The sub-title, which is not mine, is somewhat ambiguous. I did not argue that conservatism is not an ideology - for many people it is; I argued that it was not a moral position, based on values which might constitute a political theory. I believe this is a more interesting question, and one which has practical consequence.

By ideology I mean an interpretation of ideals set in concrete. You cannot argue with ideology because opinions on the meaning of values such as fairness, freedom, honour, patriotism etc. become exalted; hence Marxism, Fascism and in our own time doctrinaire Neo-conservatism.

One can be religious without being ideological and vice versa. No one who has read essays by Frank Brennan SJ and other authors in Eureka Street can fail to be struck by the commitment to values of reason, fairness, tolerance and humanity - the same values David f speaks of.

The main difference between ‘religious’ values and these ordinary, everyday values is that the former presuppose an answer to two questions which preoccupy academic moral philosophy: where do our values come from and why are they important? In real life and for most people, both questions are supremely irrelevant.

<<The sub-title, which is not mine, is somewhat ambiguous.>>

So who the hell writes those subtitles?
I always assumed that it was the author himself/herself!
Based on that subtitle, I usually decide whether to proceed reading the article.

To your attention, Graham!
----

Conservatism, as I shall explain below, is a value, a good and moral value. This isn't to say that there aren't any valid competing values which must be taken into consideration as well, but as such, conservatism deserves a front-seat in every ideology.

Imagine a world where the laws of physics were subject to change, where some demi-creator flips the switch when he feels bored and apples start falling upward...

Predictability allows and motivates us to plan, make efforts and learn from our mistakes.

While the laws of physics don't seemingly change often, the social-laws do and much of our energies are lost in the ensuing chaos.

With predictability, people are willing to work hard, live frugally and save for a rainy day. Others who are not as good, seek to jeopardize the former's savings by changing the rules and creating inflation. If they succeed in doing so often enough, then the former and later generations will no longer want to work and save.

Similarly with knowledge and learning: if changes are too quick, then what's the point in study? Just as with wealth, those with no learning seek to jeopardize the learning and experience of their elders and betters.

In computers, a 25-year-old is already considered old and younger siblings become his professors. More time is wasted on keeping-up and re-training. A cat constantly busy chasing its tail will never get up a tree!

Products only few years-old are replaced and sent to the garbage heap and good old trained tradespeople are sent to dig there for scraps. In anticipation of rapid change, new products are designed to last no more than 5 years and independent tradespeople cannot keep up and lose their job for giant corporations.

The result is STRESS. People constantly chasing "progress", then wondering why they're so tired and where time is gone.

Progressives beware: Conservatism is merely social scepticism. Most ideas are crap, most new music is crap, most new architecture is crap and so it follows the latest flavour of the month is probably crap. Just as we must wash vast quantities of rock to get a few gold grains so to should social ideas be washed with vast amounts of Scepticism.
No system survives without change, it is an absolute fundamental, but it will not survive with wild swings. Stability leading to growth, homeostasis is creative destruction, not a cancer. Those who fashion themselves as Progressives, have been the prime support of big failed social experiments of the last century, whether Bolshevism or Fascism. Both were harking back to more primitive days of Rulers as individuals, Conservatism had advanced to Rulers as a Democratic System. I fail to see offerings to date as an improvement.
Apart from politics we have so many Progressive Greens who are genocidal (the latest is to get rid of all but 500m), Progressive energy purity in Europe is leading to deaths by freezing, Progressive high electricity prices in Sydney are scaring working families off washing their children daily. Progressivism has nothing to do with Advancement; Conservatism just advocates not chucking the baby out with the bath water.

For me, the big difference between conservatives and progressives/liberals is that conservatives think that human nature is inherently bad and we need strong guidance and lots of stick - not carrots - to be good people - the idea of original sin goes with that pretty well. But progressives believe that humans are innately good and people just need to be left alone to be good people.

All the latest psych research shows that very young children (18 months to 2 1/2) do seem to be innately 'good'; they are helpful and they will choose to divide any gift they receive equally with another child.

So the conservatives are wrong about that bit; we do tend to be good people naturally and we don't need to have the devil beaten out of us but conservatives are right about the need for firm guidance and some structure and discipline and rules in childhood and in a decent society.

The evidence then shows that as they grow up, children's attitudes toward equality changes in the obvious ways depending on the family and society values that they learn. As their brains develop they are able to easily absorb and understand the values and morals of all the people who are significant in their lives - in homes, schools, on tv the internet etc.

There are some crap values out there in all parts of our society. Isn't this a good time to clarify what our values are and what morals we want our kids to have; the selfishness and greed that drives the market and the desire to be a mining magnate or the generosity and kindness that drives the desire to be a nurse?

Just saying there is going to be a huge shortage of nurses to look after the old people soon.

Atman,

You are right about Catholics and the Labor Party. A Catholic cardinal, Patrick Moran, even stood in the labour cause for the constitutional convention in the nineteenth century. It’s a pity he didn’t win as that would have given us another unique footnote for Australian history.

However, the story of the formation of the DLP is more complex than you suggest. Dr Evatt attacked the Victorian branch of his own party, which led to the Split and thus the DLP. Most ALP MPs who went with the DLP were Catholics but not all, and many non-Catholics were prominent in the DLP.

I recommend books such as the following:
The Split, by Robert Murray;
Demons and Democrats, by Gavan Duffy;
The Great Labor Schism, by Brian Costar, Peter Love and Paul Strangio;
The Democratic Labor Party, by Paul Reynolds;
The Tumult and the Shouting, by Frank McManus;
The Pope’s Battalions, by Ross Fitzgerald.

I find it entertaining that “social justice” is sneered at as some lefty term. In fact it is a Catholic term, coined by Father Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio in 1840, before the advent of Marxism and various other evils.

McCackie I mostly agree but with the proviso that like any grouping there is a lot of variation. I generally vote with the so called "conservatives" but don't agree with the attempts of the extremes of conservatism.

Mollydukes, interesting outlook. I can see some truth but I think that it's all pretty selective. Not getting into the political philosophy aspect of the discussion but rather how nominal groups play out in practice it's my impression that a lot of those who consider themselves progressive are only tolerant in regard to selected alternatives.

Bill Muehlenberg makes a good point in his article currently on the site regarding the Greens different treatment of same sex marriage and pluralistic marriages.

I tend to view the CSA and it's rules as primarily the creations of the left side of politics and having recently changed arrangements for child residency there is a an utter lack of the values coming from that organisation and the rules it uses that mark what a lot of so called progressives believe that they stand for. Payers complaining about the extremes and damage done by CSA are routinely dismissed as bitter whining men by many so called progressives. I recall one comment (which may have been later retracted) by one long term 'progressive' poster along the lines that the suicide rate amongst men following family break ups was a sign of what losers they are.

My impression is that most of us end up being selective about where our compassion and tolerance lies. A conservative is more inclined to give it to someone following traditional values and withhold it from those following alternative values, the progressive more inclined to the reverse. On both sides are many who try to overcome their own prejudices, with varying degrees of success and some extremists who are so confident in their own position that they rarely if ever do the reflection that a more balanced approach requires.

R0bert