On a recent thread someone wrote

"It is my hope that the right-of-centre parties will now slowly coalesce around a true conservative agenda."

What exactly is "a true conservative agenda"?

I see it as racism, bigotry, inequality, hatred of workers, poor people, people with disabilities, LBGTQ people, women and indigenous people. Support for aristocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, exploitation, pollution, christofascism and theocracy, uncaring and dishonest and against progress.

What does OLO think?

Thank you Mikk for introducing this interesting topic.

Most of the issues you mentioned are almost self-explanatory, yet before we start, can you please explain what exactly do you mean by "progress"?

Mikk

I don't know what OLO "thinks", but I think that you are a very disturbed and twisted individual if you truly believe that your disgusting rant describes conservatism.

Dear Mikk,

Actually if I may add, could you please also delineate what exactly do you mean by "equality" (or "inequality")?

By coincidence someone sent me this link. It's forlorn and beautifully written, and gives a better description of conservatism than Mikk's post. http://unherd.com/2024/07/and-so-farewell-conservatism/

Hi Mikk,

Thank You for raising this discussion.

I guess that today in our modern world - "conservatism,"
has been given a bad name by some. It brings up images
of narrow- bigoted points of view. Of people pinning
for the "good old days" and being against things modern
and progressive. Against innovation, and any change, or
new ideas. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" sort of
mentality. It often results in derogatory labels from
both sides.

I was raised in what I considered a "conservative"
family. My parents were committed to traditional values,
ideas, and to preserving and promoting traditional
institutions - like the Church, and its teachings and
values.

When you're raised in this way - a great deal of what
you were taught lasts a lifetime.

Hi Graham,

Thanks for the link.

I think that Hitchens threw in the towel long ago; even so, his despondence is understandable.

When we hear the truism that ‘the West no longer wants to defend its values’, we should know that it is the ‘conservative’ West that has turned to jelly.

The Leftists never have been, never will be, interested in Western values, unless it is to destroy them.

The fact that someone like mikk can be so ignorant of conservatism is the fault of conservatives themselves. Too many CINOs, perhaps.

Hi Yuyutsu
By progress I sort of mean improvement. Making something better than it was. Finding and learning new ways and things.
By equality I mean everything the world has to offer being shared fairly and not allowing some to take everything for themselves.

Thanks for that link Graham it was an interesting read and sort of answered a few of my questions.
I dont think many of the things mentioned like "love of country, love of family, love of beauty, love of liberty" are exclusively conservative. Everyone I know loves those things. The author expresses regret for the olden days of better manners, less divorce, old houses and comfy trains and I sort of understand what he means but it also seems like he forgets/doesn't know the horrors that also went on back then. The domestic abuse, the pollution and privation, the lack of education and the brutal way the old orders came about and were perpetuated.

So TTBN enlighten me with what YOU think. Sorry I should have specified I am interested in what the people on OLO think. If you disagree with what I think then explain why or is abuse all you have?

Mikk

Your abusive and ignorant rant against conservatives makes it clear that you are not interested in what other people think - you have made up your mind - so I'm not going to enable your vile nonsense further.

Struth, based on the list of things conservatives supposedly support according to mikk, I guess they are also in favour of drowning little kittens and banning Sunday picnics.

Since I was the one who wrote the line mikk started the thread with, I'll give my version....

When asked to give a concise explanation of MY conservatism, I'll describe myself as a Chesterton's Fence conservative...

"There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

Conservatives aren't opposed to change, just opposed to change that is borne of ignorance or lack of thought. For example, there was time when society looked at the social mores against single motherhood and decided that it was unfair and unnecessary. So the state determined to become the surrogate financial provider to single motherhood via pensions. The true conservative opposed this because of the detrimental effect on the family. The result has been several generations of kids condemned to poverty and dysfunctional families at the hands of single-motherhood. If you want to find the origin of the current DV hysteria, look at the attacks on the family that occurred in the 1970s.

/cont

/cont

Family is the bedrock of the conservative's view of society. A true conservative is in favour of anything that enhances the family and is opposed to anything that reduces the central role of family in society.

Conservatives are in favour of unrestricted free speech; opposed to any form of governmental censorship. In favour of democracy; in favour of small government - government that does its core functions and nothing more.

Because property and property rights is the essence of freedom, conservatives favour capitalism and wealth creation. They favour a fair distribution of the nation's wealth recognising that doesn't necessarily mean an equal distribution.

When I talk of right-of-centre parties returning to conservativism, I mean returning to these values. In the current context of Australia, a conservative party would be opposed to the moves against the supermarkets; wouldn't have supported the attack on free speech following the Lakemba stabbing; would be pushing to significant reductions in government and government spending.

TTBN What a cop out. If I wasnt prepared to learn and maybe change my opinions I wouldnt have asked.
You obviously cant refute what I said so just stay out of it please.

Thanks mhaze
I disagree that family is the purview of conservatives alone. Everyone I know loves their family and sees the worth of "family". Maybe our views of what is a family differ. I see single parent, blended and traditional families all the same. They are all family. Even unrelated people can belong to a family. Maybe this is where we differ in that I dont restrict "family" to the rigid, patriarchal, traditional family structure.

I too believe in free speech but it seems many conservatives have a problem with MY free speech if it the opposes things they say. A lot of conservatives feel they are being "cancelled" if anyone uses their own free speech to criticise something conservatives say.

A difference I have noted is while I support democracy, I see it as the will of the people and not some rigid government has to do this. If the majority of people want governments to support single mothers then so be it irrespective of what I think. I see government as servants to the will of the people and if they can do things to help then they should. That is what they are for. Once upon a time governments ran businesses like banks, engineering companies even heavy industries like comsteel etc. This seems like something conservatives dont like but many people do. They want government to come to their aid if needed.

I disagree about property rights being freedom. It is freedom for me but not for you. The essence of property rights is this is mine and you can pay me or go away. Fences hardly allow freedom only restriction. For both parties. I agree we should be allowed to have our share but that is not how it is working today is it? When a few at the top own everything and everyone else has little. How can that equal freedom?

Hi mikk,

I do not agree with your premise that conservatism is simply a serious of ignorant prejudicial negative attitudes..."racism, bigotry, inequality, etc etc", that to me is extremism, not conservatism. Conservatives often allay themselves with radicals, believing the old adage "my enemies, enemy is my friend", often with disastrous consequences for the conservatives. The great example is the way the conservative elite aligned itself with Nazism in Germany in 1933, we know what happened there.

I had to laugh when the old forum radical ttbn attacked you as making a "disgusting rant", words from the great ranter himself.

I truly am amazed that such ignorance as portrayed by mikk is actually possible !
It clearly demonstrates how power in the wrong hands i.e. Education hijacked by the Woke can go so dismally wrong !

Dear Mikk,

Thank you for your response, but I still find it vague:

«By progress I sort of mean improvement. Making something better than it was.»

Who doesn't want improvement and making things better?

But where is up from down?

«Finding and learning new ways and things.»

Ah, more lethal weapons, more painful implements of torture, new gadgets to spy on your wife and know where she is at any moment, hormonal solutions to deter and keep away people of the wrong race, micro brain implants to make others believe that all they want is to serve you, new smart methods to hack into your competitor's computers...

Where is up from down?

«By equality I mean everything the world has to offer being shared fairly and not allowing some to take everything for themselves.»

Share to what extent?

Suppose they receive half what is yours but then consume it all up as alcohol, then again they find themselves having nothing so again they want half of what is yours - or else you would have everything for yourself.

Or suppose they procreate irresponsibly and bring forth 8 children while you, being responsible for yourself and for the environment, bring none - now for all to be equal don't you have to give up 9/10th of your possessions?

Where do you draw the line?

mhaze,

Chesterton’s take on the situation accurately reflects the distorted perspective of many conservatives, but inaccurately reflects what is usually the reality.

Modern reformers push for change after recognising that a law or institution is outdated or harmful. They rely on new information and data that highlight the necessity for reform. Chesterton's analogy, however, assumes that the purpose of the existing structure is either valid or unknowable without deep reflection.

Reformers typically support their arguments with empirical evidence and data, showing that the current system is flawed or no longer serves its intended purpose. This approach contrasts with the simplistic notion of someone not seeing the use of a gate and wanting to remove it without any substantial reasoning.

The conservative response often involves a knee-jerk rejection of proposed changes, denial of the presented data, then resorting to conspiracy theories. This behaviour is not accounted for in Chesterton's analogy, which portrays the conservative as the more intelligent and reflective party.

The analogy misrepresents the motivations of reformers by suggesting they act on a whim, rather than on informed critique and evidence. It also overlooks the conservative's potential resistance to change for reasons unrelated to the actual merit of the institution or law in question.

To use your real-life example, reformers in the 1970s recognised that stigmatising single motherhood and leaving single mothers without financial support was detrimental to their well-being. They advocated for welfare policies to provide financial support, believing that these changes would promote social equity and help vulnerable populations.

Reformers used data and social research to argue that supporting single mothers could reduce poverty and provide better outcomes for their children. Conservatives opposed these changes and viewed them as an attack on the family; eventually concocting conspiracy theories about elites who were supposedly plotting to destabilise society by destroying traditional values.

May I suggest that nobody, neither conservatives nor reformers, acts on evidence: we all have our a-priori likes and dislikes, then some people tend to look for evidence to justify theirs. If the data supports what they want then they advertise and use it, otherwise they hide and ignore the information.

There is nothing wrong about wanting whatever one wants.
What is wrong, is the failure to own it and trying instead to cover one's desires with a false coat of "objectivity", science and/or conspiracy theories.

No evidence in the world can "prove" that some policy is better than another, because "better" is all relative to the bottom line, the "I WANT".

It is OK for different people to want different things!

On a recent thread someone wrote

"It is my hope that the right-of-centre parties will now slowly coalesce around a true conservative agenda."

What exactly is "a true conservative agenda"?

I see it as racism, bigotry, inequality, hatred of workers, poor people, people with disabilities, LBGTQ people, women and indigenous people. Support for aristocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, exploitation, pollution, christofascism and theocracy, uncaring and dishonest and against progress.

What does OLO think?
Posted by mikk, Sunday, 7 July 2024 8:05:27 PM

Answer-

I see Marxism and Woke-ism and Liberalism as racism, bigotry, inequality, hatred of workers, poor people, people with disabilities, LBGTQ people, women and indigenous people. Marxism as embodied in Russia and China seems to be less developed, and so in a sense less progressive, than The West. Under Totalitarian Marxism it's estimated that 100 million people were killed worldwide in the 20th century in the name of equality.

There are different usages of the word 'Conservative'. It means anything from Libertarian to Traditionalist and often depends on the perspective of the observer- therefore it often isn't an objective term- but a subjective one. As previously discussed on OLO the political landscape isn't well described using the common one dimensional model- I expect that 'mikk' has seen this and is just seeking to be provocative. In order to understand the political landscape it's important to understand it's development over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Political philosophers such as Nietzsche (probably Traditionalist), Dostoevsky (Traditionalist), Ayn Rand (Libertarian), Hobbes (probably Traditionalist), Aristotle (Empiricist), many others have views on demarcation criteria of political ideologies.

Nietzsche talked about the Knightly Code (aka Roman Code) vs the Priestly Code (aka Envy/ Slave Codes) which loosely delineates the Right and Left of political philosophy.

Ayn Rand calls Socialism/ Marxism/ Woke-ism/ Social Progressivism- the politics of death.

Dostoevsky calls Marxists, Nihilist's.

Loosely speaking Traditional Conservativism is based on ancient views on survival of the local community or tribe or family in a hostile world, but given the world is constantly in flux, it's a moving target.

Marxism/ Liberalism (both Left and Right)/ Woke-ism are globalist ideologies and believe in enforcing a worldwide regime of identical drones.

So "Traditional Conservativism is Localist" whereas "Liberalism on the Left and Right is Globalist".

Traditional Conservativism is in a sense "the original social structure".

Traditional Conservativism isn't really on the Left/ Right one dimensional structure but is on a different dimension of politics.

To reject Traditional Conservativism is in a sense to reject the learnings of your ancestors over hundreds and thousands of years and to reject their sacrificial gift to you.
____________

Graham Young's article by Peter Hitchens seems to demonstrate the confusion of people with mixed identity. In Hitchen's case he seems to have elements of European and Middle Eastern heritage. He seems to be engaging in an honest search for meaning given his (and the human) context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

Unherd seems to be a Progressive Centre (Left) Liberal publication

The one unfortunate unintended consequence of Conservatism is that it provided an opportunity for Wokeism to evolve !
It would not be possible to be the other way round.

Comrade Indy,

Do you agree anyone who takes Aged Welfare from the State is a SOCIALIST? Are you one of those dread SOCIALIST?

mikk,

"I disagree that family is the purview of conservatives alone. "

That's not what I said. I was just pointing out that family is central to conservatism. That's not to say its unimportant to non-conservatives.

As to your list of potential families, these are now the current claims about what makes a family, but it is not what was understood to be a family for 99% of human history. Its just another example of taking a concept that is universally favoured and trying to appropriate for leftist causes.

A family is a device to best raise children. that's the conservative view. Ideally, its two biological parents working together to raise their offspring in a loving, caring environment, create productive citizens who will take on similar responsibilities when their time comes.

That's not to say that less than ideal situations may exist and be fruitful. A separated couple may still be able to raise their kids fruitfully. An inserted 'father' pr 'mother' may also work out fine. But there is ample evidence to show that children raised by their biological father and biological mother do, on average, better than all other alternatives. Girls raised by even loving step-fathers will still. on average, be more likely to do worse than those raised by their biological father. And that's not just a social issue - they will also, on average, go through puberty earlier.

"A lot of conservatives feel they are being "cancelled" if anyone uses their own free speech to criticise something conservatives say."

That's not at all what the complaints about the 'cancelling' phenomena are about. Cancelling isn't a dual of ideas. Its more a lynch mob mentality where the cancellers don't argue the point but simply try to organise social media to have the opponent ex-communicated from polite society. Its the absolute antitheses of freedom of speech.

"Modern reformers push for change after recognising that a law or institution is outdated or harmful. They rely on new information and data that highlight the necessity for reform. "

Well that's easy to assert, but I note no evidence for it. And the results of these reforms aren't encouraging in suggesting the changes were well thought through.

The single motherhood issue is an example. I've got no problems with the claim that the reformers saw a need and sought to fix it. A genuine need that needed fixing. But the need had arisen because of the breaching of the old fences (to continue the analogy) whereby single motherhood was socially unacceptable. And the solution to the problem as offered wasn't a return to the old norms but instead to make the state the surrogate father for the fatherless kids.

What they failed to consider was that when you pay more for something you get more of it. When you make single motherhood an economically viable lifestyle choice, people will choose that lifestyle. And they did. And the results are very obvious in today's dysfunctional family structures.

"Reformers used data and social research to argue that supporting single mothers could reduce poverty and provide better outcomes for their children."

And they monumentally failed. To my thinking it is undeniable that children raised in single parent 'families' are at a social, financial and emotional disadvantage to their counterparts. I'd opine that had they known the results of tearing down that particular fence they would have, or should have, chosen a different path - a more conservative path.

Kudos Indyvidual.

Yes some such as Patrick Deneen in his book Regime Change are talking about the coming Post-Liberal era (probably more conservative). Deneen mentions that there are Post Liberal and reactionary elements of all the major political parties that are growing. I'm sure that some will try and cling to Liberalism on both the left and the right. Certain cultures seem to be suicidal such as many in the Aboriginal culture or the assault troops of foreign powers in the case of Chinese, African, and Indian immigration. Sadly many Aboriginal's seem to be intent on tearing down White Australia as a fifth column assuming that the power that succeeds The Great White Devil will be more amenable- it won't be. It's not racism to stop your culture becoming dominated by another culture- we should try to preserve cultures- not subsume them in a sea of mediocracy (Queen Victoria recognized this).

mhaze said- I was just pointing out that family is central to conservatism.

Answer- Yes Traditional Conservatives (like Confucius) see the family as the atom of society, the king or ruler is the father of the nation, the queen or rulers wife is the mother of the nation, etc.

The Chinese Maoist's seem to have stomped on Confucian wisdom killing 60 million, in modern times naming their foreign outreach organisation 'The Confucius Institute', an insult to great wisdom.

Usually in conservative thought the ruler is placed under a universal principle of the divine, perhaps to keep the ruler anchored to the responsibilities of their office. Liberals don't have a divine judgement and so they can be more cruel without remorse.

Patrick Deneen well known for his far right views, another one masquerading as a "conservative" but in reality an extremist by nature. This right wing forum has several of these extremists posters pretending to be "conservatives" CM, mhaze, ttbn and a few others.

Hi Paul,

Australia is hard to define. We're always muddled
along - but we usually get it right in the end.

I think that most of us value stability. We're
suspicious of demagoguery and we don't like disturbances,
we have a fondness of long-standing norms and
conventions but we're comfortable when these are challenged
with merit and through due process.

We've allowed a wide diversity of people in, but we also
prize the arms-length distance from the world that our
geography allows.

We're a mix. And we might well ask - "Where to for "real"
Liberals - a party of small government which is all but
dead under Peter Dutton?

Mhaze,

I would be happy to provide evidence for my claims here; although, it’s a shame you seemed willing to take Chesterton's at face value.

Most social reforms are backed by extensive research and data, and your case study involving the introduction of welfare policies in the 20th century - which was influenced by studies on poverty and child development - was no exception. For example, research by sociologists and economists, such as the work of Jane Addams and the Hull House Maps and Papers, provided empirical data on the living conditions of impoverished families which informed early welfare policies.

Further evidence can be found in historical accounts of policy development, such as "The Origins of the Welfare State in America" by David T. Beito.

Your claim that “they monumentally failed” is overly simplistic overlooks the nuanced outcomes of welfare policies. While challenges remain, many studies have demonstrated significant benefits. For example, research by the NBER found that the introduction of welfare programs in the 1960s and 1970s helped to significantly reduce poverty rates among single mothers and their children (Hoynes & Schanzenbach, 2018).

Single-parent families often face more challenges, but it’s not solely due to the family structure. Economic insecurity, lack of access to resources, and social stigma also play significant roles. Studies such as "Welfare Reform: Effects of a Decade of Change" by Rebecca M. Blank show that financial support can improve outcomes for children by reducing poverty and improving stability.

Your belief that maintaining old social norms would have been more beneficial is almost certainly wrong. Many of these norms were harmful and unjust. For instance, the stigma against single motherhood often led to severe social and economic penalties for women and their children, leaving those experiencing domestic violence with few options.

That said, immediate action was necessary because single mothers and their children could not afford to wait for societal norms to revert, assuming that a reversion would have been possible to begin with, given the changes modernisation brought to societies.

In the Anglosphere and parts of Europe, where one sees the influence of US fossil fuel Atlas Koch Network (inc. IPA, CIS & AIP), Tanton Network, Murdoch and monocultural above median age voters, esp regions, it's an amalgam of faux 'free market' capitalism and white nativist population control; social Darwinism or eugenics?

Arguing about the "benefits" or otherwise of social policies and practices, under the guise of science, is nonsensical and futile.

People have different values, so what benefits one might hurt another.

Yuyutsu,

Scientific evaluation can highlight both the positive and negative outcomes, and provide a comprehensive view that policymakers can use to balance different interests and values.

By understanding the varied impacts of policies, governments and organisations can make more informed decisions that strive to maximise benefits while minimising harm. This ensures that policies are not just ideologically sound but also practically effective.

Data and research provide a common ground to evaluate the effectiveness of policies objectively, which helps in creating policies that consider different perspectives and work towards the common good.

Thanks everyone
I think I understand a bit more now.
Part of the reason I described conservatism the way I did is the overwhelming "loudness" of the far right who really dont seem to represent the majority of people who identify as conservative.
I still mostly dont agree with conservatives but I think I understand a bit better.
Thanks again people of OLO and thanks Graham for enabling us to debate and talk about these important subjects.

John Daysh,

I was never talking about the introduction of welfare in general. There is no doubt that welfare payments like unemployment benefits, widows pensions and aged pensions were all necessary and reasonably successful. Indeed I'd argue that these were and are an integral part of conservativism in its aims to facilitate a functioning, fair society.

Equally I don't deny that in the case of single motherhood a need could and was identified by researchers. That wasn't my point. Having identified the need, the issue was the solution. And the solution offered was to chuck money at it. Sure that drags some out of abject poverty into mere poverty, but it wasn't a long term solution. And it wasn't a long term solution because it failed to understand the societal causes of the problem.

I guess its possible to claim that our current settings as regards some families being wholly reliant on the state for their very existence is a success. But the conservative wouldn't so argue. We see that these families are, on average, dysfunctional and that the children that are raised in these families are heavily disadvantaged and perpetuate the dysfunction. Society is the worse for making single parenthood a viable economic choice.

"it’s a shame you seemed willing to take Chesterton's at face value..."

Rather condescending. Its a shame that you look at a snippet of Chesterton and decide you don't like his politics and therefore reject his insights. Face value? I'd venture that I've read most of his rather enormous output and pondered on it over the decades. That you don't like the conclusions isn't the same as saying those conclusions are invalid.

"Part of the reason I described conservatism the way I did is the overwhelming "loudness" of the far right ...."

We're aren't far right.

Just right so far.

Evidence-based facts can always prove you wrong.

Foxy,

Firing spit balls from the bleachers is never a good look.

Dear John,

It is rare that the effects of a social action cannot be easily foreseen with just a bit of common sense. That the introduction of welfare programs significantly reduces poverty rates among single mothers and their children (just because that is an example you provided) is anything but rocket science: it is ridiculously beyond me why two adults were paid to "prove" it scientifically when any 10-year-old child could see that trivial truth.

The question stands, does one like single mothers and their children to be poor - some do, others don't.

Regarding the "common good", that is an impractical concept because one can only tell what it comprises of retrospectively. In other words, guessing the common good is equivalent to future-telling.

While material effects can usually be predicted quite accurately by common-sense and/or science, whether these effects are good or otherwise, is outside the jurisdiction of science.

Humans (and animals) are naturally biased - they rather enjoy than suffer, they rather be rich than poor, healthy than sick, famous than infamous, loved than hated, they rather live than die, etc., but does any of that renders their desires "good"?

In hindsight, once an event belongs in the past, only then we can say with confidence that it was good, reasoning that "God wished (or at least allowed) it to be so and there is no good but God", but not before.

mhaze,

Evidence-based facts are not "spit balls," nor are they
"fake news."

MHAZE,

Actually, I'm with Intelligence.

But at the moment I'm working under cover.

What does ECNUD mean?

Do you agree anyone who takes Aged Welfare from the State is a SOCIALIST?
Paul1405,
No, not after having paid top rate Tax for 54 years, why ? I think a bureaudroid who exploited negative gearing & had the State prop up his Superannuation is a Socialist !

.

Dear mikk,

.

You ask :

« What actually is 'Conservatism'? »

It’s driving your Holden Kingswood (HQ) sedan to church while looking in the rear vision mirror.

.

Dear Banjo,

A big hug.