Talk:Movement conservatism

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

IMO "Movement conservatism" is not in "wide" usage nor is that statement adequately supported by citations

I think the word "Movement" is associated with left-liberal and radical causes and occasionally with religious movements. I don't think that conservatives use the term "movement conservatism" very much and I seriously doubt that liberal analysts use the term hardly at all. IMO conservativism, per se, is wary of movements in general. See for instance "The Revolt Against the Masses" Chapter 2 of "The Conservative Movement in America" by George H Nash. In fact, what I like most about conservativism is its scepticism about mass "movements". Geofferybard (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google books lists over 2000 books that use the term, most of them recent. see google. Rjensen (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article opens with "was an inside term." The article doesn't seem to be claiming the term was in wide use. Lionel (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page because I read this article which mentioned the term, so it is in usage, in a similar context to what the article describes. IS this a useful article? http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/romneys-choice-of-paul-ryan-presages-end-of-an-era/ C.Heward (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Sorry if I've formatted this incorrectly, but just wanted to say I don't think the first sentance of the second paragraph makes sense ,is there a word missing (or am I being slow?)? C.Heward (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from another article

He talks about the history of American conservatism...and, in Chapter 6, modern-day "movement conservatism". He argues—particularly in Chapters 5, 6, and 9—that the subtle exploitation by movement conservatives of racial and cultural resentments through small-government rhetoric (see "dog-whistle politics") and of national-security fears were key in the movement's ability to win national elections—even though its policies concentrating wealth at the top should be deeply unpopular.

The Conscience of a Liberal

69.143.175.242 (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible

I'm afraid this article is incomprehensible, at least to non-Americans. First of all, if movement conservatism took control of the Republican Party in the 1970s, does this imply that a different type of conservatism previously controlled the party, or that non-conservatives previously controlled the party? Secondly, given that it seems such a broad coalition, does the Republican Party contain conservatives who don't belong to movement conservatism, or is movement conservatism pretty much all conservatives in the Republican Party and/or in active conservative political life? Thirdly, why does it have such a weird name? Fourthly, the article contradicts itself several times. For example, we're told that movement conservatism began in the 1930s (although what type of conservatism it replaced isn't explained) but then a conservative thinker is quoted saying that movement conservative "first made its appearance in the early 1950s". 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.220.197 (talk)

Article needs work

Adding to the above comment, the article cries out for an explanation of how movement conservatism differs from other types of conservatism. The name sound like it refers to idealistic conservatives at odds with pragmatic conservatism or maybe opportunist politicians weaseling their way into the Republican party. But there is no mention of that or any other conservative rivals. Another issue is why we have two articles -- Movement Conservatism and Conservatism in the United States. If Movement Conservatism has been another name for conservatism in America since 1930, why not just make it a section in Conservatism in the United States?? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]