Talk:Conservative Punk

Thatcherism

"It can be argued that for all its left wing rhetoric, punk was youth culture's equivalent to Thatcherism. Even going as far as unwittingly laying the foundations for it, as the parallels are striking. Both stressed autonomy, entrepeneurship and individualism."

BOGUS ALERT? I didn't see Crass holding hands with Maggie Thatcher in the good old days during the miner's strike? Thatcher was everything punk resented, individual autonomy does not mean a weak social state and a strong military/security-state. How one can label an entire spectrum of local movements into one coined reference to a despot boggles my mind.

Basically, a bunch of american hipsters trying to be offensive and seeing a pseudo-intellectual equivalent of punk and party-political politics aren't worth listing.

So Crass didn't hold hands with Maggie Thatcher? What kind of argument is that? The fact is, and I was there, I grew up punk, had many, many punk friends, was part of the scene, and can verify that there always has been and always will be a conservative streak amongst punks. Anarchy is one thing, but most of my friends in the 1980s and I were very much aware of how the hippies, boomers and yuppies screwed things up in society. It is a historical fact that many in the punk movement were greasers, and as a military member in the U.S. Army, I cannot remember ANY unit that didn't have three or four soldiers who went against the grain of metal/hair bands/new-wave ripoff bands. Some were liberals, some even against the military, but we loved Reagan, Mulroney and Thatcher, because they were proud patriots who wanted government out of our lives. Surely, one can quibble with this, saying "social conservatism is not out of the bedroom, blah blah blah," but another distinguishing point of conservative punks is their laissez-faire view of the economy and socially moderate and/or liberal POV. I know this to be true BECAUSE I WAS THERE. Don't write us off, because you have an insecurity with conservative types. Robertjonesphoto 06:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but nobody's writing you off, this just isn't your life story, it's an encyclopedia article. It was originally written about the views of that one specific website and still reflects the fact that it is the only popular outlet anyone can come up with for conservativism in punk. Don't turn this into an "I was there, I know" - that's not what Wikipedia is about. The fact of the matter is that politics (and people's need to constantly label everyone) wind up dividing punks into categories like conservative and liberal based on their views on certain issues, and the polarizing nature of national politics today serves to further engrain a notion that we ought to split along those lines - lines that have recently been drastically redefined, wherein conservativism pays lip-service to these values and viewpoints it once may have represented, but tends only to act on behalf of rich people, evangelical church interests, and large corporations (when it isn't sticking its nose in our bedrooms, that is). This has nothing to do with fear of conservativism and everything to do with the fact that the liberal and progressive elements of punk rock are far more definitive than the conservative ones, and the conservative ones often appear very differently than they would otherwise (e.g. belief in small government becomes anarchism rather than mainstream, feel-good libertarianism). It's also clear that people who align themselves specifically with contemporary conservative movements (e.g. the people at this website) are contradicting many of what are considered cornerstone punk beliefs (freedom from a horribly overbearing government, not blindly supporting the reigning party, etc). Not to mention, they seem to really play-up the notion that so many of us liberals are astonished that they can be punk and conservative - I think this disbelief/astonishment is a myth, I never thought people couldn't be both, I just think they're misguided and (the way conservativism is these days) inconsistent in their beliefs. 149.43.x.x 13:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a perfectly fair comment - the punks and the Thatcherites were both groups of spoilt kids whose ideology was based on selfishness and destruction. They benefitted from the post-war consensus in British politics, had no memory of the famines and mass unemployment of the 1930s and ignored what they were told, and decided it would be a bit of a laugh to smash everything they could. Their determination to destroy society brought us mass unemployment, poverty, homelessness, rioting on the streets, and a brutal culture in which nobody has any respect for anybody else. And both groups liked picking on racial minorities and homosexuals.

And that wonderfully biased opinion can stay right here on the talk page. And for the record, if you don't want to sound entirely ignorant, punks (on the whole) overwhelmingly accept people of color and LGBTQ people, and have from the start defended their right to equity and respect. If you have something that's based on an informed perspective, I'd love to hear it, but it baffles me that you would even write something like this. 149.43.x.x 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Punk was largely a rejection of hippie values. There have always been plenty of punks who were labeled "conservative", especially by other punks, and they saw themselves as being somewhat of a rebellion within a rebellion. And as far as the "american hipsters" comment, I know you Brits think that punk rock belongs to you, but it was invented in America, and stayed in America for much longer. And plenty of punks who are well informed are conservatives, like Joe Escalante and Bobby Steele. You can talk about Crass all want but that was a particular subgenre of punk, in which there are no conservatives. But in other parts of the movement, they were. The asshole a few lines above is clearly a hippie. You're right bud, punks were just a bunch of spoilt kids, although the hippie movement started in at the University of California and punk started in Detroit, the Bowry, and the East end of London so... Sorry they didn't change the world like you by sitting around, smoking weed and "being aware'...

>lines that have recently been drastically redefined, wherein conservativism pays lip-service to these values and viewpoints it once may have represented, but tends only to act on behalf of rich people, evangelical church interests, and large corporations (when it isn't sticking its nose in our bedrooms, that is).

True, but liberals who stand up for gun control, anti-smoking laws, and censorship of music that is disrespectful to women or gays (which punk has ALWAYS been, even if not a true ideological view, but to piss liberals off) aren't exactly in tune with punk values. Conservative punk for the most part means libertarian punk, but it also means disrespecting liberal pc hippie crap. Libertarian values have been as prominent in punk as liberal values, so in that sense, conservative punk is just as important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.9.115 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 03:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: AfD

I think this has to be rewritten as an article on the movement, not a website. - Randwicked 03:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No-one? Okay, I'll do it, but beware because I care neither for conservatism nor punk. - Randwicked 15:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears as if an individual from IP 80.176.234.47 is removing the link to the website repeatedly in a POV attempt to make the website inaccessible to wikipedia readers. This individual replaced the link with a link to the World Socialist News website.

• This article still deserves to be deleted. Rather than being about a non-notable website it's about a non-existant subculture based around a non-notable website.Tombride 17:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it deserves to be deleted more now than when it was just about the website.Tombride 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. This amounts to the equivalent of saying there is a "Punk Voter" subculture of punk. It's a website, sure, that talks about a political category laid over a social one (people who are both conservative and punk), but the two have no special meaning in conjunction. I could say Libertarian punk, Republican punk, Constitutionalist punk, but none of these have special meaning (unlike, say, anarcho-punk, which is a particular social subgroup). The article reads like a debate (or at least one side of it), and isn't linked to any social movement except that tied to the website, which was just a reactionary jab at Punk Voter anyway. Not to mention (like I've said), I see the article as something full of broad (and generally incorrect or meaningless) generalizations, mixed with unencyclopedic and non-NPOV claims.149.43.x.x 17:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If there really is a "Conservative Punk" movement, is it related to Straight edge? And should Punk Voter be redirected to Rock Against Bush, as had been suggested there? Esquizombi 02:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. There are people who self identify as punk who are conservative, but it's not a label I've head people apply to any band, record label, or anything for that matter. It has nothing to do with straight edge, unless you consider the hardline scene of the mid 90's, but that was so far removed from punk that it doesn't really count.Tombride 06:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The hardliner movement was more of a Abrahamic religious movement, not much to do with right wing politics really. The Conservative Punk founder is a self professed Republitarian, and it is more about economically right-wing views than socially restrictive ones. The Conservative Punk site has a list somewhere of "conservative punk" bands and record labels. Nagelfar 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have three points in response. (1) Abrahamic religious momement has nothing to do with right wing politics? Have you read the newspaper lately? Today's conservativism is in no small way controlled by religious interests, especially evangelical and fundamentalist ones. (2) He may say he's "republitarian" but his website has articles/followers that show other, more un-punk if you would, attitudes. (3) Don't mix up punk-style music/bands/labels with the beliefs that define and shape the punk subculture. I could play reggae music about hating black people, that doesn't make me a Rasta (certainly not).149.43.x.x 13:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I feel like this article overlooks some pretty clear points that could (and should?) be included as responses to the views of conservative punks that are expressed here. I don't think it's entirely out of line to expect that the article on conservative punk would have conservative punks' general response to other punks along with the corresponding response. For example, it says, "They even argue that as these values become more mainstream, conservatism becomes more punk, not less. They even goes as far as saying left wing punks are becoming what punk was a reaction against: hippies." Why not point out that the punk response to this is that punk isn't just anti-hippy and that punk ideals sit firmly on one side of certain issues? Or when it notes that conservative punks are pro-individualism, shouldn't we point out that plenty of non-conservative punks are too? Individualism is not a conservative ideal, not exclusively, and especially not in this sort of a context.

I just realized I forgot to sign that last comment 149.43.x.x 14:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The beliefs of the Website's owner

When a sentence says "because he believed ..." one should not be (1) trying to clean up his personal beliefs with outside political theory or (2) using scare quotes (violates MoS and is in bad form). If we paraphrase a quotation, we need not quote particular words just because someone thinks the person being indirectly quoted is incorrect. I have been trying to avoid edit warring, but frankly, I find it bothersome that there is an insistence on trying to make his statements more "correct" than it is. (The use of scare quotes here was intentional - to illustrate the unprofessionally of such selective punctuation.) The sentence is fine as is. Adding scare quotes or notes about how he's wrong about political theory are not appropriate. This isn't a place to criticize or correct his political views. --Cheeser1 19:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard the phrase "scare quotes" before. I placed "right-wing" in quotation marks because there is nothing right-wing about free-market libertarianism. That "right-wing" libertarianism can exist, and that the guy who runs Conservative Punk views himself an example thereof, is a wholly subjective POV, and one which is not substatiated, and indeed is well-refuted, by libertarian political theorists (Rothbard, etc.).

The guy who created that website can believe that "right-wing libertarians" are under-represented as much as he likes, but if A) right-wing libertarians arguably do not exist, and B) he explicitely uses the phrase "right-wing libertarians," then "right-wing libertarians" should be written with quotation marks around the term "right-wing" so as to maintain objectivity, and not make it appear as though wikipedia is endoursing the opinion that "right-wing" libertarianism can exist.

This is not an "edit war." Wikipedia members are permitted, I've read, to make a single edit three times. I've not edited that portion of this wiki article more than three times, nor do I intend to. (I reserve the right to edit other portions of this wiki article, of course.)

My insistance is not to change his specific statements. It is merely my desire to make sure that the realities of libertarianism are not misrepresented by this article. At present, the article appears to be endorsing the notion that "right-wing" libertarian can exist, or worse yet that libertarian capitalism is "right-wing." My intent with the introduction of quotation marks was simply and obviously to bring some higher level of objectivity to this article.

Allixpeeke 23:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I just did a Google Search, and the phrase "right-wing libertarian" never appears even once on the site.

Therefore, whoever wrote that sentence was NOT paraphrasing him. There's not even any evidence that the guy who runs that site even himself believes that "right-wing" libertarianism exists. Clearly, whoever originally wrote that sentence was not being objective, but was imposing his/her own subjective POV of what libertarian capitalism is.

The only time the phrase "right-wing" and "libertarian" even appear on the same web-page as one another on his website is here. Nowhere there are they used even in the same sentence. In fact, the only time "right-wing" is mentioned in that entire article is in this sentence: "Just because I'm writing an article on Conservative Punk doesn't make me a Christian Coalition Right Wing extremist." The rest of the article he spends trying to convince readers that he's actually a libertarian. (He disproves this quite well in his only other article.)

"Right-wing libertarian" is also not mentioned anywhere in any of the other articles linked to this wiki-article.

In summation, I recommend that you remove the phrase "right-wing" out of this wiki-article, OR that you re-write the first sentence so that the phrase "right-wing" is connected to "conservative" rather than "libertarian." Otherwise, the article will be both A) perpetuating the myth that "right-wing" libertarianism can exist and that libertarian capitalism is "right-wing," and B) misrepresenting the subjective views of the owners of the website about which this article is written. Reason compells you to make the necessary changes. I respectfully await your action.

Allixpeeke 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who brought this discussion to the talk page - asking for the edit warring to stop is not invitation for you to declare that I am not editing in good faith because I've declared edit war on you. That's not how things work. I'm glad you've taken the time to make political analyses related to this article. Unfortunately, what you surmise about this website and how you interpret what you find in it constitutes original research. On the other hand, the sources for this page indicate that this site is both right-wing and libertarian in nature. If you'd like to discuss it civilly, I'd be happy to, but please do not immediately barrage me with inapplicable political theory or claims about the "realities of libertarianism." If you'd like to discuss properly sourced information about this website, feel free. I'd be happy to work towards rewording it in a fashion that is a suitable compromise. That is why I asked that this discussion begin. I did not expect a treatise on libertarian politics, which is quite off the subject. --Cheeser1 01:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me in advance to clarify that I mean no hostility.

You didn't bring me to the discussion page. I came to the discussion page because I had used up my three edits and, therefore, following the rules, had no other recourse but to come to the talk page.

You cannot possibly be asking for edit-warring to stop because, for it to stop, it would have had to start first. Since I had not edited that section of the article more than the three times (which individual wiki users are allowed), I cannot consider that an "edit war." Had I broken the rules and edited a fourth time, then it would be possible to ask for an edit-warring to stop.

My claim that whomever wrote that section of the article had not reflected accurately the opinions of the owner of the website about which this article is written has nothing to do with your claim to have asked for some alleged edit war to stop. My claim that whomever wrote that section of the article had not reflected accurately the opinions of the owner of the website is based solely on A) the actual content on that website, and B) the sources about that website which are linked in this wiki article. Supposed invitation is irrelevant.

Let's say I hypothetically hop on over to the wiki article about the Bible. Let's say I see a passage in the article which reads, "In the Bible, Jesus says ketchup is delicious." Let's say I edit that out, pointing out that nowhere in the Bible does that statement, or anything remotely like it, exist. Let's say someone else edits it back in, and claims that my statement that about the Bible's content constitutes "original research." You would, rightly, consider that guy's position to be illogical.

You write, "the sources for this page indicate that this site is both right-wing and libertarian in nature." The website aims to provide a forum for both right-wing and libertarian views. But the website never claims that libertarianism is right-wing. Nor does the creator of the website claim that libertarianism is right-wing. Nor do any of the sources used for this wiki article claim that libertarianism is right-wing.

We are discussing this civilly. Nowhere have you been uncivil to me, and nowhere have I been uncivil to you.

We are discussing this website.

You write, "I'd be happy to work towards rewording it in a fashion that is a suitable compromise." It appears someone has already edited it to separate "right-wing" from "libertarian" in the article. This is all I'd wanted, and I'm satisfied with the article as currently written.

Thanks,

Allixpeeke 02:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I put that compromise in after you stopped responding to comments on this talk page. And for the record, reverting back and forth within the exact limits of 3RR can still easily be construed as edit warring - it's non-constructive reverting back and forth. It doesn't matter if it's "within the rules" - the rules are just guidelines explaining the spirit of how we should conduct ourselves. --Cheeser1 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically I've never "stopped" responding, but that's not worth arguing over. Either way, I very much approve of your current edit, and am glad that we could arrive at something with which we can both live.

I would still contest that it was not my intent to "make war" with you via editing. Each edit I made, I'd made with the hope that by not-simply-reverting-to-the-exact-same-text-I'd-used-the-previous-time, by trying-new-ways-to-reword-the-article, I would eventually fall upon a variation which would meet with everyone's approval. For this reason, I believed my conduct was fully within the spirit of wikipedia.

Again, thanks for the current wording.

Sincerely,

Allixpeeke 03:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Unlike in this article, Michale Graves is listed as the founder of "Conservative Punk" on his respective page. Please address this contradiction by citing sources and making appropriate edits where necessary. Thank you! CessationLeakingThrough (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Michale Graves#Conservative Punk says Graves is a founder, not the founder, so there's no contradiction. Whether it's true, however, is not clear because it is not supported by a reference. Spylab (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Conservative Punk"

Wait. What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.122.16 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This entry is missing quite a bit of information. Basically, this is about a defunct website involving 3 people, which really doesn't constitute a movement or genre. How about a list of conservative punks, like Johnny Ramone? Any conservative punk bands? Jtyroler (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)