Conservatives often wish to preserve anachronistic social systems and privileges, they tend to believe in high culture and are suspicious of new ideas, technology and immigration. Roger Scruton, the philosopher, was a conservative and wrote a great deal about it. — Tom Storm

They should reject Christianity as a liberal innovation on the traditional paganism which also valued plurality and syncretism :chin:. Wait a minute…

So it’s special pleading of only preserving the Medieval ideal it seems. Bacchus is older and more traditional. Doesn’t seem to fit in that model.

Ha! That would be taking things too literally, even if it did make me laugh. I think conservatives are gradualists and understand that life has been upturned historically by great tumults - as you say - the one god taking over from the many, but also wars, social changes like unions, etc - read Burke on the French Revolution - a formative document on the implications of revolution for conservative thinking. Conservatives obviously choose their projects - feminism may be an old and venerable tradition by now but I suspect conservatives still find some of its notions problematic. But conservatism isn't static, it accepts change but it doesn't like revolutionary change or government implemented social change like affirmative action, etc.

But conservatism isn't static, it accepts change but it doesn't like revolutionary change or government implemented social change like affirmative action, etc. — Tom Storm

I think my quote sufficiently refuted their purported aims as to indeed be cherry picking. Christianity was the naughty interloper interrupting thousands of years of paganism. Its preference not even for old, just their version of ideology.

In a way I agree with the pessimism of the conservative but I don’t reify that into some aim. Procreating itself is social engineering. If liberals want to see X outcome from people. All procreators want to see X outcome from their children. They are literally engineering people to maintain the system.

I think my quote sufficiently refuted their purported aims as cherry picking. — schopenhauer1

I wouldn't think that example works, but you might find a better one that does. Radical change from the past is accommodated and becomes the tradition of the future. A conservative doesn't look back throughout history and try to turn back the clock after thousands of years, right? That's not conservatism, that's a belated counterrevolutionary. A conservative isn't going to wear 17th century breaches. He's going to wear the more conservative choice of his time. Probably a traditional suit.

I wouldn't think that example works, but you might find a better one that does. Radical change from the past is accommodated and becomes the tradition of the future. — Tom Storm

And so this in itself is acknowledging the silliness of reifying what is traditional BECAUSE it’s simply the holdover from the last major change. It can be a preference but the very fact that that itself was based on a change belies it’s real nature as “what is conserved”. Stockings over pants then. Kilts over stockings, togas over kilts or whatnot and so on. Hunting gathering loin cloths are most conservative and traditional then.

Why did you capitalise because? Anyway... it's a very simple belief. They don't like sudden and big changes that are imposed by others through war, governments, businesses. The fact that society does change is beside the point and unconnected to their perspective. You can still resist and dislike significant change in a world where changes have been made.

You can still resist and dislike significant change in a world where changes have been made. — Tom Storm

This is something they do yes. I’m refuting their justification for its rightness and have explained thus.

I’m refuting their justification for its rightness and have explained thus. — schopenhauer1

The point is they don't like sudden, far reaching changes. It's a preference, it's not as simple as right or wrong.

I work in an organisation which has been very stable for a few years. 10 years ago it was in tumult. I disliked that period of chaos greatly. I now value the stability and the people who are in key roles. It's not perfect but it is the best it can be from my perspective. I do not want to see any big changes to this organisation because I don't want stability and predictability to be threatened. I am a conservative in relation to any big change being suggested. Am I aware that this stability can't last forever and that change is inevitable and has been the case in the past? You bet. That has no bearing on my preference for conservative change only.

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. — Janus

Yes, only that's been labelled neoliberal.
There is - or there was - a brand of conservative who fits that image, but then adds anotherr dimension in the form of the obligations that go with privilege.

Luke 12:48 For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

The United Kingdom was fortunate to have a succession of remarkable philanthropists, thinkers and reformers during the Victorian and Edwardian eras, who sought to improve the destiny of the disadvantaged. Some with considerable wealth, such as William Armstrong, George Cadbury, George Peabody and Lord Rowton, built accommodation including housing, hostels, schools and hospitals, while John Rylands’ wealth helped to found Manchester University library. Complementing these leading figures were those, perhaps best described as activists, whose beliefs and actions benefited the underprivileged, particularly the aged. Among this eclectic group were:

In politics also, there have been conservatives who cling to tradition: ceremony, hierarchy and religion, while also embracing theprinciples of those traditions, rather than just gleaning the benefits: bread as well as circuses. That whole concept appears to have become obsolete.... hijacked by shills who replace patriotism with jingoist xenophobia; christian forbearance with militant religiosity; family and community cohesion with the vilification of minorities - tawdry imitations of conservative values.
Or so it seems to me.

In politics also, there have been conservatives who cling to tradition: ceremony, hierarchy and religion, while also embracing the principles of those traditions, rather than just gleaning the benefits: bread as well as circuses. That whole concept appears to have become obsolete.... hijacked by shills who replace patriotism with jingoist xenophobia; christian forbearance with militant religiosity; family and community cohesion with the vilification of minorities - tawdry imitations of conservative values.
Or so it seems to me. — Vera Mont

Very well described! I agree wholeheartedly.

That whole concept appears to have become obsolete.... hijacked by shills who replace patriotism with jingoist xenophobia; christian forbearance with militant religiosity; family and community cohesion with the vilification of minorities - tawdry imitations of conservative values.
Or so it seems to me. — Vera Mont

I think that's also what Roger Scruton thought. He bemoaned the fact that the conservative tradition had been coopted by corporate statists and cultural philistines, vandals and assorted self-aggrandizing parasites. But we all know that words are changeable things and they are often purloined by the wrong crowd. How often has term democracy been falsely employed by authoritarians and dictators?

Guard you words!

A conservative doesn't look back throughout history and try to turn back the clock after thousands of years, right? That's not conservatism — Tom Storm

I’m probably taking this out of context and I haven’t read your debate with schop, but…

The distinction that’s usually made is between conservatives and reactionaries, where the latter want to turn the clock back, or at least say they do, appealing to past glory. The interesting thing, and I think you were saying something similar, is that reactionaries can be radical. The Nazis are the best example. And the thing to notice about that is that the German conservatives went along with them, even though they thought them extreme and ridiculous. Disappointed leftists rightfully blame the German communists for ignoring the threat of the Nazis and persisting in their refusal to ally with the social democrats while the Nazis swept to power, but we shouldn’t let the conservatives off the hook either.

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. — Janus

Yes, only that's been labelled neoliberal.
There is - or there was - a brand of conservative who fits that image, but then adds anotherr dimension in the form of the obligations that go with privilege. — Vera Mont

I think the point is that the preservation of hierarchy and power is central in both versions of conservatism. I said the same thing as Janus earlier in the discussion:

For me, if there is a core of conservatism it’s a basic suspicion of Utopianism and of the idea of the “perfectibility of man”; a resultant pragmatic attitude to politics that aims to maintain a harmonious community in which change happens only slowly and organically on the basis of experience rather than on the basis of doctrines and principles. Of course, this is to represent it in its best light, according to its self-image, and I can also describe it differently: a pragmatic attitude to politics that aims to maintain traditional hierarchies and relations of power, which are regarded as natural. — Jamal

Here I am not describing two kinds of conservatism; I’m describing the same thing in two different ways. What Janus termed the “preservation of the existing power and class structures” not only characterizes neoliberal conservatism (if indeed this is even conservatism), but pretty much all conservatism. The function of social harmony, resistance to change, and the preservation of tradition is the maintenance of the status quo.

(By the way Vera, I’m not assuming you don’t agree with this or don’t understand it; I just think it’s interesting to explore)

The nice stuff like philanthropy, charity, a concern for the poor and unfortunate, and the idea that privilege entails responsibility (nobless oblige)—these are not separate from or in opposition to the preservation of hierarchy and power. Rather, they are the same thing. They are how traditional conservatism operates.

To care for the poor and unfortunate, to reduce conflicts between the classes, to reduce the abuse of servants and workers by their masters and managers—this is what a person wants if they care about people and about the stability of society while at the same time also believing that hierarchy is natural and that progress towards a more egalitarian society is potentially dangerous and destructive.

The way I think about it is in terms of the personal relationship between a benevolent aristocrat and his valet, his personal male servant. One example is the relationship between Frodo and Sam in The Lord of the Rings, which incidentally reveals better than anything just how very conservative, but also humane and warm-hearted, Tolkien was—and light-years away from anything like a neoliberal conservatism. The relationship is one of love and respect, but there is never any question of who is the senior partner: Sam’s role is to serve his master. The crux is that everyone should know their place, while this does not (according to the conservative) necessarily mean that the workers, servants, peasants and so on are abused and disrespected.

It seems to me that people want to make a distinction between nice conservatism and nasty conservatism. My view in a nutshell is that the nice version, precisely in its niceness, functions to curtail freedom and protect power.

Whether this is a bad thing or not is the key ideological difference: conservatives do not believe it is possible, advisable, or ethical to attempt to wipe out hierarchy on the basis of principles of egalitarianism. Others, like me, do.

However, I still think we have a lot to learn from intelligent, “nice” conservatism, and its arguments might be seen to have gained a lot of power since the disastrous and violent attempts at radical change in the twentieth century. So I do think the concerns of traditional conservatism have to be faced up to rather than swept aside.

The distinction that’s usually made is between conservatives and reactionaries, where the latter want to turn the clock back, or at least say they do, appealing to past glory. The interesting thing, and I think you were saying something similar, is that reactionaries can be radical. — Jamal

Absolutely right from where I sit. :up:

One example is the relationship between Frodo and Sam in The Lord of the Rings, — Jamal

And its comical flip-side: Jeeves and Wooster, and its serious exemplar: Wimsey and Bunter.
Yes, I do understand that --- without subscribing to it.

It seems to me that people want to make a distinction between nice conservatism and nasty conservatism. My view in a nutshell is that the nice version, precisely in its niceness, functions to curtail freedom and protect power. — Jamal

Of course it does. But in the crass populist form, it protects a power that doesn't give a flying fig about the underling's virtues, feelings and needs, but feeds him empty slogans instead of recognition. Make 'em mad; make 'em fight for you; discard 'em.

Whether this is a bad thing or not is the key ideological difference: conservatives do not believe it is possible, advisable, or ethical to attempt to wipe out hierarchy on the basis of principles of egalitarianism. Others, like me, do. — Jamal

Yeas. So do I. Principles are difficult to reconcile. When one considers the historical precedent, sincere conservatives may be correct: perhaps hierarchy of some kind will always prevail, and the danger of radical change is that the most destructive kind of hierarchy will form - as in the French and Russian revolutions. It is a legitimate concern.
And yet, society cannot remain static.
So we're down to negotiating terms; plotting strategy; finding ways and means.
A hostile standoff just won't work.

:up: Some good subtle analysis from both of you there!

So I do think the concerns of traditional conservatism have to be faced up to rather than swept aside. — Jamal

And yet, society cannot remain static. — Vera Mont

So we're down to negotiating terms; plotting strategy; finding ways and means.
A hostile standoff just won't work. — Vera Mont

These points in particular I strongly agree with. Complete, or even substantial revolution: destruction of the existing order, and starting over again, rebuilding from within the ruins, is not a viable option.

destruction of the existing order, and starting over again, rebuilding from within the ruins, is not a viable option. — Janus

And yet, as a pessimist, what I see as most probable is just that.
Here on the precipice, on the eve of lemmingfall, I don't see any sign of reconciliation or a coherent plan for survival, and there's no time to change course.
Because of regressive conservatism... more accurately: because of the regressive steps taken by those forces which hijacked conservatism... there may be no way back to the negotiating table, and no acceptable options. I don't know about revolutions, but more civil wars are probable. So is economic collapse.
Somebody, sometime, may very well need to rebuild.
Thanks to the ant-people who stored up and preserved seeds and knowledge, their task won't impossible.

It would help to name one if I knew how to recognize one. — Vera Mont

You might have better luck if you looked to political commentators/philosophers rather than politicians. I recommend Thomas Hobbes.

Whether this is a bad thing or not is the key ideological difference: conservatives do not believe it is possible, advisable, or ethical to attempt to wipe out hierarchy on the basis of principles of egalitarianism. Others, like me, do. — Jamal

Absafragginlootly. Jordan Peterson is almost ad nauseam about the 'natural order' of hierarchy.
Why does a behaviour learned under 'jungle rules,' and 'jungle pressures,' mean it can never be changed, even though we left the freaking jungle thousands of years ago? I accept that the jungle has not yet left some of us but that's no excuse!
I prefer the non-hierarchical system that can be envisaged based on the French goal (not yet realised), of liberté, égalité, fraternité, as long as YOUR personal notion of liberté, does not mean less liberté and égalité for others.

However, I still think we have a lot to learn from intelligent, “nice” conservatism, and its arguments might be seen to have gained a lot of power since the disastrous and violent attempts at radical change in the twentieth century. So I do think the concerns of traditional conservatism have to be faced up to rather than swept aside. — Jamal

Meh!

Meh! — universeness

That’s fair. I did wonder if I was being too soft there.

But in the crass populist form, it protects a power that doesn't give a flying fig about the underling's virtues, feelings and needs, but feeds him empty slogans instead of recognition. Make 'em mad; make 'em fight for you; discard 'em. — Vera Mont

It also promotes the unacceptable imagery (aesthetic) of the 'white knight' coming to help the poor underprivileged, unfortunate black people in Africa or brown people in India or red coloured indigenous people in America etc, etc. I despise the 'missionary' label as an utter insult to the people they claim to care about! Look at the damage the evanhellicals are doing in the poorer places of the world.
The poorer places that our Western ancestors, are mainly responsible for creating.

It seems to me that even 'nice' conservatives, don't like to have their world reformatted, so that it becomes more inclusive of those they all often call 'them.'
I don't want to sweep any viewpoint aside, so I understand the last paragraph I quoted from you, but I do want to challenge 'conservative ideology' 'vigorously,' and defeat it 'totally,' in the minds of as many of our species as possible, so that our species can finally understand that 'gated, secured, ideology driven, privileged, conserved, small communities, is not the way for our species to progress in a VAST universe.
The way forward is as one united planet/species.

I think I would make it a law that each of us MUST spend a day a week, following around a white/black/brown/yellow/red/transexual/transgender/disabled/underprivileged/....../..../.... person for a ...... YEAR or something like it, before we are allowed to get married/have children/vote/join .... ANYTHING!.... including TPF.
Perhaps we would then each learn to be open to more change and become less 'conservative.' :halo:

It seems to me that even 'nice' conservatives, don't like to have their world reformatted, so that it becomes more inclusive of those they all often call 'them.'
I don't want to sweep any viewpoint aside so I understand the last paragraph I quoted from you but I do want to challenge 'conservative ideology' 'vigorously,' and defeat it 'totally,' in the minds of as many of our species as possible, so that our species can finally understand that 'gated, secured, ideology driven, privileged, conserved, small communities, is not the way for our species to progress in a VAST universe.
The way forward is as one united planet/species. — universeness

But this just strikes me as unhinged rhetoric. I mean, who are you talking to here? Who are you trying to impress? What do any of these proud declarations on TPF actually achieve?

A fair question. My answer is YOU, I am typing to you, and anyone else who will listen/read, in the true 'soap box'/pamphlet tradition.

Do you not think that's it's important for those whose intent IS to do good, to be as 'messianic' as those who have nefarious intent? I am talking to anyone who will listen but I have no power to force anyone to listen or agree or join with me and others in common cause. A part of me is boosted by the imagery you incite with 'unhinged rhetoric.' Perhaps that is what is needed to get people to consider what you are pointing at. Making loud noises, is good for getting attention, children use it all the time.
I agree with you that after doing so, you have to convince others of the details involved.

Fair enough comrade.

I have started singing the 'Internationale,' in my head. I wanted to post a youtube rendition of it below but I don't want some conservative to post 'Jerusalem,' in response. So I thought you might also sing along with me, in your head, will you?

I would, but right now I’ve got Barry Manilow’s “Copacabana” in my head and I can’t shift it.

I would have helped Tony kick Rico's arse and gave his diamond to the poor!
Dance Lola dance! I wonder if she was the same Lola that the kinks met? :chin:

I recommend Thomas Hobbes. — Arne

He won't answer my emails.

And yet, as a pessimist, what I see as most probable is just that.
Here on the precipice, on the eve of lemmingfall, I don't see any sign of reconciliation or a coherent plan for survival, and there's no time to change course.
Because of regressive conservatism... more accurately: because of the regressive steps taken by those forces which hijacked conservatism... there may be no way back to the negotiating table, and no acceptable options. I don't know about revolutions, but more civil wars are probable. So is economic collapse.
Somebody, sometime, may very well need to rebuild.
Thanks to the ant-people who stored up and preserved seeds and knowledge, their task won't impossible. — Vera Mont

I actually agree with you. There is no captain at the helm of the ship of state, and to rerun the old metaphor, what is presently being done in the name of "preventing disaster" is like rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. Human civilization has become a fossil-fuel driven juggernaut, and it does seem that collapse is inevitable..it's just a question of how soon.

I was speaking more against those who think we need total revolution, and that we could have that and still preserve civilization and a growing population. That is what I think is not a viable option. After collapse I imagine there will be rebuilding, but with a vastly diminished population, and who knows how much of the culture will be preserved?

Apex species who overuse their resources suffer radical decline when the resources are greatly enough diminished, and I believe it is only human ingenuity that has enabled us to stave off that inevitability for as long as we have.