I think you are missing a key insight into conservatism. Conservatism is about using things that are known to work, in the ways they are known to work (virtues). Conservatism does not blindly keep what it has now (because it could very well be or become malign), but rather looks and sees how it works repurposing or replacing things in a careful manner. The means by which the changes are made undergo the same scrutiny to avoid going down bad paths even when the result looks appealing. Conservatism has a virtue ethics approach to problems both moral and practical, because it knows we don’t just get what we’re trying for.
In other words, conservatism is just being rational in a world where things are likely to go wrong, but we have the experience culturally and societally to handle that if we’re careful. We have a lot of evidence in favor of certain ways of being, acting, and believing working well, and the newly proposed ways are very lacking in evidence that they are good, even if they sometimes have visceral appeal. A conservative is usually still against old things that are shown to be negative (by their value systems.). They can obviously still be wrong on any point, of course.
The wisdom of the ages is hardly faultless, but it’s a very good place to start (and also helps you understand what your policies really mean, since they are virtually never truly new.)
That’s the thing. Conservatism? Inherently moderate. It is a specific kind of moderation. It’s an impulse to do things carefully, knowing the danger of doing things any other way. It’s moderate in terms of goals, and paths to get there. Epistemically? Very humble. We haven’t just figured everything out suddenly in this moment. The past was not that dissimilar to today, they’ve had our problems before, and there are groups that did the correct things and succeeded, while most failed. Learn from that. Having seen history, they know that there are ways things could be better too, and want to make those changes, but also that they could easily make things worse.
The difference with centrism is that centrism doesn’t really have a position on why we should be moderate, or how, just that something near the center between the current poles should work. (Individual centrists will likely have their reasons, of course, they just aren’t conservatism necessarily.) Many centrists are conservative, but many aren’t. Conservatives very often prefer and vote for centrists.
Staunch Leftists obsessed with progress can actually be quite conservative too, it just doesn’t come up in our modern political environment (even though they exist, they won’t get much air time, and I’d guess they aren’t a significant political force or someone would market to them.). (Conservatives amongst the democrats would likely talk about electability rather than their actual concerns, but that is just a guess.)
Rightists pay lip-service to conservatism, while leftists generally refuse, so rightists get most conservative votes, but conservatism doesn’t have an inherent place on the left-right scale (neither near a pole, nor at the center). Conservatism is an approach, not a set of policies.
Note: I’m more conservative-adjacent than actual conservative. I would say that I am more of a centrist than a conservative, though I think actual conservatives have a big point these days given the turmoil terrible non-conservative governance has wreaked upon our world. I am not temperamentally conservative; I am fairly obsessed with how things should be better, with less emphasis on caution, but we still need to be aware of all the conservative ideas on how to do that. The people arguing for progress should have been easily able to persuade me, but often fail to take even basic precautions.
That’s the thing. Conservatism? Inherently moderate
Where you have a system with more than two parties, most small-c conservatives vote for the capital-C conservative party ,not the moderate/centrist party.
The difference with centrism is that centrism doesn’t really have a position on why we should be moderate, or how, just that something near the center between the current poles should work
Why wouldn’t it? In any case, there isn’t just one axis...centrists can pick and choose any consistent combination of positions.
Rightists pay lip-service to conservatism, while leftists generally refuse
Leftists want to conserve whatever gains they have made. That might not much in the US context, but in other contexts,thet want to hang on to free healthcare, union rights, welfare benefits and so on.
By the same logic, rightists get radical when they are on the back foot.
I think actual conservatives have a big point these days given the turmoil terrible non-conservative governance has wreaked upon our world.
I’ve seen capital C Conservative governments wreak havoc
First off, why shouldn’t small-c conservatives vote for people that talk about how we should keep what works and change what doesn’t? Big-C conservative parties say that a lot. They are often aligned policy wise with rightists, because the leftists are not being careful with their changes.
Conservatives do vote for centrists constantly though. Those are centrists over the space of ideals worth believed holding onto from the past, and lessons learned. Being anti-communist is very conservative for the vast majority of the world, and also very centrist...but it is no contradiction in terms for an extreme communist to be conservative. They would try to apply the lessons of history to communism.
This brings up an important point. Conservatives across the world are trying to keep different things that work, because they are from different cultures that have different things to conserve. There’s no reason to assume that various conservatives see eye to eye on things in general. Conservatives are very particular to a certain place or time. It is an impulse or approach, not a set of policies. It compares what is to what has been to determine what can and should be done to improve things.
I also clearly stated/implied that conservatism is a specific kind of moderation/centrism. Various centrisms do have actual underlying philosophies, it is only ‘Centrism’ as a whole that does not. As I also stated, I am not a conservative, but another kind of moderate myself. I have a long note about that and everything. I certainly have a well thought out, coherent system of political thought, but it is not the ‘Centrism’.
As to Thatcher, I’m not an expert on historical UK politics, but this gives good context to the phrase (It’s from the link): “What’s the alternative? To go on as we were before? All that leads to is higher spending. And that means more taxes, more borrowing, higher interest rates more inflation, more unemployment.” This is a conservative take saying that where they were then was not in keeping with the lessons of history. “There is no alternative” thus just meant “the alternative is clearly awful, so no one would pick it knowing what they were picking.” She won, she improved things, and they were clearly better off. A conservative saw something that could be improved, was determined to do so, and succeeded.
The left has made a ton of ‘gains’ in policy positions in the US over the decades. Any claim otherwise is a farce. Conservatives now defend many of them. The leftists that propose defending and enhancing what they’ve gained rather than steaming ahead at full-speed and losing their gains are displaying a conservative impulse. Conservatives do not equal rightists. As long as there is a left, there will be a right, but conservatives are often not rightists, as I’ve pointed out several times.
In a world where the left keeps trying to go further and further afield, they will always assume that conservative is the same thing as rightist, but that is no more true than claiming that everyone who dreams of what they can change to improve the world is a leftist.
First off, why shouldn’t small-c conservatives vote for people that talk about how we should keep what works and change what doesn’t?
We know what they do on actuality, so.theres no need to guess.
As to Thatcher, I’m not an expert on historical UK politics, but this gives good context to the phrase (It’s from the link): “What’s the alternative? To go on as we were before? All that leads to is higher spending. And that means more taxes, more borrowing, higher interest rates more inflation, more unemployment.” This is a conservative take saying that where they were then was not in keeping with the lessons of history
It’s a epistemically immodest, dogmatic take.
The left has made a ton of ‘gains’ in policy positions in the US over the decades. Any claim otherwise is a farce.
The claim that the left has made only gains, and not losses, is obviously false.
In a world where the left keeps trying to go further and further afield, they will always assume that conservative is the same thing as rightist
That doesn’t mean that there are no rightists.
Consider immigration in the US context. Openness to immigration is a US tradition. But rightists oppose it, so they are proposing a novelty, closed borders.
You seem to have straw-manned your ideological opponents. Your claims are neither factually accurate, nor charitable. They don’t point you in a useful direction either. Obviously, conservatives can be very wrong, but your assumptions seem unjustified.
And what are you going to claim your opponents do? In the US, rightists claim they will lower taxes, which they do. They claim they will reduce regulation, which they do. They claim they will turn back whatever they deem the latest outrage...which has mixed results. They explain why all of this is good by referencing the lessons of history, and by simply pointing out their opponents positions whenever those are unpopular. Politicians are politicians, and hardly trustworthy on such things, but (American) rightist one’s pay more attention to how ideas have failed in the past, at least in how they talk and the occasional policy.
Their politicians only put in moderate effort to be conservative...but their opponents won’t admit conservatism can ever be a good thing. Much like you’re doing here. These days, pretty much all centrism is considered too conservative to be considered on a national level by leftists, one of just two major parties. So obviously, conservatives will vote for rightists.
Why then, do you think you can simply take one person from a long time ago, from one country, in this case the UK, (when it has previously been pointed out that the manifestations clearly vary based on time and place), claim they are immodest, and that means much of anything against conservatism? Especially when they turned out to be clearly right by massively improving all those things with their policies. You never examined her evidence, reasoning, or results in any way, just threw stones.
Having strong beliefs is not immodest if the evidence is strong enough. Plus, you know, she was a politician. Sound-bites are a big thing for them.
Conservatism isn’t actually about politics. Conservatives vote for people whose policies and/or character are, in their personal belief, likely to do things supported by the weight of history and caution, not simply the people who are themselves the best incarnation of those things. In many cases, they use heuristics that lead to assuming untested things don’t work (which is usually right.). Leftists often want proof their latest thing won’t work before discarding it, and don’t provide significant evidence to these conservatives that they will work. Also, conservatives are just people, and they care about many things and have many inclinations that are unrelated to their conservatism.
I think you are missing a key insight into conservatism. Conservatism is about using things that are known to work, in the ways they are known to work (virtues). Conservatism does not blindly keep what it has now (because it could very well be or become malign), but rather looks and sees how it works repurposing or replacing things in a careful manner. The means by which the changes are made undergo the same scrutiny to avoid going down bad paths even when the result looks appealing. Conservatism has a virtue ethics approach to problems both moral and practical, because it knows we don’t just get what we’re trying for.
In other words, conservatism is just being rational in a world where things are likely to go wrong, but we have the experience culturally and societally to handle that if we’re careful. We have a lot of evidence in favor of certain ways of being, acting, and believing working well, and the newly proposed ways are very lacking in evidence that they are good, even if they sometimes have visceral appeal. A conservative is usually still against old things that are shown to be negative (by their value systems.). They can obviously still be wrong on any point, of course.
The wisdom of the ages is hardly faultless, but it’s a very good place to start (and also helps you understand what your policies really mean, since they are virtually never truly new.)
If conservatism is “keep what works, discard what doesn’t”....how does it differ from moderation or centrism.
That’s the thing. Conservatism? Inherently moderate. It is a specific kind of moderation. It’s an impulse to do things carefully, knowing the danger of doing things any other way. It’s moderate in terms of goals, and paths to get there. Epistemically? Very humble. We haven’t just figured everything out suddenly in this moment. The past was not that dissimilar to today, they’ve had our problems before, and there are groups that did the correct things and succeeded, while most failed. Learn from that. Having seen history, they know that there are ways things could be better too, and want to make those changes, but also that they could easily make things worse.
The difference with centrism is that centrism doesn’t really have a position on why we should be moderate, or how, just that something near the center between the current poles should work. (Individual centrists will likely have their reasons, of course, they just aren’t conservatism necessarily.) Many centrists are conservative, but many aren’t. Conservatives very often prefer and vote for centrists.
Staunch Leftists obsessed with progress can actually be quite conservative too, it just doesn’t come up in our modern political environment (even though they exist, they won’t get much air time, and I’d guess they aren’t a significant political force or someone would market to them.). (Conservatives amongst the democrats would likely talk about electability rather than their actual concerns, but that is just a guess.)
Rightists pay lip-service to conservatism, while leftists generally refuse, so rightists get most conservative votes, but conservatism doesn’t have an inherent place on the left-right scale (neither near a pole, nor at the center). Conservatism is an approach, not a set of policies.
Note: I’m more conservative-adjacent than actual conservative. I would say that I am more of a centrist than a conservative, though I think actual conservatives have a big point these days given the turmoil terrible non-conservative governance has wreaked upon our world. I am not temperamentally conservative; I am fairly obsessed with how things should be better, with less emphasis on caution, but we still need to be aware of all the conservative ideas on how to do that. The people arguing for progress should have been easily able to persuade me, but often fail to take even basic precautions.
Where you have a system with more than two parties, most small-c conservatives vote for the capital-C conservative party ,not the moderate/centrist party.
On the other hand: Margaret Thatcher.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative
Why wouldn’t it? In any case, there isn’t just one axis...centrists can pick and choose any consistent combination of positions.
Leftists want to conserve whatever gains they have made. That might not much in the US context, but in other contexts,thet want to hang on to free healthcare, union rights, welfare benefits and so on.
By the same logic, rightists get radical when they are on the back foot.
I’ve seen capital C Conservative governments wreak havoc
First off, why shouldn’t small-c conservatives vote for people that talk about how we should keep what works and change what doesn’t? Big-C conservative parties say that a lot. They are often aligned policy wise with rightists, because the leftists are not being careful with their changes.
Conservatives do vote for centrists constantly though. Those are centrists over the space of ideals worth believed holding onto from the past, and lessons learned. Being anti-communist is very conservative for the vast majority of the world, and also very centrist...but it is no contradiction in terms for an extreme communist to be conservative. They would try to apply the lessons of history to communism.
This brings up an important point. Conservatives across the world are trying to keep different things that work, because they are from different cultures that have different things to conserve. There’s no reason to assume that various conservatives see eye to eye on things in general. Conservatives are very particular to a certain place or time. It is an impulse or approach, not a set of policies. It compares what is to what has been to determine what can and should be done to improve things.
I also clearly stated/implied that conservatism is a specific kind of moderation/centrism. Various centrisms do have actual underlying philosophies, it is only ‘Centrism’ as a whole that does not. As I also stated, I am not a conservative, but another kind of moderate myself. I have a long note about that and everything. I certainly have a well thought out, coherent system of political thought, but it is not the ‘Centrism’.
As to Thatcher, I’m not an expert on historical UK politics, but this gives good context to the phrase (It’s from the link): “What’s the alternative? To go on as we were before? All that leads to is higher spending. And that means more taxes, more borrowing, higher interest rates more inflation, more unemployment.” This is a conservative take saying that where they were then was not in keeping with the lessons of history. “There is no alternative” thus just meant “the alternative is clearly awful, so no one would pick it knowing what they were picking.” She won, she improved things, and they were clearly better off. A conservative saw something that could be improved, was determined to do so, and succeeded.
The left has made a ton of ‘gains’ in policy positions in the US over the decades. Any claim otherwise is a farce. Conservatives now defend many of them. The leftists that propose defending and enhancing what they’ve gained rather than steaming ahead at full-speed and losing their gains are displaying a conservative impulse. Conservatives do not equal rightists. As long as there is a left, there will be a right, but conservatives are often not rightists, as I’ve pointed out several times.
In a world where the left keeps trying to go further and further afield, they will always assume that conservative is the same thing as rightist, but that is no more true than claiming that everyone who dreams of what they can change to improve the world is a leftist.
We know what they do on actuality, so.theres no need to guess.
It’s a epistemically immodest, dogmatic take.
The claim that the left has made only gains, and not losses, is obviously false.
That doesn’t mean that there are no rightists.
Consider immigration in the US context. Openness to immigration is a US tradition. But rightists oppose it, so they are proposing a novelty, closed borders.
You seem to have straw-manned your ideological opponents. Your claims are neither factually accurate, nor charitable. They don’t point you in a useful direction either. Obviously, conservatives can be very wrong, but your assumptions seem unjustified.
And what are you going to claim your opponents do? In the US, rightists claim they will lower taxes, which they do. They claim they will reduce regulation, which they do. They claim they will turn back whatever they deem the latest outrage...which has mixed results. They explain why all of this is good by referencing the lessons of history, and by simply pointing out their opponents positions whenever those are unpopular. Politicians are politicians, and hardly trustworthy on such things, but (American) rightist one’s pay more attention to how ideas have failed in the past, at least in how they talk and the occasional policy.
Their politicians only put in moderate effort to be conservative...but their opponents won’t admit conservatism can ever be a good thing. Much like you’re doing here. These days, pretty much all centrism is considered too conservative to be considered on a national level by leftists, one of just two major parties. So obviously, conservatives will vote for rightists.
Why then, do you think you can simply take one person from a long time ago, from one country, in this case the UK, (when it has previously been pointed out that the manifestations clearly vary based on time and place), claim they are immodest, and that means much of anything against conservatism? Especially when they turned out to be clearly right by massively improving all those things with their policies. You never examined her evidence, reasoning, or results in any way, just threw stones.
Having strong beliefs is not immodest if the evidence is strong enough. Plus, you know, she was a politician. Sound-bites are a big thing for them.
Conservatism isn’t actually about politics. Conservatives vote for people whose policies and/or character are, in their personal belief, likely to do things supported by the weight of history and caution, not simply the people who are themselves the best incarnation of those things. In many cases, they use heuristics that lead to assuming untested things don’t work (which is usually right.). Leftists often want proof their latest thing won’t work before discarding it, and don’t provide significant evidence to these conservatives that they will work. Also, conservatives are just people, and they care about many things and have many inclinations that are unrelated to their conservatism.