Jump to content

Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

174.61.192.174's edit

With no discussion in Talk, 174.61.192.174 has made edits to both this article and to the article Conservatism. I think some of these changes need to be discussed. To begin: "defense of Western culture from threats posed by "creeping socialism", moral relativism, multiculturalism, and liberal internationalism." has been changed to "defense of Western culture." Both conservatives and liberals claim to be defending Western culture, but they are defending different aspects of Western culture. If we remove the list of things conservatives are defending against, it makes it hard to claim that the defense of the West is exclusively a conservative ideal. A liberal might claim to be defending Western culture from racism, established religion, and protectionist trade policies. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I regret that I must disagree with Rick Norwood on this point. I think most liberals believe that Western culture is deeply infused with racism, established religion, and protectionist trade policies--And they are largely correct-- the issue is whether reforms can remove these factors, or whether they are integrally built into the Western cultural system and cannot be removed. Rjensen (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The list of what conservatives support had become too long. I suggest we trim it down to something like "traditionalism, libertarianism and anti-communism," which is how the writers at the National Review defined it and has been accepted in reliable sources. It should not be a problem if the views of defining views of conservatives are also held by liberals because the division between conservatives and liberals has always been a matter of degree, which has shifted over time. TFD (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
"traditionalism, libertarianism and anti-communism," doesn't work for me. "Traditionalism" I think is not true. (The US has a tradition of government regulation, public schools, labor unions and high taxes.) "libertarianism" is bitterly disputed by social conservatives and religious right (libertarians support marijuana, abortion, gay rights). Communism has been a non issue for 25 years (there is Communism in China but conservatives don't much talk about that.) Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC).
Oh Critical Race Theory.
There are many Conservatives in the United States who are not happy about the Chinese Communist Party.
I am of the opinion that given that there are numerous variants of Conservatism in the United States, so much that there is an entire section about it in this article. Therefore as the lead is a summary of the article, perhaps it is best to say that Conservatism in the United States has many types, and then state what ideology that is verified by reliable sources is shared between them.
As these changes were bold I have reverted them per WP:BRD. If the changes are to be restored lets build a consensus here first.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
As for Conservatism in the United States in the modern era and how the impact of the actions in mainland china influenced it, there is a book that covers it:
Joyce Mao (9 June 2015). Asia First: China and the Making of Modern American Conservatism. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-25285-8.
In skimming the book it appears to go into how the anti-communist ideology was solidified due to conservatives opposition to what it saw as the Truman Administration's weak support of the Republic of China.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be touched upon in the following sources as well:
Perhaps this quote sums it best: Peter Gries (16 April 2014). The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives Over Foreign Affairs. Stanford University Press. p. 220. ISBN 978-0-8047-9088-8. Liberal Panda-Huggers And Conservative Dragon-Slayers
Another thing to consider is that Conservatism in the U.S. and Liberalism in the U.S. differs strongly from that found in Europe, something touched upon here:
  • David Sidorsky (17 May 2016). "An Interpretation of American Conservative Thought: Political Issues, Conceptual Differences, and Attitudinal Disjunctions". American Conservatism: NOMOS LVI. Sanford V. Levinson, Melissa S. Williams, Joel Parker. NYU Press. ISBN 978-1-4798-6518-5.
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Sidorsky says, "Conservatism has conventionally been divided into three parts: Social Conservatism, Economic Conservatism, and Conservatism in foreign policy with its priority of protection of the national interest." That's what I had said, although he uses slightly different terminology. He also points out that liberals may also hold these views and that the liberal/conservative dichotomy is relative and exists in any group from Maoists on the left to fascists on the right.
There is a third definition of conservatism that he does not mention, which is the ideology of the elites. So the Federalists and the Eisenhower Republicans could both been seen as conservative.
TFD (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thinkers and leaders list

So this list continues to grow, and have been discussed a multitude of times, going back to at least 2008. The guideline that governs list such as this is WP:SOURCELIST. So other than verifying the individual or organization was called conservative by some reliable source, how do we create consensus on who should be on the list and who shouldn't be on this list? I for one am WP:BRDing at the very least this addition.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

For the verification part required by SOURCELIST, there are lists such as this, but it rings of WP:RECENTISM. There are other such things as this Newsmax piece, or this thing from the Heritage Foundation. Surely there are other such source we can populate the list from.
For instance this book (Social History of the United States , 2008) list several organizations it considers conservative and have sufficient weight to be mentioned.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. it needs pruning and more RS Rjensen (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rjensen: It isn't helping when Thanos54! (talk · contribs) is continuing to grow the list without consensus, but I believe this article falls under 1RR and I can't do anything for at least a few hours.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a good place to start:Garland S Tucker (9 June 2015). Conservative Heroes: Fourteen Leaders Who Shaped America, from Jefferson to Reagan. Intercollegiate Studies Institute. ISBN 978-1-5040-1869-2.
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Were Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, both staunch advocates of big government, really conservatives? In what sense? I notice the book recommended above says John Adams' arch-enemy Thomas Jefferson was a conservative. So, it seems both sides, the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, were both conservative.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Tucker's book does not meet rs. The second book does, and presents much the same argument. In Kurth's article he identifies conservatism with American values that came under attack by the "progressives" during the New Deal. Hence all the Founding Fathers, even Thomas Paine (Glenn Beck is a big fan), were conservatives. But that's an opinion and it would be wrong to label Jefferson, or anyone else before the New Deal as a conservative when there are competing narratives. But it is true that Jeffersonian democracy allowed many common people to rise in wealth and social status, and find themselves on the right of the political spectrum, even though their core beliefs remained the same. TFD (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Why doesn't Tucker 2015 merit as a reliable source? I have not yet heard a good argument for this PoV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The author has no qualifications in political science or any other relevant field. His highest degree is an MBA. The publisher is Intercollegiate Studies Institute#ISI Books#ISI Books, which is not an academic publisher. So without an author qualified in the field or a publisher that undertakes factchecking, we cannot have assurance that when the author says Jefferson was a conservative he is stating a fact or his opinion. Other writers, including Russell Kirk, whose book The Politics of Prudence is featured as the Book of the Month at ISI, disagree. Note that we can in some cases state that people (such as Kirk) were conservatives as a fact, rather than mere opinion, so we should use sources that clearly delineate fact and opinion. TFD (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The Tucker book is popular history. His list follows the overall consensus of scholars and is not at all controversial. ISI has been a major player in conservative intellectual life for over 50 years --it runs lots of lecture programs on college campuses with big name conservative scholars--and is a reliable source on this topic, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If as you say it is popular history and follows what scholars write, isn't it better to use the scholarly sources directly? And I do not think that there is a consensus that Jefferson was a conservative, just that he is one of the influences on modern conservatism. TFD (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is better to use a scholarly source, but popular sources are helpful to more readers, so both are valuable. In this case there the popular book says the same as the scholarly tomes in simpler language. As for Jefferson, he's just about the most complex mind in American history. He's a democrat--that was pretty radical/ anti-status quo in 1776 and pretty conservative (in multiple meanings) in 2017. Conservatives today greatly admire many of his positions. In the liberal/left world of 2017 Jefferson is more often attacked than praised (primarily because of race). Note that in the 1930s the left greatly admired his positions and conservatives spoke more highly of Hamilton. Jefferson did not change but the uses Americans made of him did change.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
A list similar to this, while it is a reliable source, IMHO shouldn't be given significant weight as it is to recent in who it looks at as have significance within the large time scope of this article. Of course, the problem is that academia has preferred not to document Conservatism in the United States in a neutral light or give it significant attention as stated here:

These studies have greatly enriched our understanding of America after the Second World War. But by neglecting the rise of the right they have left us with an incomplete and one-sided view of the 1960s.

The same article makes a strong case for Barry Goldwater to be on any list of American Conservatism leaders and thinkers, and also argues that the John Birch Society and Richard Nixon be left out of any such list.
While The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) may not like ISI, it may be one of the few sources that do not give negative light on the subject and give reliable sources about the subject in regards to the topic we're discussion, such as in this document.
Perhaps another book that should be looked at is this:
G. Tate; L. Randolph (14 June 2002). Dimensions of Black Conservatism in the United States: Made in America. Palgrave Macmillan US. ISBN 978-0-230-10815-8.
It lists Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King, Jr. as African Americans within conservatism.
This source points towards John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan as individuals who should be included.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
One strategy used by conservatives is "claiming", that is they pick people who are famous and popular, and argue that they are conservatives. Since conservatism is broad enough that everyone holds some conservative beliefs, it is possible to make the case that every American is conservative. It is equally possible to make the case that every American is liberal. But if the list is to have any meaning at all, it needs to omit at least some famous names. To claim, for example, that Abraham Lincoln favored state's rights, or that Martin Luther King, Jr. was anti-communist, would be absurd.
Another problem is that the meaning of "conservative" has changed dramatically over time. To take a modern meaning, and apply it to a historical figure, again allows "claiming" of practically everybody. As this article points out, the modern conservative movement did not exist until the 1950s.
A third problem with this list lies in claims by some conservatives that "conservative" means patriotic or supporter of freedom or even honest, so everybody who is good is conservative. In laying out conservative principles (if the word is to have any meaning at all) conservatives must contrast their beliefs with liberal beliefs, which also support patriotism, freedom, and honesty. There must be some way in which honest, patriotic citizens disagree, or the whole subject is moot.
Finally, this list is already much too long. We do not need to make it longer. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Policy does not say we correct academic bias, but that we present their opinions in proportion to their acceptance. It's not that I don't like ISL, but that its purpose is to present views that are marginalized in mainstream academia. Incidentally, your source did not list Douglass and King as conservatives but says that during the Clarence Thomas hearings, "Leaders from Frederick Douglass to Malcolm X to Martin Luther King were labeled as black conservatives by both black and white journalists." [Sherri Smith] Elsewhere she writes, "Many so-called 'black conservatives' receive the label simply because they believe in self-help. They don't say the system or the government should take care of everyone. Thus, Malcom X, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others are erroneously labeled black conservatives." [quoted in Black Conservatives in the United States, p. 113.[1]] In any case, King and Malcolm X, although certainly not liberals in the tradition of LBJ and Hillary Clinton, were not part of the conservative movement.
Rick Norwood has a point. Conservatives believe in what most Americans believe: capitalism, the Constitution, the rule of law, etc. What distinguishes them is how they interpret these things, and the division between liberal and conservative is always shifting. Cold War liberals are now conservatives, for example. And conservatives do appropriate historic figures who had no connection with conservatism or who lived before modern conservatism was developed. I think that comes from a view that they alone represent American traditions and modern liberalism is an alien ideology invented by cultural Marxists.
TFD (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The beginning of the section we're discussing starts with an attributed list of individuals. Therefore, it allows for list to be given weight, while showing that the individuals on the list might not universally be considered american conservatives, as Rick Norwood (talk · contribs) points out conservatism in the United States is broad.
The point of this discussion is not to expand it. In fact it is to reduce it to only those that can be verified. Right now the entire list can be deleted per WP:BURDEN; I am just not doing it until we have a consensus to do so.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion the list is very useful for students doing a paper on "conservatism in the US" -- I would strongly recommend they narrow the topic and thislist of names is a good way for them to our many other articles on conservative activists. Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem with this entire list is it fails WP:VER.
While Tucker's list may not be the most comprehensive list, it at least is a RS that can be used for verification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Adityaindumdum (talk · contribs) & Thanos54! (talk · contribs) have made significant changes to the list without consensus. This was done without providing reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN I have removed several recently added names from the list. I believe these were done in good faith, but have not been verified by use of reliable sources. @Thanos54!: I kindly ask, that per WP:BRD, that Donald Trump not be added to the list without first achieving consensus on that particular individual. Along with Sanders, Trump is listed prominently in the Populism article, in the U.S. section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"Conservative Heroes” = useful for high school students

Tucker's book on Conservative Heroes is a light popular book designed for high school and college students. he says: “I wrote [Conservative Heroes] primarily for conservatives—especially young conservatives—with the hope that they will sharpen their perception of what conservatism is and enhance their understanding of the historical perspective.” see https://www.barton.edu/garland-s-tucker-iii-returns-to-hackney-library-for-book-signing-and-discussion-of-conservative-heroes-on-march-16/ In the book’s Foreword, Amity Shlaes says that the book will “broaden both college and high school syllabi." agreed. In my opinion a one-line cite to this book is useful as a place for beginners to begin, but additional in-depth attention is not warranted in this article. Rjensen (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand the reason for the reversion of the additional content per the explanation above, as it was created boldly with multiple reliable sources. That said the content that is given significant weight, The Giants Of American Conservatism, only cites one single reference, and thus one could question why it has its own sub-section as well, given it is not cited very often (under 300 times).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Conservative Heroes" is mentioned more often (4.3k times). Are we saying that the more numerous mentions are per WP:RECENTISM, or should we also remove the Rossiter's content as well?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Rossiter's 1955 book "Conservatism in America" contains the Giants chapter. It has "About 6,570 results" in google books. and is cited by hundreds of scholars. proof: at https://books.google.com/advanced_book_search enter the search terms rossiter "conservatism in America" inpublisher:university inpublisher:press That gives 422 different scholarly books, all from university presses, that cite Rossiter's Conservatism in America Tucker gets his press releases in non-RS blogs and newsletters. that's appropriate for a light popular book. Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Tucker's book has one cite in Google scholar and Rossiter is consider one of the main theorists of modern American conservatism. TFD (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It makes sense given that it has been around for over fifty years. I am getting 399 citations to the book, while Tucker, only published two years ago have been cited in academic works once. As one is more academic in nature and older, and one is more geared towards students and newer, these numbers make sense. But as Rjensen said before, just cause it is for popular consumption doesn't make it any less valid, nor completely removed, especially given that it is more commonly found in popular sources.
@Rjensen: What wording would be proper in the opinion of the removing editor?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps listing it in the bibliography as a "popular survey directed at beginners." Mind you, it has problems that make it less useful for advanced users. For example Tucker is very hostile to a strong federal government, but passes over in silence the fact that his many slavery advocates wanted --and got--very strong local & state government in order to suppress any opposition to slavery or possible slave revolt. Free speech was not on their agenda. He celebrates Democrats who opposed tariffs--but ignores how Coolidge and Robert Taft supported high tariffs. Rjensen (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Tucker says conservatism in the United States "was originally called "classical liberalism" but now more often it is termed "conservatism." for much of this country's history, "liberalism" connoted a belief in the maximum personal freedom consistent with the maintenance of order." He then presents 14 leaders who adhered to classical liberal principles. There is no discussion of competing views of conservatism, and there are better sources on the classical liberal tradition in America. I can see that it might be an inspirational book for libertarians, but I don't see that it provides much information about the subject of conservatism in general. Tucker says, "the book is really written for conservatives about conservatism."[2] Of his 14 conservatives, the first 6 (from Jefferson to Cleveland) were Democrats and Bailey and Davis were Democrats too. There are no Federalists or Whigs on his list, I assume he excludes them as insufficiently doctrinaire. No mention either of other strands such as populism or neoconservatism. TFD (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Of his 14 conservatives, the first 6 (from Jefferson to Cleveland) were Democrats and Bailey and Davis were Democrats too. There are no Federalists or Whigs on his list, I assume he excludes them as insufficiently doctrinaire."

Excluding Federalists, Whigs, and 19th-century Republicans may make sense to modern American conservatives.

  • The Federalist Party worked to establish a "strong national government with financial credibility", advocated for ambitious economic programs, and depended on a patronage system to fill lucrative government positions with party members. Not the ideal for wanna-be "small government" supporters.
  • The Whig Party (United States) viewed themselves as modernizers and sought the "social, economic, and moral modernization" of the United States. They planned for the creation of a Federal transportation network with roads and canals in every state, advocated for an increase in domestic manufacturing (which would decrease or eliminate American dependency on foreign imports), and wanted high duties on foreign imports (to prevent them from competing with American products). Big government supporters with big plans for major changes.
  • The Republican Party also viewed themselves as modernizers. Their "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology translated to granting land to new farmers, depending on free men with wages (instead of slaves) as a labor force, and opposing slavery. When in government, the Party passed legislation supporting the rapid modernization of the United States, the creation of a national banking system, homestead laws granting land to farmers, the expansion of the railroad network, and financial aid for education and agriculture. Following the American Civil War, they passed major constitutional reforms. They then kept supporting a program of industrialization, urbanization, and a further expansion of railroad and mines. They were both the "big government" and "big business" party from the 1860s to the 1890s, and pretty much controlled the federal government for most of the period. Scary for "small government" supporters.

The Democratic Party of the 19th century supported a vision of the United States as an agrarian society, feared the concentration of economic and political power, opposed government intervention in the economy, opposed corporate monopolies, wanted to end the federal support for banks and corporations, and opposed the creation of a public education system. The factions of the Party often held wildly divergent views, but much of their power-base was in the pro-slavery, anti-reconstruction, and rather reactionary "Solid South". Several modern so-called conservatives could sympathize. Dimadick (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's because with the emergence of the U.S. as a major industrial power, its elites no longer required government assistance. TFD (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Conservatism in the United States, not the history of the Democratic Party. In the South, at least, before Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic Party was staunchly conservative, and a major part of the Conservative Coalition which controlled congress. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Dimadick is saying that as part of an argument that Jefferson was a conservative. Southern Democrats like modern conservatives shared Jefferson's opposition to tariffs, central government, etc. That's the argument the John Birch Society uses to claim the French Revolution was right-wing, while Louis XVI was left-wing. Both in the U.S. and the world outside, political groups have switched positions on major policy issues. TFD (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right

I have reverted recent edits per WP:BRD which attempted to add content related to the subject Alt-right. As stated in the lead of that article, Alt-right is a rejection of conservationism. Therefore to include its content would not be correct, and also does not have consensus. Moreover, as has been discussed before, new additions to the embedded list in this article should be verified using reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a rejection a neo-conservatism, which itself has its origins in liberalism. Steve Bannon was involved in the alt-right and they were major supporters of Donald Trump, who now leads U.S. conservatism. TFD (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
There are multiple reliable sources that state that Trump is not a conservative. Also PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs) is not following BRD, and has re-added the content. This article is under discretionary sanction, and I will not engage in an edit war which appears to have been initiated by another editor.
Both Modern Liberalism in the United States, and Conservatism in the United States are rooted in liberalism. This is why Classical Liberalism is a root ideology of the Constitution, and thus Conservatism in the United States. They branched off from one another with Progressivism, Keynesian economics, among other things.
Trump is a populist, not American conservative. See this article, this article, this paper, and so on and so forth (i.e. there are more reliable sources that I can post).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The first article cites Cas Mudde for its definition of populism. But Mudde, who is possibly the leading expert on right-wing populism, does not consider Trump one. (See "The Power of Populism? Not Really!" and "As American as Trump".) In fact, there is a serious question whether (extreme) right-wing politics in the U.S. is comparable to elsewhere. (See The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right, p. 1.)[3] U.S. conservatism btw is not a clear ideology either. Anyway this is America, and everyone uses populist language. TFD (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Understandably, small-government conservatives are uncomfortable sharing a political party with the racist conservatives, not to mention all the other people in the large conservative bed. The small-government conservatives, who are much more likely to edit Wikipedia than the alt-right conservatives, consistently try to distance their brand of conservatism from the other brands, but can't win elections without the help of the alt-right, the religious conservatives, the Wall Street conservatives, and the rest. It is a coalition, and for all their differences, they usually vote as one. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So what we have verified is that different reliable sources categorize the current President of the United States differently. That said, that doesn't mean that the Alt-Right is conservative. There are sources that say that it is not: Weinstein, RedState, National Review "The influence of the so-called alt-Right should not be exaggerated. Nevertheless, the growing popularity of neo-reactionaries, white nationalists, and men’s-rights activists, to say nothing of freelance provocateurs like Milo Yiannopoulos, demonstrate the appeal of joining an opposition to the modern Left that is not liberal and, because it is not liberal, also not conservative.", Vocativ, KYTX, etc. I am sure there maybe some individuals who would want to see the Alt-Right as part of conservatism, but the burden of that is on those individuals. Moreover, to give those views significant space in this article I would think would give such views undue weight.
Back to the edit in question, the edits made by PerfectlyIrrational fail WP:VER. I was in the process of adding citations earlier, and will return to it eventually.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read the National Review article again, because the quote is out of context. The author divides conservatives into "liberal" and "reactionary" (including the alt-right and Trump) strands and precedes the passage by saying, "Some conservatives see Trumpian intransigence as an unpleasant but unavoidable precondition of any revival of old-fashioned liberalism. But there is no longer a consensus around that goal." He follows it by saying, "The [reactionary conservative] group drawn in a reactionary direction is also intellectually diverse. It includes (among others) the surviving paleoconservatives, the heirs of the Reagan-era religious Right, traditionalist Catholics, Orthodox Jews, West Coast Straussians, as well as the alt-Right." Rick Norwood is right, it's a coalition.

I question the value of a list. You provide Kirk as a source that Adams was a conservative, but Kirk said Hamilton was not and Jefferson actually destroyed conservatism.

TFD (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Russell Kirk has a long section on Alexander Hamilton as a conservative in The Conservative Mind, pages 85 to 91 -- There is a convenient summary of Kirk's analysis of Hamilton in by Aaron McLeod's summary of Kirk's book, p 9-. Rjensen (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Kirk wrote, "It is to Hamilton that most Americans turn when they look for a conservative among the founding fathers....Yet Alexander Hamilton the financier, the party manager, the empire-builder, fascinates those numerous Americans among whom the acquisitive instinct is confounded with the conservative tendency; and they, in turn, have convinced the public that the "first American businessman" was the first eminent American conservative." "From this confusion, from the popular belief that Hamilton was the founder of American conservatism, the forces of tradition in the United States never have fully escaped." (7th Revised Edition, pp. 74, 229) So even if he sees him as a conservative, and he is not explicit in what makes him one, it's not the same as Rossiter. TFD (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs) has re-added listed organizations and individuals with reverences, after Adityaindumdum (talk · contribs) removed the listed organizations and individuals, to the list which The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) questions its value, which Rjensen (talk · contribs) has defended in the past. I am checking the sources which have been added to verify content, and not all actually verify the validity of the item being added.
As for the quality of the list it still needs to meet WP:VER and is governed under the same guideline that all other lists are (especially WP:SOURCELIST). We should before adding more (as PerfectlyIrrational has done boldly so even after being reverted, not once but twice, by two separate users (Adityaindumdum and myself)) is stop adding more individuals and find references verifying the already listed individuals prior to 23 April.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I was on a break while MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES was formed, and I can understand the reasoning for it, but not for it at the same time, this list could be seen as something like that. @The Four Deuces: is that your take on the matter?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Adityaindumdum: you've appeared to largely settle the matter.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Taki's Magazine

While the source added by PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs) does state that this specific line item is paleoconservative, other reliable sources state that the listed item is more Libertarian.

Given the conflicting nature of reliable sources should it remain listed?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

They seem to have both. If we think of conservatism as having three elements, then some parts will tend more to one than the other. It doesn't seem important enough though. TFD (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Council of Conservative Citizens

It was recently removed due to their opposition to interracial marriage, but mainstream conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter have attended and promoted the organization. It is also regularly noted as an influential conservative organization by multiple sources. The opposition to interracial marriage was common among both parties until the 1960s-1980s, and it is ridiculous to say that it disqualifies you from being a part of the conservative movement. While their position is definitely not a mainstream line of thought, they do have a large influence on the Republican Party and are regularly mentioned in conservative books. (Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America by Ann Coulter, among others)

The organization has also been promoted by multiple conservatives, such as...

-Ann Coulter -Kirk Fordice -Lester G. Maddox -Sen. Mike Gunn -Hon. Jim Johnson

How exactly isn't the organization paleoconservative and notable. It clearly satisfies it more then Redstate and others. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I notice that it is now led by Paul Fromm, who is a veteran of the far right. It reminds me of an earlier attempt at entrism described in Social Credit Party of Ontario#Fascist takeover and split Do any notable conservatives now support the group? Like Taki's, I question whether we should give a lot of coverage to extreme and tiny groups that have little influence. TFD (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The organization been praised in Ann Coulter's works, such as Adios, America and Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America. The organization is also said to be an important organization in American conservatism by both supporters and detractors, including in The Christian Right, the Far Right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism where it is said to describe a "notable strand of conservatism in the United States". Although it opposes interracial marriage, it is ridiculous to have that be a litmus test of conservatism in the United States. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Council is an extremist and white supremacist group. It is conservative only in name. It also doesn't have huge popular base like older extremist groups like John Birch Society. White supremacy was part of Southern conservatism in 1960, but it's not a part of conservatism in 2017. Adityaindumdum (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed Durham's book mentions them extensively, but note it was published in 2000. Coulter, whose book "Victims" is of questionable accuracy was referring to criticism Lott and others got for speaking to the CCC in the 1990s. As pointed out by the Southern Poverty Law Center, they attracted conservative political speakers but that ended c. 1998, the CCC went into decline, became more obviously bigoted and came under the control of people like Paul Fromm.[4] You might as well ask why we don't list the KKK, they were once respectable too, but are no longer part of mainstream U.S. conservatism. In fact it's run by the same sort of people now running the CCC. TFD (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I had added some references on the item in question, however the majority of references says it self identifies as conservative, but is largely written about in the context to its racist past and present. As such it is primarily known as using the conservative label as a cover to focus on its main goal of white nationalism.
While it might call itself conservative, it is not largely identified as a significant conservative organization in reliable sources. Therefore, based on what reliable sources I have read it is better to be included in an article about White Nationalism in the United States in the context that it is the successor organization of the White Citizens Councils.
Additionally claiming an organization is conservative because conservatives have spoken in front of it is fallible. That is like saying a conservative has a panel at Anime Expo, therefore Anime Expo is a conservative political conference.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Article size

Per WP:SIZERULE I have boldly created from a redirect the article History of conservatism in the United States. The article prior to the spin out was 231,129 bytes, it is now 101,784 bytes. Per size rule, it can use an additional spin out. I suggest that the Template:Very long be removed for now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

In a similar vein, I'd suggest removing the three subheadings under the "Types" heading and summarizing their contents in the list above it. If nobody disagrees, I will implement my own suggestion within the next few days. --GHcool (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@GHcool: may I suggest that the section "Thinkers and leaders" is a better candidate for spinout. Many "foo" 'Merican articles have spun out those lists leading to better article structures that focus on prose.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure. That sounds good. --GHcool (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting quotations

(edit conflict) Why was this change made? The source added by Rjensen (talk · contribs) directly verified the quote in the article. The need for a quote is not necessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, any editor can request a quote to source check and evaluate for Synth and OR. You don't have to post one, but you can't just remove the tag and leave an edit summary that you "fixed the cite." That is vandalism - I am checking the article for OR and SYNTH. If you don't want to post a quote, leave the tag alone. Seraphim System (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussions about improving this article are best kept to the talk page of this article, not my talk page.
To say that work of Rjensen (talk · contribs) is vandalism is IMHO laughable, as he is a published scholar, and has done significant amount of work om this article drawing from reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes, even the best editors. Thank you for improving the section. Seraphim System (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No quote is required

I have looked at WP:VER; it does not say a quote is required. Therefore I am contesting this edit, and request the editor, Seraphim_System (talk · contribs), who made the change revert themselves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you are a new editor, but you are supposed to provide quotes when requested. Any editor can request a quote for a source check. Seraphim System (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I checked the source, and it says nothing about conservatism - while you are reading WP:V, you should also read WP:OR - thank you for your comment, I welcome all input from my fellow editors. Seraphim System (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The content was about Americanism, and thus it verifies most of the listed items for Americanism. The content being verified is around the words

developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on ...

The "it says nothing about conservatism" is a straw man argument.
I did not add that content in this article, someone else did some time ago. But to claim the content is OR is concerning IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the text does not have to be sourced to material about conservatism, it needs only be sourced to material about Americanism. Other sources can make the connection. TFD (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

William Allen White

Does anyone have a quote from the sources in the Socialism section about the confrontation between William Allen White and William Jennings Bryan - it was a different era in American politics, and while the quote is about socialism, I'm not sure it is about Conservatism in the United States and its opposition to Socialism, as William Allen White was progressive. Seraphim System (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The quote is from one of his columns that was reprinted in a collection published in 1924. Google books has a snippet view.[5] Can we confirm he wrote it in 1896? It is not part of "What's the Matter With Kansas?" The significance of the quote may be that conservatives used it. TFD (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe he wrote the quote, but we need a secondary source that explicitly discusses its relevance to conservatism, it's not enough that he is critical of socialism - this would be synth.Seraphim System (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
That is nit-picking. The conservatives attacked liberal Dems and Populists as bringing un-american socialism --Safire documents the attack on the most famous liberal of the era, WJBryan. Rjensen (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
This is required under our core policies. What you are saying is WP:OR including attaching modern labels for the Democratic party to 19th. century politicians. William Allen White is called progressive by secondary sources. Was there even an ideology called "Conservatism" during that era? WJBryan wanted to keep the gold standard, and opposed the creation of a National Bank - William Allen White was progressive - if there are secondary sources that discuss this we need to go by what they said, not your opinion or mine (based on sources describing him as a leader of the progressive movement, my opinion is that White was not conservative.) Seraphim System (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You need to read more widely. White's 1896 essay, he himself said, was written when he was still a conservative. It is a VERY strong endorsement of McKinley conservatism against leftist views--Perhaps you have not read it, or perhaps you think McKinley is not a "conservative". W.A. White a few years later did indeed change and became a progressive, but his 1896 editorial was distributed by McKinley's campaign in many thousands of copies and newspaper reprints. Start with Edward Gale Agran (1998). Too Good a Town, William Allen White, Community, Rethoric of Middle Am. (p). pp. 65–66.. Rjensen (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
And by the way, Bryan was the #1 silver proponent in Opposition to gold. McKinley was the gold supporter. As for a national bank, Bryan did support the founding of the Federal Reserve system in 1913. Rjensen (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, I am entirely neutral on what goes into the article, what I need to see is a secondary source for this particular statement that is in the article - one that discusses conservatism explicitly - the source you just cited is a chapter called "The Progressive Promise" that doesn't mention consevatism Seraphim System (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

But you're right WJB supported the bi-metallic standard and opposed the Fed - my point was that WJB was opposed to the "progressive reforms" that White supported - it was also not "traditional" in the sense we understand conservatism today of "restoring" a previous state by undoing progressive reforms - I am not convinced that this is conservatism, but more importantly I have been unable to find any secondary sources to justify inclusion in this article. Seraphim System (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Try again --You are all mixed up on Bryan's positions: Bryan was the #1 supporter of silver and inflation; he said said mankind was being crucified on a "cross of gold." -- it's in the college and high school textbooks. Bryan SUPPORTED the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 [Link, Woodrow Wilson and the progressive era page 50] says, "At this critical stage in the [Democratic] caucus deliberation, Bryan issued a fervent appeal to the radicals to support the measure, assuring them that Wilson would fulfill his promise to destroy interlocking directorates. Bryan's masterful plea ended the struggle." and that's how the law passed in 1913.] For the most part Bryan and White were in agreement after 1910, but the text at issue reflects White's conservatism in 1896 in which he denounced the liberal and radical leaders of 1896 and called for what he himself (and Agram) called conservatism. When in doubt try reading more. White states in "What's the Matter w Kansas" : "There are two ideas of government," said our noble Bryan at Chicago. "There are those who believe that if you legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, this prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class and rest upon them." That's the stuff! Give the prosperous man the dickens! Legislate the thriftless man into ease, whack the stuffing out of the creditors and tell the debtors who borrowed the money five years ago when money "per capita" was greater than it is now, that the contraction of currency gives him a right to repudiate. That sounds very conservative to White's biographers -- eg David Hinshaw, A Man from Kansas: The Story of William Allen White states p 108: "During his conservative period White had used the epithet "socialistic" as his big gun to blast radical opposition." By and large, Bryan was one of the 5 or 6 most important political progressives of the Progressive Era--As evidenced by winning the Democratic presidential nomination three times. If you cannot remember the basic very well known textbook facts, then you are having real trouble reading history books, let alone editing history articles in Wikipedia. Your reference to "traditional" is garbled --You seem to be thinking about European conservatism, which is indeed deeply rooted in traditionalism. Rjensen (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I have read about it, this article isn't about the Federal Reserve, Bryant only supported the revised version. That occurred in a different century then the quote we are discussing in this thread. This article isn't a place for synth and the talk page isn't a place to try to change my mind with WP:OR arguments. If you don't have a clear source for the statement in the article we should remove the statement. A cherry picked quote from Hinshaw is not enough, the Britannica article describes him as a liberal republican, and does not mention conservative once.
P.S. I don't think I'm having trouble editing history articles, in fact one of the articles I worked on is up for GA review right now. So, wow, I confused bi-metallic and gold standard in a side discussion on a talk page (in a way that did not have any material effect on the point I was making, which was that White is considered progressive by the majority of secondary sources, bimetallic standard was there first - that was my point - WJB wanted to keep what was already in place and White wanted to change it to something new - there had never been a gold standard in the United States. Hence, progressive.) Seraphim System (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I checked ANB and I found that White met Roosevelt in 1897 and this is when his "gradual" change from conservative to progressive republican began. (The quote is from 1896?) I also found another book source that says this period of change is debated by scholars, and is considered a complex issue. I am wondering if it would be appropriate to expand the section to discuss this history and make it more clear what "conservative republican" meant at the time. Secondary sources seem to be in agreement that the gold standard was being a progressive issue - not a conservative issue. I have a Harvard University Press book that says White wrote that the Democratic Party "must be historically and constitutionally the conservative party of this nation" and that he would rather be a socialist then a Democratic as long as the Democratic Party "is fettered by the ideas of states rights and free trade." Based on the sources, I'm not convinced that this section is written accurately - the introduction is unsourced, including the statement that 19th c. conservatives used socialism as an epithet. I think the complexity here needs to be explained - jumping from 1896 to 1960 like nothing changed in American politics during that time, and it was one continuous conservative movement would really need to be sourced much better then it currently is. Considering the income tax amendment wasn't even ratified until 1913, I am having a hard time believing that sources exist to support the statement that 19th c. American conservatism used socialism as "an epithet to attack liberal spending on social programs that ...lead to higher tax rates" Seraphim System (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I had trouble following it too. As I understand it, White was arguing that growing the economy would lead to prosperity while redistribution of wealth would hinder it, which is a conservative argument, according to White's biography. Lots of source interpret it that way and Thomas Frank in his book, What's the Matter with Kansas, pp. 149-150, saw White's position as "conservative" and says that he later changed.[6] It is irrelevant what "what "conservative republican" meant at the time" or that White called Democrats conservative. Conservative and liberal only developed their modern meaning decades later. TFD (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
If there are lots of sources, can you post them? They would have to be about this particular statement. It's not enough that there are sources that say he was conservative, and that he later become progressive. It's very much not irrelevant what conservative republican meant in the 19th century. If you read my comment above, and look at the article, you will see why. No, 19th century conservatives did not use socialism as an epithet to attack spending on social programs that would lead to higher taxes. What social programs? What higher taxes - there was no federal income tax. I'm not sure what here you feel is worth salvaging since the entire intro is unsourced synth and OR. I'm going to fix the section, so if there are sources you want me to look at you should post them. Obviously, I can't add any OR or SYNTH. Seraphim System (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Doris Kearns Goodwin refers to "William Allen White's youthful conservatism." (p. 189)[7] Home Town News: William Allen White and the Emporia Gazette: In the chapter "The Making of a Progressive," it says that he transformed from a conservative to reform Republican.An other biography, which I can only find in snippet view, says White switched from the conservative to the liberal wing of the party.[https://books.google.com/books?id=8xQMAQAAIAAJ&q=%22william+allen+white%22+conservative&dq=%22william+allen+white%22+conservative&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj45752ZDUAhXEz4MKHUqlBjUQ6AEIKDAA

There was no income tax because it was ruled unconstitutional, but Bryan spoke in favor of it in 1894.[8] The graduated income tax would replace regressive taxes. Bimetallism would also, so Bryan though, transfer wealth from the banks to the farmers. The Democratic platform also supported the protection of Civil War pensions.[9]

Also, the terms liberal and conservative only came into use with their modern ahistorical meanings in the 1930s, and were only accepted by both sides beginning in the 1950s. Herbert Hoover, Robert Taft, John Wayne, Hayek, even the KKK, called themselves liberals.

I agree though that the while there are sources that White was a conservative and his essay "What's the matter with Kansas" is seen as expressing conservative views, I cannot find a source that comments on his "socialism" quote. It would be helpful to know when it was written.

TFD (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@TFD: I am sure you are familiar with our policy on WP:SYNTH and understand that the source needs to say not only that he is conservative, but everything we said about it. Did you look back over the section? Can you understand why I removed it? It basically says "Starting in the 19th century conservatives used socialist as an epithet for a,b,c,d,e reasons and White was one of those conservatives, and that was what he meant by this quote"
Probably William Allen White had the gold rush on his mind when he wrote "What's the Matter With Kansas" 3 days after gold was found in the Yukon. but this is the problem with WP:OR - you have yours, and I have mine. I think "what did conservative mean in Kansas in 1896" is not a trivial point - but it is extremely complicated, and we have a separate article devoted to it History of conservatism in the United StatesSeraphim System (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
If your objection is a secondary source is required, you should have stuck with that argument instead of claiming White was not a conservative, asking for sources, saying there was no income tax etc. It would have shortened the discussion. Your example is poor by the way. When White wrote about "California and the gold rush" as affecting policy c. 1850, he was referring to the California Gold Rush. TFD (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I wasn't talking about the California gold rush - you should read "What's the Matter with Kansas" and then tell us what you think it's about. Scholars have attributed Kansas' eventual political shift (to progressive republicanism) to regional underdevelopment - what do you think was going to happen in Kansas when gold was found in the Yukon? Seraphim System (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
here's the secondary source that fits the actual statement on use of "socialism" as a conservative attack point: David Hinshaw, A Man from Kansas: The Story of William Allen White states p 108: "During his conservative period White had used the epithet "socialistic" as his big gun to blast radical opposition." He used it to attack Bryan and the Populists in "what's the matter with Kansas" (1896 editorial on that year's big election). All the RS say he was a "conservative" at that time and so does White himself. There were conservative Democrats then--led by Grover Cleveland and the Bourbon Democrats. They were overthrown by Bryan at 1896 Dem convention. Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I hear you are a published scholar - that does not mean you can add unsourced content to the page. Thank you for posting the quote, but it does not say that quote is used in "What's the Matter with Kansas" - I read "What's the Matter with Kansas" last night, and I can't find that quote in there. Seraphim System (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

White used "socialist" or "socialistic" it in other editorials, eg 1897: "The socialistic colony which depends for its success upon the unselfishness of men, has failed as it always has failed and always will fail until nature changes human hearts." or 1920: "Socialism is a vast stupidity. It sees the gross injustices of organized society and it is driven mad by them." [Hinshaw 107-8]
@Rjensen: He may have, but we can't synthesize sources. Hinshaw says the quote about the election was made during his conservative phase in 1896, the same year "What's the Matter With Kansas" was written - but it is not from that article. You have posted this incorrect information in at least 2 articles. Can you give the full cite for Hinshaw, including the publisher? Seraphim System (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
David Hinshaw A Man from Kansas: The Story of William Allen White (NY: G.P. Putnam's Sons 1945) cite = http://www.worldcat.org/title/man-from-kansas-the-story-of-william-allen-white/oclc/248275?referer=di&ht=edition Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Socialism section introduction sentence

@Rjensen:, I have modified the first sentence of the socialism section. The sources I added for the first sentence did not mention epithet "socialist" as being a weapon, nor did it talk about public ownership. I believe the edits come from a desire to improve the article, that said please provide RSs that verify the changes, as the RSs that I provided do not verify the first sentence in the section as modified here and here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

the next sentences is David Hinshaw writes that William Allen White, editor of a small-town newspaper in Kansas from 1895, used "socialistic" as "his big gun to blast radical opposition. Therefore I think "weapon" works as a paraphrase of "big gun" Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rjensen: IMHO calling "socialist" a weapon, even if paraphrasing a quote about one specific individual, does not meet WP:NEU. Saying that conservatives use the term as an epithet is rather straight forward, and neutral way to describe the many usage of the epithet by multiple conservatives in the U.S. paraphrasing to weapon cause of a single usage gives that single description, undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I think "rhetorical weapon" is a stronger term and fits the situation, although "epithet" also works. Here's a good citation published last month: Jouet In his book Exceptional America (April 2017 U California Press) p 4 says Republicans "used it as a rhetorical weapon against Obama by relentlessly accusing him of lacking faith in 'American exceptionalism'. In their view, the unpatriotic Obama precipitated the nation's decline by seeking to transform it into Europe with his 'socialist"'and 'un-American' agenda." Rjensen (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
IMHO that would make for a good specific example of the use of the word socialist as a epithet, if attributed to the author of that book.
That said we should be careful to say Republicans=Conservatives. As we have seen in the most recent election the GOP is made up of more than just those who adhere to conservatism, and while in the modern era most of the conservatives voluntarily affiliate with the GOP, there are others within the GOP who are not conservatives.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Before 1990 there were lots of conservative Democrats & they used 'socialist' to attack liberals. Here's a great Goldwater quote: Says Goldwater, "The Democratic party believes in what I call socialism: and if that upsets anybody's stomach, let me remind you that central planning of our economy is socialism." Nelson Rockefeller, he implies, is a socialist in millionaire's clothing. from "LIFE" - May 29, 1964 - https://books.google.com/books?id=YEEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA29 Rjensen (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
While some sources call the usage a "weapon", I think it is more neutral to describe its usage as a epithet. And if we still want to include it being called a "rhetorical weapon" that description should be directly attributed in the text on who calls it that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Weapon implies that it was intended to inflict damage, while epithet may not. "That's socialism" has been used by U.S. conservatives to discredit redistributionist policies. Maybe your objection is that it actually is socialism. TFD (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

What my personal opinions should matter not. What the references verify is what matters. We have some sources that use the term weapon, we have other sources that use the term epithet.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Also may I add, we should not be attempting to advance our own individual views/biases or the views/biases of the sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think use of the term "weapon" shows a bias, while "epithet" does not? TFD (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Wiki Scholar gives 2000+ cites to scholarly books and journals (I searched for "conservatives" and "rhetorical weapon" at https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22rhetorical+weapon%22+conservatives&num=10 ). Epithets can be positive (for example "Peter the Great") but "rhetorical weapons" are always designed to defeat an enemy. On the left see: "racist," "right wing extremist," "isolationist," Neanderthal, "Nazi," "Fascist," etc. Perhaps we should add more on "un-American" which is also a rhetorical weapon favored by conservatives. 1) in Australia 1940s: ‎"the conservatives under Menzies were using anticommunism as a major rhetorical weapon" 2) "The influence of neoconservatives and conservative cold warriors in the early Reagan Administration resulted in an abandonment of human rights except as a rhetorical weapon against the Soviets. " 3) 1930s: " the well-known “forgotten man” theme of the Roosevelt election campaign as a rhetorical weapon. " 4) "Agnew became a formidable rhetorical weapon in the [Nixon] administration's armory," 5) "In the 1980's, the Reagan Doctrine achieved its mission of democratizing Nicaragua....President Reagan's decision to use the rhetorical weapon of "democracy" shaped U.S. policy." Rjensen (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section?

This is almost certainly asking for trouble, but isn't US conservatism as a whole rather...controversial? (particularly in recent years/decades...) And by controversial, I mean that substantial numbers of American conservatives believe things that, if not objectively false, are at the very least, contrary to scientific, academic, or expert consensus in general.

I realize that Wikipedia adheres to NPOV and neutrality, but I also think that flat out ignoring this phenomenon within American conservatism is a conspicuous omission. But I readily acknowledge the can-of-worms that I'm opening in even asking this very question here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42SJCKworld (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

All ideologies are controversial and this article explains where U.S. conservatism is. If there is anything left out, then please advise. Controversy sections are considered poor style - controversies should be incorporated into the appropriate sections. TFD (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:ATTACKPAGE. Lets not let it devolve to that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

BRD Alt-Right

One individual attempted to add content about the Alt-Right into the lead, it was removed by another individual, then re-added to the body of the article. I am removing all of it per WP:BRD. Alt-Right is not conservative: RedState, Weinstein in TheGuardian, Schneider of ACU, Rothman in Commentary, etc. Even in the intro of the article on Alt-Right it states that it is a rejection of conservatism. Sure there are those on the Left who would like very much to label all of conservatism in the U.S as Alt-Right, such as on Salon, just as much as the anti-fa would like to label all who oppose them as fascist so they can justify violence.

See WP:SOAPBOX & WP:ATTACKPAGE. This is not what this article is for. I agree with this edit which kept this type of thing off this article. Lets continue that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Perception is not necessarily reality, such as the saying a lie will go around the world a thousand times, before the truth puts its shoes on. If content about the perception of Conservatism in the United States is to be added, which would include the perception on the Left that all Conservatives in the U.S. are fascist, perhaps that belongs well at the bottom of the article in its own section, or in a separate article all together. But I fear such content would be spun-out into an attack page, which smears the subject rather than presenting it in a neutral way. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Your sources are all conservative opinion pieces rather than expert opinion. Ideologues are notorious for purging and denouncing people who stray from the party line. The conservative movement is on a continuum, and one cannot clearly draw a line between real conservatives and right-wing extremists or moderates for that matter. TFD (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Freedom

I pointed out that no source suggests that American conservatives value freedom more than American liberals. Rjensen reverted this, claiming conservatism = libertarianism. Please source this, Rjesnen. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You are referring to this edit. It contradicts the end of the sentence which says liberals "generally place a greater value on equality and social justice." The source says, "For liberals, equal shares is an ideal toward which we should strive. Liberals also support distribution according to basic needs." I think we should remove that too as it is not consistent with most sources. Liberals support providing basic needs because it allows people to be free to achieve. As Bill Clinton said, welfare is a hand up, not a hand out. And providing basic needs is not the same as leveling individual wealth. While comparisons with liberalism belong in the article, it is too nuanced to reduce to simple comparisons. Note too there is no single liberal ideology, but the term covers a range of views. TFD (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Conservatism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg as reliable source??? experts say not

Jonah Goldberg's book on American fascism is popular on right-wing talk radio, but scholars reject its poor scholarship, faulty reasoning, and major blunders. As TFD has pointed out at Talk:Fascism 26 August 2017, "The History Channel invited a number of the leading fascism experts to comment on the book, which you can read here. The response was so negative that per weight, we must ignore it." Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent anonymous editing

Sweeping editings by anonymous trollish users should be banned. Adityaindumdum (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Even important basic information was moved by this anonymous troll from the lead page. Important, meaningful headings were changed! I'm glad that administrator got this article protected now. I have been editing this page regularly for more than two years now. I do not mind that I too can't edit my "unconstructive" editing now. I'm just glad that this anonymous would be stopped for some days now. Adityaindumdum (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

When the restriction will be lifted, I'll try my best to undone the severe damage done by anonymous. Adityaindumdum (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adityaindumdum: Can we peer-review this article so that this chronic vandalism will stop? Jarble (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jarble. We should do this. We should do everything to stop this kind of vandalism from anonymous trolls.

As it stands now, frozen by article protection, the article is almost unreadable, a hodgepodge of edits and reversions. Should we wait for a chance to fix that before we ask for a peer-review? How long does an article protection last? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I've done some minor reversions to the damage done by anonymous trolls. I wait for other editors to join me to undo the vandalism completely. Adityaindumdum (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The points like overview & history are totally creepled by anonymous, anything from them can't be understood. We should concentrate on them at first. And every single vandalist edit by anonymous should be reverted immidiately. Adityaindumdum (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't semi-protection be better? TFD (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop this anonymous vandalism now! Beaware anonymous, your every single act of vandalism will be removed. Adityaindumdum (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Adityaindumdum thinks he owns the page. He's senselessly lumping categories together for some reason. Anything he disagrees with is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F8C8:1800:84D6:FE2C:10F5:39B9 (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This page has a lot of room for improvement. Dumdum is not helping. There is a lot of redundant content that should be deleted, but I hesitate to do so because I know it’ll get reverted.

The lead already summarizes core beliefs and what they stand against. Including origins is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F8C8:1800:40D6:35B9:4E9F:DFCD (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I thank every responsible editors here for stopping & reverting anonymous vandalism. I just make some quick points here: 1)The lede summarizes the article. The so-called "origins" point was created by anonymous. It's contents belongs to the lede. 2)The points "social" & "economic" are silly. These things clearly belongs to overview. These are parts of overview. 3)Proponents is a silly term. Thinkers & leaders is far better. 4)Headings should indicate the content, these should be meaningful. Anonymous edits made headings incomprehensible. 5)I think types should be a separate heading instead of in the overview. It was separate before anonymous vandalism. I'm making it separate; but I welcome every editor (except anonymous trolls) to discuss & debate here about it & other points.

Anonymous has started vandalism again! Return it the the pre-edit war version again. Adityaindumdum (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor, please restore the pre-edit war version & then put a protection in it. Then we should discuss here. Otherwise, anonymous will just destroy the article. Adityaindumdum (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank God, this page is protected now! But, my fellow editors, when the protection removes, anonymous will certainly try to destroy this article again. Is there any way to block the anonymous trolls from editing? If there is, the administrators should do it. Then we will proceed to restore the article completely. Adityaindumdum (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And now, anonymous, I am speaking to you! Just get out of this article. Now! Adityaindumdum (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Conservative views on the environment

We should note that environmentalism is a social movement or philosophy. Conservatives have a variety of views on the environment, and on environmentalism. (In general they object to government mandates about what should be done.) But to say point blank that they oppose environmentalism as a movement is not a balanced statement. Indeed, saying so is WP:OR. This section needs to be thought out from a NPOV standpoint. – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Conservatives oppose the ideology of "environmentalism". That doesn't mean that they oppose any kind of environment protection or conservation. It's like feminism...conservatives oppose the feminist ideology but that doesn't make them anti-women; as liberals falsely accuse them to be. Adityaindumdum (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the section is clear, it says they oppose environmentalism and does not say they oppose any kind of environmental protection. I'm sure they would object to toxic waste being dumped near the shores of Mara Lago. TFD (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the way to clarify is to provide 2 sections (or paragraphs). One on the broader topic of views about "environmental concerns" or "environmental issues". The other can discuss views on "environmentalism" as a movement. – S. Rich (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This article seems (largely) personal opinion of Wiki editor(s) (O.R.)

I have little doubt that my remark will displease (American) ('conservative') Wikipedians, but: the core of the article seems to me original research. Especially ofcourse the first and all-defining and -commanding sentence which refers to NO reference source at all.
I'm no expert on conservatism, nor on (any) (political) philosophy in general, but I bet my head that there exist dozens, if not thousands, of definitions of 'conservatism'. So, please, make that at least clear in the lead section. And come up with at least two 'official' definitions there, with ref sources. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead is not required to be sourced as long as it summarizes sourced information in the text. If you don't know about the topic, how would you know it was inaccurately presented? Anyway, U.S. conservatism is dissimilar from its namesake elsewhere since the concept was only developed in the mid=20th century by a small group of writers. TFD (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ideology of Drudge Report

You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right?. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Picture is misleading

Hi, the picture on this article has Milton Friedman in it, but he is not a Social Conservative, or Conservative at all. Why is he in the picture titled social conservatives? Milton Friedman himself has said he is not a Conservative. Please change the picture, it is misleading and not accurate. 85.130.83.238 (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Milton Friedman is generally consider a conservative economist. According to the Cato Institute: "He had also been active in public affairs, serving as an informal economic adviser to Senator Goldwater in his unsuccessful campaign for the presidency in 1964, to Richard Nixon in his successful campaign in 1968, to President Nixon subsequently, and to Ronald Reagan in his 1980 campaign." https://www.cato.org/special/friedman/friedman/index.html

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

What he is considered is irrelevant, is it not? He himself has said many times clearly that he is not a conservative. Those are his own words. You are going to ignore his own words, and instead describe him the way others see him? Conservative is someone who wants to keep thing the way they are -- to conserve --, he is the opposite of that, he wants to change things -- radical --. 85.130.83.238 (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
There was a debate among American conservatives about what they should call themselves. Friedman, Ayn Rand, Hayek, Robert Taft, John Wayne and others rejected the term conservative because they identified with historical liberalism rather than conservatism and many political scientists consider U.S. conservatism to be a misnamed form of liberalism. How people are described is more relevant than how they describe themselves. The legal system for example would not work if we always accepted what litigants said about themselves,. TFD (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You just said that US conservatives rejected the term conservative, and that there are many political scientists who consider US conservatism to be a misnamed form of liberalism, and yet you insist on Milton Friedman be described as Conservative? How come? Why is the way people are described by others more relevant than how people describe themselves? Isn't Wikipedia about providing the facts, and not perpetuating misconceptions just because they are popular? If the way people are described matters more than the facts, then whose word should we take? There are people who describe Milton Friedman as conservative, but there are also people who describe him as Liberal. There are probably people who describe him as an Anarchist, nationalist, socialist, and probably many more. Why should we take one group of people's description over another? Who decides whose description is more relevant? The legal system is about finding the facts, and they do consider the accusers testimony. They don't take one person's word over another, they seek to establish the facts. Milton Friedman has said dozens of times that he is not a conservative. He is for open borders, he was against drafting, and he took many other positions that goes directly against the so called conservatives. It it absolutely unacceptable and false to describe Friedman as a conservative. He is not one. Please change the picture. 85.130.83.238 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States/Archive_19&oldid=1149962052"