[Eupraxias]

By conservatives, do you mean the same people who believe we should be conservative in our application of government?

Are you sure you are not speaking of liberals, who believe government should be applied liberally?

Not like any of them act as they speak, but if I am not mistaken, that's what the words mean.

[adhesive_wombat]

> believe we should be conservative in our application of government?

No, they believe "traditional" systems should be retained (i.e. conserved).

> government should be applied liberally?

That is almost diametrically opposite to the use of the word liberal as applied to politics.

[tsimionescu]

Conservatives are, by definition, people who want to conserve the status quo. They believe society is good as it is (or as it was in sine possibly imagined past) and seek to use the power of the state to prevent changes, and to revert any changes that are pushing society away from what they believe is the status quo. Conservatism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "being conservative in application of government". In the USA, it happens that part of the status quo that many conservatives want to conserve is a weak federal government. In the UK, conservatives are typically monarchist, which is essentially the opposite position.

Either way, many conservatives are collectivists: they believe the needs of society and preservation of tradition outweigh the desires of individuals, and so they tend to be in favor of concepts such as the traditional family excluding gay people, the rule of mothers in child rearing being more important than the freedom of women to pursue careers and so on.

The opposite of conservatives are progressives, people who believe the status quo is not generally good, and who seek to use the power of the state to change the status quo in a direction they believe is progress.

There are also many collectivist progressives, and as such tend to want things like egalitarian schooling even if certain extraordinary kids may be kept behind, or supporting progressive taxation such that those who have more have to give more to the collective.

On a different axis, we have liberals, who are the opposite of collectivists. Liberals can be conservative or progressive, but they ultimately believe that the most important value is individual freedom.

An example of a liberal conservative is someone like Ron Paul. He believes the status quo is generally good and shouldn't be changed to much, except where he thinks government has over reached. However, he also believes government shouldn't involve itself in people lives, even to preserve societal values, so he tends to support the legalization of Marijuana and perhaps even gay marriage (though given electoral realities, in not sure of his public position on the second). Contrast this to a more collectivist conservative like justice Clarence Thomas, who believes the state should ban gay marriage and even sodomy and contraception.

[anshorei]

The fundamental core of conservatism is exemplified in Chesterton's Fence, the meaning of which comes down to "make changes with extreme caution", not "don't make changes at all". The inverse of conservatism is the desire for revolutionary change, which is not the same as progressivism (though it's certainly a popular idea with some). Anti-industrialism (e.g. the Ludites) was conservative. Environmentalism can be conservative. Politics has muddied the true meanings of "progressive" and "conservative".

[tsimionescu]

I've heard the fundamental position of conservatism slightly differently: "if something doesn't have to change, then it must not change". As such, the opposite may well be "let's change this and see if it helps".

But behind this fundamental position, there still lies the position that the current state of affairs is fundamentally ok, or very close to it (or if not the current one, then some previous one that you aspire to return to). You can't truthfully be a conservative while believing everything is rotten and always has been - you would have no reasonable reason to oppose change, even change for change's sake.

[anshorei]

You don't need to believe that the current state of affairs is "fundamentally ok, or very close to it", quite to the contrary. What you need to believe is that the current state of affairs could be made much worse if one is not careful.

I think most people agree that through history we've made a slow climb up a mountain. And it's always easier to fall down, than it is to continue climbing. One could look down into the abyss and say "we must be careful not to trip", or one could look up at the top of the mountain and say "we must get there at any cost". In this metaphor I'd say the revolutionary would be looking at another peak in the mountain range and say "we must descend into the abyss if we want to make it there".

[awwright]

Two corrections:

(1) This is a good overview, but conservatives don't believe in the status quo for the status quo's sake. They believe that our traditions are highly optimized, essential components to living a fulfilling life. We don't even know why many of the rules even exist, the exact problem they solve has long been forgotten to history; so we should be careful when changing these rules.

There is an element of caring for your long-term health as well as the larger society, and raising the next generation of humans, which most everyone agrees with in some form (even libertarians argue that absolute individual liberty is what produces the best outcome for society). This not necessarily make you a collectivist, in the way that progressives push for labor unions, economic planning, and intersectionality.

What you're missing is a description of when conservatives support use of force to promote social values. Modern American conservatives think that rights come with responsibilities, that neither unfettered libertinism nor enforcement of responsibility with police power is legitimate.

(2) Clarence Thomas has never spoken from the bench about what laws the state ought to pass, he is careful to emphasize he is not a lawmaker and that is not his job. When he dissents in Obergefell and other cases that rely on "substantive" due process, it's because i legal rationale invented to uphold slavery in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

[goodpoint]

You are mistaken.

[Agamus]

No, I am not.

[cstross]

Shorter version: Yes, you are mistaken.

Longer version: this is a discussion of a bill in progress in the British parliamentary system, where the current government is by a party known as the Conservative and Unionist Party, or "Conservatives" for short. This should not be confused with any colloquial meaning of the term "conservative" that might be familiar to you from American vernacular usage.

Note that political party names undergo drift from whatever they originally described over a period of decades to centuries. For example, the Australian Liberal Party is anything but "liberal" in the US context -- they're roughly equivalent to the US Republican mainstream in terms of ideology. Nor is the Australian "Labour" party a party of organized labour. Neither is the British Labour party -- it used to be, but the party leadership embarked on a protracted and mostly successful campaign to cut it off from its grassroots over a decade ago.

Anyway: the Conservative and Unionist Party has a very specific policy platform, which is described by the word "conservative" in British political discourse and which does not map neatly onto the American concept of conservativism because large chunks of American conservative culture simply don't exist in the UK. Yes, there are out-of-the-closet libertarians and objectivists and Christian dominionists in the Conservative party, but they're minor factions. The main faction can loosely be described as post-Thatcherite free marketeers, with a recent influx of hard-right racists and xenophobes who migrated en masse from UKIP, the UK Independence Party, after the Brexit referendum in 2016. There is no equivalent of the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, so there can be no equivalent of Constitutional Originalism in British conservativism. It's a different animal.

[Agamus]

Another version: no I am not.

I'm impressed with how many people really do not understand the meaning of these terms. The idea that the US is culturally divided makes a lot more sense to me now, reading all of these responses.

[alsetmusic]

> I'm impressed with how many people really do not understand the meaning of these terms.

When multiple people tell you that you’re wrong and no one else is taking your side, the rational response is to consider that you may be wrong. But, as humans, we sometimes lack the willingness (or perhaps ability) to do so.

[Agamus]

It's a losing battle - people are wise not to jump in. I'm even restraining myself from providing my own reasoning.

"eppur si muove"