over the last 10 years, the role of right-wing youth movements has grown even more central, helping to establish the guiding narratives and elevating some of the most visible faces of conservatism today

In America, blue collar workers, feeling completely abandoned by the supposed progressive party, are now devoted conservatives. Weird times.

What I remember most is the notion of “inheritance”. Since it is much easier to destroy but not so easy to create, we owe it everyone to pass on the Good to the future, as a sort of bond between the past, the present, and posterity. Even if these things and institutions are useless, like royalty, they are forged through generations, are often beautiful, and indicate this inheritance. — NOS4A2

That resonates. It sounds like the conservatism of Premier Bill Davis and federal Conservative leader John Diefenbaker, to whom Doug Ford and Pierre Poilievre are a stark and horrific contrast. At the pivot point in between were Mike Harris and Brian Mulroney. Other English-speaking countries experienced a similar shift in their conservative governance style.

traditional family values.
— universeness

There they are again! What does that mean??? — Vera Mont

and yet the political parties they keep voting for keep making more people poor and insecure. — Vera Mont

My problem here Vera is that you kind of shut my type down, in your OP with:

I'm not looking for flippant answers — Vera Mont

As a socialist, I don't have much to offer regarding my true opinion of conservatism and what I think such is actually trying to conserve, if I can't be flippant about it. I will try a little but will probably fail.

Conservatives want to conserve everything, that they care about, exclusively, and they are convinced, that those who they REALLY DO see, as 'less deserving' than themselves, want what they have and are furiously trying to achieve that goal. They don't mind being charitable to some causes they favour, but
most conservatives are nimby (Not In My Back Yard).
'Other peoples problems,' are not what most conservatives want to be bothered by.
Their 'humanism,' often does not extend much past those they consider their 'ain folks.'
I tend to judge conservatives on a person by person basis who choose to employ the label.
They certainly do vary, but I can usually place each 'conservative,' somewhere on a line between liberal and fascist.

They represented a departure from conservatism, and some conservatives doubt that they were conservative at all. Thatcher was a radical. She rocked the boat. The conservatives went along with it, because conservatism is adaptable and she was not threatening many of their interests, even though she was not really a friend of the aristocracy.

Conservatives created the first welfare state and were quite happy to go along with a mixed economy in the UK from the end of the Second World War until Thatcher.

Conservatism is not essentially pro-free-market, but this might be because it has little in the way of essence—it defends hierarchy and power, and that takes different forms. Traditionally, conservatives are pragmatic, not doctrinal.

Generally, what you are describing is the popular, very modern use of the term “conservatism”, but because it is also a political philosophy that’s a couple of centuries old, one which is still influential, it’s worth looking at that too. Vera’s questions pertain to the discrepancies between the two. — Jamal

Nice summary.

Would you perhaps say that 'conservatism' these days is one of the minor strands within the broader categories of (another imprecise term) 'right-wing' thought? And like 'socialism' the term is often used with magnificent imprecision.

The reason we don’t know much about conservatism is because intellectual conservatives are rare and academia and the press are mostly captured by the opposition. — NOS4A2

Probably. Scruton makes this point too. Conservatism is more of a disposition and not as prone to generating theory as the left seems to be. Edmund Burke was a key philosophical influence on Scruton.

It irks me when I keep hearing that old people tend to be more conservative — Vera Mont

I think this refers to the well-known phenomena of those radical in youth who often later become obedient members of the bourgeoisie. I know I have become more conservative in age. My choices and my political orientation is less radical today then it was 35 years ago. I'd say the same for my comrades who have moved from wanting revolution and blood on the streets, to sending their kids to good schools and worrying about risotto recipes and cooking with coriander.

I have no brief with coriander. Don't wash my hands for a long time after picking it. Of course people tend to become less radical as they take on the responsibilities and limitations of adulthood, and when they have finally been convinced that the society they have can be improved without burning it down.
But I've never changed my basic principles, converted to a punitive religion, supported miltarizing the police, rewriting history, denying the efficacy of vaccines or letting the mega-rich off paying taxes. I've never changed my my mind about what personal liberty ought to entail or what citizens owe the state and vice versa.

Of course, I never was a revolutionary, but a staunch believer in subversion, if democratic process fails and gradual improvement proves impossible. I have always believed in conserving nature and culture and heritage; I even found the British monarchy picturesque than annoying. (Didn't mind a major thoroughfare being shut for a royal visit, did for a papal one - but that's just my little prejudice: I wouldn't advocate hurling a bomb at either.) I do recall a time when Canadian conservative, liberal and soft socialist parties conducted civil public discourse regarding their agendas.

You sound like a reasonable person.

But I've never changed my basic principles, converted to a punitive religion, supported miltarizing the police, rewriting history, denying the efficacy of vaccines or letting the mega-rich off paying taxes. — Vera Mont

I've known quite a few people who have changed principles and done just these things. The question I often wonder about is how serious were their radical ideas when young?

I do recall a time when Canadian conservative, liberal and soft socialist parties conducted civil public discourse regarding their agendas. — Vera Mont

Here in Australia too. I suspect the Murdoch influence and cultivation of the 'culture wars' has been inimical throughout the English speaking world

What do conservatives conserve or wish to conserve? — Vera Mont

Traditions.

Traditions. — praxis

Selectively.

Here in Australia too. I suspect the Murdoch influence and cultivation of the 'culture wars' has been inimical throughout the English speaking world — Tom Storm

Germany, Poland, India, Brazil, France, even the most progressive countries

We are used to seeing Nordic countries topping global rankings thanks to their stable democracies, generous welfare policies and commitments to equality. But when it comes to immigration, Denmark – and more recently Sweden – appear intent on modelling more regressive approaches.

It's all over the world. It's the politics of fear.

It's all over the world. It's the politics of fear. — Vera Mont

To some extent, my family is in Holland, my point was the English language version.

my point was the English language version. — Tom Storm

You mean the Murdoch influence? I completely agree that his outlets were instrumental in shaping this version, but not unique; the same sentiments and ideas can be, and are, expressed in every language.

I never was a revolutionary, but a staunch believer in subversion, if democratic process fails and gradual improvement proves impossible. I have always believed in conserving nature and culture and heritage — Vera Mont

Same here. Since my late teens I've opposed all forms of autocracy (e.g. theocracy, plutocracy, mobocracy) and especially laissez-faire (democracy-in-name-only (DINO)) republicanism. Four decades on, I have lived through enough American history to harden my 'green economic democratism' into a dogmatic progressive ideology (both anti-authoritarian and anti-utopian). My chief regret is that my activism has fallen off considerably since the mid-90s due to fatalistic pique (depressive realism?), I suspect, more than due to bourgeois cooption or regressive conditions of aging. Almost sixty, I'm still a culturally conservative, socio-economic progressive anti-fascist.

I think: class and war and inequality are naturalized in conservatism, and particular social formations dehistoricized.

Someone mentioned Roger Scruton. He was one of the most prominent conservative philosophers until he died recently, following on from Michael Oakeshott and going back ultimately to Edmund Burke. I see this as the main conservative tradition and the modern use of the term as hopelessly confused. — Jamal

:100:

I've known quite a few people who have changed principles and done just these things. The question I often wonder about is how serious were their radical ideas when young? — Tom Storm

:grin: This caused three faces to pop up again, in my head.
Three of the socialist hero's of my youth.
Two 'red Clydesiders,' Manny Shinwell and Jimmy Reid, and the wonderful Tony Benn.
Manny fought very hard for union rights in his youth and was involved in protests in the centre of Glasgow (George Square). These often turned violent, due to the 'beat every protester up,' approach of the police in 1919. I could not believe it, when he became BARON Shinwell in 1970, (I was only 6, so it was much later, when I exclaimed 'HE BECAME WHAT???????) and became a life peer in the house of lords. He lived till he was 101!
Jimmy Reid was a working class hero of the shipyard workers. He ended up employed by the devil himself, Rupert Murdoch, writing a crap column in the Sun newspaper. :scream:
Tony Benn! Well, thank goodness, I still have him! :lol: A pity his son 'Hilary Benn,' is such a ineffectual MP and a political let down! imo.

Nice examples. And of course there were the neocons who initiated the war on terror - many were former young leftists who embraced the path of apostasy. :wink:

Irving Kristol, often described as the father of neoconservatism, was once a Trotskyist. He said a neocon is 'a liberal who's been mugged by reality'. Humorist PJ O'Rourke said much the same about his move from the left to the right.

Humorist PJ O'Rourke said much the same about his move from the left to the right. — Tom Storm

I read some of his early stuff and some of his post-conversion stuff and found both unconvincing, leading me to wonder whether he had any convictions, or was merely striking poses for effect.
This, OTOH, I don't find so shocking.

I could not believe it, when he became BARON Shinwell in 1970, — universeness

Especially in those days, but even now, I think you could be a determined socialist without turning on the monarchy. Robin Hood was utterly loyal to Richard - gods know why...Well, it's the oldest constitutional one (in the modern world), isn't it? I don't know that much about how people in then-united kingdom were thinking, but in more recent times, quite radical artists, scientists, performers and reformers have been given OBE's as a mark of recognition for their contribution to the nation - not of a political stand.
I don't think people of that generation, from either end of the legitimate political spectrum, would see a contradiction in disagreeing on what's best for one's country and agreeing on respect for the king. And for ERII, pretty much everyone did.
That's another indication of the shift in perception over the past century.

Well a 'socialist monarchist,' just makes no sense to me at all Vera. Monarchy and aristocracy is a really old, really stupid concept. It needs to be made extinct imho. Accepting a gong with the title 'Order of the British EMPIRE,' also reduces yourself and your works to comedy and caricature, again imho.

Would you not agree that our individual, personal experience, of living as a human being, along with the historical legacy we have, and can consume, almost as a 'believe it or not' offering, causes us to at some point in our lives, plant our flag in one camp or another?

Then as we get older, and we see how things change around us locally and then we compare and contrast that with national, international and global events, WE EACH decide what we feel is NOW vital to 'protect' or 'conserve?' Many of us will also muse over what we think needs to be changed for the betterment of all. I think the extent to which an individual is personally tied, to either of my previous two sentences, will dictate a persons level of 'conservatism,' today.

I am much more interested in what has to be changed, than I am to what has to be protected or conserved.
I do not type that lightly in anyway. There are ways of thinking that I am very fond of indeed.
My own 86 year old mother keeps stating how much she disapproves of what's happening now, and how much better things were in her day.
I hesitate to bombard her with evidence about the fact that things were very bad in her day as well, but I do on occasion, which does upset her at times, so I try to redress by talking about what I think was 'the good stuff,' that was contributed from her generation.

There is no sense of security or tradition or culture that I am so tied to conserving, that it becomes almost 'sacred' and is non-negotiable.
If I was quite sure that the result of compromising it, would improve the lives of a significant number of people without also having a negative affect on another significantly large number of people, then, I would compromise. So, I remain of the opinion that conservatism is backwards and stifling.
Political conservatism remains a stalwart supporter of capitalism, and promotes the idea that we are all better under the control of a tiny minority of people, who claim they have a meritocratic right to rule, due to dynasty or entrepreneurial prowess. Neither of which qualify such people to hold the power and influence they currently wield over the lives of the majority of the people, flora and fauna on this planet.
I remain fully committed, to combat any political group, associated with the words conservative or capitalist or 'right wing.' I will however, 'compromise,' if and only if, they will.

Well a 'socialist monarchist,' just makes no sense to me at all Vera. Monarchy and aristocracy is a really old, really stupid concept. It needs to be made extinct imho. Accepting a gong with the title 'Order of the British EMPIRE,' also reduces yourself and your works to comedy and caricature, again imho. — universeness

But you were not born in the 19th century. Socialism has changed; attitudes have changed; the basis of the economy and British identity have all changed. Just sayn', cut the old guy some slack!

Would you not agree that our individual, personal experience, of living as a human being, along with the historical legacy we have, and can consume, almost as a 'believe it or not' offering, causes us to at some point in our lives, plant our flag in one camp or another? — universeness

This is true. But as a casual student of history, I can also understand that a person living in another time and having a very different experience may perceive their options and possibilities differently from us; that the borders of their "camps" may have been drawn along different rivers. Remember, too, that your historical heritage andmine are dissimilar, though both to some degree include the life work of Manny Shinwell - while his historical heritage was absent us, but very much present the shadow of the War to End All Wars - which, from our perspective, has been eclipsed by intervening events.

WE EACH decide what we feel is NOW vital to 'protect' or 'conserve?' — universeness

Yes, but I will not condemn dead people who - I believe - acted on their best conscience.
Or anyone who does now, even if they disagree with me on ways and means.

But you were not born in the 19th century. Socialism has changed; attitudes have changed; the basis of the economy and British identity have all changed. Just sayn', cut the old guy some slack! — Vera Mont

True, I was born in the 20th century, but how can we learn the mistakes of history if we keep blowing fresh air, on the residual embers of vile systems such as monarchy or aristocracy?
I think ending the UK monarchy, replacing the embarrassing house of lords, with a citizen based second tier of authority, getting rid of the civil list and ending the embarrassing yearly joke, that is the current UK honours list, would all be about consolidating the multi-culture, that IS the current UK population. This would be a beginning to the UK cleaning itself up a great deal. Britain or more precisely the four nations of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales could become what they need to become. Four nations who have conquered the old traditions and conserved imbalances that used to infect them and hold down/back the majority of their population. Instead, they could truly unite in common cause with the rest of Europe towards creating a better future for all.
So no, I will not cut the old guy some slack. Britain should return all the plunder it stole from nations it invaded and should start to pay reparations for it's role in slavery. It needs to start new traditions and a new culture not conserve the old vile ones.

Yes, but I will not condemn dead people who - I believe - acted on their best conscience.
Or anyone who does now, even if they disagree with me on ways and means. — Vera Mont

I don't make such condemnations either, especially in the case of those who remained true to their principles. I do however, condemn ALL historical and current gangsters, since we came out of the wilds, be they monarchs and aristos/messiahs and prophets/billionaires and multi-millionaires/self-aggrandising politicians and generals/rich cults of celebrity/profiteering capitalists and plutocrats, all the way down to local mobsters and street thugs.

I think ending the UK monarchy, replacing the embarrassing house of lords, with a citizen based second tier of authority, getting rid of the civil list and ending the embarrassing yearly joke, that is the current UK honours list, would all be about consolidating the multi-culture, that IS the current UK population. — universeness

Maybe so; I'm not partial to the idea of aristocracy or monarchy. But given how well the US republic is doing just now, that may not be an ideal to strive for. Every large organization, however its tenets are laid out at its inception, tends to stratify over time. I don't see much difference between a landed aristocracy and a broadcast-media-owning one -- how bad they depends on whether they have any sense of noblesse oblige.
Any form of government works, as long as the people in it adhere to the rules and take responsibility. No form of government works they don't.

I honestly can't envision how you'd go about consolidating the population and I'm not sure it's good idea to .... social-engineer, to let my inner conservative come up for air .... such an outcome. If the economy, law-enforcement and social services are adequate to the needs of all the people, they will naturally mix anyway; interest blocs do not necessarily correspond to ethnic ones.

Britain or more precisely the four nations of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales could become what they need to become. — universeness

Could work. If that's what they unanimously think is best for them. Is it, really? What kind of clout would Wales have in EU decision-making, compared to France and Germany? (keeping in mind that those countries are themselves not entirely strife-free) What about Cornwall?

What will you do with all your conservatives? I can't speak for Australia, but we sure don't want them!

I don't make such condemnations either, especially in the case of those who remained true to their principles. — universeness

So no, I will not cut the old guy some slack. — universeness

I don't think Sir Manny had much to do with looting the empire, or was consulted in whether to abolish it.

It needs to start new traditions and a new culture not conserve the old vile ones. — universeness

A scorched-earth radical? OK. I'll just wait for the whole ball of wax to melt in climate change.

What are "conservative values"? What kind of society do they envisage and how do they believe it can be brought about? — Vera Mont

Obviously "conservative values" depend on the society and history where the conservative party exists. Conservatives in an islamic country or in an non-permissive Western country are quite different. Even Social democracy is more uniform.

The Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán set out in a speech of 2014 his vision of the future form of the state as 'a workfare state':

Hungarian nation is not a simple sum of individuals, but a community that needs to be organized, strengthened and developed, and in this sense, the new state that we are building is an illiberal state, a non-liberal state. It does not deny foundational values of liberalism, as freedom, etc.. But it does not make this ideology a central element of state organization, but applies a specific, national, particular approach in its stead. — Viktor Orbán

He specifies that this 'community' is not necessarily bound by borders. The Hungarian state remains interested in the interests of 'Hungarians' in other countries: Ukraine, for example, enforced the teaching of 'Hungarian' children (and the children of Russian speakers, for instance) in the Ukrainian language in 2017 and provoked inter-state disagreement.

This notion of Orbán's is of course shared by many other countries with different ideologies, from Xi's China, or Modi's India, to the US or Britain and their beliefs in 'American interests' or 'British interests'.

Orbán's views tap into 'blue-collar conservatism' that many countries are experiencing. There is a sense of loss, a need for community, and a view/feeling that metropolitan liberalism is profoundly hypocritical.

I'm a British Green and encounter these 'values' on the doorstep. They seem to me to represent a point of view every bit as coherent as, if not more so than, the baffling values our current social democrats espouse (Put more people in jail! Maximise economic growth! Oh yes, every eco-socialist agrees with that, right?). Of course, in my country the 'Conservatives' are an organisational shambles, but I expect they'll be back.

But given how well the US republic is doing just now, that may not be an ideal to strive for. — Vera Mont

The USA was born with a great number of disabilities that it inherited from it's many global parents.
Irrational theism, embedded racism, angry refugee status, 'mother country syndrome,' etc etc.
They are still trying to figure out who they are. America is still a very young country, compared to the countries of Europe.

I don't see much difference between a landed aristocracy and a broadcast-media-owning one -- how bad they depends on whether they have any sense of noblesse oblige. — Vera Mont

A dynastic aristocracy IS much more dangerous than a celebrity/economic based elite, as an aristocracy has much more direct military control. I agree that the American elite, do demonstrate aristocratic tendencies but I place the responsibility for that, squarely on the American population that allows such to continue. Just like I blame the British people (including me) for allowing the nefarious, to currently control this country.

I honestly can't envision how you'd go about consolidating the population and I'm not sure it's good idea to .... social-engineer, to let my inner conservative come up for air .... such an outcome. — Vera Mont

If the economy, law-enforcement and social services are adequate to the needs of all the people, they will naturally mix anyway; interest blocs do not necessarily correspond to ethnic ones. — Vera Mont

Your first quote above claims you can't envision, what your second quote above ENVISIONS!
That's why I do what I can, to help make your second quote become true for the population of the UK or at least for the population of an independent Scotland.

What kind of clout would Wales have in EU decision-making, compared to France and Germany? (keeping in mind that those countries are themselves not entirely strife-free) What about Cornwall? — Vera Mont

Luxembourg does ok within the EU imo and it's 8 times smaller than Wales. The diaspora of most countries is global today. I think that IS an important influence on the notion of the EU.
There are many examples of 'separate identities' all over Britain. Liverpudlians are very different in cultural traditions, compared to London Cockney's or Viking based 'Scottish' Orcadian Islanders.
The Cornish will be as they have always been but I assume they would remain part of England, unless the majority of Cornish people have other plans they are very serious about.

What will you do with all your conservatives? I can't speak for Australia, but we sure don't want them! — Vera Mont

Aw! I thought they would be welcomed in Florida, Texas and West Virginia!

I don't think Sir Manny had much to do with looting the empire, or was consulted in whether to abolish it. — Vera Mont

Manny was not offered a knighthood, he was awarded a barony. He betrayed every socialist principle he stood for by accepting it. He soiled his own legacy forever imo.

A scorched-earth radical? — Vera Mont

No, I am not a particular fan of shock tactics. I am just an advocate for bringing in the 'new' that I am convinced, will change peoples lives for the better, even if the pace of change, remains very slow. I also advocate for getting rid of old bad traditions and backwards cultural norms.

he Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán set out in a speech of 2014 his vision of the future form of the state as 'a workfare state': — mcdoodle

That's an excellent example! Of values?? More of fang-gnashing fear. To me, he represents the rising rabid conservatism that will finally bring down the global house of cards.

I also advocate for getting rid of old bad traditions and backwards cultural norms. — universeness

That, too, shall come to pass.

He specifies that this 'community' is not necessarily bound by borders. The Hungarian state remains interested in the interests of 'Hungarians' in other countries: Ukraine, for example, enforced the teaching of 'Hungarian' children (and the children of Russian speakers, for instance) in the Ukrainian language in 2017 and provoked inter-state disagreement. — mcdoodle

This is classic nationalism.

Something that actually Vladimir Putin has been also very concerned about: the Russians now "stranded" in other countries and hence Russia has declared itself as a defender of those Russians everywhere.

This notion of Orbán's is of course shared by many other countries with different ideologies, from Xi's China, or Modi's India, to the US or Britain and their beliefs in 'American interests' or 'British interests'.

Orbán's views tap into 'blue-collar conservatism' that many countries are experiencing. There is a sense of loss, a need for community, and a view/feeling that metropolitan liberalism is profoundly hypocritical. — mcdoodle

Nationalism is shared in many countries. And then there's the obvious populism also in Orbán's rhetoric as he's against the international elites that try to hinder Hungary. Typical to his rhetoric is to attack the EU elites in Brussels. No surprise the strained relationship that Hungary has with the EU.

This isn't actually something totally normal to conservatism. Conservatism doesn't have to be populist or militant, but it can be as can also leftist parties be. It is more about a political party tapping into the discontent of the population with populist rhetoric. And then there's the fact that Fidesz has a 54% majority in the Hungarian Parliament. It doesn't have to work with a coalition.

Usually conservative parties aren't populist, just like with European Social Democrat parties. The simple fact is that when you are the dominant party in the nations politics, you cannot portray yourself as against the elites and on the side of the ordinary people as populists do.

I also advocate for getting rid of old bad traditions and backwards cultural norms. — universeness

Hear hear! Down with bad things!

I see the basic driving idea in conservatism to be the preservation of the existing power and class structures, with which the economic status quo goes hand in hand. If conservatives will support any new legislation it will be one designed to siphon even more wealth and power to the elites.

Of course this agenda, in practice, will be, unless it is a totalitarian regime, balanced somewhat by the necessity to maintain the illusion of being populist just enough to try to ensure being re-elected.

Hear hear! Down with bad things! — Jamal

What a pity, others can't see the same obvious simplicity that you can!

Damn, that’s what I was reaching for. Forgot it was Father Ted.

If conservatives will support any new legislation it will be one designed to siphon even more wealth and power to the elites. — Janus

:clap:

Ya gotta keep a keen eye on dem crazy priesties mate, or else their backwards traditions and cultural norms will keep biting us all on the arse! Long live scientism!! FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM!
Sorry Jamal, but I am sure, as a globetrotter, you experience the odd bout of diasporic mother country syndrome yourself and get bizarre urges to type something like 'freeeeeeeeeedooooooooooom!' or 'Alba da brav!' or 'Naw pal, ah don't think so, I am Scottish by ra way!' without fully having sound, rational, logical reasons for doing so.

Ok, I hear you, let's get back to what needs conserving!

:up: