Revision as of 17:48, 3 October 2017 edit2605:a000:f8c8:1800:b057:2d59:6df3:dbf1 (talk) Undid revision 803628730 by ClueBot NG (talk)Tag: reverting anti-vandal bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:54, 3 October 2017 edit undoDolotta (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers54,533 edits Reverted good faith edits by 2605:A000:F8C8:1800:B057:2D59:6DF3:DBF1: There are some major revisions here that I am not 100% sure about. Can we discuss this on the talk page? (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{redirect|American conservative|the magazine|The American Conservative}} | |||
{{conservatism}} | |||
{{For|related and other uses|Conservatism (disambiguation)}} | |||
{{Use mdy dates|date=November 2015}} | |||
<!-- Do not remove templates before discussing on talk page --> | |||
{{Conservatism US}} | |||
{{Conservatism}} | |||
'''American conservatism''' is a broad system of political beliefs in the ] that is characterized by respect for ], support for ], ], ], ], advocacy of ], and a defense of ] from threats posed by "creeping ]", ], ] and ]. ] is a core value, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the ], limiting the size and scope of government in the economy, and opposition to high taxes and government or ] encroachment on the entrepreneur. American conservatives consider ], within the bounds of conformity to American values, as the fundamental trait of democracy, which contrasts with ], who generally place a greater value on ] and ].<ref>Gregory L. Schneider, ''The Conservative Century: From Reaction to Revolution'' "The label (conservatism) is in frequent use and has come to stand for a skepticism, at times an outright hostility, toward government social policies; a muscular foreign policy combined with a patriotic nationalism; a defense of traditional Christian religious values; and support for the free market economic system.", "Within the conservative disposition in America, there are inherent contradictions between supporters of social order and tradition and supporters of individual freedom.", (2009) pp. 4–9, 136</ref><ref>Sherwood Thompson, ''Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice''. p. 7: "Historically...social justice became associated with liberalism in which equality is the ideal.", Rowman & Littlefield, 2014, {{ISBN|978-1442216044}}.</ref> | |||
:''This article has been constructed by moving sections of the ] article related to the United States and Canada. Some content is therefore duplicated, pending its removal from the general overview article.'' | |||
American conservatism originates from the ] that rejected aristocracy and monarchy and built a new nation based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence of 1776, which said that "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". In 1789, the Constitution of United States established a ] under the ]. All major American political parties are based on these two documents. Conservative activists to this day occasionally dress in costumes from the Revolutionary era, and celebrate revolutionary episodes such as the Boston Tea Party. Conservatives also have major links to the ] of 18th and 19th centuries, which advocated laissez-faire economics, also called ].<ref name="google.com"></ref><ref>M. O. Dickerson et al., ''An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach'' (2009) p. 129</ref> | |||
While the ] roots of '''conservatism''' date back centuries, within the last decade conservatism has become a dominant governing political philosophy in the ] and other Western nations. The recent ascendancy of conservatism in the U.S. and elsewhere is attributable to several factors. One of the most prominent of these factors has been the emergence of an influential and generally unified group of conservative ]s, ]s, ]s, and ] personalities whose work has changed public opinion. For a list of these prominent conservatives, see '']''. | |||
Historians argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since 1776. However they have stressed that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s.<ref name="Patrick Allitt 2009">Patrick Allitt, ''The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History'', p. "before the 1950s there was no such thing as a conservative ''movement'' in the United States.", Yale University Press, 2009, {{ISBN|978-0-300-16418-3}}</ref><ref name="Kirk, Russell 1953">Kirk, Russell. ''The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot'' (1953) traced a continuous tradition since the 1790s.</ref><ref name="Nicol C. Rae 1994 66">{{cite book|author=Nicol C. Rae |title=Southern Democrats|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8ZYgKHHpu9QC&pg=PA66|year=1994|publisher=Oxford U.P.|page=66}}</ref> The recent movement is based in the ], though some Democrats were also important figures early in the movement's history.<ref>Merle Black, "The transformation of the southern Democratic Party." ''Journal of Politics'' 66.4 (2004): 1001–17.</ref><ref name="Katznelson">{{cite journal|last1=Katznelson|first1=Ira|last2=Geiger|first2=Kim|last3=Kryder|first3=Daniel|title=Limiting Liberalism: The Southern Veto in Congress, 1933–1950|journal=Political Science Quarterly|date=Summer 1993|volume=108|issue=2|page=283|doi=10.2307/2152013|url=http://hist590.pbworks.com/f/Katznelson%2Bet%2Bal%2BLimiting%2BLiberalism.pdf|}}</ref> | |||
==Types of conservatism== | |||
According to ], American conservatism is distinctive because it was not tied to a monarchy, landed aristocracy, established church, or military elite.<ref>Peter Viereck, ''Conservative Thinkers: From John Adams to Winston Churchill'' (1956), pp. 1–22.</ref> Instead American conservatives were firmly rooted in ], which European conservatives opposed. They are committed, says ], to the belief in America's "superiority against the cold reactionary monarchical and more rigidly status-bound system of European society."<ref>{{cite book|author=Milan Zafirovski|title=Modern Free Society and Its Nemesis: Liberty Versus Conservatism in the New Millennium|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UEl91MbLiO0C&pg=PA44|year=2008|publisher=Lexington Books|pages=44–45}}</ref> | |||
Among the significant usages of the term "conservatism": | |||
{{TOC Limit|5}} | |||
==Overview== | |||
1. '''Classical ''' or ''institutional conservatism'' - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-] insofar as it emphasizes process (slow change) over product (any particular form of government). To the classical conservative, whether one arrives at a right- or left-leaning government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and sudden innovation. | |||
The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and competing ideologies. ] and ] favor ], '']'' economy, low income and corporate taxes, limited regulation, and ]. ] see traditional social values as threatened by ]; they tend to support voluntary ] and ] and ].<ref>{{cite web|title=The Way We Live Now: On Language; Guns, God And Gays|authorlink=William Safire|author=Safire, William|date=January 25, 2004|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-1-25-04-on-language-guns-god-and-gays.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm|work=]}}</ref><ref></ref><ref>Glenn Utter and Robert J. Spitzer, ''Encyclopedia of Gun Control & Gun Rights'' (2nd ed. 2011)</ref><ref>{{Cite book|author=Cal Jillson|title=Texas Politics: Governing the Lone Star State|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fQFZCrbc9mIC&pg=PA87|year=2011|publisher=Taylor & Francis|page=87|quote=Social conservatives focus on moral or values issues, such as abortion, marriage, school prayer, and judicial appointments.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author1=John Anderson|author2=University of North Carolina John Anderson|title=Conservative Christian Politics in Russia and the United States: Dreaming of Christian Nations|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PISQBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA136|date=September 19, 2014|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-60663-5|page=136}}<br />{{cite book|author1=Amy Lind|author2=Stephanie Brzuzy|title=Battleground: M-Z|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B-1icAV_xusC&pg=PA508|year=2008|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-313-34039-0|page=508}}<br />{{cite book|author=Kenneth M. Cosgrove|title=Branded Conservatives: How the Brand Brought the Right from the Fringes to the Center of American Politics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ELgdJRIhX-cC&pg=PA27|year=2007|publisher=Peter Lang|isbn=978-0-8204-7465-6|page=27}}<br />{{cite book|author=Steven L. Danver|title=Encyclopedia of Politics of the American West|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UCRzAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA262|date=May 14, 2013|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-7606-9|page=262}}</ref> The 21st century has seen an increase in conservative support for the ]. | |||
] want to expand American ideals throughout the world.<ref>Bruce Frohnen, ed. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia'' (2006) pp. ix–xiv</ref> ] advocate restrictions on immigration, non-interventionist foreign policy, and stand in ].<ref name="Paleoconservative2">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hqbHa_AJrtMC&pg=PA318&dq=paleoconservative+immigration&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kDQXT5PzLMbg0QGfuo3tAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=paleoconservative%20immigration&f=false |title =American credo: the place of ideas in US politics|author=Michael Foley|publisher=]|year= 2007 |quote=Against accusations of being pre-modern or even anti-modern in outlook, paleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of ] programmes, the decentralization of the federal polity, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and ] in the conduct of American foreign policy, and a generally ''revanchist'' outlook upon a social order in need of recovering old lines of distinction and in particular the assignment of roles in accordance with traditional categories of gender, ethnicity, and race.}}</ref> Nationwide most factions, except some libertarians, support a ] foreign policy, and a strong military. The conservative movement of the 1950s attempted to bring together these divergent strands, stressing the need for unity to prevent the spread of "godless communism."<ref>Paul Gottfried, ''Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right'', p. 9, "Postwar conservatives set about creating their own synthesis of free-market capitalism, Christian morality, and the global struggle against Communism." (2009); Gottfried, ''Theologies and moral concern'' (1995) p. 12</ref> | |||
2. '''Ideological conservatism''' or ''right conservatism'' - In contrast to the anti-ideological ''classical conservatism'', ''right conservatism'' is, as its name implies, ''ideological.'' It is typified by three distinct subideologies: ''social conservatism'', ''fiscal conservatism'', and '']''. Together, these subideologies comprise the conservative ideology in some English-speaking countries: separately, these subideologies are incorporated into other political positions. | |||
], in the first issue of his magazine '']'' in 1955, explained the standards of his magazine and helped make explicit the beliefs of American conservatives:<ref name="Buckley">{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/about#379000|title=The Magazine's Credenda|publisher='']''}}</ref> | |||
* '']'' is generally dominated by defence of traditional social norms and values, of local customs and of societal evolution, rather than social upheaval, though the distinction is not absolute. As a contemporary example, the governments of many countries recognize marriage, and even provide legal benefits to married couples. Only a handful of countries, however, recognize marriages of homosexual couples. Those arguing against legal recognition of same-sex marriages often do so because they find the sudden change contrary to the foundation of the existing social norms. Social conservatism is often based upon ]. | |||
{{quote|Among our convictions: It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.}} | |||
* ''Fiscal conservatism'' is the stance that the government must "live within its means". Above all, fiscal conservatives oppose excessive government ]; this belief in ] tends to be coupled with a belief that government ] programs should be narrowly tailored and that ] should be low, which implies relatively small government institutions. | |||
===Ideology and political philosophy=== | |||
* This belief in small government combines with fiscal conservatism to produce a broader ''economic liberalism'', which wishes to minimize government intervention in the economy. This amounts to support for '']'' economics. This ''economic liberalism'' borrows from two schools of thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are the only ethical markets. | |||
Traditional (]) conservatives tend to be anti-ideological, and some would even say anti-philosophical,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nhinet.org/burke.htm |title=The Value-Centered Historicism of Edmund Burke |publisher=] |date=July 29, 2010 |accessdate=January 6, 2012}}</ref> promoting rather, as ] explained, a steady flow of "prescription and prejudice". Kirk's use of the word "prejudice" here is not intended to carry its contemporary pejorative connotation: a conservative himself, he believed that the inherited wisdom of the ages may be a better guide than apparently rational individual judgment. | |||
There are two overlapping subgroups of social conservatives—the traditional and the religious. Traditional conservatives strongly support traditional codes of conduct, especially those they feel are threatened by social change and modernization. For example, traditional conservatives may oppose the use of female soldiers in combat. Religious conservatives focus on conducting society as prescribed by a religious authority or code. In the United States this translates into taking hard-line stances on moral issues, such as ] and ]. Religious conservatives often assert that "America is a Christian nation" and call for laws that enforce ]. | |||
3. ''']''', in its ], has come to refer to the views of a subclass of conservatives who support a more assertive foreign policy coupled with one or more other facets of ''social conservatism.'' Historically, conservatives tend to be mildly ]. The "unipolar" assertions of columnist ] are an example of neoconservatism. Neoconservatism evolved from a group of disaffected liberals, and thus ] - usually credited as its intellectual progenitor - defined a "neoconservative" as "a liberal who was mugged by reality". Although originally regarded as an approach to domestic policy (the founding instrument of the movement, Kristol's '']'' periodical, did not even cover foreign affairs), through the influence of figures like ], ], ], Ken Adelman and (Irving's son) ], it came to be more associated with the foreign policy aspects of President George W. Bush's administration. In fact, though, the Bush administration's domestic policy (variously termed "big government conservatism" or "compassionate conservatism") ''also'' bears many of the hallmarks of the neoconservative school of thought. Because the term "neoconservative" has become an epithet in some political discourse, it is often - and incorrectly - dismissed as a "buzzword" in other circles, and its actual meaning has become obscured. See also, ''The NeoCon Reader'', edited by Irwin Stelzer, ISBN 0802141935; ''Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea'', Irving Kristol, ISBN 0028740211; ''The Neoconservative Vision'', Mark Gerson, ISBN 1568331002. | |||
Fiscal conservatives support limited government, low tax, low spending, and a balanced budget. They argue that low taxes produce more jobs and wealth for everyone, and also that, as President Grover Cleveland said, "unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation".<ref>Grover Cleveland, "The President's message, 1887" (1887) </ref> A recent movement against the inheritance tax labels such a tax as a ]. Fiscal conservatives often argue that competition in the free market is more effective than the regulation of industry. Some make exceptions in the case of trusts or monopolies. Others, such as some libertarians and followers of ], believe all government intervention in the economy is wasteful, corrupt, and immoral. More moderate fiscal conservatives argue that "] economics" is the most efficient way to promote ]: they support it not based on some moral principle, but pragmatically, because they hold that it just "works." | |||
4. '''"]"''' an Orwellian term popularized by President George W. Bush, is a conservative approach to concern for the poor, but - particularly in light of the record in office of President George W. Bush - some critics claim it to be a public-relations codeword for ''big government Conservatism''. Because the presidency of George W. Bush has increased "social" ] expenditures substantially through the largest expansion of ] benefits ever, mostly through free handouts to corporations for doing nothing, and has led to the ] act (education), some hold that ''compassionate conservatism'' is simply the synthesis of ''Victorianism'' and ''Corporate Welfare''. Critics say that "compassionate conservatism" is doublespeak (in ] terms), and that George W. Bush's goals of ] and ] burden the working-poor who benefit from government run education, protection, and social programs. Other critics worry that increased spending combined with reduced tax rates will lead to an unsustainable budget ], with the potential to cause inflation or currency devaluation, or double gas prices. But supporters maintain that the corporatization and tax cuts for rich people characteristic of Bush's domestic policy are simply classical tenents of previously unsuccessful conservative administrations, and Bush improves on the classical design by adding a "compassionate," fiscally liberal agenda. | |||
Most modern American fiscal conservatives accept some social spending programs not specifically delineated in the Constitution. As such, fiscal conservatism today exists somewhere between classical liberalism and contemporary consequentialist political philosophies. | |||
5. '''Cultural conservatism''' -- A belief that seeks to maintain educational and esthetic standards. | |||
Through much of the 20th century, a primary force uniting the varied strands of conservatism, and uniting conservatives with liberals and socialists, was opposition to communism, which was seen not only as an enemy of the traditional order, but also the enemy of Western freedom and democracy. Thus it was the British Labour government—which embraced socialism—that pushed the Truman administration in 1945–47 to take a strong stand against Soviet Communism.<ref>John Callaghan, ''The Cold War and the March of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy'', ''Contemporary British History,'' Autumn 2001, Vol. 15 Issue 3, pp. 1–25</ref> | |||
== An introduction to conservatism == | |||
===Social conservatism and tradition=== | |||
Conservatism can be contrasted on the one hand to radical ] or ], and on the other to such ] movements as ] and the authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian) versions of ], and ]. In terms of the relation of the individual and the state, conservatism falls in the middle. While one end of the spectrum sees no need for the state to exist, the other sees the state as more important than the individual. | |||
{{Main article|Social conservatism in the United States}} | |||
]]] | |||
] in the United States is the defense of traditional social norms and ].<ref>{{cite book|author1=Joel D. Aberbach|author2=Gillian Peele|title=Crisis of Conservatism?: The Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, and American Politics After Bush|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zBxwAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA260|year=2011|publisher=Oxford UP|page=260}}</ref><ref>See President Reagan's speech to governors in 1987 at {{cite book|author=Reagan, Ronald|title=Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1987|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NefcAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA292|year=1989|page=292}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Majia Holmer Nadesan|title=Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QEqTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA41|date=10 June 2010|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-135-90358-9|page=41}}<br/>{{cite book|author1=Joel D. Aberbach|author2=Gillian Peele|title=Crisis of Conservatism?: The Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, and American Politics After Bush|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QE7U4-Ion7kC&pg=PA260|date=17 June 2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-983136-4|page=260}}<br/>{{cite book|author1=Louise A. Tilly|author2=Patricia Gurin|title=Women, Politics and Change|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_wa5BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA532|date=21 June 1990|publisher=Russell Sage Foundation|isbn=978-1-61044-534-4|page=532}}</ref> | |||
Social conservatives tend to strongly identify with American nationalism and patriotism. They often denounce anti-war protesters and support the police and the military. They hold that military institutions embody core values such as honor, duty, courage, loyalty, and a willingness on the part of the individual to make sacrifices for the good of the country. | |||
There is an ambiguity inherent in the term "conservative" as used today. Classical Conservatism emphasizes the importance of tradition and continuity. An individual may fall anywhere from the right to the centre-left on the traditional ] and be a ''classical conservative''. On the other hand, ''ideological conservatism'' is specifically on the ] side of the spectrum. Thus, to talk meaningfully about ''conservatism'', one must consider both ''classical conservatism'' and ''ideological conservatism''. | |||
Social conservatives are strongest in the South and in recent years played a major role in the political coalitions of ], ] and ].<ref>Darren Dochuk, ''From Bible Belt to Sun Belt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical Conservatism'' (W.W. Norton & Company; 2010) shows how migrants to Southern California from Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas provided evangelical support for social conservatism.</ref> | |||
The ideals of classical conservatism and ] can and often do coexist within a party, a regime, or even an individual. They are not always in conflict, but they are inevitably in tension. Classical conservatism emphasizes tradition and continuity; classical liberalism emphasizes individual liberty. Sometimes these two ideals are mutually supportive (as in support for ]); sometimes they are in conflict (as in matters relating to ]s); sometimes they are in complicated and dynamic relation to one another (as in matters relating to ]). | |||
===Fiscal conservatism and economic liberalism=== | |||
In the popular imagination, "liberal" and "conservative" have always been at odds, irrespective of whether "conservative" meant old Tory, Dixiecrat, or neoconservative or whether "liberal" meant old Whig, Jeffersonian, or Communist. In the context of contemporary Anglo-American politics, nearly all conservatism incorporates many aspects of classical liberalism, but it remains in contrast to and in conflict with modern liberalism and democratic socialism. | |||
{{Main article|Fiscal conservatism|Economic liberalism}} | |||
<!--I'm switching "Tory" and "Whig" around, as the old Whigs were the Classically Liberal party, and the old Tories were the Conservative or Royalist party--If you see any reason why my switching this is absolutely wrong, feel free to correct me--> | |||
Fiscal conservatism is the economic and political policy that advocates restraint of progressive taxation and expenditure. Fiscal conservatives since the 19th century have argued that debt is a device to corrupt politics; they argue that big spending ruins the morals of the people, and that a national debt creates a dangerous class of speculators. A political strategy employed by conservatives to achieve a smaller government is known as ]. Activist ] is a well-known proponent of the strategy and has famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/print.cfm?contentid=251788 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20041120220704/http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/print.cfm?contentid=251788 |archivedate=November 20, 2004 |title=Starving the Beast |author=Ed Kilgore |work=Blueprint Magazine |publisher= |accessdate=December 9, 2010 |deadurl=yes |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9335 |title=Article | The American Prospect |publisher=Prospect.org |date=March 15, 2005 |accessdate=December 9, 2010}}</ref> The argument in favor of ]s is often coupled with a belief that government welfare programs should be narrowly tailored and that tax rates should be low, which implies relatively small government institutions. | |||
This belief in small government combines with fiscal conservatism to produce a broader ''economic liberalism'', which wishes to minimize government intervention in the economy or implement '']'' policies. This ''economic liberalism'' borrows from two schools of thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are the only ethical markets. | |||
== Classical conservatism as non-ideological == | |||
Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues that ] in the 19th century U.S. had distinctive characteristics as opposed to Britain: | |||
Conservatism as an identifiably distinct political philosophy began with ''classical conservatism''. Classical conservatism is "non-ideological" in that classical conservatism is defined more by its choice of means than of ends. Professional philosophers refer to this as a '']'' (as against a '']'') position. Classical conservatism, by definition, is sceptical of plans to re-model human society after an ideological model. While an individual classical conservative may favour left- or right-leaning government, the ''defining'' aspect of classical conservatism is a belief in the importance of continuity with tradition, and that political change should come about through legitimate governmental channels. Classical conservatives generally oppose disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, or other political chicanery; above all, they oppose ]. So long as rule of law is upheld, and so long as change is effected gradually and constitutionally rather than revolution, the classical conservative is content. Another form of conservatism would be monarchism or neomonarchism; the belief(s) that society would benefitf from a benign monarchial dictatorship. | |||
:at the center of classical liberal theory was the idea of laissez-faire. To the vast majority of American classical liberals, however, laissez-faire did not mean no government intervention at all. On the contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal improvements, all of which benefited producers. What they condemned was intervention in behalf of consumers.<ref>{{cite book|author=Kathleen G. Donohue|title=Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Idea of the Consumer|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ud7TN4Asro8C&pg=PA2|year=2005|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|page=2}}</ref> | |||
The economic philosophy of conservatives in the United States tends to be more liberal allowing for more ]. '']'' can go well beyond ''fiscal conservatism's'' concern for fiscal prudence, to a belief or principle that it is not prudent for governments to intervene in markets. It is also, sometimes, extended to a broader "]" philosophy. Economic liberalism is associated with ], or ''laissez-faire'' economics. | |||
''Classical conservatism'' is, by definition, not ]; it is also not counter-revolutionary. When the term "conservative" is applied to the entire political ], it is extended to embrace some people who are not classical conservatives, in that they advocate extra-constitutional ] changes to the ]. Right-wing politics is not inherently conservative, and the classical conservative opposes rapid change right ''or'' left. | |||
Economic liberalism, insofar as it is ''ideological'', owes its creation to the "]" tradition, in the vein of ], ], ], and ]. | |||
A classical conservative does not necessarily simply support keeping things exactly as they currently are. Even "anti-ideological" classical conservatives have political preferences. In this vein, the intellectual source of conservatism as a "modern" philosophy can be traced to ]. Burke developed his ideas in reaction to the so-called ], when European thinkers were beginning to develop the ideology of ], which emphasizes social construction guided by abstract "Reason." Burke was troubled by the Enlightenment and the by belief that "Reason" is a sufficient base for justice: he argued, instead, for the value of tradition. | |||
''Classical liberals'' and ''libertarians'' support free markets on moral, ideological grounds: principles of individual liberty morally dictate support for free markets. Supporters of the moral grounds for free markets include ] and ]. The liberal tradition is suspicious of government authority, and prefers individual choice, and hence tends to see free market capitalism as the preferable means of achieving economic ends. | |||
Some men, argued Burke, have more reason than others, and thus some men will make worse governments if they rely upon reason than others. To Burke, the proper formulation of government came not from abstractions such as "Reason," but from time-honoured development of the state and of other important societal institutions such as the family and the Church. | |||
<blockquote>"''We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason;''" Burke wrote, "''because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence.''"</blockquote> | |||
Modern conservatives, on the other hand, derive support for free markets from practical grounds. Free markets, they argue, are the most productive markets. Thus the modern conservative supports free markets not out of necessity, but out of expedience. The support is not moral or ideological, but driven on the ] notion of prescription: what works best is what is right. | |||
Burke argued that tradition is a much sounder foundation than "reason". The conservative paradigm he established emphasizes the futility of attempting to ground human society based solely in pure abstractions (such as "reason," "equality," or, more recently, "diversity"), and the necessity of humility in the face of the unknowable. Existing institutions have virtues that cannot be fully grasped by any single person or interest group or, in Burke's view, even any single generation: in his '']'', Burke referred to ''"the living"'' as ''"the temporary possessors and life-renters"'' of ''"the commonwealth and laws... that they should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail, or commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society."'' Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while "reason" may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation. In the conservative view, an attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society for the sake of some doctrine or theory runs the risk of running afoul of the iron law of ]s. Burke advocates vigilance against the possibility of ]s. | |||
Another reason why conservatives support a smaller role for the government in the economy is the belief in the importance of the ]. As noted by ], there is a belief that a bigger role of the government in the economy will make people feel less responsible for the society. These responsibilities would then need to be taken over by the government, requiring higher taxes. In his book '']'', Tocqueville described this as "soft oppression." | |||
The classical conservative embraces an attitude that is deeply suspicious of any attempt to remake society in the service of any ideology or doctrine, whether that doctrine is radical ], ], ], or anything else. Classical conservatives see history as being full of disastrous schemes that seemed like good ideas at the time. Human society, in their view, is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue is to invite unforeseen disaster. | |||
] gives a televised address from the ], outlining his plan for tax reductions in July 1981 (excerpt)]] | |||
In the ] context, the classical conservative position has been for there to be strict limits on the expansion of the powers of the federal government at the expense of those of the ]. U.S. conservatism is rooted in the idea that the federal government has traditionally been the proponent of rapid change and states have tended to be more conservative, and also and perhaps even more importantly in the idea of "]", that is, that the ] should be interpreted to the maximum extent possible in the light of the original intent and meaning of the Framers, which is both inherently conservative in that it looks back to a period over two centuries ago for its authority and that this school of interpretation almost invariably leads to the maximization of state power and strict limits on federal power. This derives from an inherent scepticism of the Framers toward a centralized, unitary state such as the ] which they had just fought to remove themselves from under. | |||
While classical liberals and modern conservatives reached free markets through different means historically, in recent years the lines have blurred. Rarely will a conservative politician claim that free markets are "simply more productive" or "simply the right thing to do" but a combination of both. This blurring is very much a product of the merging of the classical liberal and modern conservative positions under the "umbrella" of the conservative movement. | |||
The archetypal free-market conservative administrations of the late 20th century—the ] government in Britain and the ] administration in the U.S.–both held the unfettered operation of the market to be the cornerstone of contemporary modern conservatism.<ref>Dieter Plehwe, Bernhard Walpen, Gisela Neunhöffer (eds), ''Neoliberal Hegemony: A Global Critique,'' ], (February 8, 2006), {{ISBN|0415460034}}, </ref> To that end, Thatcher privatized industries and public housing and Reagan cut the maximum capital gains tax from 28% to 20%, though in his second term he agreed to raise it back up to 28%. Reagan also cut individual income tax rates, lowering the maximum rate from 70% to 28%. He wanted to increase defense spending and achieved that; liberal Democrats blocked his efforts to cut domestic spending.<ref>Steven F. Hayward, ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution 1980–1989'' (2009), p. 477</ref> Reagan did not control the rapid increase in federal government spending, or reduce the deficit, but his record looks better when expressed as a percent of the gross domestic product. Federal revenues as a percent of the GDP fell from 19.6% in 1981 when Reagan took office to 18.3% in 1989 when he left. Federal spending fell slightly from 22.2% of the GDP to 21.2%. This contrasts with statistics from 2004, when government spending was rising more rapidly than it had in decades.<ref>Chris Edwards, "Reagan's Budget Legacy," </ref> | |||
== Conservatism as "Ideology," or political philosophy == | |||
===Types=== | |||
In contrast to classical conservatism, ''social conservatism'' and ''economic conservatism'' are inherently concerned with consequences as well as means (with the modest programme of fiscal conservatism lying somewhere between classical conservatism and these more consequentialist political philosophies). Classical conservatives are inherently anti-ideological (some would even say anti-philosophical ), promoting rather, as ] explains, a steady flow of "prescription and prejudice". Kirk's use of the word "prejudice" here is not intended to carry its contemporary pejorative connotation: a conservative himself, he believes that the inherited wisdom of the ages may be a better guide than apparently rational individual judgement. | |||
{{See also|Factions in the Republican Party (United States)}} | |||
In the United States today, the word "conservative" is often used very differently from the way it is used in Europe and Asia. The Americans after 1776 rejected the core ideals of European conservatism, which were based on the ], the established church, and the powerful, prestigious army. | |||
Conservatism in the United States is not a single school of thought.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Nash |first=George H,|date=26 April 2016 |title=The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America: Then and Now|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434548/conservative-intellectuals-george-nash-traces-history |magazine=National Review |location=New York City |quote=Modern American conservatism is not, and has never been, monolithic. It is a coalition with many points of origin and diverse tendencies that are not always easy to reconcile. |access-date=14 April 2017 }}</ref> ] in the 1960s spoke for a "]" conservatism. ] in the 1980s preached traditional moral and religious social values. It was Reagan's challenge to form these groups into an electable coalition.<ref>{{Cite book|author=Paul S. Boyer|title=The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SoR98M6c-t0C&pg=PA934|year= 2007|publisher=Cengage Learning|page=934|display-authors=etal}}</ref> | |||
Social conservatives, like classical conservatives, are generally sceptical of rapid social change. More so than classical conservatives, they are liable to seek rather strong government intervention to prevent social change. A good example from (]) contemporary U.S. politics is the issue of ]: many social conservatives have supported the proposed ], a ] amendment defining ] as between a man and a woman. Many people who are more inclined to classical conservatism than social conservatism oppose such an amendment on the grounds that the ] ought not be tampered with unnecessarily. The tension in policy is the choice between social goal (defining marriage) and the political means (amending the Constitution). While the goal is arguably conservative, amending the constitution is arguably not conservative. Thus, one will find conservatives on both sides of the issue. | |||
In the 21st century U.S., some of the groups calling themselves "conservative" include: | |||
* ''']''' – Conservative Christians are primarily interested in ]. Typical positions include the view that the United States was founded as a ], that ] is wrong, that there should be ], that ] or ] should be taught in schools alongside ], and that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman and not between two members of the same sex. Many attack the profanity and sexuality in the media and movies.<ref>see Steven Brint and Jean Reith Schroedel, eds., ''Evangelicals and Democracy in America, Volume II: Religion and | |||
Politics'' (Russell Sage Foundation, 2009) for scholarly studies</ref> | |||
* '''Constitutional conservatism''' - A form of conservatism bound within the limits provided within the ], defending the structures of ], and preserving the principles of the United States constitution.<ref>{{cite book|author1=J. Postell|author2=J. O'Neill|title=Toward an American Conservatism: Constitutional Conservatism during the Progressive Era|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vwmxAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT13|date=12 November 2013|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-1-137-30096-6|pages=13–14}}<br/>{{cite book|author1=Ken Blackwell|author2=Ken Klukowski|title=Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z-cs3wKPjvkC&pg=PA99|date=31 May 2011|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=978-1-4516-2928-6|page=99-100}}</ref> Chief among those principles is the defense of liberty.<ref>{{cite book|author=Peter Berkowitz|authorlink=Peter Berkowitz|title=Constitutional Conservatism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YT-WLCYbLqMC&pg=PT5|date=12 February 2013|publisher=Hoover Press|isbn=978-0-8179-1604-6|page=5}}</ref> This form of conservatism coalesced in the Republican Party in the early 20th century, in opposition to Progressivism within the party; it can also be seen being influential to the 21st century ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-origins-and-revival-constitutional-conservatism-1912-and-2012 |title=The Origins and Revival of Constitutional Conservatism: 1912 and 2012 |last=Schambra |first=William A. |date=20 August 2012 |website=Political Process |publisher=The Heritage Foundation |access-date=21 June 2017}}<br/>{{cite journal |last1=Lienesch |first1=Michael |date=July 2016 |title=Creating Constitutional Conservatism |url=http://journal-dl.com/downloadpdf/5910878e3fbb6e13743870f3 |journal=Polity |volume=48 |issue=3 |pages=387-413 |doi=10.1057/pol.2016.10 |access-date=21 June 2017 }}</ref> Constitutional conservatism has also been associated with judicial ].<ref>{{cite book|author=Mark A. Graber|title=A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nHYRDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA76|date=6 March 2015|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-024523-8|page=76}}<br/>{{cite book|author=Bradley C. S. Watson|title=Ourselves and Our Posterity: Essays in Constitutional Originalism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sFM0nhT3rqkC&pg=PA289|year=2009|publisher=Lexington Books|isbn=978-0-7391-2789-6|page=289}}<br/>{{cite book|author=Daniel T. Rodgers|title=Age of Fracture|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8ckG9q9NscMC&pg=PA241|date=1 May 2011|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-05952-8|pages=241–242}}<br/>{{cite book|author=Nancy Maveety|title=Picking Judges|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y8d2CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT20|date=2 February 2016|publisher=Transaction Publishers|isbn=978-1-4128-6224-0|page=20}}</ref> | |||
* ''']''' – A ] with libertarianism, this type emphasizes a strict interpretation of the ], particularly with regard to ]. Libertarian conservatism is constituted by a broad, sometimes conflicted, coalition including pro-business social moderates, those favoring more rigid enforcement of ], individual liberty activists, and many of those who place their socially liberal ideology ahead of their fiscal beliefs. This mode of thinking tends to espouse '']'' economics and a critical view of the federal government. Libertarian conservatives' emphasis on personal freedom often leads them to have social positions contrary to those of social conservatives, especially on such issues as marijuana, abortion and homosexuality. ] and his son ] have been influential proponents in the Republican presidential contests.<ref>{{cite book|author=Ronald Hamowy|title=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC|year=2008|publisher=SAGE Publications}}</ref> | |||
* ''']''' – A modern form of conservatism that supports a more assertive, ] foreign policy, aimed at promoting democracy abroad. It is tolerant of an activist government at home, but is focused mostly on international affairs. Neoconservatism was first described by a group of disaffected liberals, and thus ], usually credited as its intellectual progenitor, defined a ''neoconservative'' as "a liberal who was mugged by reality." Although originally regarded as an approach to domestic policy (the founding instrument of the movement, Kristol's '']'' periodical, did not even cover foreign affairs), through the influence of figures like ], ], ], ] and (Irving's son) ], it has become most famous for its association with the foreign policy of the ] administration in the ] that used the military to promote democracy.<ref>{{cite book|author=Justin Vaïsse|title=Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z3b7syYOqskC&pg=PA244|year=2010|publisher=Harvard UP|pages=244ff}}</ref> | |||
* ''']''' – In part a rebirth of the ], arising in the 1980s in reaction to neoconservatism, stresses tradition, especially Christian tradition and the importance to society of the traditional family. Some, ] for example, argue that ], multi-ethnic, and egalitarian states are inherently unstable.<ref>Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations," ''Foreign Affairs'' Summer 1993, v72, n3, pp. 22–50, .</ref> Paleoconservatives are generally ], and suspicious of foreign influence. The magazines '']'' and '']'' are generally considered to be paleoconservative in nature.<ref>{{cite book|author=Joseph Scotchie|title=The Paleoconservatives: New Voices of the Old Right|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hsWotNuNjq0C|publisher=Transaction Publishers}}</ref> | |||
* ''']''' – Opposition to rapid change in political and social institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes means (slow change) over ends (any particular form of government). To the traditionalist, whether one arrives at a right- or left-wing government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and utopian schemes.<ref>{{cite book|author=Peter Berkowitz|title=Varieties of Conservatism in America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9cfyAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA19|year=2004|publisher=Hoover Press|pages=19ff}}</ref> | |||
==History== | |||
Generally, economic conservatism opposes ]es as counterproductive and inequitable, and instead proposes ]es (or, in the case of radical ]s, proposes to abolish taxes in favour of "user fees"). Further, economic conservatism opposes rampant ] as unnecessary and even (in the view of ]) counterproductive, opposes what it calls "double-taxation" (taxing both companies and individuals along the path of a transaction), and calls for broad ] of industry and a substantially decreased government ]. For some this is a matter of principle, as it is for the libertarians and others influenced by thinkers such as Ayn Rand and ], who believe that government intervention in the economy is inevitably wasteful and inherently immoral. For classical conservatives, "free market economics" simply represents the most efficient way to promote economic growth: they support it not based on some moral principle, but because, pragmatically, it simply "works." | |||
{{main article|History of conservatism in the United States}} | |||
In the United States there has never been a national political party called the Conservative Party.<ref>The ] was founded in 1962 and currently has about 1% support there.</ref> All major American political parties support ] and the basic ] ideals on which the country was founded in 1776, emphasizing liberty, the rule of law, the consent of the governed, and that all men were created equal.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Harrison|first1=Brigid C.|title=Power and Society: An Introduction to the Social Sciences|date=January 1, 2016|publisher=Cengage Learning|pages=47–49|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uYx6CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=Power+and+Society:+An+Introduction+to+the+Social+Sciences+classical+liberalism+the+least+government+is+the+best+government&source=bl&ots=RwOce14Ru0&sig=qXzQuqegMWB2oP17M7onQWtwB30&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL6tecpenLAhWGOiYKHRE2DYsQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Power%20and%20Society%3A%20An%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Social%20Sciences%20classical%20liberalism%20the%20least%20government%20is%20the%20best%20government&f=false|accessdate=30 March 2016}}</ref> Political divisions inside the United States often seemed minor or trivial to Europeans, where the divide between the Left and the Right led to violent polarization, starting with the ].<ref>For example, Arthur Aughey, Greta Jones, W. T. M. Riches, ''The Conservative Political Tradition in Britain and the United States'' (1992), p. 1: "there are those who advance the thesis that American exceptionalism means...there can be no American conservatism precisely because the American Revolution created a universally ''liberal'' society."</ref> | |||
Historian ] expresses the difference between liberal and conservative in terms not of policy but of attitude: | |||
Throughout much of the 20th century, one of the primary forces uniting the occasionally disparate strands of conservatism, and uniting conservatives with their liberal and socialist opponents, was an opposition to ], which was seen not only as an enemy of the traditional order, but also of western freedom and democracy in general. | |||
:Certain continuities can be traced through American history. The conservative 'attitude' ... was one of trusting to the past, to long-established patterns of thought and conduct, and of assuming that novelties were more likely to be dangerous than advantageous.<ref>Patrick Allitt, ''The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History'' (Yale U.P. 2009), p. 278</ref> | |||
No American party has advocated European ideals of "conservatism" such as a monarchy, an established church, or a hereditary aristocracy. American conservatism is best characterized as a reaction against utopian ideas of progress.<ref>Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, ''Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics'', p. 114, "Conservative ideas are, thus, more genuine and profound than many critics suggest, but such unity as they have is purely negative, definable only by its opposition and rejection of abstract, universal, and ideal principles..."</ref> ] saw the American Revolution itself as "a conservative reaction, in the English political tradition, against royal innovation".<ref name="Russell Kirk 1953 p. 6, 63">Russell Kirk, ''The Conservative Mind'' (1950), pp. 6, 63.</ref> | |||
=== Social conservatism and tradition === | |||
:''Main article: ]'' | |||
Social conservatives emphasize traditional views of social units such as the ], ], or locale. Social conservatives are a product of their environment, and would typically define family in terms of local histories and tastes. To the ] or ], social conservatism may entail support for ]. To the ] or ], social conservatism may entail support for defining marriage as between a man and a woman. | |||
==Recent policies== | |||
From this same respect for local traditions comes the correlation between conservatism and ]. Conservatives, out of their respect for traditional, established institutions, tend to strongly identify with ] movements, existing governments, and its defenders: police, the military, and national poets, authors, and artists. Conservatives hold that military institutions embody admirable values like ], ], ], and ]. Military institutions are independent sources of tradition and ritual pageantry that conservatives tend to admire. In its degenerative form, such respect may become typefied by ], ], and perhaps even bigotry or ]. | |||
], conservative theorist]] | |||
President ] set the conservative standard in the 1980s; in the 2010s the Republican leaders typically claim fealty to it. For example, most of the Republican candidates in 2012 "claimed to be standard bearers of Reagan's ideological legacy."<ref>{{cite book|author1=Robert North Roberts|author2=Scott Hammond|author3=Valerie A. Sulfaro|title=Presidential Campaigns, Slogans, Issues, and Platforms: The Complete Encyclopedia [3 volumes]|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5Exv7fHk5V4C&pg=PT538|year=2012|publisher=ABC-CLIO|page=538}}</ref> Reagan solidified conservative Republican strength with tax cuts, a greatly increased ], continued ], a policy of ] of Communism (rather than ]), and appeals to ] and conservative morality. The 1980s and beyond became known as the "]."<ref>Sean Wilentz, ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974–2008'' (2009); John Ehrman, ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan'' (2008)</ref> Typically, conservative politicians and spokesmen in the 21st century proclaim their devotion to Reagan's ideals and policies on most social, economic and foreign policy issues. | |||
Other modern conservative beliefs include skepticism of the theory of man-made ] and opposition to government action to combat it, which conservatives contend would do severe economic damage, and ultimately more harm than good even if one accepts the premise that human activity is contributing to climate change.<ref>Peter J. Jacques; Riley E. Dunlap; Mark Freeman, ''The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism'', Environmental Politics. v12 m3 (2008), pp. 349–85</ref><ref>George H. Nash, ''Reappraising the Right: The Past and Future of American Conservatism'' (2009) p. 325</ref> They support a strong policy of ] to control crime, including long jail terms for repeat offenders. Most conservatives support the ] for particularly egregious crimes. The "law and order" issue was a major factor weakening liberalism in the 1960s.<ref>Michael W. Flamm, ''Law and Order: Street Crime, Civil Unrest, and the Crisis of Liberalism in the 1960s'' (2005)</ref> From 2001 to 2008, Republican President ] stressed cutting taxes and minimizing regulation of industry and banking, while increasing regulation of education.<ref>Julian E. Zelizer, ed. ''The Presidency of George W. Bush: A First Historical Assessment'' (2010) ch. 6</ref> Conservatives generally advocate the use of American military power to fight terrorists and promote democracy in the Middle East. | |||
Support for socially conservative policies may not indicate political conservatism. For example, many ] parties and most ] have been very ] with respect to ], arguing, for instance, that ] was a ] ]. | |||
According to a 2014 poll, 38% of American voters identify as "conservative" or "very conservative," 34% as "moderate," 24% as "liberal" or "very liberal".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx|title=U.S. Liberals at Record 24%, but Still Trail Conservatives|author=Gallup, Inc.|work=Gallup.com}}</ref> These percentages were fairly constant from 1990 to 2009,<ref>Juliana Horowitz, "Winds of Political Change Haven't Shifted Public's Ideology Balance," </ref> when conservatism spiked in popularity briefly<ref>Gallup, "U.S. Political Ideology Stable With Conservatives Leading" </ref> before reverting to the original trend while liberal views on social issues reached a new high. Although the study does show some distinction between the concentration of moderates and conservatives or liberals between the Republican and Democratic parties. Among Democrats, 44% are self-identified liberals, 19% as conservatives, and 36% as moderates. For Republicans 70% self-identified as conservative, 24% as moderate, and 5% as liberal. | |||
Conversely, while classical conservatives may embrace traditional values in their personal lives, they are generally wary of government intervention into the private lives of citizens, even when that intervention is in support of traditional values. | |||
Conservatism appears to be growing stronger at the state level. The trend is most pronounced among the "least well-off, least educated, most blue collar, most economically hard-hit states."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Florida |first1=Richard |year=2012 |title=Why America Keeps Getting More Conservative |journal=The Atlantic |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/why-america-keeps-getting-more-conservative/252995/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Florida |first1=Richard |year=2011 |title=The Conservative States of America |journal=The Atlantic |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/the-conservative-states-of-america/71827/ }}</ref> | |||
=== Fiscal conservatism === | |||
Conservatives generally believe that government action is not the solution to such problems as poverty and inequality. Many believe that government programs that seek to provide services and opportunities for the poor actually encourage dependence and reduce self-reliance. Most conservatives oppose ] policies, that is, policies in employment, education, and other areas that give special advantages to people who belong to groups that have been historically discriminated against. Conservatives believe that the government should not give special benefits to people on the basis of group identity and oppose it as "]". | |||
Although often conjoined to social or classical conservatism, ''fiscal conservatism'' is less of a broad political philosophy and is simply the principle that it is not prudent for governments to take on debts they cannot easily pay back or that will cause an undue burden of taxation. | |||
Conservatives typically hold that the government should play a smaller role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose high tax rates and programs to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work. However, conservatives usually place a strong emphasis on the role of private voluntary charitable organizations (especially faith-based charities) in helping the poor. | |||
Burke, in his ''Reflections on the Revolution in France'', articulated the principles of fiscal conservatism: | |||
As conservatives value order and security, they favor a small but strong government role in law enforcement and national defense. | |||
<blockquote>...t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.</blockquote> | |||
===Social issues=== | |||
In other words, a government doesn't have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer; the taxpayers' right not to be taxed oppressively takes precedence even over paying back debts a government may have imprudently undertaken. | |||
On social issues, many religious conservatives oppose changes in traditional moral standards regarding sexuality and gender roles. They oppose abortion, same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws against homosexuals.<ref>{{cite book|author=Anthony Stanford|title=Homophobia in the Black Church: How Faith, Politics, and Fear Divide the Black Community|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zu4aIFxQ7VwC&pg=PA101|year=2013|publisher=ABC-CLIO|page=101}}</ref> The libertarian faction tends to ignore these issues, instead focusing on fiscal and monetary policy. Business-oriented conservatives oppose the social conservatives if state laws limiting gay rights threaten to hurt business. The ''National Review'' reported in 2016 that, "as evangelical forces have become less unified...the influence of Right-leaning business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce has only grown."<ref>Elasina Plott, "Georgia Religious-Liberty Fight Reveals Christian Right's Weakened Influence," April 4, 2016</ref><ref>Dale McConkey, "Whither Hunter's culture war? Shifts in evangelical morality, 1988–1998," ''Sociology of Religion'' 62#2 (2001): 149–74.</ref> In the ] of recent decades, ] has been a flashpoint, especially regarding the humanities curriculum. Historian ] finds a polarization since the 1960s between conservatives, who believe that the humanities express eternal truths that should be taught, and those who think that the humanities curriculum should be tailored to demonstrate diversity.<ref>Peter N. Stearns, ''Meaning over Memory: Recasting the Teaching of Culture and History'' (1993).</ref> Generally conservatism opposes the "]" associated with multiculturalism, and supports ].<ref>{{cite book|author1=Roger Chapman|author2=James Ciment|author3=Corey Fields|title=Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XO9nBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA440|date=17 March 2015|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-47351-0|page=440|chapter=Multicultural conservatism}}<br/>{{cite book|author=Barbara Goodwin|title=Using Political Ideas|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sfRtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA173|date=19 December 2016|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-118-70838-5|page=173}}</ref> In campus battles, progressives demand "]" while conservatives denounce efforts to impose "]" and stifle free speech.<ref>Rick Bonus, "Political Correctness" in ''Encyclopedia of American Studies'', ed. Simon J. Bronner (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015), </ref> | |||
Conservatives typically favor a "melting pot" model of assimilation into common English-speaking American culture, as opposed to a "salad bowl" approach that lends legitimacy to many different cultures.<ref>Milton Gordon, "E Pluribus Unum? The Myth of the Melting Pot." in {{cite book|author=Heike Paul|title=The Myths That Made America: An Introduction to American Studies|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qoLJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA257|year=2014|pages=257–310}}</ref><ref>Olivier Zunz, John Bodnar, and Stephan Thernstrom, "American History and the Changing Meaning of Assimilation" ''Journal of American Ethnic History'' 4#2 (1985): 53–84.</ref> In the 21st century, conservatives have warned on the dangers of tolerating ] elements, of the sort that they say are engaging in large-scale terrorism in Europe.<ref>Bruce Pilbeam, "Eurabian nightmares: American conservative discourses and the Islamisation of Europe," ''Journal of Transatlantic Studies'' (2011) 9#2 pp. 151–71.</ref> | |||
Fiscal conservatives tend to be conservative in their entire outlook as are most otherwise defined conservatives, but necessarily, conservative goals at times prohibit certain fiscal conservative goals, vide the Reagan Administration due to Cold War expenses. Correspondingly, a nonconservative entity, which holds the notion of fiscal conservatism in low, or, rather, in lower regard than most other considerations may achieve said goals, vide the Clinton Administration, though arguably and most probably due to the fiscally conservative Republican majority in the Congress. Regardless, having a balanced budget or, more generally, reducing nondefense discretionary spending is a "conservative" principle, but, as discussed below, there is much more to a broader economic conservatism. | |||
==Electoral politics== | |||
=== Economic conservatism === | |||
In the United States, the ] has been the party of conservatism since the 1890s, although there was a strong Eastern liberal wing. Since 1964 the conservatives largely took control. Meanwhile, the conservative wing of the ], based in the South and strongly opposed to ], grew weaker. The most dramatic realignment took place within the White South, which moved from 3–1 Democratic to 3–1 Republican between 1960 and 2000. | |||
''Economic conservatism'' can go well beyond ''fiscal conservatism's'' concern for fiscal prudence, to a belief or principle that it is not prudent for governments to intervene in markets. It is also, sometimes, extended to a broader "]" philosophy. Economic conservatism is associated with ], or ] economics. | |||
In addition, some American libertarians, in the ] and even some in the Republican Party, see themselves as conservative, even though they advocate significant economic and social changes—for instance, further dismantling the ] or liberalizing drug policy. They see these as conservative policies because they conform to the spirit of individual liberty that they consider to be a traditional American value. However, many libertarian think-tanks such as the ], and libertarian intellectuals such as ] describe libertarianism as being "socially liberal and fiscally conservative."<ref name=Moseley>{{Cite journal|last=Moseley|first=Daniel|title=What is Libertarianism?|journal=Basic Income Studies|date=June 25, 2011|volume=6|issue=2|page=2|ssrn=1872578|accessdate=|doi=10.1515/1932-0183.1215}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Boaz|first=David|title=The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/libertarian-vote-age-obama|work=Policy Analysis|publisher=Cato Institute|accessdate=February 24, 2012|author2=David Kirby|date=January 21, 2010}}</ref> Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul is one of the most well-noted Republicans with a libertarian-leaning philosophy. Espousing a return to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution, an audit of the Federal Reserve System and an end to American Interventionism in other parts of the world, Paul gained a loyal following among libertarians, displaced conservatives in the Republican Party and also made inroads with some Democrats during two failed attempts to gain the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2008 and 2012. Paul, an obstetrician by training, also ran as the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential nominee. | |||
Economic conservatism, insofar as it is ''ideological'', owes its creation to the "]" tradition, in the vein of ], ], ], and ]. | |||
On the other hand, some conservatives tend to oppose free-market trade policies and support ] instead. They want government intervention to support the economy and protect American jobs. They oppose free trade on the ground that it benefits other countries (especially China) in the expense of American workers. However, in spite of their support for protectionism, they tend to support other free-market principles like low taxes, small government and balanced budgets. | |||
Yet ''classical conservatism'' supports free market policies as well, which raises the question: why the agreement between the classical liberals and conservatives? Part of the confusion is semantic, while "liberal" and "conservative" are regarded in some contexts as antagonistic many "liberal" and "conservative" principles are drawn from the same body of thought, and based on a fundamental agreement about the importance of such concepts as "the rule of law" and the importance of individual liberties. | |||
===Geography=== | |||
Simply, while the results are the same, the arguments are different. ''Classical liberals'' and ''libertarians'' support free markets on moral, ideological grounds: principles of individual liberty morally dictate support for free markets. Supporters of the moral grounds for free markets include ] and ]. The liberal tradition is suspicious of government authority, and prefers individual choice, and hence tends to see capitalist economics as the preferable means of achieving economic ends. | |||
]|accessdate=6 October 2016}}</ref> | |||
{{legend|#ca2521;|49% and above}} | |||
{{legend|#d54a42;|45%–48%}} | |||
{{legend|#df7064;|41%–44%}} | |||
{{legend|#ea9585;|37%–40%}} | |||
{{legend|#f4baa6;|33%–36%}} | |||
{{legend|#ffe0c8;|32% and under}} | |||
]] | |||
The ], the ], the ], and ] are generally conservative strongholds. The ], ], and ] are the main liberal strongholds. Conservatives are strongest in rural America and, to a lesser extent, in the ] or suburbs. Voters in the urban cores of large metropolitan areas tend to be more liberal and Democratic. Thus, within each state, there is a division between urban, suburban, exurban, and rural areas.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ |title=The changing colors of America (1960–2004) |date=November 10, 2004 |accessdate=January 6, 2012}}</ref> In recent decades, the electoral geography has helped give Republicans control of the House of Representatives, and Democrats a decided edge in the Electoral College which elects the president.<ref>By Chris Cillizza, "Democrats' stranglehold on the electoral college," </ref> | |||
Classical conservatives, on the other hand, derive support for free markets from practical grounds. Free markets, they argue, are the most productive markets. Thus the classical conservative supports free markets not out of necessity, but out of expedience. The support is not moral or ideological, but driven on the Burkean notion of prescription: what works best is what is right. | |||
==Other topics== | |||
Another reason why conservatives support a smaller role for the government in the economy, is they believe in the importance of the ]. As noted by ], a bigger role of the government in the economy will make people feel less responsible for the society. The responsibilities must then be taken over by the government, requiring higher taxes. In his book ], De Tocqueville describes this as "soft oppression". | |||
===Kirk's principles of conservatism=== | |||
] developed six "canons" of conservatism, which Gerald J. Russello described as follows: | |||
# A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, ], or ]; | |||
# An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence; | |||
# A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions; | |||
# A belief that property and freedom are closely linked; | |||
# A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and | |||
# A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.<ref>Russello, Gerald J., 1996, "The Jurisprudence of Russell Kirk," ''Modern Age'' 38: 354–63. {{ISSN|0026-7457}}</ref> | |||
Kirk said that Christianity and ] are "unimaginable apart from one another"<ref> by Robert S. Griffin of Chilton Williamson, Jr., ''The Conservative Bookshelf: Essential Works That Impact Today's Conservative Thinkers'', .</ref> and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief."<ref>Stephen Goode, (August 2, 2004), Thomas Aquinas College.</ref> | |||
It must be noted that while classical liberals and classical conservatives reached free markets through different means historically, to-date the lines have blurred. Rarely will a politician claim that free markets are "simply more productive" or "simply the right thing to do" but a combination of both. This blurring is very much a product of the merging of the classical liberal and conservative positions under the "umbrella" of the conservative movement. | |||
In later works, Kirk expanded this list into his "Ten Principles of Conservatism"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/|title=The Russell Kirk Center: Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk|work=kirkcenter.org}}</ref> which are as follows: | |||
The archetypal free-market conservative administrations of the late 20th century -- the ] government in the UK and the ] government in the U.S. -- both held the unfettered operation of the market to be the cornerstone of contemporary economic conservatism. To that end, Thatcher privatized ], with remarkable success, and ], with rather more mixed results; both Reagan and Thatcher cut taxes (especially on the upper income brackets) and slowed governmental growth. Proponents of economic conservatism attribute the unparalleled economic boom of the early 1980s to the late 1990s to these policies. | |||
# First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. | |||
# Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. | |||
# Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. | |||
# Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. | |||
# Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. | |||
# Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. | |||
# Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. | |||
# Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. | |||
# Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. | |||
# Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. | |||
===Courts=== | |||
Yet economic conservatism is not simply ]. The ], to the conservative, begs for regulation, but only insofar as accountability must be maintained. ] laws were championed in the early 1900s by noted conservative ], who also championed his political mentor (and, later, rival) ]'s policy of creating ]. | |||
One stream of conservatism exemplified by ] extols independent judges as experts in fairness and the final arbiters of the Constitution. In 1910 ] broke with most of his lawyer friends and called for popular votes that could overturn unwelcome decisions by state courts. Taft denounced his old friend and rallied conservatives to defeat him for the 1912 GOP nomination. Taft and the conservative Republicans controlled the Supreme Court until the late 1930s.<ref>Lewis L. Gould, ''The William Howard Taft Presidency'' (2009) p. 175</ref><ref>Mark A. Graber and Michael Perhac, ''Marbury versus Madison: documents and commentary'' (2002) p. 111</ref> | |||
President ], a liberal Democrat, did not attack the ] directly in 1937, but ignited a firestorm of protest by a proposal to add seven new justices. Conservative Democrats immediately broke with FDR, defeated his proposal, and built up the Conservative Coalition. While the liberals did take over the Court through replacements, they lost control of Congress. That is, the Court no longer overthrew liberal laws passed by Congress, but there were very few such laws that passed in 1937–60.<ref>Jeff Shesol, ''Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court'' (2010) p.525</ref> | |||
The interests of ], fiscal and economic conservatism, and ] do not necessarily coincide with those of social conservatism. At times, aspects of capitalism and free markets have been profoundly subversive of the existing social order, as in the ] movement and other changes that have replaced a traditional ] society with ], or of traditional attitudes toward the proper position of sex in society, as in the now near-universal availability of ]. To that end, on issues at the intersection of economic and social policy, conservatives of one school or another are often at odds. | |||
A recent variant of conservatism condemns "judicial activism"; that is, judges using their decisions to control policy, along the lines of the ] in the 1960s. It came under conservative attack for decisions regarding redistricting, desegregation, and the rights of those accused of crimes. This position goes back to Jefferson's vehement attacks on federal judges and to ]'s attacks on the ] decision of 1857.<ref>Graber and Perhac, ''Marbury versus Madison: documents and commentary'' (2002) p114</ref><ref>Mark V. Tushnet, ''A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law'' (2005) p. 338</ref> | |||
== Conservative political movements == | |||
Contemporary political conservatism — the actual politics of people and parties professing to be conservative — in most ] ] countries is an amalgam of social and institutional conservatism, generally combined with fiscal conservatism, and usually containing elements of broader economic conservatism as well. As with liberalism, it is a pragmatic and protean politics, opportunistic at times, rooted more in a tradition than in any formal set of principles. | |||
====Originalism==== | |||
It is certainly possible for one to be a fiscal and economic conservative but not a social conservative; in the United States at present, this is the stance of libertarianism. It is also possible to be a social conservative but not an economic conservative — at present, this is a common political stance in, for example, ] — or to be a fiscal conservative without being either a social conservative or a broader economic conservative, such as the "deficit hawks" of the ]. In general use, the unqualified term "conservative" is often applied to social conservatives who are not fiscal or economic conservatives. It is rarely applied in the opposite case, except in specific contrast to those who are neither. | |||
{{Main article|Originalism}} | |||
A more recent variant that emerged in the 1970s is "]", the assertion that the ] should be interpreted to the maximum extent possible in the light of what it meant when it was adopted. Originalism should not be confused with a similar conservative ideology, ], which deals with the interpretation of the Constitution as written, but not necessarily within the context of the time when it was adopted. In modern times, the term originalism has been used by Supreme Court justice ], former federal judge ] and some other conservative jurists to explain their beliefs.<ref>Johnathan O'Neill, ''Originalism in American law and politics: a constitutional history'' (2005) pp. 7–11, 208 | |||
</ref> | |||
===Environmentalism=== | |||
It can be argued that classical conservatism tends to represent the ]. Yet, this is not always the case. Considering the conservative's opposition to political abstractions, the true conservative will never support a contrived social state, be that on the left (]) or on the right (]). There is an independent justification of the attitude of conservatism, which tends to favour what is organic and has been shaped by history, against the planned and artificial. | |||
In the past, Conservatives have supported ] efforts, from the protection of the ], to the creation of the ].<ref>{{cite news |title=Republican Environmental Group Seeks To Put Conservation Back On The Conservative Agenda |author=Tom Zeller Jr. |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/republican-environment_n_1020633.html |newspaper='']'' |date=October 20, 2011 |accessdate=December 24, 2011}}</ref> However, more recently, neoconservatives ]; with environmentalists often ridiculed as "tree huggers". Republican Party leaders such as ] and ] advocate the abolition of the ], calling it "the job-killing organization of America." <ref>{{cite news |last= Broder |first= John M. |date= August 17, 2011|title=Bashing EPA is New Theme in GOP Race |newspaper= ''New York Times''|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/us/politics/18epa.html?_r=0 |accessdate= August 16, 2015}}</ref> | |||
Conservative think tanks since the 1990s have opposed the concept of man-made ]; they challenged scientific evidence, publicised what they perceived as beneficial aspects of global warming, and stated their strong beliefs that proposed remedies would do more harm than good.<ref>Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap, "Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims," ''Social Problems,'' Nov 2000, Vol. 47 Issue 4, pp. 499–522 </ref> The concept of ] ] amongst Conservatives in the United States,<ref>{{cite book |chapter=On EnviroStatism |chapterurl=https://books.google.com/books?id=a1NYXMv_yLoC&lpg=PA114&dq=%22Man%20made%20Global%20warming%22%20controversy%20conservatism&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q=%22Man%20made%20Global%20warming%22%20controversy%20conservatism&f=false |last=Levin |first=Mark R. |authorlink=Mark Levin |title=Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto |url=https://books.google.com/?id=a1NYXMv_yLoC&dq=%22Man+made+Global+warming%22+controversy+conservatism |accessdate=February 11, 2013 |year=2009 |publisher=Simon and Schuster |isbn=9781416562856 |pages=114–46 }}</ref> but the majority reject the ] that climate change is caused by humans; 73% of Republicans believed humans were uninvolved in causing global warming, according to a 2015 poll by ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/ |title=Americans, Politics and Science Issues |last1=Funk |first1=Cary |last2=Raine |first2=Lee |last3= |first3=|publisher=Pew Research |date=July 1, 2015 |website=www.pewinternet.org |access-date=August 16, 2015}}</ref> | |||
==Conservatism and change== | |||
In recent times, American Conservatives have generally supported deregulation of pollution and reduced restrictions on carbon emissions.<ref>{{cite book |last=Bailey |first= Christopher J. |date= |title= Congress and Air Pollution: Environmental Policies in the USA |url= |location= |publisher= Manchester University Press |page= 259|isbn= 0-7190-3661-5 }}</ref> Similarly, they have advocated increased oil drilling with less regulatory interference, such as in the ].<ref>{{cite news |last=Cama |first=Timothy |date= April 15, 2015|title=GOP criticizes Obama's 'restrictive' offshore drilling plan |url= http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/238994-gop-criticizes-obamas-restrictive-offshore-drilling-plan|newspaper= ''The Hill'' |location= |access-date= August 16, 2015}}</ref> In the 2008 election, the phrase, "Drill baby drill" was used to express the Republican position on the subject. | |||
"Conservatism" is not opposed to change. For example, the Reagan administration in the US and that of ] in the UK both professed conservatism, but during Reagan's term of office, the United States radically revised its tax code, while Thatcher dismantled several previously nationalized industries and made major reforms in taxation and housing; furthermore, both took, or attempted, significant measures to reduce the power of ]s. However some opponents, and also some of the members of these governments themselves, characterised those changes as regressive, as "changing back" to a defunct status quo. | |||
===Semantics, language, and media=== | |||
In less recent history, the ], supported by Conservative UK Prime Minister ] was the single greatest expansion of the ] in the UK prior to ]. Various "Conservative" parties have presided over periods of economic expansion which have been disruptive of previous social and political arrangements, for example the Republican Party in 1920s America, and the BJP in late 1990s India. | |||
====Vocabulary==== | |||
Political memory can be of various durations, and the traditions conservatives embrace can be of relatively recent invention. The prevalence of the ] is, at most, a few centuries old. Western democracy itself is a late 18th century invention. Corporate capitalism is even newer. The race-blind ] now embraced by many U.S. conservatives as an alternative to ] would have seemed quite radical to most U.S. conservatives in the 1950s, although not to the conservatives of ] (1890s-1920s). | |||
=====Socialism===== | |||
The gilded age saw a heavy increase in immigration, and as a result, there was an influx of extreme ] and Conservativism. An example of when Conservatism can problematic, degenerated economic and social conservatism reigned, resulting in a common viewpoint of "social darwinism", an extremist meritocracy under which it was believed that the rich are only gained their economic status through their ability, as are the poor, and eventually, the poor, or those who were not "naturally selected for success" would be breeded out of existence through starvation or disease. While this is truly the extremist side of economic and social conservativism, and is not at all representative of the meritocracy of today, the case of The Gilded Age and Social Darwinism is also reflective of the conservative's strong desire to maintain the social or economic ] or ]. | |||
The term "socialist" has been used as a "rhetorical weapon" against the ] by conservatives.<ref>{{cite book|author=Mugambi Jouet|title=Exceptional America: What Divides Americans from the World and from Each Other|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iDkJDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA4|year=2017|publisher=U of California Press|page=4}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Conservative epithet of choice: Socialist |url=http://www.upi.com/Conservative-epithet-of-choice-Socialist/29111235969168/ |agency=UPI |date=1 March 2009 |access-date=27 May 2017 }}<br/>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/15/why-so-many-millennials-are-socialists/ |title=Why So Many Millennials Are Socialists |last=Ekins |first=Emily |last2=Pullmann |first2=Joy |date=15 February 2016 |website=The Federalist |publisher=FDRLST Media |access-date=27 May 2017 |quote=Conservatives often use the word “socialist” like an epithet, but they don’t realize that neither their audience nor even their political opponents really know what the word even means.}}<br/>{{cite news |last=Crary |first=David |agency=Associated Press |date=4 June 2012 |title=Obama a socialist? Many scoff, but claim persists |url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765580640/Obama-a-socialist-Many-scoff-but-claim-persists.html?pg=2 |work=Deseret News |location=Utah |access-date=27 May 2017 }}</ref> David Hinshaw writes that ], editor of a small-town newspaper in Kansas from 1895, used "socialistic" as "his big gun to blast radical opposition."<ref>David Hinshaw, ''A Man from Kansas: The Story of William Allen White'' (1945) p 108. </ref> White set "Americanism" as the alternative, warning, "The election will sustain Americanism or it will plant Socialism." White became famous when ], campaign manager for Republican conservative ] distributed upwards of a million or more copies of one White editorial to rally opposition to ], the nominee of both the Democratic and Populist parties.<ref>{{cite book|author=Thomas Frank|title=What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AJKrMcOyQ3wC|year=2007|page=33}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=William Safire|title=Safire's Political Dictionary|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Dt3QCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18|year=2008|page=18}}</ref> | |||
By the 1950s, the conservative press had discovered that the word 'socialism' "proved to be a successful derogatory epithet rather than a descriptive label for a meaningful political alternative."<ref> Alan P. Grimes, "Contemporary American Liberalism' ''The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science'' Vol. 344, (Nov., 1962), p 30 </ref> At the 1952 Republican national convention, former President Herbert Hoover repeated his warnings about two decades of New Deal policies, denouncing, says Gary Best, "The usurpation of power by the federal government, the loss of freedom in America, the poisoning of the American economy with fascism, socialism, and Keynesianism, the enormous growth of the federal bureaucracy."<ref>{{cite book|author=Gary Dean Best|title=Herbert Hoover, the Postpresidential Years, 1933-1964: 1946-1964|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5dy1O4PyMf8C&pg=PA359|year=1983|publisher=Hoover Press|page=359}}</ref> Barry Goldwater in 1960 called for Republican unity against ] and the "blueprint for socialism presented by the Democrats."<ref>{{cite book|author=Lawson Bowling|title=Shapers of the Great Debate on the Great Society: A Biographical Dictionary|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=H0J5i01JnEQC&pg=PA137|year=2005|publisher=Greenwood |page=137|isbn=9780313314346}}</ref> Goldwater in 1964 attacked central planners like fellow Republican Nelson Rockefeller, implying he was a socialist in a millionaire's garb: "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."<ref>{{cite book|title=LIFE|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YEEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA29|date=May 29, 1964|page=29}}</ref> | |||
==Other topics== | |||
Ronald Reagan often quoted ], the perennial Socialist nominee for president in the New Deal era, as saying, "The American people would never knowingly vote for Socialism, but that under the name of liberalism, they would adopt every fragment of the socialist program."<ref>{{cite book|author=Tom Kemme|title=Political Fiction, the Spirit of Age, and Allen Drury|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sN8xe2k8LVwC&pg=PA12|year=1987|publisher=Popular Press|page=12|isbn=9780879723743}}</ref> In 2010 ] defined "socialism in the broad sense" as "a government-dominated, bureaucratically-controlled, politician-dictated way of life."<ref name=Schaller2010 /> Gingrich believes Barack Obama is committed to this form of socialism.<ref name=Schaller2010>Tom Schaller, "Gingrich Slams Paulson, Obama, Sarbanes-Oxley and Even W (a little)" </ref> | |||
===Media=== | |||
=== Conservatism and conservation === | |||
====Talk radio and Fox News==== | |||
The ]n ] has its roots in the conservative movement of the late ]. These "first wave" environmentalists were generally well-to-do and advocated protection of natural areas due to the fact that these untouched areas were choice spots for vacations away from the dirty cities. In modern times, the "third wave" environmental movement, popularized by ] harkens back to the classical conservative's justification for free markets: simply, free markets are viewed as the best instrument for protecting the environment. Given that pollution is an inefficiency, and given that consumers like "eco-friendly" or "organic" products, it makes sense to the third-wave environmentalist that being environmentally friendly is a boost to sales. "Second-wave" environmentalists, represented by "command-and-control" techniques and the radical social change of the ], were generally not conservative in any sense of the word. Yet the nationalist overtones of the second-wave environmental movement did appeal to many ] and social conservatives, who were not averse to anti-commercial values. Many of these viewed ecological conservation as necessary to preserve traditional values and viewed conservation of resources — especially public resources — as part of long-term fiscal conservatism. Mistakenly, many note the generally ]ic and sometimes radical economic goals of ] and conclude that they have nothing in common with conservatives. In the UK, a ] is an alignment of these "green" and "right" forces, although in the U.S. the terms Green Republican or Green Libertarian have come into use to imply the same. | |||
] | |||
Conservatives gained a major new communications medium with the resurgence of ] in the late 1980s. ] proved there was a huge nationwide audience for specific and heated discussions of current events from a conservative viewpoint. Other major hosts who describe themselves as conservative include: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ].<ref>{{Cite book|author1=Kathleen Hall Jamieson|author2=Joseph N. Cappella|title=Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=139Oa4MOsAgC&pg=PA42|year=2009|publisher=Oxford U.P.|pages=42–55|isbn=9780199740864}}</ref> The ] syndicates a group of religiously oriented Republican activists, including ] ], and Jewish conservatives ] and ]. One popular Jewish conservative, ], offers parental and personal advice, but is outspoken on social and political issues. In 2011, the largest weekly audiences for talk radio were 15 million for Limbaugh and 14 million for Hannity, with about nine million each for Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Mark Levin. The audiences overlap, depending on how many each listener dials into every week.<ref>Jeremy M. Peters, "'Anybody but Mitt,'" </ref> | |||
] features conservative hosts.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/house-republicans-defend-conservative-commentators-decry-white-house-feud/ |title=House Republicans Defend Conservative Commentators, Decry White House Feud |newspaper=''Fox News'' |date=April 7, 2010 |accessdate=January 6, 2012}}</ref> One such host is Sean Hannity, who also has a talk radio program.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Theda Skocpol|author2=Vanessa Williamson|title=The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0OAtvU8ottcC&pg=PA128|date=2 January 2012|publisher=Oxford University Press, USA|isbn=978-0-19-983263-7|page=128}}</ref> One former host is ];<ref>{{cite book|author1=Roger Chapman|author2=James Ciment|title=Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XO9nBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA179|date=17 March 2015|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-47351-0|page=179}}</ref> prior, and after his time on Fox News, Drudge has operated '']'' a news aggregation website and is a self-professed conservative.<ref name=Banville2016>{{cite book|author=Lee Banville|title=Covering American Politics in the 21st Century: An Encyclopedia of News Media Titans, Trends, and Controversies [2 volumes]|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_mN6DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA193|date=12 December 2016|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-1-4408-3553-7|pages=193–195}}</ref> It is more conservative than other news sources in the United States, such as ] and ].<ref>{{cite book|author=Tim Groseclose, PhD|title=Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cDImA0-_FmUC&pg=PA21|date=19 July 2011|publisher=St. Martin's Press|isbn=978-1-4299-8746-2|page=21}}</ref> | |||
=== Conservatives in English-speaking countries === | |||
Critic ] has argued that the influence of conservative talk radio and Fox News has harmed American conservatism, turning it from "a political philosophy into a market segment" for extremism and conflict making "for bad politics but great TV." Backed by the conservative book-publishing industry and think tanks, talk radio and Fox News,<blockquote>have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he's a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even Britain. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) "the only place in the world where it doesn't matter who your parents were or where you came from."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/index2.html |title=When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality? |first=David |last=Frum |work=] |date=November 20, 2011}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
What constitutes conservative politics and policies, obviously, will depend on the traditions and customs of a given country. | |||
===Academia=== | |||
In the ], most persons who call themselves conservatives believe strongly in the ] social tradition and ] of the ]. The origins of conservatism in the U.S. can be traced from the ] of ] through the ] of ], and the ] of ] (the ideological heirs to the ] legacy). In the ] era, other issues dominated, and for the next century conservatives were roughly equally divided among the two major parties. One particularly notable element were the southern ], some of whom bolted the party as the third-party ]s, backing ]'s ] presidential candidacy. | |||
====Admission to academe==== | |||
Ironically, as the Democratic Party became identified with the ] of the 1950s through 1970s, many former southern Democrats joined the ], even in the face of greater proportional support for ] legislation among Republicans, thereby increasingly cementing the Republicans' alignment as a conservative party. | |||
Liberal and leftist viewpoints have dominated higher education faculties since the 1970s, according to many studies,<ref>Everett Carll Ladd and Seymour Martin Lipset, ''Academics, politics, and the 1972 election'' (1973)</ref><ref>Jack H. Schuster and Martin J. Finkelstein, ''The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers'' (2008) p. 145</ref><ref>Louis Menand, ''The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University'' (2010) pp. 137–39</ref> whereas conservatives are better represented in policy-oriented ]. Data from a survey conducted in 2004 indicated that 72% of full-time faculty identify as liberal,<ref name="Kurtz, H. (29 March 2005). College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds. ''The Washington Post''.">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html|title=Kurtz, H. (29 March 2005) | newspaper=''The Washington Post'' | date=March 29, 2005}}</ref> while 9–18% self-identify as conservative. Conservative self-identification is higher in two-year colleges than other categories of higher education but has been declining overall.<ref name=pcu2009>{{Cite book|last=Maranto, Redding, Hess|title=The Politically Correct University: Problems, Scope, and Reforms|year=2009|publisher=The AEI Press|isbn=978-0-8447-4317-2|pages=25–27|url=http://www.aei.org/docLib/9780844743172.pdf}}</ref> Those in natural sciences, engineering, and business were less liberal than those in the social sciences and humanities. A 2005 study found that liberal views had increased compared to the older studies. 15% in the survey described themselves as ]. While the ] and the ] are still the most left leaning, 67% of those in other fields combined described themselves as ] on the ]. In business and engineering, liberals outnumber conservatives by a 2:1 ratio. The study also found that women, practicing Christians, and Republicans taught at lower ranked schools than would be expected from objectively measured professional accomplishments.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Rothman | first1 = S. | last2 = Lichter | first2 = S. R. | last3 = Nevitte | first3 = N. | title = Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty | doi = 10.2202/1540-8884.1067 | journal = The Forum | volume = 3 | year = 2005 | pmid = | pmc = }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds|first= Howard|last=Kurtz|date= March 29, 2005|publisher='']''|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html}}</ref> A study by psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammars, of the ]' ], published in September 2012 in the journal ''Perspectives on Psychological Science'', found that, in social and personality psychology,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Inbar|first=Yoel|last2=Lammers|first2=Joris|date=2012|title=Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology|url=http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf|journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science|volume=7|issue=5|doi=10.1177/1745691612448792}}</ref> about a third of those surveyed say that they would to a small extent favor a liberal point of view over a conservative point of view.<ref>{{cite news |title=Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement: 'Impossible lack of diversity' reflects ideological intimidation on campus |author=Emily Esfahani Smith |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/ |newspaper=''Washington Times'' |date=August 1, 2012 |accessdate=August 5, 2012}}</ref> A 2007 poll found that 58% of Americans thought that ] was a "serious problem". This varied depending on the political views of those asked. 91% of "very conservative" adults agreed compared with only 3% of liberals.<ref>{{cite web|title=Zogby Poll: Most Think Political Bias Among College Professors a Serious Problem|date= July 10, 2007|url=http://www.zogby.com/news/2007/07/10/zogby-poll-most-think-political-bias-among-college-professors-a-serious-problem/|work=zogby.com}}</ref> That same year a documentary, '']'', was released which focuses on the perceived bias within academia.<ref>{{cite news |title=Academic Thuggery |first=Bunch |last=Sonny |url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/658rvful.asp?pg=1 |newspaper='']'' |date=May 18, 2007 |accessdate=August 6, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title="Indoctrinate U" poses some uncomfortable questions |first=Euan |last=Kerr |url=http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/movie_natters/archive/2007/10/indoctrinate_u.shtml |newspaper=''Minnesota Public Radio'' |date=October 27, 2007 |accessdate=August 6, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Indoctrine U' raises brows, offers insight |first=Emily |last=Barry |url=http://www.easttennessean.com/news/indoctrine-u-raises-brows-offers-insight-1.2061979#.UB_v9vZmRNs |newspaper=''East Tennessean'' |date=March 3, 2011 |accessdate=August 5, 2012}}</ref> | |||
On the other hand, liberal critic ] wrote in the '']'' that this phenomenon is more due to personal choice than some kind of discrimination or conspiracy, noting that, for example, vocations such as military officers are much more likely to be filled by conservatives, rather than liberals.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Krugman|first=Paul|title=Ideas Are Not The Same As Race|url=https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/ideas-are-not-the-same-as-race/|accessdate=August 4, 2012|newspaper=''New York Times''|date=February 8, 2011}}</ref> Additionally, two studies published in the journal of the ] have suggested that the ] have little influence or "indoctrination" in terms of students' political belief.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Cohen|first=Patricia|title=Professors' Liberalism Contagious? Maybe Not|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/books/03infl.html?_r=1&em|accessdate=August 4, 2012|newspaper=''New York Times''|date=November 2, 2008}}</ref> | |||
Conservatism is a large political philosophy, and its central tenets may be used as justification for or opposition to civil rights legislation. "Mr. Conservative," U.S. Senator ], in his 1960 '']'', argues that the reason conservatives split on the issue of civil rights was due to some conservatives advocating ends (integration, even in the face of what they saw as unconstitutional Federal involvement) and some advocating means (constitutionality above all else, even in the face of ]). | |||
====Relativism versus universal truths==== | |||
Today in the U.S., geographically the ], the less industrial parts of the ], and the non-coastal ] are conservative strongholds. | |||
] is an approach common in the humanities on campus that greatly troubles conservative intellectuals.<ref>{{cite book|last=Douglas Kellner|title=Grand Theft 2000: Media Spectacle and a Stolen Election|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=liZMuTu8jIUC&pg=PA140|year=2001|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|page=140}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Hanson|first=Victor|editor-last=Anderson|editor-first=Brian|title=The Humanities Move Off Campus|journal=City Journal|date=Autumn 2008|url=http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_4_classical_education.html|accessdate=June 23, 2015|publisher=Manhattan Institute}}</ref> The issue is ] versus ]. Ellen Grigsby says, "Postmodern perspectives contend that any ideology putting forward absolute statements as timeless truths should be viewed with profound skepticism."<ref>{{cite book|last=Ellen Grigsby|title=Analyzing Politics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xGNRRwkZFysC&pg=PA161|year=2008|page=161}}</ref> Kellner says, "Postmodern discourse frequently argues that all discourses and values are socially constructed and laden with interests and biases. Against postmodern and liberal relativism, cultural conservatives have argued for values of universal truth and absolute standards of right and wrong."<ref>Kellner, ''Grand Theft 2000'' p. 140</ref> | |||
Neoconservative historian ] has energetically rejected postmodern academic approaches: | |||
In the UK, contemporary conservatives may trace their roots to both the ] of Canning and the early ] (who opposed the monarchy). The Tories, who continued to represent the interests of the aristocracy, in contrast to the Whiggish mercantile class, dominated British politics from the ] and the ]. It is during this period that ], the so-called "Father of Modern Conservatism," articulated the anti-monarchial conservative position through the ] party. | |||
: is a denial of the objectivity of the historian, of the factuality or reality of the past, and thus of the possibility of arriving at any truths about the past. For all disciplines it induces a radical skepticism, relativism, and subjectivism that denies not this or that truth about any subject but the very idea of truth—that denies even the ideal of truth, truth is something to aspire to even if it can never be fully attained.<ref>{{cite book|author=Gertrude Himmelfarb|title=The New History and the Old: Critical Essays and Reappraisals|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CteYHa3bMLcC&pg=PA16|year=2004|publisher=Harvard University Press|page=16}}</ref> | |||
Here is a representative summary of postmodern literary studies of the sort that antagonize conservatives, written by Jay Stevenson: | |||
: the postmodern period. Traditional literature has been found to have been written by "]" to serve the ''ideological'' aims of a conservative and repressive Anglo '']''....In an array of reactions against the race, gender, and class biases found to be woven into the tradition of Anglo lit, multicultural writers and political literary theorists have sought to expose, resist, and redress injustices and prejudices. These prejudices are often covert—disguised in literature and other discourses as positive ideals and objective truths—but they slant our sense of reality in favor of power and privilege.<ref>{{cite book|author=Jay Stevenson|title=The Complete Idiot's Guide to English Literature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SoL1Di1HRBIC&pg=PA9|year=2007|publisher=Alpha Books|pages=9–10}}</ref> | |||
Conservative intellectuals have championed a "high conservative ]" that insists that universal truths exist, and have opposed approaches that deny the existence of universal truths.<ref>Gerald J. Russello, ''The Postmodern Imagination of Russell Kirk'' (2007) p. 14</ref> Many argued that ] was the repository of timeless truths.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hyrum S. Lewis|title=Sacralizing the Right: William F. Buckley Jr., Whittaker Chambers, Will Herberg and the Transformation of Intellectual Conservatism, 1945–1964|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QviaoxgkmFwC&pg=PA122|year=2007|publisher=ProQuest|page=122}}</ref> ], in his highly influential '']'' (1987) argues that ] results from ignorance of the great ] that shaped ]. His book was widely cited by conservative intellectuals for its argument that the classics contained universal truths and timeless values which were being ignored by cultural relativists.<ref>{{cite book|last=M. Keith Booker|title=Encyclopedia of Literature and Politics: A-G|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JcFC4oiDmpgC&pg=PA180|year=2005|publisher=Greenwood|pages=180–81}}</ref><ref>Jeffrey Williams, ed. ''PC wars: Politics and theory in the academy'' (Routledge, 2013)</ref> | |||
Nominally, the modern Conservative party was founded out of the Tory party by Sir ] in the ], splitting almost immediately, over the issue of ]. The anti-protectionist faction joined with some Whigs and radicals to form the ] coalition, which was to dominate for much of the rest of the ]. In the twenty-two years between ] and ], the Conservative Party, which continued to be known colloquially as the Tory party, enjoyed less than four years of power. However, after the Liberals split over Home Rule in ], the Conservatives returned to prominence under ], and were in power for twelve of the next twenty years. Power alternated between the Conservatives and the Liberals for the next two decades, until a coalition between the two parties was formed during the ]. This, along with the rise of the ], led to the collapse of the Liberals in the 1920s. A number of former Liberals, including ], chose to join the Tory Party, under ], instead of Labour. During the ], the Conservatives dominated ]'s "National" government and instituted the protectionist policies they had attempted to introduce in the ]. After Macdonald resigned the Conservatives were openly in government, but many of the traditional Conservative policies of economic intervention in the interests of business leaders and land-owners were dropped from the party's platform, in favour of more ameliorative welfare policies. After the ], under a movement that would come to be known as "One Nation Conservatism", the Conservative party made a number of concessions to the socialist policies of the left. This was partly in order to regain power, but also the result of the early successes of ] and state-ownership forming a cross-party consensus. In the early ], ] attempted to restore traditional Conservative economic policies by under-pining them with a socially responsible outlook, but found little support in the private sector and soon retreated to the post-war consensus. With the advent of ], the Tories were seen as having returned to their traditional policies. However, some Conservatives saw the Thatcher administration as lacking the traditional Conservative policies of charity and responsibility, while others, outside of the traditional ranks of the Conservative Party, saw Thatcherism as the intellectual successor to ], particularly with regard to its belief in free trade and laissez-faire economics. Thatcher's core economic policies have since formed a broad, Conservative consensus in British politics, similar to the Labour consensus that dominated from the ] until the ], and the Liberal consensus of the ] to the ]. | |||
==Historiography== | |||
In ], conservatism followed British tradition well up into the 1980s, when the leadership of Prime Minister ] brought with it Reagan-style economic liberalism and free trade. Afterwards the ] changed to moderately favouring economic continentalism as opposed to the economic nationalism that it had previously promoted. However, many Canadian conservatives continued to favour the traditional ] ideology of supporting economic independence (protectionism) and preservation of existing political and cultural institutions. At the same time, many "small-c" conservatives in Canada (especially in the western provinces) abandoned the PC Party to join the outspoken western activist ] and his ], which advocated even greater ''laissez-faire'' economic policy and stronger social-conservatism. In 2003, Canada's oldest political party (the PC Party) was disbanded and controversially merged with the ] (the descendant of the Reform Party) to create the new ]. The new party is arguably right-wing or neoconservative, although in early 2005, its political platform had yet to be fully developed, due to an election called by ] Prime minister ] in ]. Although the new party increased its number of seats in parliament during the ], from 72 combined PC and Alliance seats to 99, its combined vote dropped significantly from 38% to only 29%, indicating that many Progressive Conservative voters did not vote for the new party. Critics have suggested to this phenomenon was the result of scare tactics by the Liberal Party, which accused the new Conservative party of planning to abolish the Canadian public health system. | |||
Historians in recent years have agreed that they need to rethink the role of conservatism in recent American history.<ref>Kim Phillips-Fein, "Conservatism: A State of the Field," ''Journal of American History'' (Dec 2011) 98#3 pp. 723–43, with commentary by Wilfred M. McClay, Alan Brinkley, Donald T. Critchlow, Martin Durham, Matthew D. Lassiter, and Lisa McGirr, and response by Phillips-Fein, pp. 744–73 </ref> An important new approach rejects the older consensus that liberalism was the dominant ethos. Labor historians Jefferson Cowie and Nick Salvatore argue the New Deal was a short-term response to depression and did not mark a permanent commitment to a welfare state, claiming that America has always been too individualistic and too hostile to labor unions to ever embrace liberalism for any extended period of time. This new interpretation argues that conservatism has largely dominated American politics since the 1920s, with the brief exceptions of the New Deal era (1933–38) and the Great Society (1964–66).<ref name="Jefferson Cowie 2008">Jefferson Cowie, and Nick Salvatore, "The Long Exception: Rethinking the Place of the New Deal in American History," ''International Labor & Working-Class History,'' (2008) 74:3–32.</ref> Zelizer, however, argues that "The coherence of conservatism has been exaggerated. The movement was as fragile as the New Deal coalition that it replaced....Policy change has thus proved to be much more difficult than conservatives hoped for."<ref>Julian E. Zelizer, "Rethinking the History of American Conservatism," ''Reviews in American History'' (2010) 38#2 pp. 367–92, quoting pp. 372, 379</ref> Zelizer does find four areas where conservatives did make major changes: retrenchment of domestic programs, lowering taxes, deregulation, and opposition to labor unions. He concludes, "The fact is that liberalism survived the rise of conservatism."<ref>Zelizer, "Rethinking the History of American Conservatism," p. 379, quote p. 380</ref> | |||
===American exceptionalism=== | |||
The old Canadian conservative divide between Blue Tories (so-called "neoconservatives" and libertarians, mostly from the richer western provinces) and Red Tories (so-called "moderate" conservatives, mostly from Ontario and the poorer eastern provinces) is not as strong in the new party: most of the old PC Party's most prominent Red Tories, such as former Prime Minister ], anti-free trade activist ], former Quebec ] (MP) ], openly gay MP ] and others chose to oppose the merger and not join the new party. | |||
{{main article|American exceptionalism}} | |||
American conservatives typically promote ], the idea that the United States is inherently different from other nations and has a duty to take the lead in spreading democracy and free markets to the world. Reagan especially articulated this role (and many liberals also agree with it).<ref>{{cite book|author=Stephen Brooks|title=American Exceptionalism in the Age of Obama|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=r8fqsvHcRAcC&pg=PA77|year=2013|publisher=Routledge|pages=76–77}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Seymour Martin Lipset|title=American Exceptionalism: A Double-edged Sword|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=812lbix0oH4C&pg=PA17|year=1997|publisher=W.W. Norton|pages=17, 291}}</ref> They see American values emerging from the ], thereby becoming what political scientist ] called "the first new nation"<ref>Seymour Martin Lipset, ''The first new nation'' (1963).</ref> and developing a uniquely American ideology, "]", based on ], ], ], ], ], ] capitalism and ].<ref>{{cite book|author1=Joel D. Aberbach|author2=Gillian Peele|title=Crisis of Conservatism?: The Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, and American Politics After Bush|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zBxwAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA260|year=2011|publisher=Oxford UP|page=260}}</ref>.<ref>{{cite book|author=CTI Reviews|title=American Government and Politics in the Information Age: Political science, Politics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6lq4DAAAQBAJ&pg=PT37|date=26 September 2016|publisher=Cram101|isbn=978-1-4902-8690-7|page=37}}<br/>{{cite book|author=Martin Griffiths|title=Encyclopedia of International Relations and Global Politics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p083AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT50|date=26 November 2013|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-135-19087-3|page=50}}<br/>{{cite book|author=David Bernell|title=Constructing US Foreign Policy: The Curious Case of Cuba|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TvCsAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22|date=12 March 2012|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-136-81411-2|page=22}}</ref> | |||
Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many ] and other American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense.<ref>Lipset, ''American Exceptionalism'', pp. 1, 17–19, 165–174, 197</ref><ref>"In Defense of American Exceptionalism," ''The American Spectator'' ", allow us to enjoy the economic and social mobility that other countries envy" and "progressivism rejects American Exceptionalism".</ref> To them, the U.S. is like the biblical "]"—a phrase evoked by Puritan settlers in Massachusetts as early as 1630—and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.<ref>Harold Koh, "America's Jekyll-and-Hyde Exceptionalism", in Michael Ignatieff, ed.''American Exceptionalism and Human Rights'', (2005) p. 112</ref> | |||
=== Intellectual conservatism in the United States === | |||
Scholars have argued that British and European conservatism has little or no relevance to American traditions. According to political scientist ], because the United States skipped the feudal stage of history, the American community was united by liberal principles, and the conflict between the "Whig" and "Democratic" parties were conflicts within a liberal framework.<ref>Louis Hartz, ''The Liberal Tradition in America'' (1955), p. 17</ref> In this view, what is called "conservatism" in America is not European conservatism (with its royalty, landowning aristocracy, elite officer corps, and established churches) but rather 19th century ] with an emphasis on economic freedom and entrepreneurship.<ref>Rainer-Olaf Schultze et al., ''Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America'' (2003), </ref> This is in contrast to the view that Burkean conservatism has a set of universal principles which can be applied all societies.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GWgdn-U_kRcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=&f=false |title=Arthur Aughey, et al., ''The conservative political tradition in Britain and the United States'' (1992), pp. 1–2 |publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press |year=1992 }}</ref> Russell Kirk in ''The Conservative Mind'' argued that the American Revolution was "a conservative reaction, in the English political tradition, against royal innovation".<ref name="Russell Kirk 1953 p. 6, 63">Russell Kirk, ''The Conservative Mind'' (1950), pp. 6, 63.</ref> Liberal historian ] criticized modern American conservatives as "pseudo-conservatives", because their negative reaction to the policies of Harry Truman showed "dissatisfaction with American life, traditions and institutions" and because they had "little in common with the temperate and compromising spirit of true conservatism".<ref>{{cite book|author=Richard Hofstadter|title=The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fbRN-7uyqAwC&pg=PA43|year=2008|publisher=Vintage Books|page=43}}</ref> | |||
In United States intellectual circles, there are several distinct types of conservatism. Among these are: | |||
==Thinkers and leaders== | |||
* ]: many prominent neoconservatives are of Jewish background and are former liberals or even former socialists, primarily from the North-east or the West Coast, whose politics turned sharply to the right from the 1960s onwards. They are almost uniformly free-traders and strong supporters of ]. | |||
{{seealso|List of American conservatives}} | |||
**Neoconservative publications: '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'' (although this last has expressed controversial attitudes towards religion and against separation of church and state that some other neoconservatives reject). | |||
]]] | |||
* The ]s, by contrast, originated away from the coasts. Choosing their self-designation deliberately to contrast to "Neoconservative", the "Paleos", they are almost uniformly from Christian backgrounds. They are far more socially and culturally conservative than the "Neos", more inclined toward issues like states' rights, often opposed to free trade, and overtly suspicious of the "Neos'" often liberal or socialist backgrounds. | |||
], a leading expert on American political history, published his history of ''Conservatism in America'' (1956) and also a summary article on "The Giants Of American Conservatism" in ''American Heritage''.<ref>Rossiter, Clinton, , ''American Heritage'' 1955 6(6): 56–59, 94–96</ref> His goal was to identify the "great men who did conservative deeds, thought conservative thoughts, practiced conservative virtues, and stood for conservative principles." To Rossiter, conservatism was defined by the rule of the upper class. He wrote, "The Right of these freewheeling decades was a genuine Right: it was led by the rich and well-placed; it was skeptical of popular government; it was opposed to all parties, unions, leagues, or other movements that sought to invade its positions of power and profit; it was politically, socially, and culturally anti-radical." His "giants of American conservatism" were: ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. He added that Washington and Lincoln transcend the usual categories, but that conservatives "may argue with some conviction that Washington and Lincoln can also be added to his list." | |||
**Paleoconservative publications: '']'', '']'', ''The University Bookman'', '']'', ''The Chesterton Review'', '']''. | |||
Rossiter went to note the importance of other conservative leaders over the past two centuries. Among the fathers of the Constitution, which he calls "a triumph of conservative statesmanship", Rossiter said conservatives may "take special pride" in ], ], ], ], ] and the Pinckneys of South Carolina. For the early 19th century, Rossiter said the libertarians and constitutionalists who deserve the conservative spotlight for their fight against ] include ] and ] in Massachusetts; Chancellor ] in New York; ], ], and ] in Virginia. | |||
Other strands of conservatism have been influenced by the counter-revolutionary ] thought of figures like ], and the ] of ] and the French traditionalists. Some conservatives positions originated from the ], after taking (like the neoconservatives) a turn to the right — such as the editors of ''Telos''. | |||
In the decades around 1900, Rossiter finds that ], ], ], and ] "were most successful in shaping the old truths of conservatism to the new facts of industrialism and democracy." | |||
As has already been remarked, libertarians generally agree with conservative views on the economy, but they disagree on social issues. However, there are some libertarians, such as ] or ], whose views on social or cultural issues are closer to conservatism; these are sometimes called "paleolibertarians." A key issue in this regard ] policies, debating the respective values of the supremacy of life versus the supremacy of individual liberty. | |||
Writing in 1955 he suggests that ], ], and ] may someday be added to the list. | |||
=== Conservatism in the United States electoral politics === | |||
In the 21st century, the American conservative movement has seen new leaders emerge, including political commentators, politicians, radio hosts, television hosts, and authors such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. | |||
In the United States, the ] is generally considered to be the party of conservatism. This has been the case since the ], when the conservative wing of that party consolidated its hold, causing it to shift permanently to the right of the ]; also, in varying degrees at various times over the second half of the twentieth century, numerous conservative white southerners left the Democratic Party and (in most cases) became Republicans. One of the most prominent examples would be ]. | |||
==See also== | |||
In addition, many United States libertarians, in the ] and even some in the Republican Party, see themselves as conservative, even though they advocate significant economic and social changes – for instance, further dismantling the welfare system or liberalising drug policy. They see these as conservative policies because they conform to the spirit of individual liberty that they consider to be a traditional ]. It should be noted that although ] have had closer ties with conservatives, they are not actually conservative. | |||
* ] | |||
On the other end of the scale, some Americans see themselves as conservative while not being supporters of free market policies. These people generally favour ] trade policies and government intervention in the market to preserve American jobs. Many of these conservatives were originally supporters of ] who changed their stance after perceiving that countries such as ] were benefiting from that system at the expense of American production. | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
===Competing ideologies=== | |||
Finally, some see the entire American political mainstream as having reached a conservative consensus, with the federal government being run by successive "]" and right-wing Republican administrations. In support of this theory, they point out that the only recent Democratic President (]) was from the ]-to-conservative wing of the Democratic Party. They also suggest that many ] are switching to the ] and thus largely leaving the ]. In a February 2005 speech, Republican ] ] declared, "Conservatism is the dominant political creed in America." | |||
* ] and ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
==References== | |||
Americans are often stereotyped by western Europeans as conservative due to the religious and right-wing tendencies as well as what the Europeans consider to be ] attitudes towards sex and drugs (particularly ]). | |||
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} | |||
===Contemporary conservative platform=== | |||
In the ] and western ], conservatism is generally associated with the following views, as noted by ] in his book, ''The Conservative Mind'': | |||
#"Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience." | |||
#"Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems;" | |||
#"Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society'." | |||
#"Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and the Leviathan becomes master of all." | |||
#"Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs." | |||
#"Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress." | |||
==See also== | |||
==Further reading== | |||
*] (Canada) | |||
{{Main article|Bibliography of conservatism in the United States}} | |||
*] | |||
* Aberbach, Joel D. "Understanding American Political Conservatism." in Robert A. Scott and Stephen M. Kosslyn, eds. ''Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource'' (2015). DOI: 10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0373 | |||
*] | |||
* {{cite book|last=Adams|first=Ian|year=2001|title=Political Ideology Today|location=|publisher=Manchester University Press|isbn=0-719-06020-6|ref=harv}} | |||
*] | |||
* Allitt, Patrick. ''The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History'' (2010) | |||
*] | |||
* {{cite book|last=Clark|first=Barry Stewart|year=1998|title=Political Economy: A Comparative Approach|location=|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=0-275-95869-8|ref=harv}} | |||
*] (Mathematical logic) | |||
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the Republican Right Rose to Power in Modern America'' (2nd ed. 2011) | |||
*] | |||
* Critchlow, Donald T. and Nancy MacLean. ''Debating the American Conservative Movement: 1945 to the Present'' (2009) | |||
*] | |||
* Filler, Louis. ''Dictionary of American Conservatism'' (], 1987) | |||
*] | |||
* Frohnen, Bruce et al. eds. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia'' (2006); the most detailed reference | |||
*] | |||
* ]. ''The Conservative Movement'' (Twayne, 1993.) | |||
*] | |||
* Gross, Neil, Thomas Medvetz, and Rupert Russell. "The Contemporary American Conservative Movement," ''Annual Review of Sociology'' (2011) 37 pp. 325–54 | |||
*] | |||
* Guttman, Allan. ''The Conservative Tradition in America'' (Oxford University Press, 1967). | |||
*] | |||
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order: 1964–1980'' (2009) ; ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution 1980–1989 (2009) | |||
*] | |||
* Hemmer, Nicole. ''Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics'' (U of Pennsylvania Press, 2016). xvi, 320 pp. | |||
*] | |||
* Kabaservice, Geoffrey. ''Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party'' (2012) scholarly history favorable to moderates ; | |||
*] | |||
* Lora, Ronald.; ''The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America'' Greenwood Press, 1999 | |||
*] | |||
* Lyons, Paul. ''American Conservatism: Thinking It, Teaching It.'' (Vanderbilt University Press, 2009). 202 pp. {{ISBN|978-0-8265-1626-8}} | |||
*] | |||
* Nash, George. ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945'' (2006; 1st ed. 1978) influential history | |||
*] | |||
* Phillips-Fein, Kim. "Conservatism: A State of the Field," ''Journal of American History,'' (Dec. 2011) 98#3 pp. 723–43 | |||
*'']'' | |||
* Rosen, Eliot A. ''The Republican Party in the Age of Roosevelt: Sources of Anti-Government Conservatism in the United States'' (2014) | |||
*] | |||
* Schneider, Gregory. ''The Conservative Century: From Reaction to Revolution'' (2009) | |||
*] | |||
* Thorne, Melvin J. ''American Conservative Thought since World War II: The Core Ideas '' (1990) | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
==External links== | |||
== Further reading == | |||
{{commons category}} | |||
* ]. 1991. ''The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy''. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674768671 (cloth) and ISBN 067476868X (paper). (], this book is out of print.) | |||
* ]. | |||
* ]. ''The Conservative Mind''. ]; 7th edition (October 1, 2001): ISBN 0895261715 (hardcover). | |||
* , 21 experts from the U.S. and abroad, ponder the future of conservatism. | |||
*]. ] Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. October 1997: ISBN 0872200205 (paper). | |||
* . | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* – slideshow by '']'' | |||
* . Kevin M. Kruse for ''].'' April 16, 2015. | |||
{{Conservatism US footer}} | |||
== External links and references == | |||
{{Conservatism footer}} | |||
* Berkeley's Conservative Voice | |||
{{North America topic|Conservatism in|state=expand}} | |||
* | |||
{{portal bar|Conservatism|Current events|Journalism|Politics|United States}} | |||
* | |||
* Conservatism | |||
* — Classical Liberal, Libertarian & Objectivist Discussion Board | |||
* — Paleoconservative Magazine | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* — Foresmost conservative political magazine in the United States | |||
* — Website for conservatives in the US Republican Party | |||
* | |||
* — Conservative news and information, columns, books, commentaries on today's issue, blog, meetup. | |||
* A Neoconservative think tank. | |||
* | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Conservatism In The United States}} | |||
] | |||
] |
Revision as of 17:54, 3 October 2017
"American conservative" redirects here. For the magazine, see The American Conservative. For related and other uses, see Conservatism (disambiguation).
American conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, support for Judeo-Christian values, moral absolutism, economic liberalism, anti-communism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from threats posed by "creeping socialism", moral relativism, multiculturalism and liberal internationalism. Liberty is a core value, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market, limiting the size and scope of government in the economy, and opposition to high taxes and government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur. American conservatives consider individual liberty, within the bounds of conformity to American values, as the fundamental trait of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice.
American conservatism originates from the Republicanism in the United States that rejected aristocracy and monarchy and built a new nation based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence of 1776, which said that "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". In 1789, the Constitution of United States established a Federal Republic under the rule of law. All major American political parties are based on these two documents. Conservative activists to this day occasionally dress in costumes from the Revolutionary era, and celebrate revolutionary episodes such as the Boston Tea Party. Conservatives also have major links to the classical liberalism of 18th and 19th centuries, which advocated laissez-faire economics, also called economic freedom.
Historians argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since 1776. However they have stressed that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s. The recent movement is based in the Republican Party, though some Democrats were also important figures early in the movement's history.
According to Peter Viereck, American conservatism is distinctive because it was not tied to a monarchy, landed aristocracy, established church, or military elite. Instead American conservatives were firmly rooted in American republicanism, which European conservatives opposed. They are committed, says Seymour Martin Lipset, to the belief in America's "superiority against the cold reactionary monarchical and more rigidly status-bound system of European society."
Overview
The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and competing ideologies. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians favor small government, laissez-faire economy, low income and corporate taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism; they tend to support voluntary school prayer and oppose abortion and same sex marriage. The 21st century has seen an increase in conservative support for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world. Paleoconservatives advocate restrictions on immigration, non-interventionist foreign policy, and stand in opposition to multiculturalism. Nationwide most factions, except some libertarians, support a unilateral foreign policy, and a strong military. The conservative movement of the 1950s attempted to bring together these divergent strands, stressing the need for unity to prevent the spread of "godless communism."
William F. Buckley Jr., in the first issue of his magazine National Review in 1955, explained the standards of his magazine and helped make explicit the beliefs of American conservatives:
Among our convictions: It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.
Ideology and political philosophy
Traditional (Burkean) conservatives tend to be anti-ideological, and some would even say anti-philosophical, promoting rather, as Russell Kirk explained, a steady flow of "prescription and prejudice". Kirk's use of the word "prejudice" here is not intended to carry its contemporary pejorative connotation: a conservative himself, he believed that the inherited wisdom of the ages may be a better guide than apparently rational individual judgment.
There are two overlapping subgroups of social conservatives—the traditional and the religious. Traditional conservatives strongly support traditional codes of conduct, especially those they feel are threatened by social change and modernization. For example, traditional conservatives may oppose the use of female soldiers in combat. Religious conservatives focus on conducting society as prescribed by a religious authority or code. In the United States this translates into taking hard-line stances on moral issues, such as opposition to abortion and homosexuality. Religious conservatives often assert that "America is a Christian nation" and call for laws that enforce Christian morality.
Fiscal conservatives support limited government, low tax, low spending, and a balanced budget. They argue that low taxes produce more jobs and wealth for everyone, and also that, as President Grover Cleveland said, "unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation". A recent movement against the inheritance tax labels such a tax as a death tax. Fiscal conservatives often argue that competition in the free market is more effective than the regulation of industry. Some make exceptions in the case of trusts or monopolies. Others, such as some libertarians and followers of Ludwig von Mises, believe all government intervention in the economy is wasteful, corrupt, and immoral. More moderate fiscal conservatives argue that "free market economics" is the most efficient way to promote economic growth: they support it not based on some moral principle, but pragmatically, because they hold that it just "works."
Most modern American fiscal conservatives accept some social spending programs not specifically delineated in the Constitution. As such, fiscal conservatism today exists somewhere between classical liberalism and contemporary consequentialist political philosophies.
Through much of the 20th century, a primary force uniting the varied strands of conservatism, and uniting conservatives with liberals and socialists, was opposition to communism, which was seen not only as an enemy of the traditional order, but also the enemy of Western freedom and democracy. Thus it was the British Labour government—which embraced socialism—that pushed the Truman administration in 1945–47 to take a strong stand against Soviet Communism.
Social conservatism and tradition
Main article: Social conservatism in the United StatesSocial conservatism in the United States is the defense of traditional social norms and Judeo-Christian values.
Social conservatives tend to strongly identify with American nationalism and patriotism. They often denounce anti-war protesters and support the police and the military. They hold that military institutions embody core values such as honor, duty, courage, loyalty, and a willingness on the part of the individual to make sacrifices for the good of the country.
Social conservatives are strongest in the South and in recent years played a major role in the political coalitions of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.
Fiscal conservatism and economic liberalism
Main articles: Fiscal conservatism and Economic liberalismFiscal conservatism is the economic and political policy that advocates restraint of progressive taxation and expenditure. Fiscal conservatives since the 19th century have argued that debt is a device to corrupt politics; they argue that big spending ruins the morals of the people, and that a national debt creates a dangerous class of speculators. A political strategy employed by conservatives to achieve a smaller government is known as starve the beast. Activist Grover Norquist is a well-known proponent of the strategy and has famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." The argument in favor of balanced budgets is often coupled with a belief that government welfare programs should be narrowly tailored and that tax rates should be low, which implies relatively small government institutions.
This belief in small government combines with fiscal conservatism to produce a broader economic liberalism, which wishes to minimize government intervention in the economy or implement laissez-faire policies. This economic liberalism borrows from two schools of thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are the only ethical markets.
Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues that classical liberalism in the 19th century U.S. had distinctive characteristics as opposed to Britain:
- at the center of classical liberal theory was the idea of laissez-faire. To the vast majority of American classical liberals, however, laissez-faire did not mean no government intervention at all. On the contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal improvements, all of which benefited producers. What they condemned was intervention in behalf of consumers.
The economic philosophy of conservatives in the United States tends to be more liberal allowing for more economic freedom. Economic liberalism can go well beyond fiscal conservatism's concern for fiscal prudence, to a belief or principle that it is not prudent for governments to intervene in markets. It is also, sometimes, extended to a broader "small government" philosophy. Economic liberalism is associated with free market, or laissez-faire economics.
Economic liberalism, insofar as it is ideological, owes its creation to the "classical liberal" tradition, in the vein of Adam Smith, Friedrich A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises.
Classical liberals and libertarians support free markets on moral, ideological grounds: principles of individual liberty morally dictate support for free markets. Supporters of the moral grounds for free markets include Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. The liberal tradition is suspicious of government authority, and prefers individual choice, and hence tends to see free market capitalism as the preferable means of achieving economic ends.
Modern conservatives, on the other hand, derive support for free markets from practical grounds. Free markets, they argue, are the most productive markets. Thus the modern conservative supports free markets not out of necessity, but out of expedience. The support is not moral or ideological, but driven on the Burkean notion of prescription: what works best is what is right.
Another reason why conservatives support a smaller role for the government in the economy is the belief in the importance of the civil society. As noted by Alexis de Tocqueville, there is a belief that a bigger role of the government in the economy will make people feel less responsible for the society. These responsibilities would then need to be taken over by the government, requiring higher taxes. In his book Democracy in America, Tocqueville described this as "soft oppression."
While classical liberals and modern conservatives reached free markets through different means historically, in recent years the lines have blurred. Rarely will a conservative politician claim that free markets are "simply more productive" or "simply the right thing to do" but a combination of both. This blurring is very much a product of the merging of the classical liberal and modern conservative positions under the "umbrella" of the conservative movement.
The archetypal free-market conservative administrations of the late 20th century—the Margaret Thatcher government in Britain and the Ronald Reagan administration in the U.S.–both held the unfettered operation of the market to be the cornerstone of contemporary modern conservatism. To that end, Thatcher privatized industries and public housing and Reagan cut the maximum capital gains tax from 28% to 20%, though in his second term he agreed to raise it back up to 28%. Reagan also cut individual income tax rates, lowering the maximum rate from 70% to 28%. He wanted to increase defense spending and achieved that; liberal Democrats blocked his efforts to cut domestic spending. Reagan did not control the rapid increase in federal government spending, or reduce the deficit, but his record looks better when expressed as a percent of the gross domestic product. Federal revenues as a percent of the GDP fell from 19.6% in 1981 when Reagan took office to 18.3% in 1989 when he left. Federal spending fell slightly from 22.2% of the GDP to 21.2%. This contrasts with statistics from 2004, when government spending was rising more rapidly than it had in decades.
Types
See also: Factions in the Republican Party (United States)In the United States today, the word "conservative" is often used very differently from the way it is used in Europe and Asia. The Americans after 1776 rejected the core ideals of European conservatism, which were based on the landed aristocracy, the established church, and the powerful, prestigious army.
Conservatism in the United States is not a single school of thought. Barry Goldwater in the 1960s spoke for a "free enterprise" conservatism. Jerry Falwell in the 1980s preached traditional moral and religious social values. It was Reagan's challenge to form these groups into an electable coalition. In the 21st century U.S., some of the groups calling themselves "conservative" include:
- Christian conservatism – Conservative Christians are primarily interested in family values. Typical positions include the view that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, that abortion is wrong, that there should be prayer in state schools, that intelligent design or creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution, and that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman and not between two members of the same sex. Many attack the profanity and sexuality in the media and movies.
- Constitutional conservatism - A form of conservatism bound within the limits provided within the United States constitution, defending the structures of constitutionalism, and preserving the principles of the United States constitution. Chief among those principles is the defense of liberty. This form of conservatism coalesced in the Republican Party in the early 20th century, in opposition to Progressivism within the party; it can also be seen being influential to the 21st century Tea Party movement. Constitutional conservatism has also been associated with judicial originalism.
- Libertarian conservatism – A fusion with libertarianism, this type emphasizes a strict interpretation of the Constitution, particularly with regard to federal power. Libertarian conservatism is constituted by a broad, sometimes conflicted, coalition including pro-business social moderates, those favoring more rigid enforcement of states' rights, individual liberty activists, and many of those who place their socially liberal ideology ahead of their fiscal beliefs. This mode of thinking tends to espouse laissez-faire economics and a critical view of the federal government. Libertarian conservatives' emphasis on personal freedom often leads them to have social positions contrary to those of social conservatives, especially on such issues as marijuana, abortion and homosexuality. Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul have been influential proponents in the Republican presidential contests.
- Neoconservatism – A modern form of conservatism that supports a more assertive, interventionist foreign policy, aimed at promoting democracy abroad. It is tolerant of an activist government at home, but is focused mostly on international affairs. Neoconservatism was first described by a group of disaffected liberals, and thus Irving Kristol, usually credited as its intellectual progenitor, defined a neoconservative as "a liberal who was mugged by reality." Although originally regarded as an approach to domestic policy (the founding instrument of the movement, Kristol's The Public Interest periodical, did not even cover foreign affairs), through the influence of figures like Dick Cheney, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman and (Irving's son) Bill Kristol, it has become most famous for its association with the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration in the Middle East that used the military to promote democracy.
- Paleoconservatism – In part a rebirth of the Old Right, arising in the 1980s in reaction to neoconservatism, stresses tradition, especially Christian tradition and the importance to society of the traditional family. Some, Samuel P. Huntington for example, argue that multiracial, multi-ethnic, and egalitarian states are inherently unstable. Paleoconservatives are generally isolationist, and suspicious of foreign influence. The magazines Chronicles and The American Conservative are generally considered to be paleoconservative in nature.
- Traditionalist conservatism – Opposition to rapid change in political and social institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes means (slow change) over ends (any particular form of government). To the traditionalist, whether one arrives at a right- or left-wing government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and utopian schemes.
History
Main article: History of conservatism in the United StatesIn the United States there has never been a national political party called the Conservative Party. All major American political parties support republicanism and the basic classical liberal ideals on which the country was founded in 1776, emphasizing liberty, the rule of law, the consent of the governed, and that all men were created equal. Political divisions inside the United States often seemed minor or trivial to Europeans, where the divide between the Left and the Right led to violent polarization, starting with the French Revolution.
Historian Patrick Allitt expresses the difference between liberal and conservative in terms not of policy but of attitude:
- Certain continuities can be traced through American history. The conservative 'attitude' ... was one of trusting to the past, to long-established patterns of thought and conduct, and of assuming that novelties were more likely to be dangerous than advantageous.
No American party has advocated European ideals of "conservatism" such as a monarchy, an established church, or a hereditary aristocracy. American conservatism is best characterized as a reaction against utopian ideas of progress. Russell Kirk saw the American Revolution itself as "a conservative reaction, in the English political tradition, against royal innovation".
Recent policies
President Ronald Reagan set the conservative standard in the 1980s; in the 2010s the Republican leaders typically claim fealty to it. For example, most of the Republican candidates in 2012 "claimed to be standard bearers of Reagan's ideological legacy." Reagan solidified conservative Republican strength with tax cuts, a greatly increased military budget, continued deregulation, a policy of rollback of Communism (rather than just containing it), and appeals to family values and conservative morality. The 1980s and beyond became known as the "Reagan Era." Typically, conservative politicians and spokesmen in the 21st century proclaim their devotion to Reagan's ideals and policies on most social, economic and foreign policy issues.
Other modern conservative beliefs include skepticism of the theory of man-made global warming and opposition to government action to combat it, which conservatives contend would do severe economic damage, and ultimately more harm than good even if one accepts the premise that human activity is contributing to climate change. They support a strong policy of law and order to control crime, including long jail terms for repeat offenders. Most conservatives support the death penalty for particularly egregious crimes. The "law and order" issue was a major factor weakening liberalism in the 1960s. From 2001 to 2008, Republican President George W. Bush stressed cutting taxes and minimizing regulation of industry and banking, while increasing regulation of education. Conservatives generally advocate the use of American military power to fight terrorists and promote democracy in the Middle East.
According to a 2014 poll, 38% of American voters identify as "conservative" or "very conservative," 34% as "moderate," 24% as "liberal" or "very liberal". These percentages were fairly constant from 1990 to 2009, when conservatism spiked in popularity briefly before reverting to the original trend while liberal views on social issues reached a new high. Although the study does show some distinction between the concentration of moderates and conservatives or liberals between the Republican and Democratic parties. Among Democrats, 44% are self-identified liberals, 19% as conservatives, and 36% as moderates. For Republicans 70% self-identified as conservative, 24% as moderate, and 5% as liberal.
Conservatism appears to be growing stronger at the state level. The trend is most pronounced among the "least well-off, least educated, most blue collar, most economically hard-hit states."
Conservatives generally believe that government action is not the solution to such problems as poverty and inequality. Many believe that government programs that seek to provide services and opportunities for the poor actually encourage dependence and reduce self-reliance. Most conservatives oppose affirmative action policies, that is, policies in employment, education, and other areas that give special advantages to people who belong to groups that have been historically discriminated against. Conservatives believe that the government should not give special benefits to people on the basis of group identity and oppose it as "reverse discrimination".
Conservatives typically hold that the government should play a smaller role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose high tax rates and programs to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work. However, conservatives usually place a strong emphasis on the role of private voluntary charitable organizations (especially faith-based charities) in helping the poor.
As conservatives value order and security, they favor a small but strong government role in law enforcement and national defense.
Social issues
On social issues, many religious conservatives oppose changes in traditional moral standards regarding sexuality and gender roles. They oppose abortion, same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws against homosexuals. The libertarian faction tends to ignore these issues, instead focusing on fiscal and monetary policy. Business-oriented conservatives oppose the social conservatives if state laws limiting gay rights threaten to hurt business. The National Review reported in 2016 that, "as evangelical forces have become less unified...the influence of Right-leaning business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce has only grown." In the culture war of recent decades, multiculturalism has been a flashpoint, especially regarding the humanities curriculum. Historian Peter N. Stearns finds a polarization since the 1960s between conservatives, who believe that the humanities express eternal truths that should be taught, and those who think that the humanities curriculum should be tailored to demonstrate diversity. Generally conservatism opposes the "identity politics" associated with multiculturalism, and supports individualism. In campus battles, progressives demand "Cultural diversity" while conservatives denounce efforts to impose "political correctness" and stifle free speech.
Conservatives typically favor a "melting pot" model of assimilation into common English-speaking American culture, as opposed to a "salad bowl" approach that lends legitimacy to many different cultures. In the 21st century, conservatives have warned on the dangers of tolerating radical Islamic elements, of the sort that they say are engaging in large-scale terrorism in Europe.
Electoral politics
In the United States, the Republican Party has been the party of conservatism since the 1890s, although there was a strong Eastern liberal wing. Since 1964 the conservatives largely took control. Meanwhile, the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, based in the South and strongly opposed to Civil Rights, grew weaker. The most dramatic realignment took place within the White South, which moved from 3–1 Democratic to 3–1 Republican between 1960 and 2000.
In addition, some American libertarians, in the Libertarian Party and even some in the Republican Party, see themselves as conservative, even though they advocate significant economic and social changes—for instance, further dismantling the welfare system or liberalizing drug policy. They see these as conservative policies because they conform to the spirit of individual liberty that they consider to be a traditional American value. However, many libertarian think-tanks such as the Cato Institute, and libertarian intellectuals such as David Boaz describe libertarianism as being "socially liberal and fiscally conservative." Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul is one of the most well-noted Republicans with a libertarian-leaning philosophy. Espousing a return to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution, an audit of the Federal Reserve System and an end to American Interventionism in other parts of the world, Paul gained a loyal following among libertarians, displaced conservatives in the Republican Party and also made inroads with some Democrats during two failed attempts to gain the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2008 and 2012. Paul, an obstetrician by training, also ran as the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential nominee.
On the other hand, some conservatives tend to oppose free-market trade policies and support protectionism instead. They want government intervention to support the economy and protect American jobs. They oppose free trade on the ground that it benefits other countries (especially China) in the expense of American workers. However, in spite of their support for protectionism, they tend to support other free-market principles like low taxes, small government and balanced budgets.
Geography
The South, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountain states, and Alaska are generally conservative strongholds. The Northeast, Great Lakes Region, and West Coast are the main liberal strongholds. Conservatives are strongest in rural America and, to a lesser extent, in the exurbs or suburbs. Voters in the urban cores of large metropolitan areas tend to be more liberal and Democratic. Thus, within each state, there is a division between urban, suburban, exurban, and rural areas. In recent decades, the electoral geography has helped give Republicans control of the House of Representatives, and Democrats a decided edge in the Electoral College which elects the president.
Other topics
Kirk's principles of conservatism
Russell Kirk developed six "canons" of conservatism, which Gerald J. Russello described as follows:
- A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
- An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
- A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;
- A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
- A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
- A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.
Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another" and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief."
In later works, Kirk expanded this list into his "Ten Principles of Conservatism" which are as follows:
- First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
- Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
- Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
- Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
- Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
- Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
- Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
- Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
- Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
- Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
Courts
One stream of conservatism exemplified by William Howard Taft extols independent judges as experts in fairness and the final arbiters of the Constitution. In 1910 Theodore Roosevelt broke with most of his lawyer friends and called for popular votes that could overturn unwelcome decisions by state courts. Taft denounced his old friend and rallied conservatives to defeat him for the 1912 GOP nomination. Taft and the conservative Republicans controlled the Supreme Court until the late 1930s.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a liberal Democrat, did not attack the Supreme Court directly in 1937, but ignited a firestorm of protest by a proposal to add seven new justices. Conservative Democrats immediately broke with FDR, defeated his proposal, and built up the Conservative Coalition. While the liberals did take over the Court through replacements, they lost control of Congress. That is, the Court no longer overthrew liberal laws passed by Congress, but there were very few such laws that passed in 1937–60.
A recent variant of conservatism condemns "judicial activism"; that is, judges using their decisions to control policy, along the lines of the Warren Court in the 1960s. It came under conservative attack for decisions regarding redistricting, desegregation, and the rights of those accused of crimes. This position goes back to Jefferson's vehement attacks on federal judges and to Abraham Lincoln's attacks on the Dred Scott decision of 1857.
Originalism
Main article: OriginalismA more recent variant that emerged in the 1970s is "originalism", the assertion that the United States Constitution should be interpreted to the maximum extent possible in the light of what it meant when it was adopted. Originalism should not be confused with a similar conservative ideology, strict constructionism, which deals with the interpretation of the Constitution as written, but not necessarily within the context of the time when it was adopted. In modern times, the term originalism has been used by Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, former federal judge Robert Bork and some other conservative jurists to explain their beliefs.
Environmentalism
In the past, Conservatives have supported conservation efforts, from the protection of the Yosemite Valley, to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. However, more recently, neoconservatives have opposed environmentalism; with environmentalists often ridiculed as "tree huggers". Republican Party leaders such as Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann advocate the abolition of the EPA, calling it "the job-killing organization of America."
Conservative think tanks since the 1990s have opposed the concept of man-made global warming; they challenged scientific evidence, publicised what they perceived as beneficial aspects of global warming, and stated their strong beliefs that proposed remedies would do more harm than good. The concept of anthropogenic global warming continues to be an ongoing debate amongst Conservatives in the United States, but the majority reject the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by humans; 73% of Republicans believed humans were uninvolved in causing global warming, according to a 2015 poll by Pew Research.
In recent times, American Conservatives have generally supported deregulation of pollution and reduced restrictions on carbon emissions. Similarly, they have advocated increased oil drilling with less regulatory interference, such as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the 2008 election, the phrase, "Drill baby drill" was used to express the Republican position on the subject.
Semantics, language, and media
Vocabulary
Socialism
The term "socialist" has been used as a "rhetorical weapon" against the Left by conservatives. 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." White set "Americanism" as the alternative, warning, "The election will sustain Americanism or it will plant Socialism." White became famous when Mark Hanna, campaign manager for Republican conservative William McKinley distributed upwards of a million or more copies of one White editorial to rally opposition to William Jennings Bryan, the nominee of both the Democratic and Populist parties.
By the 1950s, the conservative press had discovered that the word 'socialism' "proved to be a successful derogatory epithet rather than a descriptive label for a meaningful political alternative." At the 1952 Republican national convention, former President Herbert Hoover repeated his warnings about two decades of New Deal policies, denouncing, says Gary Best, "The usurpation of power by the federal government, the loss of freedom in America, the poisoning of the American economy with fascism, socialism, and Keynesianism, the enormous growth of the federal bureaucracy." Barry Goldwater in 1960 called for Republican unity against John F. Kennedy and the "blueprint for socialism presented by the Democrats." Goldwater in 1964 attacked central planners like fellow Republican Nelson Rockefeller, implying he was a socialist in a millionaire's garb: "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." Ronald Reagan often quoted Norman Thomas, the perennial Socialist nominee for president in the New Deal era, as saying, "The American people would never knowingly vote for Socialism, but that under the name of liberalism, they would adopt every fragment of the socialist program." In 2010 Newt Gingrich defined "socialism in the broad sense" as "a government-dominated, bureaucratically-controlled, politician-dictated way of life." Gingrich believes Barack Obama is committed to this form of socialism.
Media
Talk radio and Fox News
Conservatives gained a major new communications medium with the resurgence of talk radio in the late 1980s. Rush Limbaugh proved there was a huge nationwide audience for specific and heated discussions of current events from a conservative viewpoint. Other major hosts who describe themselves as conservative include: Michael Peroutka, Jim Quinn, Dennis Miller, Ben Ferguson, William Bennett, Andrew Wilkow, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingraham, Mike Church, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Kim Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Michael Reagan, Jason Lewis, Ken Hamblin, and Herman Cain. The Salem Radio Network syndicates a group of religiously oriented Republican activists, including Roman Catholic Hugh Hewitt, and Jewish conservatives Dennis Prager and Michael Medved. One popular Jewish conservative, Laura Schlessinger, offers parental and personal advice, but is outspoken on social and political issues. In 2011, the largest weekly audiences for talk radio were 15 million for Limbaugh and 14 million for Hannity, with about nine million each for Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Mark Levin. The audiences overlap, depending on how many each listener dials into every week.
Fox News features conservative hosts. One such host is Sean Hannity, who also has a talk radio program. One former host is Matt Drudge; prior, and after his time on Fox News, Drudge has operated Drudge Report a news aggregation website and is a self-professed conservative. It is more conservative than other news sources in the United States, such as National Public Radio and CNN.
Critic David Frum has argued that the influence of conservative talk radio and Fox News has harmed American conservatism, turning it from "a political philosophy into a market segment" for extremism and conflict making "for bad politics but great TV." Backed by the conservative book-publishing industry and think tanks, talk radio and Fox News,
have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he's a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even Britain. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) "the only place in the world where it doesn't matter who your parents were or where you came from."
Academia
Admission to academe
Liberal and leftist viewpoints have dominated higher education faculties since the 1970s, according to many studies, whereas conservatives are better represented in policy-oriented think tanks. Data from a survey conducted in 2004 indicated that 72% of full-time faculty identify as liberal, while 9–18% self-identify as conservative. Conservative self-identification is higher in two-year colleges than other categories of higher education but has been declining overall. Those in natural sciences, engineering, and business were less liberal than those in the social sciences and humanities. A 2005 study found that liberal views had increased compared to the older studies. 15% in the survey described themselves as center-right. While the humanities and the social sciences are still the most left leaning, 67% of those in other fields combined described themselves as center-left on the spectrum. In business and engineering, liberals outnumber conservatives by a 2:1 ratio. The study also found that women, practicing Christians, and Republicans taught at lower ranked schools than would be expected from objectively measured professional accomplishments. A study by psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammars, of the Netherlands' Tilburg University, published in September 2012 in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, found that, in social and personality psychology, about a third of those surveyed say that they would to a small extent favor a liberal point of view over a conservative point of view. A 2007 poll found that 58% of Americans thought that college professors' political bias was a "serious problem". This varied depending on the political views of those asked. 91% of "very conservative" adults agreed compared with only 3% of liberals. That same year a documentary, Indoctrinate U, was released which focuses on the perceived bias within academia.
On the other hand, liberal critic Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times that this phenomenon is more due to personal choice than some kind of discrimination or conspiracy, noting that, for example, vocations such as military officers are much more likely to be filled by conservatives, rather than liberals. Additionally, two studies published in the journal of the American Political Science Association have suggested that the political orientations of college students' professors have little influence or "indoctrination" in terms of students' political belief.
Relativism versus universal truths
Postmodernism is an approach common in the humanities on campus that greatly troubles conservative intellectuals. The issue is relativism versus absolute truths. Ellen Grigsby says, "Postmodern perspectives contend that any ideology putting forward absolute statements as timeless truths should be viewed with profound skepticism." Kellner says, "Postmodern discourse frequently argues that all discourses and values are socially constructed and laden with interests and biases. Against postmodern and liberal relativism, cultural conservatives have argued for values of universal truth and absolute standards of right and wrong."
Neoconservative historian Gertrude Himmelfarb has energetically rejected postmodern academic approaches:
- is a denial of the objectivity of the historian, of the factuality or reality of the past, and thus of the possibility of arriving at any truths about the past. For all disciplines it induces a radical skepticism, relativism, and subjectivism that denies not this or that truth about any subject but the very idea of truth—that denies even the ideal of truth, truth is something to aspire to even if it can never be fully attained.
Here is a representative summary of postmodern literary studies of the sort that antagonize conservatives, written by Jay Stevenson:
- the postmodern period. Traditional literature has been found to have been written by "dead white males" to serve the ideological aims of a conservative and repressive Anglo hegemony....In an array of reactions against the race, gender, and class biases found to be woven into the tradition of Anglo lit, multicultural writers and political literary theorists have sought to expose, resist, and redress injustices and prejudices. These prejudices are often covert—disguised in literature and other discourses as positive ideals and objective truths—but they slant our sense of reality in favor of power and privilege.
Conservative intellectuals have championed a "high conservative modernism" that insists that universal truths exist, and have opposed approaches that deny the existence of universal truths. Many argued that natural law was the repository of timeless truths. Allan Bloom, in his highly influential The Closing of the American Mind (1987) argues that moral degradation results from ignorance of the great classics that shaped Western culture. His book was widely cited by conservative intellectuals for its argument that the classics contained universal truths and timeless values which were being ignored by cultural relativists.
Historiography
Historians in recent years have agreed that they need to rethink the role of conservatism in recent American history. An important new approach rejects the older consensus that liberalism was the dominant ethos. Labor historians Jefferson Cowie and Nick Salvatore argue the New Deal was a short-term response to depression and did not mark a permanent commitment to a welfare state, claiming that America has always been too individualistic and too hostile to labor unions to ever embrace liberalism for any extended period of time. This new interpretation argues that conservatism has largely dominated American politics since the 1920s, with the brief exceptions of the New Deal era (1933–38) and the Great Society (1964–66). Zelizer, however, argues that "The coherence of conservatism has been exaggerated. The movement was as fragile as the New Deal coalition that it replaced....Policy change has thus proved to be much more difficult than conservatives hoped for." Zelizer does find four areas where conservatives did make major changes: retrenchment of domestic programs, lowering taxes, deregulation, and opposition to labor unions. He concludes, "The fact is that liberalism survived the rise of conservatism."
American exceptionalism
Main article: American exceptionalismAmerican conservatives typically promote American exceptionalism, the idea that the United States is inherently different from other nations and has a duty to take the lead in spreading democracy and free markets to the world. Reagan especially articulated this role (and many liberals also agree with it). They see American values emerging from the American Revolution, thereby becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation" and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy, laissez-faire capitalism and Judeo-Christian values..
Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and other American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense. To them, the U.S. is like the biblical "City upon a Hill"—a phrase evoked by Puritan settlers in Massachusetts as early as 1630—and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.
Scholars have argued that British and European conservatism has little or no relevance to American traditions. According to political scientist Louis Hartz, because the United States skipped the feudal stage of history, the American community was united by liberal principles, and the conflict between the "Whig" and "Democratic" parties were conflicts within a liberal framework. In this view, what is called "conservatism" in America is not European conservatism (with its royalty, landowning aristocracy, elite officer corps, and established churches) but rather 19th century classical liberalism with an emphasis on economic freedom and entrepreneurship. This is in contrast to the view that Burkean conservatism has a set of universal principles which can be applied all societies. Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind argued that the American Revolution was "a conservative reaction, in the English political tradition, against royal innovation". Liberal historian Richard Hofstader criticized modern American conservatives as "pseudo-conservatives", because their negative reaction to the policies of Harry Truman showed "dissatisfaction with American life, traditions and institutions" and because they had "little in common with the temperate and compromising spirit of true conservatism".
Thinkers and leaders
See also: List of American conservativesClinton Rossiter, a leading expert on American political history, published his history of Conservatism in America (1956) and also a summary article on "The Giants Of American Conservatism" in American Heritage. His goal was to identify the "great men who did conservative deeds, thought conservative thoughts, practiced conservative virtues, and stood for conservative principles." To Rossiter, conservatism was defined by the rule of the upper class. He wrote, "The Right of these freewheeling decades was a genuine Right: it was led by the rich and well-placed; it was skeptical of popular government; it was opposed to all parties, unions, leagues, or other movements that sought to invade its positions of power and profit; it was politically, socially, and culturally anti-radical." His "giants of American conservatism" were: John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Elihu Root, and Theodore Roosevelt. He added that Washington and Lincoln transcend the usual categories, but that conservatives "may argue with some conviction that Washington and Lincoln can also be added to his list."
Rossiter went to note the importance of other conservative leaders over the past two centuries. Among the fathers of the Constitution, which he calls "a triumph of conservative statesmanship", Rossiter said conservatives may "take special pride" in James Madison, James Wilson, Roger Sherman, John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris and the Pinckneys of South Carolina. For the early 19th century, Rossiter said the libertarians and constitutionalists who deserve the conservative spotlight for their fight against Jacksonian democracy include Joseph Story and Josiah Quincy in Massachusetts; Chancellor James Kent in New York; James Madison, James Monroe, and John Randolph of Roanoke in Virginia.
In the decades around 1900, Rossiter finds that Grover Cleveland, Elihu Root, William Howard Taft, and Theodore Roosevelt "were most successful in shaping the old truths of conservatism to the new facts of industrialism and democracy."
Writing in 1955 he suggests that Robert A. Taft, Charles Evans Hughes, and Dwight D. Eisenhower may someday be added to the list.
In the 21st century, the American conservative movement has seen new leaders emerge, including political commentators, politicians, radio hosts, television hosts, and authors such as Glenn Beck, George W. Bush, Tucker Carlson, Ben Carson, Tom Cotton, Steven Crowder, Ted Cruz, Erick Erickson, Carly Fiorina, David French, Nikki Haley, Lynn Jenkins, Bobby Jindal, Charles Krauthammer, Mike Lee, Tommy Sotomayor, Mark Levin, Dana Loesch, Michelle Malkin, Susana Martinez, Russell Moore, Mike Pence, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Ben Sasse, Tim Scott, Ben Shapiro, and Scott Walker.
See also
- Bibliography of conservatism in the United States
- Christian right
- Compassionate conservatism
- Constitution Party
- Fusionism
- Libertarian conservatism
- Media bias in the United States
- Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism
- Old Right (United States)
- Republican Party (United States)
- Timeline of modern American conservatism
- Traditional values
Competing ideologies
References
- Gregory L. Schneider, The Conservative Century: From Reaction to Revolution "The label (conservatism) is in frequent use and has come to stand for a skepticism, at times an outright hostility, toward government social policies; a muscular foreign policy combined with a patriotic nationalism; a defense of traditional Christian religious values; and support for the free market economic system.", "Within the conservative disposition in America, there are inherent contradictions between supporters of social order and tradition and supporters of individual freedom.", (2009) pp. 4–9, 136
- Sherwood Thompson, Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice. p. 7: "Historically...social justice became associated with liberalism in which equality is the ideal.", Rowman & Littlefield, 2014, ISBN 978-1442216044.
- Modern Political Philosophy (1999), Richard Hudelson, pp. 37–38
- M. O. Dickerson et al., An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach (2009) p. 129
- Patrick Allitt, The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History, p. "before the 1950s there was no such thing as a conservative movement in the United States.", Yale University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-300-16418-3
- Kirk, Russell. The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (1953) traced a continuous tradition since the 1790s.
- Nicol C. Rae (1994). Southern Democrats. Oxford U.P. p. 66.
- Merle Black, "The transformation of the southern Democratic Party." Journal of Politics 66.4 (2004): 1001–17.
- Katznelson, Ira; Geiger, Kim; Kryder, Daniel (Summer 1993). "Limiting Liberalism: The Southern Veto in Congress, 1933–1950" (PDF). Political Science Quarterly. 108 (2): 283. doi:10.2307/2152013.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
(help) - Peter Viereck, Conservative Thinkers: From John Adams to Winston Churchill (1956), pp. 1–22.
- Milan Zafirovski (2008). Modern Free Society and Its Nemesis: Liberty Versus Conservatism in the New Millennium. Lexington Books. pp. 44–45.
- Safire, William (January 25, 2004). "The Way We Live Now: On Language; Guns, God And Gays". The New York Times.
- Ahoura Afshar, "The Anti-gay Rights Movement in the United States: The Framing of Religion," Essex Human Rights Review (2006) 3#1 pp. 64–79
- Glenn Utter and Robert J. Spitzer, Encyclopedia of Gun Control & Gun Rights (2nd ed. 2011)
- Cal Jillson (2011). Texas Politics: Governing the Lone Star State. Taylor & Francis. p. 87.
Social conservatives focus on moral or values issues, such as abortion, marriage, school prayer, and judicial appointments.
- John Anderson; University of North Carolina John Anderson (September 19, 2014). Conservative Christian Politics in Russia and the United States: Dreaming of Christian Nations. Routledge. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-317-60663-5.
Amy Lind; Stephanie Brzuzy (2008). Battleground: M-Z. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 508. ISBN 978-0-313-34039-0.
Kenneth M. Cosgrove (2007). Branded Conservatives: How the Brand Brought the Right from the Fringes to the Center of American Politics. Peter Lang. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-8204-7465-6.
Steven L. Danver (May 14, 2013). Encyclopedia of Politics of the American West. SAGE Publications. p. 262. ISBN 978-1-4522-7606-9. - Bruce Frohnen, ed. American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (2006) pp. ix–xiv
- Michael Foley (2007). American credo: the place of ideas in US politics. Oxford University Press.
Against accusations of being pre-modern or even anti-modern in outlook, paleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of multicultural programmes, the decentralization of the federal polity, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and isolationism in the conduct of American foreign policy, and a generally revanchist outlook upon a social order in need of recovering old lines of distinction and in particular the assignment of roles in accordance with traditional categories of gender, ethnicity, and race.
- Paul Gottfried, Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right, p. 9, "Postwar conservatives set about creating their own synthesis of free-market capitalism, Christian morality, and the global struggle against Communism." (2009); Gottfried, Theologies and moral concern (1995) p. 12
- "The Magazine's Credenda". National Review.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - "The Value-Centered Historicism of Edmund Burke". National Humanities Institute. July 29, 2010. Retrieved January 6, 2012.
- Grover Cleveland, "The President's message, 1887" (1887) online p. 37
- John Callaghan, The Cold War and the March of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Contemporary British History, Autumn 2001, Vol. 15 Issue 3, pp. 1–25
- Joel D. Aberbach; Gillian Peele (2011). Crisis of Conservatism?: The Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, and American Politics After Bush. Oxford UP. p. 260.
- See President Reagan's speech to governors in 1987 at Reagan, Ronald (1989). Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1987. p. 292.
- Majia Holmer Nadesan (June 10, 2010). Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life. Routledge. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-135-90358-9.
Joel D. Aberbach; Gillian Peele (June 17, 2011). Crisis of Conservatism?: The Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, and American Politics After Bush. Oxford University Press. p. 260. ISBN 978-0-19-983136-4.
Louise A. Tilly; Patricia Gurin (June 21, 1990). Women, Politics and Change. Russell Sage Foundation. p. 532. ISBN 978-1-61044-534-4. - Darren Dochuk, From Bible Belt to Sun Belt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical Conservatism (W.W. Norton & Company; 2010) shows how migrants to Southern California from Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas provided evangelical support for social conservatism.
- Ed Kilgore. "Starving the Beast". Blueprint Magazine. Archived from the original on November 20, 2004. Retrieved December 9, 2010.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - "Article | The American Prospect". Prospect.org. March 15, 2005. Retrieved December 9, 2010.
- Kathleen G. Donohue (2005). Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Idea of the Consumer. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 2.
- Dieter Plehwe, Bernhard Walpen, Gisela Neunhöffer (eds), Neoliberal Hegemony: A Global Critique, Routledge, (February 8, 2006), ISBN 0415460034, p. 1
- Steven F. Hayward, The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution 1980–1989 (2009), p. 477
- Chris Edwards, "Reagan's Budget Legacy," CATO Institute June 8, 2004
- Nash, George H, (April 26, 2016). "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America: Then and Now". National Review. New York City. Retrieved April 14, 2017.
Modern American conservatism is not, and has never been, monolithic. It is a coalition with many points of origin and diverse tendencies that are not always easy to reconcile.
{{cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Paul S. Boyer; et al. (2007). The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People. Cengage Learning. p. 934.
- see Steven Brint and Jean Reith Schroedel, eds., Evangelicals and Democracy in America, Volume II: Religion and Politics (Russell Sage Foundation, 2009) for scholarly studies
- J. Postell; J. O'Neill (November 12, 2013). Toward an American Conservatism: Constitutional Conservatism during the Progressive Era. Springer. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-1-137-30096-6.
Ken Blackwell; Ken Klukowski (May 31, 2011). Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America. Simon and Schuster. p. 99-100. ISBN 978-1-4516-2928-6. - Peter Berkowitz (February 12, 2013). Constitutional Conservatism. Hoover Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-8179-1604-6.
- Schambra, William A. (August 20, 2012). "The Origins and Revival of Constitutional Conservatism: 1912 and 2012". Political Process. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved June 21, 2017.
Lienesch, Michael (July 2016). "Creating Constitutional Conservatism". Polity. 48 (3): 387–413. doi:10.1057/pol.2016.10. Retrieved June 21, 2017. - Mark A. Graber (March 6, 2015). A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism. Oxford University Press. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-19-024523-8.
Bradley C. S. Watson (2009). Ourselves and Our Posterity: Essays in Constitutional Originalism. Lexington Books. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-7391-2789-6.
Daniel T. Rodgers (May 1, 2011). Age of Fracture. Harvard University Press. pp. 241–242. ISBN 978-0-674-05952-8.
Nancy Maveety (February 2, 2016). Picking Judges. Transaction Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-4128-6224-0. - Ronald Hamowy (2008). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. SAGE Publications.
- Justin Vaïsse (2010). Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement. Harvard UP. pp. 244ff.
- Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations," Foreign Affairs Summer 1993, v72, n3, pp. 22–50, online version.
- Joseph Scotchie. The Paleoconservatives: New Voices of the Old Right. Transaction Publishers.
- Peter Berkowitz (2004). Varieties of Conservatism in America. Hoover Press. pp. 19ff.
- The Conservative Party of New York State was founded in 1962 and currently has about 1% support there.
- Harrison, Brigid C. (January 1, 2016). Power and Society: An Introduction to the Social Sciences. Cengage Learning. pp. 47–49. Retrieved March 30, 2016.
- For example, Arthur Aughey, Greta Jones, W. T. M. Riches, The Conservative Political Tradition in Britain and the United States (1992), p. 1: "there are those who advance the thesis that American exceptionalism means...there can be no American conservatism precisely because the American Revolution created a universally liberal society."
- Patrick Allitt, The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History (Yale U.P. 2009), p. 278
- Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, p. 114, "Conservative ideas are, thus, more genuine and profound than many critics suggest, but such unity as they have is purely negative, definable only by its opposition and rejection of abstract, universal, and ideal principles..."
- ^ Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind (1950), pp. 6, 63.
- Robert North Roberts; Scott Hammond; Valerie A. Sulfaro (2012). Presidential Campaigns, Slogans, Issues, and Platforms: The Complete Encyclopedia [3 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 538.
- Sean Wilentz, The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974–2008 (2009); John Ehrman, The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan (2008)
- Peter J. Jacques; Riley E. Dunlap; Mark Freeman, The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism, Environmental Politics. v12 m3 (2008), pp. 349–85
- George H. Nash, Reappraising the Right: The Past and Future of American Conservatism (2009) p. 325
- Michael W. Flamm, Law and Order: Street Crime, Civil Unrest, and the Crisis of Liberalism in the 1960s (2005)
- Julian E. Zelizer, ed. The Presidency of George W. Bush: A First Historical Assessment (2010) ch. 6
- Gallup, Inc. "U.S. Liberals at Record 24%, but Still Trail Conservatives". Gallup.com.
- Juliana Horowitz, "Winds of Political Change Haven't Shifted Public's Ideology Balance," Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, press release November 25, 2008
- Gallup, "U.S. Political Ideology Stable With Conservatives Leading" Gallup, August 1, 2011, online
- Florida, Richard (2012). "Why America Keeps Getting More Conservative". The Atlantic.
- Florida, Richard (2011). "The Conservative States of America". The Atlantic.
- Anthony Stanford (2013). Homophobia in the Black Church: How Faith, Politics, and Fear Divide the Black Community. ABC-CLIO. p. 101.
- Elasina Plott, "Georgia Religious-Liberty Fight Reveals Christian Right's Weakened Influence," National Review April 4, 2016
- Dale McConkey, "Whither Hunter's culture war? Shifts in evangelical morality, 1988–1998," Sociology of Religion 62#2 (2001): 149–74.
- Peter N. Stearns, Meaning over Memory: Recasting the Teaching of Culture and History (1993).
- Roger Chapman; James Ciment; Corey Fields (March 17, 2015). "Multicultural conservatism". Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices. Routledge. p. 440. ISBN 978-1-317-47351-0.
Barbara Goodwin (December 19, 2016). Using Political Ideas. John Wiley & Sons. p. 173. ISBN 978-1-118-70838-5. - Rick Bonus, "Political Correctness" in Encyclopedia of American Studies, ed. Simon J. Bronner (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015), online
- Milton Gordon, "E Pluribus Unum? The Myth of the Melting Pot." in Heike Paul (2014). The Myths That Made America: An Introduction to American Studies. pp. 257–310.
- Olivier Zunz, John Bodnar, and Stephan Thernstrom, "American History and the Changing Meaning of Assimilation" Journal of American Ethnic History 4#2 (1985): 53–84.
- Bruce Pilbeam, "Eurabian nightmares: American conservative discourses and the Islamisation of Europe," Journal of Transatlantic Studies (2011) 9#2 pp. 151–71.
- Moseley, Daniel (June 25, 2011). "What is Libertarianism?". Basic Income Studies. 6 (2): 2. doi:10.1515/1932-0183.1215. SSRN 1872578.
- Boaz, David; David Kirby (January 21, 2010). "The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama". Policy Analysis. Cato Institute. Retrieved February 24, 2012.
- Jones, Jeffrey. "Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah Rank as Most Conservative States". Gallup. Retrieved October 6, 2016.
- "The changing colors of America (1960–2004)". November 10, 2004. Retrieved January 6, 2012.
- By Chris Cillizza, "Democrats' stranglehold on the electoral college," Washington Post, June 10, 2014
- Russello, Gerald J., 1996, "The Jurisprudence of Russell Kirk," Modern Age 38: 354–63. ISSN 0026-7457
- Book Review by Robert S. Griffin of Chilton Williamson, Jr., The Conservative Bookshelf: Essential Works That Impact Today's Conservative Thinkers, robertsgriffin.com.
- Stephen Goode, Higher Education: Uniting the Great Books and Faith (August 2, 2004), Thomas Aquinas College.
- "The Russell Kirk Center: Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk". kirkcenter.org.
- Lewis L. Gould, The William Howard Taft Presidency (2009) p. 175
- Mark A. Graber and Michael Perhac, Marbury versus Madison: documents and commentary (2002) p. 111
- Jeff Shesol, Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court (2010) p.525
- Graber and Perhac, Marbury versus Madison: documents and commentary (2002) p114
- Mark V. Tushnet, A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law (2005) p. 338
- Johnathan O'Neill, Originalism in American law and politics: a constitutional history (2005) pp. 7–11, 208
- Tom Zeller Jr. (October 20, 2011). "Republican Environmental Group Seeks To Put Conservation Back On The Conservative Agenda". Huffington Post. Retrieved December 24, 2011.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|newspaper=
(help) - Broder, John M. (August 17, 2011). "Bashing EPA is New Theme in GOP Race". New York Times. Retrieved August 16, 2015.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|newspaper=
(help) - Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap, "Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims," Social Problems, Nov 2000, Vol. 47 Issue 4, pp. 499–522 in JSTOR
- Levin, Mark R. (2009). "On EnviroStatism". Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. Simon and Schuster. pp. 114–46. ISBN 9781416562856. Retrieved February 11, 2013.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) - Funk, Cary; Raine, Lee (July 1, 2015). "Americans, Politics and Science Issues". www.pewinternet.org. Pew Research. Retrieved August 16, 2015.
- Bailey, Christopher J. Congress and Air Pollution: Environmental Policies in the USA. Manchester University Press. p. 259. ISBN 0-7190-3661-5.
- Cama, Timothy (April 15, 2015). "GOP criticizes Obama's 'restrictive' offshore drilling plan". The Hill. Retrieved August 16, 2015.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|newspaper=
(help) - Mugambi Jouet (2017). Exceptional America: What Divides Americans from the World and from Each Other. U of California Press. p. 4.
- "Conservative epithet of choice: Socialist". UPI. March 1, 2009. Retrieved May 27, 2017.
Ekins, Emily; Pullmann, Joy (February 15, 2016). "Why So Many Millennials Are Socialists". The Federalist. FDRLST Media. Retrieved May 27, 2017.Conservatives often use the word "socialist" like an epithet, but they don't realize that neither their audience nor even their political opponents really know what the word even means.
Crary, David (June 4, 2012). "Obama a socialist? Many scoff, but claim persists". Deseret News. Utah. Associated Press. Retrieved May 27, 2017. - David Hinshaw, A Man from Kansas: The Story of William Allen White (1945) p 108.
- Thomas Frank (2007). What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. p. 33.
- William Safire (2008). Safire's Political Dictionary. p. 18.
- Alan P. Grimes, "Contemporary American Liberalism' The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Vol. 344, (Nov., 1962), p 30 in JSTOR
- Gary Dean Best (1983). Herbert Hoover, the Postpresidential Years, 1933-1964: 1946-1964. Hoover Press. p. 359.
- Lawson Bowling (2005). Shapers of the Great Debate on the Great Society: A Biographical Dictionary. Greenwood. p. 137. ISBN 9780313314346.
- LIFE. May 29, 1964. p. 29.
- Tom Kemme (1987). Political Fiction, the Spirit of Age, and Allen Drury. Popular Press. p. 12. ISBN 9780879723743.
- ^ Tom Schaller, "Gingrich Slams Paulson, Obama, Sarbanes-Oxley and Even W (a little)" FiveThirtyEight May 24, 2010
- Kathleen Hall Jamieson; Joseph N. Cappella (2009). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford U.P. pp. 42–55. ISBN 9780199740864.
- Jeremy M. Peters, "'Anybody but Mitt,'" New York Times Nov. 19, 2011
- "House Republicans Defend Conservative Commentators, Decry White House Feud". Fox News. April 7, 2010. Retrieved January 6, 2012.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|newspaper=
(help) - Theda Skocpol; Vanessa Williamson (January 2, 2012). The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-19-983263-7.
- Roger Chapman; James Ciment (March 17, 2015). Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices. Routledge. p. 179. ISBN 978-1-317-47351-0.
- Lee Banville (December 12, 2016). Covering American Politics in the 21st Century: An Encyclopedia of News Media Titans, Trends, and Controversies [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. pp. 193–195. ISBN 978-1-4408-3553-7.
- Tim Groseclose, PhD (July 19, 2011). Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. St. Martin's Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-4299-8746-2.
- Frum, David (November 20, 2011). "When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?". New York.
- Everett Carll Ladd and Seymour Martin Lipset, Academics, politics, and the 1972 election (1973)
- Jack H. Schuster and Martin J. Finkelstein, The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers (2008) p. 145
- Louis Menand, The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University (2010) pp. 137–39
- "Kurtz, H. (29 March 2005)". The Washington Post. March 29, 2005.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|newspaper=
(help) - Maranto, Redding, Hess (2009). The Politically Correct University: Problems, Scope, and Reforms (PDF). The AEI Press. pp. 25–27. ISBN 978-0-8447-4317-2.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Rothman, S.; Lichter, S. R.; Nevitte, N. (2005). "Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty". The Forum. 3. doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1067.
- Kurtz, Howard (March 29, 2005). "College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds". Washington Post.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - Inbar, Yoel; Lammers, Joris (2012). "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 7 (5). doi:10.1177/1745691612448792.
- Emily Esfahani Smith (August 1, 2012). "Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement: 'Impossible lack of diversity' reflects ideological intimidation on campus". Washington Times. Retrieved August 5, 2012.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|newspaper=
(help) - "Zogby Poll: Most Think Political Bias Among College Professors a Serious Problem". zogby.com. July 10, 2007.
- Sonny, Bunch (May 18, 2007). "Academic Thuggery". Weekly Standard. Retrieved August 6, 2012.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|newspaper=
(help) - Kerr, Euan (October 27, 2007). ""Indoctrinate U" poses some uncomfortable questions". Minnesota Public Radio. Retrieved August 6, 2012.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|newspaper=
(help) - Barry, Emily (March 3, 2011). "'Indoctrine U' raises brows, offers insight". East Tennessean. Retrieved August 5, 2012.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|newspaper=
(help) - Krugman, Paul (February 8, 2011). "Ideas Are Not The Same As Race". New York Times. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|newspaper=
(help) - Cohen, Patricia (November 2, 2008). "Professors' Liberalism Contagious? Maybe Not". New York Times. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|newspaper=
(help) - Douglas Kellner (2001). Grand Theft 2000: Media Spectacle and a Stolen Election. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 140.
- Hanson, Victor (Autumn 2008). Anderson, Brian (ed.). "The Humanities Move Off Campus". City Journal. Manhattan Institute. Retrieved June 23, 2015.
- Ellen Grigsby (2008). Analyzing Politics. p. 161.
- Kellner, Grand Theft 2000 p. 140
- Gertrude Himmelfarb (2004). The New History and the Old: Critical Essays and Reappraisals. Harvard University Press. p. 16.
- Jay Stevenson (2007). The Complete Idiot's Guide to English Literature. Alpha Books. pp. 9–10.
- Gerald J. Russello, The Postmodern Imagination of Russell Kirk (2007) p. 14
- Hyrum S. Lewis (2007). Sacralizing the Right: William F. Buckley Jr., Whittaker Chambers, Will Herberg and the Transformation of Intellectual Conservatism, 1945–1964. ProQuest. p. 122.
- M. Keith Booker (2005). Encyclopedia of Literature and Politics: A-G. Greenwood. pp. 180–81.
- Jeffrey Williams, ed. PC wars: Politics and theory in the academy (Routledge, 2013)
- Kim Phillips-Fein, "Conservatism: A State of the Field," Journal of American History (Dec 2011) 98#3 pp. 723–43, with commentary by Wilfred M. McClay, Alan Brinkley, Donald T. Critchlow, Martin Durham, Matthew D. Lassiter, and Lisa McGirr, and response by Phillips-Fein, pp. 744–73 online
- Jefferson Cowie, and Nick Salvatore, "The Long Exception: Rethinking the Place of the New Deal in American History," International Labor & Working-Class History, (2008) 74:3–32.
- Julian E. Zelizer, "Rethinking the History of American Conservatism," Reviews in American History (2010) 38#2 pp. 367–92, quoting pp. 372, 379
- Zelizer, "Rethinking the History of American Conservatism," p. 379, quote p. 380
- Stephen Brooks (2013). American Exceptionalism in the Age of Obama. Routledge. pp. 76–77.
- Seymour Martin Lipset (1997). American Exceptionalism: A Double-edged Sword. W.W. Norton. pp. 17, 291.
- Seymour Martin Lipset, The first new nation (1963).
- Joel D. Aberbach; Gillian Peele (2011). Crisis of Conservatism?: The Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, and American Politics After Bush. Oxford UP. p. 260.
- CTI Reviews (September 26, 2016). American Government and Politics in the Information Age: Political science, Politics. Cram101. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-4902-8690-7.
Martin Griffiths (November 26, 2013). Encyclopedia of International Relations and Global Politics. Taylor & Francis. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-135-19087-3.
David Bernell (March 12, 2012). Constructing US Foreign Policy: The Curious Case of Cuba. Routledge. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-136-81411-2. - Lipset, American Exceptionalism, pp. 1, 17–19, 165–174, 197
- "In Defense of American Exceptionalism," The American Spectator "the conditions American Exceptionalism provides, allow us to enjoy the economic and social mobility that other countries envy" and "progressivism rejects American Exceptionalism".
- Harold Koh, "America's Jekyll-and-Hyde Exceptionalism", in Michael Ignatieff, ed.American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, (2005) p. 112
- Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (1955), p. 17
- Rainer-Olaf Schultze et al., Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America (2003), p. 15 online
- Arthur Aughey, et al., The conservative political tradition in Britain and the United States (1992), pp. 1–2. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press. 1992.
- Richard Hofstadter (2008). The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays. Vintage Books. p. 43.
- Rossiter, Clinton, "The Giants of American Conservatism", American Heritage 1955 6(6): 56–59, 94–96
Further reading
Main article: Bibliography of conservatism in the United States- Aberbach, Joel D. "Understanding American Political Conservatism." in Robert A. Scott and Stephen M. Kosslyn, eds. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource (2015). DOI: 10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0373
- Adams, Ian (2001). Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-719-06020-6.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Allitt, Patrick. The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History (2010) excerpt and text search
- Clark, Barry Stewart (1998). Political Economy: A Comparative Approach. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-275-95869-8.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Critchlow, Donald T. The Conservative Ascendancy: How the Republican Right Rose to Power in Modern America (2nd ed. 2011)
- Critchlow, Donald T. and Nancy MacLean. Debating the American Conservative Movement: 1945 to the Present (2009)
- Filler, Louis. Dictionary of American Conservatism (Philosophical Library, 1987)
- Frohnen, Bruce et al. eds. American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (2006); the most detailed reference
- Gottfried, Paul. The Conservative Movement (Twayne, 1993.)
- Gross, Neil, Thomas Medvetz, and Rupert Russell. "The Contemporary American Conservative Movement," Annual Review of Sociology (2011) 37 pp. 325–54
- Guttman, Allan. The Conservative Tradition in America (Oxford University Press, 1967).
- Hayward, Steven F. The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order: 1964–1980 (2009) excerpt v 1; The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution 1980–1989 (2009) excerpt and text search v2
- Hemmer, Nicole. Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics (U of Pennsylvania Press, 2016). xvi, 320 pp.
- Kabaservice, Geoffrey. Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party (2012) scholarly history favorable to moderates excerpt and text search;
- Lora, Ronald.; The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America Greenwood Press, 1999 online edition
- Lyons, Paul. American Conservatism: Thinking It, Teaching It. (Vanderbilt University Press, 2009). 202 pp. ISBN 978-0-8265-1626-8
- Nash, George. The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 (2006; 1st ed. 1978) influential history
- Phillips-Fein, Kim. "Conservatism: A State of the Field," Journal of American History, (Dec. 2011) 98#3 pp. 723–43 in JSTOR
- Rosen, Eliot A. The Republican Party in the Age of Roosevelt: Sources of Anti-Government Conservatism in the United States (2014)
- Schneider, Gregory. The Conservative Century: From Reaction to Revolution (2009)
- Thorne, Melvin J. American Conservative Thought since World War II: The Core Ideas (1990) online edition
External links
- "The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement," The Heritage Foundation.
- "Conservative Predominance in the U.S.: A Moment or an Era?", 21 experts from the U.S. and abroad, ponder the future of conservatism.
- Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Conservatism at the University of Virginia.
- "Comparative Decades: Conservatism in the 1920s and 1980s" Lesson plans
- Mark Riebling, "Prospectus for a Critique of Conservative Reason."
- Paul Gottfried, "How Russell Kirk (And The Right) Went Wrong"
- A History of Conservative Movements – slideshow by Newsweek
- How Corporate America Invented Christian America. Kevin M. Kruse for Politico. April 16, 2015.
Conservatism in the United States | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Schools | |||||||||
Principles |
| ||||||||
People |
| ||||||||
Parties |
| ||||||||
Movements | |||||||||
Think tanks |
| ||||||||
Historical factions |
| ||||||||
Literature |
| ||||||||
See also | |||||||||
Conservatism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Schools by region |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philosophy |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Politics |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Historical background | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Related |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conservatism in North America | |
---|---|
Sovereign states | |
Dependencies and other territories |