What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It? Philip E. Agre August 2004 Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple: Q: What is conservatism? A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy. Q: What is wrong with conservatism? A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world. These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States. //1 The Main Arguments of Conservatism From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives. The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.... read the rest of the argument at: http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html
Hey gate, I stand behind Bush 100%. Wait, which bush are we talking about? The Bush Admin. wrote the book on conservatism.( well they probably never wrote anything that was their idea) I ,in my wildest dreams will shoot myself in the foot if he is elected for a 2nd term. he is a nimrod. He personaly does not know shit, he's an asshole, he not good on the eyes or ears, ok, i'll stop sence this is not what this thread is about. Keep up the good Dr. Gate.
Charmian, are you from Dallas? I'm from Dallas County...don't want to disclose which city in thye forums though.
American conservatism and Continental conservatism are two different things. American conservatism never had anything to do with maintaining an aristocracy. It is, actually, a branch of classical liberalism. (I know; it can get confusing.) All major American political parties have historically been in the broad stream of liberalism and have supported such things as limited government by the consent of the governed, free speech, the rule of law, capitalism, and the right to peacefully dissent. True American conservatives, being true classical liberals, support these things as well. Note that W, in his expansion of the size and scope of government, his restrictions on the right of free speech, and his waging of offensive war is not a conservative in the American tradition. Neither are the so-called neoconservatives who have become his principle advisors.
