What's The Appeal of Conservatism?

[Tiberius]

Adrian, The American political party is radically different the the one that governs the UK.

...and had you linked to the wikipedia page on the Republican party I may have refrained from responding. Is this not a thread about conservatism, the ideology? If not, why did you link to the Conservatism article on Wikipedia?

[Rev. Rye]

I don't see much of an appeal to conservatism, unless you are of the opinion that things worked better in the past, so we should aim to have a society that has been observed to 'work'.

That's pretty much the same reason I think conservativism has any appeal. It's full of people who want to give a model that didn't work for long another chance. And I suppose that appealing to people's fear of what they don't understand works, too.

[DeistPaladin]

In America, the prime motive is fear.

Where danger isn't real, ones can be made up. Just look at the hysteria over the health care debate. Death panels? Seriously?

[Sami]

...and had you linked to the wikipedia page on the Republican party I may have refrained from responding. Is this not a thread about conservatism, the ideology? If not, why did you link to the Conservatism article on Wikipedia?

Have to agree.

If I understand Conservatism (according to wikipedia) it doesn't have its own set of ideals but rather is dependant on what is current or whatever the "old ways" were.

That wasn't my understanding of Conservatism but I may have just been in error.

It would seem Conservatism that is being proposed in the article is the opposite of revolutionism, if this is the case I can understand why it might be appealing. Conservatism looks to maintain the status quo and avoid any political experimentation that could lead to unforseen outcomes.

So it seems it can be summed up as cautiousness.

[HeyItsZeus]

Adrian, The American political party is radically different the the one that governs the UK.

...and had you linked to the wikipedia page on the Republican party I may have refrained from responding. Is this not a thread about conservatism, the ideology? If not, why did you link to the Conservatism article on Wikipedia?

I was only referring to American conservatism that one time, when I answered you. Anyway, you're probably right.

---

In America, the prime motive is fear.

Where danger isn't real, ones can be made up. Just look at the hysteria over the health care debate. Death panels? Seriously?

True. True.

---

...and had you linked to the wikipedia page on the Republican party I may have refrained from responding. Is this not a thread about conservatism, the ideology? If not, why did you link to the Conservatism article on Wikipedia?

Have to agree.

If I understand Conservatism (according to wikipedia) it doesn't have its own set of ideals but rather is dependant on what is current or whatever the "old ways" were.

That isn't my understanding of Conservatism but I may have just been in error.

It would seem Conservatism that is being proposed in the article is the opposite of revolutionism, if this is the case I can understand why it might be appealing. Conservatism looks to maintain the status quo and avoid any political experimentation that could lead to unforseen outcomes.

So it seems it can be summed up as cautiousness.

There is no need for caution when something is observed to work.
Example: American Conservatives like oil. They make it seem OK to use oil. ---- http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26833 ---- Why? To keep shit the way it is? I don't think so. Maybe they are only trying to fight reality.

Besides, No change eventually leads to forced change. I admit some things can remain as they are, but oil? It's not going to last forever you know.

Oil is only one of many examples.

[Sami]

There is no need for caution when something is observed to work.
Example: American Conservatives like oil. They make it seem OK to use oil. ---- http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26833 ---- Why? To keep shit the way it is? I don't think so. Maybe they are only trying to fight reality.

Besides, No change eventually leads to forced change. I admit some things can remain as they are, but oil? It's not going to last forever you know.

Oil is only one of many examples.

Whether oil does or doesn't last forever is irrelevant to the political ideology, it may be that economic reliance on oil is impossible to maintain - that doesn't mean they can't have a political stance that wishes it to remain so.

[Minimalist]

If I understand Conservatism (according to wikipedia) it doesn't have its own set of ideals but rather is dependant on what is current or whatever the "old ways" were.

Actually, its more of a "The rich get richer and the poor can go fuck themselves" type of thing.

[downbeatplumb]

In America, the prime motive is fear.

Where danger isn't real, ones can be made up. Just look at the hysteria over the health care debate. Death panels? Seriously?

The english tory party has learnt the fear lesson from the american republicans, but our big blue meanie is the deficit "which the labour party left them"

I watched a particularly odious example explain how the tories were the natural party of government the other day, it was all I could do not to put my foot through the screen.

[parrotpirate]

In the U.S. as I see it conservatism, particularly the current Republican style is not even conservatism. It is not even a real ideology. What it really is is a system of using fear and lies about social issues to dupe the ignorant into putting Republicans back in charge. Once there, they can pick back up with raping the Constitution and shoveling more money upwards to the top 5% of the population. They use abortion and gay marriage to appeal to the religious fanatics, and the Second Amendment to get to hunters/sportsmen. In reality, if they really wanted to do anything about abortion, they would have under Bush when they had a majority in Congress. I'd bet money that as soon as a majority of Americans are seen to be in favor of gay marriage, they will flip-flop on that issue. And as far as guns go, any sane person knows that there are enough left/liberal/Democrats that hunt as well as vote that nobody is going to be knocking on your door forcing you to give them up any time soon. They spread lies, distortions and half truths to confuse those who only pay attention during election years. Now thanks to the Citizens United decision, they can pour tons of money into elections without even having to tell us where it came from. They are treacherous, lying scumbags who care only for themselves. They don't give a fuck about the country as long as the money keeps coming their way.

[Amethyst]

I am Libertarian and not at all religious. In fact, I'm an ex-Christian for a variety of reasons. I lost my faith about 6 years ago and spent a lot of time on an ex-Christian forum.

The religious wackos who claim to be conservative, and yet want to use their religion to control everybody's lives, make me angry. To me, it's about freedom. I disagree with Republicans on a number of issues, or I would vote Republican. Gay marriage, for example. I am perfectly fine with gay people getting married. I'm also pro-choice to an extent. But I believe saving money is a good thing, and this is one reason why I can't vote Democrat. I also believe in states' rights and that they should get a greater say in things over the Federal govt. The Libertarian party is the only one I agree with 90% of their issues.

Conservatism isn't about "the Old Ways". I sure as heck don't want to go back to the times before I was born. It's about less government control and more freedom. The problem is that the religious nutcases have taken over the main conservative political parties, leaving those of us who are not religious out in the cold. I don't want to go to the Democrat party, but the Republican party is also not for me. There really is no perfect political party for me. For that reason, I'm going to re-register as Independent Nov. 2nd.

It irritates me to no end that there is no atheist conservative pundit out there. I agree with Glenn Beck on a lot of political issues for example, but he drives me nuts when it comes to religious stuff. Same with the others. Why, why why must they make people think you have to be a religious nutcase to want less government control in your life?

*Head desk*