Are there any actual 'conservatives'?

[Beet]

By which I mean, those seeking to conserve, or return to, a form of society that we had at some point in the past. We act as if those we label "conservatives" want to do this, yet none of them really do. Sure, they may want to repeal certain aspects of changes that have occurred since some point in the past (welfare laws, social changes, etc.) but no conservative's ideal society would have us driving around in Model T's, burning our cell phones, or giving Oklahoma back to the Cherokee.

In other words, what I argue is that the so-called contest between modern day conservatives and progressives is really a contest between two different visions of "modernism", not a contest between a civilization that existed in the past and something different (excepting, perhaps the Old Order Amish). It is a contest between different progressive visions of the future. And yet both sides perpetuate this myth because each side benefits from it. Progressives can say we are lifting up society, whereas conservatives can say they are protecting society. But both are both protecting certain values and lifting up certain others.

One striking example, IMO, is the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Traditional Catholicism is generally associated with conservatism, and because of the Reformation it arguably has been since the 16th century. The Counter-Reformation, by providing training for priests and ultimately raising the standards of Papal election, among other actions, immeasurably strengthened traditional Catholicism. But at the same time, it was a radical break from the past 1000 years (with a few exceptions).

[anvi]

In other words, what I argue is that the so-called contest between modern day conservatives and progressives is really a contest between two different visions of "modernism", not a contest between a civilization that existed in the past and something different (excepting, perhaps the Old Order Amish). It is a contest between different progressive visions of the future. And yet both sides perpetuate this myth because each side benefits from it.

I agree with this characterization. 

[Del Tachi]

I've always thought along these lines as well. 

Very few individuals would actually want to return society to a previous state.  While certain social elements associated with the past may be overly romanticized for political purposes, it is almost always done to push for policies that would actually mark a break from the orthodoxy rather than a return to it.

Which brings up a question, are there any political ideologies (even far-right ones) that are "conservative" under this criteria?  Even fascism would fail to be defined as conservative using this definition...


The Counter-Reformation is a good example of this though...

[politicus]

This is a strange discussion. "To change in order to preserve" is an old Conservative saying. Gradual and incremental reform in a way that preserves the essential values and structures of society instead of causing radical breaks is the ideal.

To be pro-technology has always been a given for conservatives.

[Beet]

This is a strange discussion. "To change in order to preserve" is an old Conservative saying. Gradual and incremental reform in a way that preserves the essential values and structures of society instead of causing radical breaks is the ideal.

Right; conservatism consists of skepticism of rapid change and some level of veneration for tradition - or, at the very least, a sense that we shouldn't ignore the old ways of doing things because we've probably been doing them that way for a reason, even if we don't understand why. Beet's OP describes reactionaries, not conservatives. The desire to return to some imagined ideal society in the past is no less radical or utopian than the desire to progress toward an ideal society in the future.

Of course, it's a bit silly to squabble over textbook definitions when all of us understand how the word's meaning in common usage differs from that.

I'd argue that it's actually not well understood, in the sense that conservatism is regularly upheld in a mythological sense as being about conservation, and this is misleading. It is not just a matter of, "conservatives want to preserve, but they accept technology", or "conservatives are skeptical of radical change but not implacably rigid against it." Rather, my argument is that conservatism, despite what Burke says, cannot really be defined by its attitude towards change at all.

It is true, that conservatives want to borrow some things from the present or past to create their vision of the future. But those things they want to borrow do not represent the past in the sense that conservatives claim that they do. For instance, the religiosity of the past, or the dominance of the leave-it-to-beaver nuclear family, was not as dominant in the past as conservatives represent, or as some progressives believe. The past may have nominally paid allegiance to some values that conservatives cherish, but that does not mean the past as it actually was, represented these values very well at all, or any better than they are in the present or would in the future.

Nor can it be said that conservatives want to preserve the values or structures of past societies, since values and structures cannot be separated out from the technological and material basis of society. People in the past made judgments in the context of the environment they were faced with, it is not known what judgments they would make today. Even less can past structures be truly preserved in radically different economic or technological environments.

[tik 🪀✨]

Since you're arguing from a semantic viewpoint, referencing the popular meaning of conservative is a little confusing. Perhaps a better term would be preservationist. But then that has a different popular definition also.. traditionalist? Regressive progressive?

[Beet]

Since you're arguing from a semantic viewpoint, referencing the popular meaning of conservative is a little confusing. Perhaps a better term would be preservationist. But then that has a different popular definition also.. traditionalist? Regressive progressive?

All of these things reference the same thing: relation to change. But whether something is changed or not tells you very little about whether it is conservative. To take a completely non-technological example: 120 years ago, Brooklyn was an independent city. Is Brooklynite independence is a conservative cause today? Why not?

[Sopranos Republican]

I've always thought of conservatism as Conserving the past, not necessarily moving backwards. I would say one issue where conservatives are like what Beet described above, is abortion. Most conservatives want to go back to the legal conditions of the practice before 1973, where it was either legal or illegal in a particular state. Of course a lot of conservatives want it banned universally, which really isn't returning to anything, unless of course we are talking before the practice was legal anywhere.

Or right now, gay marriage isn't universally recognized, so you could say they are trying to conserve traditional marriage. But there are those who want it banned even in states where it has already been legalized, so that would be a reactionary or regressive position.

Another good example is about what was said in the update, about no alcohol at a wedding at Bushie's church, because it is a very conservative church and it was pointed out that that is not conservative in the least. In actuality, even if folks who are more politically conservative are more likely to abstain from consuming alcohol, that would actually be progressive to not have alcohol at a wedding, since it is breaking with almost every traditional wedding format.

So basically, most political conservatives are hardly conservative in other aspects of life.

[barfbag]

By which I mean, those seeking to conserve, or return to, a form of society that we had at some point in the past. We act as if those we label "conservatives" want to do this, yet none of them really do. Sure, they may want to repeal certain aspects of changes that have occurred since some point in the past (welfare laws, social changes, etc.) but no conservative's ideal society would have us driving around in Model T's, burning our cell phones, or giving Oklahoma back to the Cherokee.

In other words, what I argue is that the so-called contest between modern day conservatives and progressives is really a contest between two different visions of "modernism", not a contest between a civilization that existed in the past and something different (excepting, perhaps the Old Order Amish). It is a contest between different progressive visions of the future. And yet both sides perpetuate this myth because each side benefits from it. Progressives can say we are lifting up society, whereas conservatives can say they are protecting society. But both are both protecting certain values and lifting up certain others.

One striking example, IMO, is the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Traditional Catholicism is generally associated with conservatism, and because of the Reformation it arguably has been since the 16th century. The Counter-Reformation, by providing training for priests and ultimately raising the standards of Papal election, among other actions, immeasurably strengthened traditional Catholicism. But at the same time, it was a radical break from the past 1000 years (with a few exceptions).

They're/We're conservative in our approach to government. If it's not broken, don't fix it. Liberals tend to be the party of reaching out to people which better allows them to call themselves the party of ideas and change. The question is what role should the government have in telling us how we can spend our money and what we do on our free time.

[cheesepizza]

I view conservatism in the context of government policy, but I support societal progress like other USA conservatives...conservatives are about the constitutional republic

[Indy Texas]

http://www.amconmag.com/

They might be the closest you get to that. I think Pat Buchanan was the one who founded the magazine but they've since moved away from his populist paleoconservatism and in a more Tory direction.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The past is always an invention of the present to a large extent, so I don't think that sort of Conservatism is really possible to begin with.