Mephisto2

The use of the word conservative is a label. If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it's a duck. In other words, if "conservative" is used to describe people like O'Reilly, Bush and Rove, then that's what conservative means.

All we're doing here is arguing pedantics over a political label.


Let me put it another way. Those who are labeled conservative usually come from the Republican party. They use the term themselves and their "liberal" opponents also use it to describe them. The term has percolated through the political consciousness of America such that it now means whet you say it doesn't!

Well, this is your definition of what conservatism means. I think you are confusing conservative ideals with the label "conservative" as it is used to describe (typically) Republicans.

In other words, and I don't mean this in a negative way, your contention that "conservative" does not really mean conservative is useless. It fails on a matter of fact. People like Bush and Co are described as conservative (by all members of American society) so therefore they are conservative.

Words and meanings evolve. Your point seems to revolve around arguing definitions, rather than arguing the nuances of their political beliefs.

Is this a generally held belief, or is this your take on the situation? I'm quite sure that if you asked five political science professors at different universities for a definition of a "conservative", you would get five different answers. But I'm also quite sure that if you asked an average American to name three famous conservative politicans, they would include Bush, Rove and O'Reilly quite often.


Do you see what I'm getting at?


I agree that this is a common, underlying characteristic. And until 9/11, the Republicans espoused such a political framework. We've had several threads already commenting on how odd it was that the Republicans now seem to be moving away from such a framework with concepts like the Patriot Act. This does not mean they are no longer conservative, but that the conservative politicans (in America) are evolvling their political structures and beliefs. The label follows them. We don't turn around and suddenly say "Oh uh... you're no longer conservative!"

A crucial difference to what? Republicans do believe in isolationism; except of course where capitalisitc ideals promote things such as the WTO, globalization and Reaganmoics. But that's another story.

In other words, Bush & Co are still conserative when using this characteristic.


Yes and no. I agree with everything you've said until the last statement. Conservatives do now seem to be believe in Pax Americana. That's what globalization and "state building" is all about. Perhaps more appropriately, we should call these people neo-cons. Again, we see in this the evolution of the term conservative.

Neo = new
Con = conservative

Splitting hairs. And only accurate if you assume that each of your proposed five characteristics are equally important. But the survival of the state (which at a fundamental level is the aim of the Patriot Act) is more important to conservatives that the rule of law. There would BE no constitution or laws if the state itself was destroyed.

Hence, it's entirely possible (and is in fact) for a conservative to support "big laws" and "big government" if they want to protect the state itself.


First of all, I don't believe that traditional laws are "regressive". By definition they are not progressive, as they want to maintains things the way they are; maintain the "traditions". Ergo, they are also NOT regressive, as that also would change the status quo.

Secondly, the use of religion is often used by conservatives as a motivating and influencing factor. To say or believe otherwise is to hamper your understanding by a blinkered belief of what conservativism should mean, as opposed to what it really means in today's America.


I disagree. This implies that liberalism does not adhere to principle. I don't see how adherence to principal is a descriptive characteristic of conservatism OR liberalism.

Well they are. You may think they don't "deserve" the sobriquet, but everyone calls them conservative; therefore the label is both appropriate and correct.

The English language evolves (there's no such language as American ). Therefore I don't see the value in arguing over pedantic interpretations of political labels.

In the UK, Conservatives (capital C) are also known as Tories. They patently are not, if we use the "correct" definition. But they are really, as that's what the word has come to mean.

In Australia, the current ruling party are called the Liberal Party. They patently are not, if we use the "correct" definition. But they are really, as when people talk about Liberals in Australia, they mean the incumbent conservative (lower case c) government.

In many countries, anarchist has negative connotations, but its original meaning is closer to what you Americans call Libertarianism. But Libertarians don't like being called anarchists, as the meaning of the word has evolved with the development of new political frameworks and concepts.


What I'm basically getting at is that it's useless to argue over whether Bush & Co are "real conservatives". There's no such thing, other than these people themselves. They use the term. American society uses the term. And liberals use the term. Therefore, they ARE conservative.



Mr Mephisto