"Conservative." However, I always, when I see this kind of question, have to put an asterisk over it. My conservatism is not what Americans typically call conservative. Because what Americans call conservative is, historically speaking, not conservatism but is, rather, classical liberalism.
My conservatism, which for convenience I will call classical or Tory conservatism, traces its intellectual pedigree through Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas - and probably most importantly - the 18th century British statesman and political philosopher, Edmund Burke, and also the British Prime Minsiters Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.
In an American context, it shows up in the thinking of Alexander Hamilton and then - almost by historical accident, the American Whig Party, and the former Whig turned Republican, Abraham Lincoln. (It is a great historical "what if" as to what the GOP would have looked like had Lincoln lived and the radical Republicans not gained the ascendancy.)
Classical conservatives believe, unlike American conservatives and liberals, that the purpose of government is to answer Aristotle's first questions of politics, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?"
To which classical conservatives respond that the purpose of government is to nurture civic virtue. To reinforce those habits and customs, legitimized by historical usage over time, that make a harmonious and stable social order possible.
Classical conservatives believe in the free market as a tool, rather than an end in itself. They recognize that it is a powerful wealth creator, efficient to some degree, and a guard against an overweening state. However, they believe, as Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."
Consequently, classical conservatives support an ameliorative welfare state. (The welfare state was invented by two conservatives - Disraeli and Bismarck.) The purpose such a welfare state being to reconcile the public to the dynamics of a free market economy by alleviating the negative impact of old age, illness and temporary unemployment.
In this they differ from American liberals who see the welfare state as a lever to engineer social transformation. That is, to restructure society according to some abstract a priori vision. Classical conservatives argue that such a vision is ultimately going to be oversimple and will lead to adverse and unintended consequences.
Tories believe that political philosophy should take as it starting point not human reason, but human nature. That political rights are developed through historical usage, and are not abstract pre-existing. Which is to say that they don't deny that such abstract rights exist. Merely that they are of no practical benefit or use in civil society and law. As Burke put it, "Their abstract perfection is their practical defect."
In all this, then, classical conservatives tend to see less difference between American conservatives and liberals than they see between themselves. Albeit that classical conservatives are more likely to align with their American counterparts insofar as American liberals tend to be more deeply hostile to custom and tradition.
Hey, I appreciate the well-thought answer. I don't agree with the premises of classical conservatism, but it's a position that is quite more respectable than free-market fanaticism.
The point you quoted about abstract perfection being the weakest point of so much socially progressive thought is absolutely spot on. I find that a lot of debate should focus on the nuances of that point. I firmly believe that political rights can be predetermined. How to do that in a way that is not an abstract exercise, and instead works together with the real complexity of society? There is a lot written about it. But, in recent years, I never see it emerge as a political stance in public debate.
Yours is considered a dangerous thought in American right-wing, because it's too open to debate. The winning communication strategy is black-and-white, and doesn't allow for open philosophical questions. It's too dangerous to see free market as merely a tool, because then it couldn't be used to justify aggression.
@PenkWing Thanks. As to your last point though - it being considered a threat to the "right wing" - actually not. Read the work of George F. Will - especially his book, "Statecraft as Soulcraft." Will is hardly hated by the "right wing." In fact, he is a Pulitzer prize winning columnist who has worked for National Review and is a renowned conservative columnist.
Even on a personal level, I have been a Capitol Hill staffer for several Members of the House and two Senators over the course of my career. In addition, I am currently a political consultant.
What often gets lost in the media is the coalition nature of American politics - as I mentioned above. To be sure, some factions on each side don't get along with their partners who are, more or less, on the same side. (See also, on the "left", the antagonism between "The Squad" and some of its' partners in the Democratic party. You want to see intolerance for debate and a black & white view of the world? Yikes!!)
However, overall, they work well enough. Necessity sometimes being the mother of invention.
P. S. By the way, in a strict historical reading, free market economics is a product of what is called the "left" - specifically classical liberalism - and not the "right." (I must confess that I don't like to use those labels. The terms "right," "left" and so forth, are not terribly helpful. The usage comes out of the French revolution, when supporters of a republic sat to the left of the Speaker's chair in the National Assembly, while supporters of the Church and the monarchy sat to the right. While these are common usage in contemporary politics, they actually don't say very much.)
Speaking in terms of intellectual history, what you actually have in American politics is a split between two strands of liberalism. The relative "extremes" of those two strands not being particularly happy with each other - and their ideological soul-mates for that matter - but getting along of necessity.
Okay, I have prattled on, so I'll stop now. Thanks again for your kind compliment.
Oh yes. When I said right-wing I referred to the current Republican establishment. It appears to trend more in the direction of irrationality.
The “left” and “right” labels are easy to misapply. In the 20th century, European left was largely influenced by Marxist, post-Marxist, and in general socialist ideas. American left-right split was less impacted by socialism. Which, in my point of view, means that a huge chunk of careful thought about society is missing in public debate. I disagree with the views that attempt to oppose socialism on a spectrum against liberalism. It’s a lot more than left/center/right, there are so many layers and dimensions.
That’s just to say, free market economics are not considered “left” in the modern sense because market capitalism is seen as a source of increasing inequality.
@PenkWing Well, leaving the pejorative out of it, currently BOTH parties are tilting in a populist direction. Populism not being a distinct political philosophy but rather a disposition, for lack of a better term, that is based on a sense of grievance, resentment and envy toward "elites," however defined.
Thus, for example, was Mr. Trump opposed to free trade. This, to say no more, in direct contradiction of where Mr. Reagan had been. Thus, the "de-fund the police" movement. This coming from the alleged party of government.
So the application of the terms as you are using them does not really work. Mr. Trump was as hostile to free market economics in his way as is Bernie Sanders. Check out the pedigree of their ideas and you will find that they have more in common than not - rhetorical flourishes aside.
Historically, since at least the 20th century, the argument in American politics has been between classical liberalism - what Americans call conservatism - and "radical" liberalism - what Americans call "liberalism." (Please note that the word "radical" - as used here does NOT mean what it is applied in a contemporary context, i. e. extremism. Rather, "radical" as used here is meant as the ancient Greeks used the term, i. e., meaning "to the root of.")
That argument, at the moment - and not for the first time (see also the late 19th century, see also, to a lesser extent, the 1960s and 70s) - is taking a backseat to various shadings of populism.
Suffice to say, I will do many things for my country, but one thing I will not do is pretend that there is a serious debate between the likes of Mr. Trump and Senator Sanders. They differ in method, but their diagnosis of the fundamental political debate admits of very little distinction between them.
Liberal. I believe in freedom and equality for everyone, but acknowledge the impact that segregation even after slavery ended. Less resources were provided there, more resources to the white people. That’s how the “hood” started. Thus became a cycle of violence, poverty, drugs, etc. Equity to make up for that is necessary, that’s why I don’t see extra provisions for black people as unfair. Yes, there are white people from the hood. I’m one myself. Not all schools are the same, not everyone is given the same opportunity and I wish to see that change. However, I do see transgender as a mental illness. I dislike when it is forced upon me. I’ll accept you, just don’t be obnoxious about it. I was pushed away from conservatives not even because of the politicians themselves, but the citizens. You got Trumps cult denying reality, you got the conspiracy theorists saying liberals are pedophiles, they’re pussy for accepting people, they’re this, they’re that…. and when truth about shit is shown they call it left wing biased. When something is biased on the right wing it’s “unbiased.” I see way too many selfish and apathetic people on the right wing, who’s “traditional values” they’re conserving are fucked up.
Here's a positive note, though: more people are changing their party affiliation to Independent. Many have had enough with the b. s. extremists on both ends. I believe the only way out of this mess is if the majority go this route (fuck groupthink), or Andrew Yang gets his goal and a third, new, party is created.
I support Universal Basic INcome, and research shows where its been tested the people receiving the free money end up working harder and earning more money, because they feel more appreciated.
90% of the wealth in the U. S. is in the e hands of fewer than 10% of the population, and yet those hypocrites think fiscal liberals are at fault for wanting to tax sinfully rich people. Nobody needs to be a billionaire to live comfortably and nobody needs to make more than 500k per year to live like a King, so we should tax the hell out of anyone making 500k per year or more.
Liberal. I just can't support the American conservative ideals especially when it comes to economics, healthcare and social programs.
They are absolutely horrible in those areas and have no interest and changing for the better.
I believe when change is needed then it's time to move forward and make a change for the better.
Conservatives just want the same ole outdated BS always that always tends to favor the elites and powerful the most instead of the common man and woman.
I selected 'A', but I disagree with almost everything that modern, so-called liberals support. I'm more of a 60's liberal who supports civil rights, equal treatment by the law, peace, liberty, freedom, open mindedness, tolerance and anti-war. Live and let live. Fuck the use of force, coercion, censorship, and propaganda.
I fall in the spectrum of left-libertarianism (libertarian socialism).
Western society was build on Conservative Christin values and morals, from democracy to human rights to capitalism to hard work and discipline to honesty, to labor unions to the 8 hour work day to weekends off to going to church on Sundays, to loving thy neighbor as thyself, to helping the poor to inventions to always caring about improving the standard of living and the world around us.
Forgot to mention they were always against slavery too that is why over 300,000 of them fought in the civil war to end slavery and allow women to go to school.
A good example of that is the movie Dr Zhivago that is pure communism and a true story with slave labor camps, people freezing or starving etc and basically no rights and all the money goes to the government who (if you recall in the movie) eat 1000 dollar plate dinners while people outside starve. That is what is almost happening now too with politicans.
The poll shows men don’t give a shit about women or minorities. I have conservative beliefs. However, I won’t let them destroy my country because of it.
