The history of conservatism...

[doodle]

Although I'm a big fan of conserving things like the environment, I have to say that "conservatism" as a political ideology is a bit harder for me to warm up to. Now, when I talk about "conservatism" I'm not singling out a single political party. During the middle and later part of the 1900's the Republican party was actually a party of progressivism.

My question is, can anyone think of a time when conservatives came out on the right side of history? In the march of human history, have those that try to stop what is new by conserving that which is old ever been on the winning side?

**Yes, I know that not all radically progressive events in human history ended up well...but that's not my question.

[Benko]

Are you joking? 

How about Regan and the iron curtain (liberals love him now, I guess, but not so much at the time).

[doodle]

Yes, but I'm not talking about the political party he represented. In that case he was acting as an agent of change. The Soviet Union was acting as the conservative entity.

[Pointedstick]

The important thing to understand is that conservatism is a fundamentally reactionary ideology. Without progressivism, it would have no fuel to feed from. Opposition to the perceived excesses of progressivism is pretty much what conservatism is all about, so I think the morality and success of the conservative movement really depends on what progressives are doing. When they're trying to improve peoples' freedom to do whatever they want with and to their own body, conservatism looks backward and retrograde. When they're trying to exterminate religion and force the state into every nook and cranny of society (i.e.  communism), conservatism seems like a pretty darn good idea.

[doodle]

The important thing to understand is that conservatism is a fundamentally reactionary ideology. Without progressivism, it would have no fuel to feed from.

Interesting! I totally overlooked this idea.

[MediumTex]

Since conservatism tends to attract older people clinging to a way of life that is passing away, it is often only necessary to hang on for another 10-25 years, because after that most followers of a conservative ideology will be dead.

You see this over and over in history: a wave of change will start to break, triggering a backlash, but if you look at the society 30-40 years later most of the wave of change will have become part of the fabric of society.

In the 60s we went through it with racial inequality.

In the 70s we went through it with gender inequality.

In the 80s and 90s we went through it with sexual orientation inequality.

The conservatives always lose, and it's perhaps because in a world this is moving forward people who want to move backward or stand still will always lose, though they may win for a while (and that gets me back to my 10-25 year timeframe above).

***

It is interesting to contrast our forward strides in the areas of technology and science with our almost complete lack of progress in decades in building better political institutions.  It's like we are running the latest software programs when it comes to science and technology, but we're trying to run them on a political infrastructure that is the equivalent of a 286 PC.  It's sort of comical when you think of it this way.

Think of the society we would have today if our political institutions had improved at the rate that we have seen improvements in other areas of life, mostly as a result of private sector activity--i.e., the government has simply not provided much innovation in any sphere of human life, political or otherwise.

[MachineGhost]

In the 60s we went through it with racial inequality.

In the 70s we went through it with gender inequality.

In the 80s and 90s we went through it with sexual orientation inequality.

Actually, in the 80's we went through it with disability inequality, not sexual orientation.

[MachineGhost]

The majority of the US populace has and always will be centrists, closely following the global definition of conservatism.  After all, they're the ones who voted in these institutions in the first place, with their slowly evolving adjustments through the years.  The balance of power between Congress, Executive, and most importantly the Judiciary are all there to ensure that reformists are effectively neutered.

Rubbish.  The Judiciary's been asleep at the wheel since FDR packed the bench with Communist sympathizers.  As a result, we're left-of-center, not center.  That's the biggest reason conservatives are such an energized bunch, because they don't have any effective neutering power.

[MachineGhost]

Rubbish.  The Judiciary's been asleep at the wheel since FDR packed the domain with Progressives.  As a result, the USA is center-left, not center.  Hence the biggest reason conservatives are such an energized bunch as they don't have any effective neutering power.  They want to get that back.

[RuralEngineer]

The important thing to understand is that conservatism is a fundamentally reactionary ideology. Without progressivism, it would have no fuel to feed from. Opposition to the perceived excesses of progressivism is pretty much what conservatism is all about, so I think the morality and success of the conservative movement really depends on what progressives are doing. When they're trying to improve peoples' freedom to do whatever they want with and to their own body, conservatism looks backward and retrograde. When they're trying to exterminate religion and force the state into every nook and cranny of society (i.e.  communism), conservatism seems like a pretty darn good idea.

Excellently put.  Conservatism's value to society depends VERY highly on what it's trying to conserve.

People that see no value whatsoever in conservatism seem to believe that humanity is forever progressing (hey, maybe that's where "progressive" comes from).  However, history has not born this out.  Many times in the past society has implemented social or political changes that put them on an unsustainable path.  The usual result is collapse and a reformation of society.  Such collapses usually have a loss of knowledge or institutions that leave the new society worse off than they were and the cycle starts again.

I wonder if the advent of electronic media and our interconnected world whether we've solved the issue with the loss of knowledge after a collapse.  We may have simply moved local collapses to the global stage.

I think it's important to remember that change is necessary to prevent stagnation, but that we need to be selective with the changes we allow to occur.  Not every change is advantageous or even benign.

[Ad Orientem]

My question is, can anyone think of a time when conservatives came out on the right side of history? In the march of human history, have those that try to stop what is new by conserving that which is old ever been on the winning side?

Read Edmund Burke. I particularly recommend his Reflections on the Revolution in France.

It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the Queen of France, then the Dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like the morning star full of life and splendor and joy.

Oh, what a revolution! and what a heart must I have, to contemplate without emotion that elevation and that fall! Little did I dream, when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor, and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult.

But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Never, never more, shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom! The unbought grace of life, the cheap defense of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone. It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honor, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness.

-Edmunde Burke on the death of the Queen of France 1793