Talk:Conservatism in the United States

Talk:American conservatism/Archive1 (through November 09, 2005)

New rewrite

Certainly, your new rewrite is better than your previous rewrite. I'm not sure that it is an over all improvement, but I'm will to work with you rather than start a reversion war.

I do not mind your movement of the history section. Your rewrite of the introductory section has a lot of repetition between paragraph one and paragraph two. I'm going to try to combine the two into one paragraph, so that the table of contents is visible, on an average full page screen, from the top of the page. We'll take it from there. Rick Norwood 21:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to combine the first two (sorry about "to" for "two" in the description of the change) paragraphs. I think it would help if you said what it is you want to achieve by your changes. I have moved economic conservatism ahead of religious conservatism. Rick Norwood 21:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, first of all, thanks for the spirit of your reply. It is of course my opinion that my changes improve the article, but everyone almost always thinks that about what they write. Where I can point to specific differences, I think for example the new version defines A.C. more by what it IS than by what it is against, and also makes more of a point that it includes all of these different types of Conservative views, again by pointing out what they are, not by describing what they are against. I think your changes are good, there was certainly too much repetition in my first two revised paras- please attribute to time pressure. Finally, I'm not entirely sure if it's true that AC was in part a response to the Women's movement, but I'll read up on that and see. The list of groups included should probably have some sort of nod to "limited government conservative" which is not really included in social, economic, and religious. Kaisershatner 02:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And my guess is from the way you frame the definition and debate on the issues, you are not a conservative nor particularly sympathetic to conservative views (maybe I'm wrong, but either way the way you write about Conservatism suggests it). Of course, you need not agree with anything about it to write or edit the article, just as my personal politics aren't relevant. We should strive for an objective, fact-based, definition and history, etc., stripped of as much judgment and opinion, which is after all the whole point of NPOV. I look forward to sharing the project with you. Kaisershatner 02:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opening section

I think the opening section is very good. I like that it points out that there are several types of consevatives. My one issue is with the evangelical protestant part. There are a lot of Catholics that consider themselves conservative. I don't have any numbers, but I'd guess that a majority of regular-mass-attending-Catholics would tell you that they are conservative, rather than liberal - it's the abortion/euthanasia issue.--Kevin 03:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point - I'll try to change the language. Kaisershatner 15:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a conservative Catholic and yes, true Catholics are conservative. Liberalism is actually a condemned heresy of the Church. (albeit the definition has changed a bit in recent times, but the foundation of liberalism is still the same (ie relativism)).

Removed text

Talk:American Conservatism/removed

I cut two large paras, maybe more, about Burke and conservative history (non-American). They are already detailed in the main article about Conservatism and are slightly relevant, in that this article needs to have definitions of terms like "social conservative," but it was mostly off-topic - please let me know if I've overdone it. I pointedly left one large para that specifically talked about the application of these ideas in the US because it was actually about American conservatism. Kaisershatner 15:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These cuts definitely improve the article. Rick Norwood 16:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you are doing, but am a little concerned that the changes are coming too thick and fast. Maybe you should let things settle for a day or two, and see what the reaction is, before making more major changes. Rick Norwood 16:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, didn't see your note. I restructured just now but will leave it alone for a while, see the following section: Kaisershatner 16:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring Nov 10 2005

I restructured the remaining paras into the following general outline

Introduction (define American conservative, brief overview)
History of Amer conservative, w/subsections by era
Definition of "conservative" and types of ideologies included
Criticism and other topics

I think it might make sense to have a shortened Definition section to precede the History section, but Rick Norwood is right, things are going fast, so I'll sit back for a bit and await collaborative input. Thanks for your patience with me. Kaisershatner 16:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Series templates

Okay, so which needs to change, the Conservatism template or the Liberalism template? I have here what the Conservatism template would look like in the (cleaned-up) liberalism style. I haven't done the reverse yet. What do you guys think? Or should we scrap both and start over? - ElAmericano | talk 04:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Conservatism one better because it is tighter & takes up less space at the side. I think each should include a link to the other, however, entitled "Alternative views" or something, so someone reading about Conservatism could hop over to see what the other side thinks, and vice versa. Kaisershatner 14:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about a cross-link, as well. Are the two direct opposites, or do we need other views under Alternative views? - ElAmericano | talk 23:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're screwed either way - if you imply they are direct opposites, as above, someone will say "the opposite of conservative is progressive, not liberal, and the opposite of liberal is elitist" or something. Not my view but I can imagine some conflict. "Alternative views" avoids this but introduces the problem of what to link to - ie just "liberalism" or also "anarchism", "communism", etc. I think the latter is a more resolvable problem, but I may be wrong in both or either cases. Kaisershatner 15:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote above is from a comment I made some time ago. I'm pleased that it is remembered. However, here we are talking about American Conservatism and American Liberalism, and while they are not opposites, exactly, any more than the Sharks and the Jets are opposites, they are opposed. Certainly if the Liberal template is changed to reflect the Conservative template, I won't be the one to object. Rick Norwood 15:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Branches of conservatism

Section 2.5 seems to repeat much what has gone before in section 2. I think it can be either cut, or else combined with the earlier sections which discuss the same subject. Comments? Rick Norwood 00:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Cut it, unless you think the Joseph de Maistre/Catholic origins stuff should be salvaged or moved upward. Otherwise just kill that para, it's redundant. Kaisershatner 20:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions of these two branches, under separate headers, are almost identical. If they are synonyms for the same branch of conservatism, they should be merged, or a better attempt to explicate their differences should be included. I also find it highly dubious that a branch of conservatism which is described in their section as seeking to expand federal power can lay particular claim that tey regard originalism as important above all else, when so much of their Federal program would likely be struck down under any genuinely originalist jurisprudence. Simon Dodd 15:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the same conclusion independently, and just tried to merge these sections. Kaisershatner 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originalism and "decidedly fairweather" support

Rick, first let me say that I think we're doing pretty well at keeping this article neutral, and I appreciate the general tone of your edits has been markedly different (in my opinion) than the earlier variety, which I had thought were rather strongly condemning of Conservatism in general. So, thanks. About the "originalism" section, however, the wording (NB the conservative support for originalism is decidedly fairweather, as... (I'm paraphrasing)) - to me is pretty strongly non-objective language. I understand it's your view, but it's not the only view - some conservatives have always been originalists, others may be opportunistic, etc., but I think it's a mistake to write in a conclusion that all Originalist support from Conservatives is essentially non-ideological and opportunistic. Accordingly, I toned down the language (and made the issue a subsection, as a side note). Respectfully, Kaisershatner 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth Conservatives

Sorry I accidently clicked on minor edit when I saved, I realize it wasn't minor, by bad. -- Jbamb 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Conservatives

I'm not sure that the turning to the federal government thing is so justified. In the case of NCLB, the federal government is already in the business of education funding and standards setting. In the case of gay marriage, if one state recognized, all 50 have to (full faith and credit clause), and searches on the basis of national security are for national security. I think this playing out in the federal system is not necessarily by the nature of social conservatives but the subsuming of issues to the federal level. Before Roe, abortion was a state issue and there were no calls to make it a federal issue. Educational standards and school choice wouldn't be federal issues if it weren't for federal courts getting involved. I thikn the turning to the federal government is more a result of the feeling that it is the federal government and/or the federal courts that aren't letting the localities do their own thing, not because they favor expansionist government by design. -- Jbamb 15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]