Conservatism.

[Peron]

Am I missing something about conservatism or am I right?

 

Here is the thing, if conservatives want to "preserve" traditional economic and political systems, then how can they react to economic, social, or environmental changes?

 

Wouldn't conservatism stifle changes that are so needed in society?

If societies stagnant and do not progress economically, socially, and politically, is that society at risk of collapsing?

[tomgwyther]

I suppose a conservative apologists view would be that by preserving traditional social, economic and political systems, one is relying on tried and tested methods.

That said however, the trying and the testing aspect would more likely be carried out by non-conservatives.

Moreover, what counts as 'Tradition' is very much a subjective opinion; both personally and chronologically.

Me and my colegues have a kebab every Friday night, which is a tradition going back a few years.

We traditionally have turkey at Christmas; a tradition going back over 100 years.

[Peron]

Well, how would a society progress if the society is stressed environmentally or economically, if they adhere to a single unchanging doctrine?

[Pangloss]

Am I missing something about conservatism or am I right?

 

Here is the thing, if conservatives want to "preserve" traditional economic and political systems, then how can they react to economic, social, or environmental changes?

 

Wouldn't conservatism stifle changes that are so needed in society?

If societies stagnant and do not progress economically, socially, and politically, is that society at risk of collapsing?

 

"Conservative" is a very broad term that covers a number of highly generalized social and economic particulars. The conservative movement in the United States is generally seen as split into two camps: "Fiscal" and "Social". These Wikipedia articles may be helpful:

 

Fiscal Conservatives

Social Conservatives

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, how would a society progress if the society is stressed environmentally or economically, if they adhere to a single unchanging doctrine?

 

I'm not convinced that they do.

[ParanoiA]

Am I missing something about conservatism or am I right?

 

Here is the thing, if conservatives want to "preserve" traditional economic and political systems, then how can they react to economic, social, or environmental changes?

 

Wouldn't conservatism stifle changes that are so needed in society?

If societies stagnant and do not progress economically, socially, and politically, is that society at risk of collapsing?

 

I don't think that's an even generally accurate description of the conservative ideology, at least not at present.

 

Very generally speaking, conservatives tend to favor economic liberty while opposing the same scope of civil liberty, using flimsy, traditional appeals to work around the principles they used to justify their economic position.

 

Contrast this to liberals who tend to favor civil liberty while opposing the same scope of economic liberty, also using flimsy, desparate logic to work around the principles they used to justify their civil position.

 

Both ideologies make excuses to manufacture exceptions that neither side accepts from the other.

 

Libertarians and statists don't respect the civil/economic partition that distinguish the conservative and liberal ideologies.

 

Conservatism does change and evolve like anything else. Today's conservative is quite a bit different than say, the Taft era conservative.

 

Neither ideology will lead to a collapse, in my opinion. They've been around in one form or another, codified in various philosophies in one degree or another for centuries. It's all about preference, which speaks to quality of life.

 

It also depends on where you apply the ideology. I know people that believe in a libertarian federal government, while prefering a mixed local government. The conservative and liberal ideology (and statist) applied at the federal level destroys most state government diversity. This is why the states tend to be all the same these days; the US becoming more of a unitary state every year.

 

Incidentally, a libertarian federal government allows for most ideologies to exist throughout the states, so each of us can live in the kind of society we want instead of beating each other about the head to do things 1 way, but the same is not true for conservative or liberal federal governments.

 

I know you asked about conservative, but I thought it important to do so in context with the others. There is nothing inherently superior about any of them - well, other than libertarian of course

[iNow]

Despite counter-claims rooted in offense, anecdote, and opinion, there is a fair bit of science to support the underlying notion suggested by the OP. There are a good number of articles, in fact, which support his point about conservative ideology and resistance to change.

 

Here's just one I found with a quick hit from the google stick.

 

 

 

http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/09/10/brains-of-liberals-conservatives-may-work-differently/1691.html

Research published over the weekend shows that brains of liberals and conservatives may be constructed and work differently.

 

In a study likely to raise the hackles of some conservatives, scientists at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, found that a specific region of the brain’s cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives.

 

The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking.

 

<...>

 

The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality. That evoked outrage from conservative pundits.

 

<...>

 

Frank Sulloway of the Institute of Personality and Social Research at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study, said results “provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity.”

 

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times more likely than conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts and were 2.2 times more likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

 

Based on the results, Sulloway said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

 

 

Eh... You know what? I enjoy swinging the google stick. Here's another for your edification and enjoyment.

 

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200612/the-ideological-animal

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

 

The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.

 

Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information," says Jost. As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers. "Whatever the cause, Bush and Kerry exemplify the cognitive styles we see in the research," says Jack Glaser, one of the study's authors, "Bush in appearing more rigid in his thinking and intolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, and Kerry in appearing more open to ambiguity and to considering alternative positions."

 

<...>

 

The study used political orientation as a dependent variable, meaning that where subjects fall on the political scale is computed from their own answers about whether they're liberal or conservative. Psychologists then compare factors such as fear of death and openness to new experiences, and seek statistically significant correlations. The findings are quintessentially empirical and difficult to dismiss as false.

[ParanoiA]

The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality. That evoked outrage from conservative pundits.

 

I remember this study. I think there was a thread on it. But I think the bolded part supports my point in civil oppression by conservatives - traditionalism applied to social issues, which would retain and insist on existing inequalities. I'm not sure you'd find that so much in the economic issues.

 

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times more likely than conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts and were 2.2 times more likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

 

Based on the results, Sulloway said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

 

Exactly, primed and ready to make exceptions to previous promises. There's not a principle they can't get around. I say this, because it implies a specious notion that "flexible" thinking is good. Flexible thinking got the 3/5ths compromise in the face of "all men are created equal".

 

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

 

The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.

 

That does make sense too. Or, at least it compliments my personal, anecdotal observations.

[Pangloss]

Even if we accept this premise as fairly obvious:

 

Wouldn't conservatism stifle changes that are so needed in society?

If societies stagnant and do not progress economically' date=' socially, and politically, is that society at risk of collapsing?[/quote']

 

We still lack the foundation to determine that conservatives are sufficiently stubborn to cause harm. What is the degree of flexibility required to preserve society from the "risk of collapsing"? What is the degree of inflexibility extant in average conservatives?

 

Can these variables even BE defined with the precision required to determine that an ideological viewpoint is actually damaging to society? What level of precision would that be, and how would we determine that it were sufficiently separated from ideological bias?

[toastywombel]

It really is true, conservatism whether it is social or economical is usually about preserving the free-market (unregulated capitalism) and preserving good old Christian Values and/or traditional social values.

 

This is from wikipedia:

 

"Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that holds that traditional institutions work best and that society should avoid radical change. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were."

 

From Merriam Webster

 

" disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change"

 

From Encyclopaedia Britannica

 

"Political attitude or ideology denoting a preference for institutions and practices that have evolved historically and are thus manifestations of continuity and stability.

 

It was first expressed in the modern era through the works of Edmund Burke in reaction to the French Revolution, which Burke believed tarnished its ideals through its excesses. Conservatives believe that the implementation of change should be minimal and gradual; they appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic. Well-known conservative parties include the British Conservative Party, the German Christian Democratic Union, the U.S. Republican Party, and the Japanese Liberal-Democratic Party. See also Christian Democracy ... (100 of 8064 words) "

 

There is some legitimacy to what the OP is getting at, as iNow pointed out before. Conservatives generally like to preserve something, an older idea. If one wants to support an existing system, they are closed to accepting new systems. However, it is obvious that throughout history change and shift happens.

 

Example:

 

One aspect of conservatism one could consider is the "Christian Conservative". This group of voters often supports creationism being taught in schools. It is quite obvious that the scientific evidence behind creationism is lacking, and the evidence behind evolution is very strong, however many of these voters, vote for candidates who also support creationism being taught in school.

 

If their candidate won and was successful in implementing this, our public education system would be teaching students utter nonsense, and we could end up with a completely misinformed nation.

[Pangloss]

So you guys are saying that "resistance to change" can be used to objectively determine whether an ideology represents harm to society? That's pretty intriguing.

 

Of course, many changes are supported by conservatives that are opposed by progressives. Controlling the border, reducing taxes, certain changes to government services, ending abortion. Doesn't that make progressives harmful to society?

 

Or is it the number of positions opposed by an ideology that makes it harmful to society? Is it that conservatives are more harmful because they oppose more change (more specific instances of change)? If so, how much more change do you feel they oppose? Is there any data on this? And what is the number of changes one may safely oppose without harming society?

[jryan]

The traditional definition of conservatism is the support for programs and societal structures that develop organically. Although I think that is accurate, I think there is a better way to say it. But I think you need to define Progressives at the same time to really understand the definition of conservatism.

 

So, my definition would be this:

 

Conservatism evaluates proposed change through the lens of history, the Progressive views proposed change through the lens of posterity.

 

I think that encapsulates the two positions very well. As a conservative I immediately consider an idea based on how the idea worked historically while the progressive in more apt to think first about what a proposed change may accomplish in the future.