented is really an attempt to place evolution within a religious context. The ideas that there are lower and higher animals, that living creatures form a progression, and particularly that modern humanity is the end result of creation, which the left-right progression suggests, are rooted in medieval Christian concepts like the Great Chain of Being as much as they are in The Origin of Species. It's deceptive and anti-scientific, because evolution doesn't progress toward anything. More complexity does evolve, but older forms still thrive; we have tons of bacteria, insects, and crocodiles on the planet, after all, and they continue evolving. Humans are just another animal; we are neither the goal nor the apex of evolution, just a new leaf. We do have a unique combination of features, but that's because of a quirky mix of circumstances, not destiny. Teleology is wrong, and the line or arrow is simply a misleading metaphor; a radiation is better.

The idea of the "right side of history" is a similar throwback to the musty thinking of the middle ages. But I'd argue its immediate inspirations go back further than the Civil Rights era, because the idea of stages of history, inevitably progressing from one to the next, is a concept that comes from the early socialists. While Marx tried to distance himself from the early socialists by dismissing them as "utopian" and pretending to be scientific, he did adopt many of their ideas, including the stages of history. Since Marx still looms large in leftist thinking today, I'd guess his writings are at least as likely a direct source as MLK.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146613
This would be another key distinction between progressivism and conservatism as I understand them: in conservatism the ends alone can never justify the means, and it is possible to disagree upon means even while one agrees upon ends.  In modern progressivism, by contrast, any objection to means is always (or at least in the majority of my observation and experience) taken to represent a rejection of the ends; if you don't value a goal enough to consider "by any means necessary" a valid approach to realizing it, you don't really value that goal, goes the thinking.
There is a certain insistence in progressivism, that's absent in conservatism. Everything is an emergency and must be corrected now vs. things have their time. Anyone who opposes us in any way is the enemy vs. let it be. "Everything is political", and the intrusion of politics into every form of escapism vs. not talking about politics at the dinner table. We must have the power to fix everything vs. the state has limits, and is not always to be trusted. More generally, outrage vs. politeness.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: David Johansen on August 27, 2020, 01:22:25 AM
Quote from: SHARK;1146610
Criminals should fucking swing from a rope.

I am utterly opposed to giving criminals playground equipment in jail while schools have to raise funds to get it.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on August 27, 2020, 02:31:34 AM
Quote from: Pat;1146622
That parallels the March of Progress, a famous piece of art by Rudolph Zallinger showing apes becoming proto-humans, who in turn become modern humans. ...The original and its imitators appear to be pro-evolution, because yes we did evolve from apes, and yes we're all cladistically fish, but the way it's presented is really an attempt to place evolution within a religious context.

I've not heard that interpretation of that particular artwork before this; I'd be interested in seeing more writing on it if you know of any.  As a Catholic I'm not quite as dismissive of teleology in natural processes, of course, but I don't want the thread to drift sideways onto that topic so I'll leave it at that.

Quote
I'd argue its immediate inspirations go back further than the Civil Rights era, because the idea of stages of history, inevitably progressing from one to the next, is a concept that comes from the early socialists.

Agreed. The ideas predate the '60s, but I think most of the modern lingo comes from there. Which is another difference: conservatism is (ideally) always conscious of the past and of history, and willing to believe that much of it contains value worth saving, which (in theory) means conservatives are more likely to be conscious of the history of ideas and where meaning comes from. The great disadvantage of the progressivist fetishization for "Year Zero"-style social resets is that it robs them of this perspective.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Pat on August 27, 2020, 02:44:06 AM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146626
I've not heard that interpretation of that particular artwork before this; I'd be interested in seeing more writing on it if you know of any.  As a Catholic I'm not quite as dismissive of teleology in natural processes, of course, but I don't want the thread to drift sideways onto that topic so I'll leave it at that.
Stephen Jay Gould covers it in Wonderful Life. It's been a while since I've read the book, so I don't know where specifically to point you. But the whole volume is definitely worth reading. While we have figured out some of the seemingly inexplicable lifeforms found in the Burgess Shale in the decades since, it's still one of the best books about science every published, and covers a remarkable period in the development of life, and in the development of our understanding of the development of life.

Edit: Found this site, which covers the basic idea, and references Gould's book (it's apparently discussed in the introduction):
https://sites.wustl.edu/prosper/on-the-origins-of-the-march-of-progress/
Don't agree with Blake's conclusions, though. He's celebrating the March of Progress because it's become iconic in pop culture, and apparently feels that's more important than being accurate. That's like saying that Charles R. Knight's art of tail-dragging, swamp-dwelling brontosaurs (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Pasta-Brontosaurus.jpg) should be the standard image of dinosaurs.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on August 27, 2020, 03:44:07 AM
Many thanks, I will see if I can find a copy.  (My to-read pile is already ridiculously high, unfortunately, but I can add it to my lists.)

I should interject here that when I talk about "progressivism" vs. "conservatism", I'm talking in terms of the ideals as I understand them and the stereotypical uber-examples of their practices.  Real people who have specific ideas about social policy, however they describe their political orientation, should not take these as personally meant descriptions; when it comes to politics in practice I much prefer drilling down to real specifics wherever possible, rather than getting hung up on arguing ideals.
Title: What does conservatism mean to you?
Post by: HappyDaze on August 29, 2020, 06:28:32 PM
Quote from: shuddemell;1146221
The following first principles are best discerned in the theoretical and practical politics of British and American conservatives.

1. TRANSCENDENT ORDER

2. SOCIAL CONTINUITY

3. PRESCRIPTION

4. PRUDENCE

5. VARIETY

6. IMPERFECTION

How would your definition differ?

I'm not much of a believer in #1. I do value enduring morals, but I don't accept that they are or should be unchanging. However, I strongly hold to #2, #3, & #4 which says that the best changes are those that are carefully considered and build upon what has come before rather than just throwing it all away to start anew. I don't really hold an opinion one way or another about #5 & #6, but I accept that they reflect reality and I'm not one to fight that just out of feelz.