Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Why is there a picture of Milton Friedman on this page!?

Milton Friedman had very liberal/libertarian political views on everything from drugs to prostitution, he's about as anti-conservative as you can get. I find it bizarre there is a picture of him on this article just because he supported capitalism.

On drugs - "Now here’s somebody who wants to smoke a marijuana cigarette. If he’s caught, he goes to jail. Now is that moral? Is that proper? I think it’s absolutely disgraceful that our government, supposed to be our government, should be in the position of converting people who are not harming others into criminals, of destroying their lives, putting them in jail."

On prostitution - "You put a willing buyer [with] a willing seller, and it's up to them. You can argue with them that it's foolish, you can argue with them that it's a bad thing to do, but I don't see any justification for bringing the police into it."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.88.254 (talk • contribs) 20:00 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Milton Friedman is beloved by many conservatives for his support of State's Rights, including the right to segregate schools and businesses. Still, I agree that Friedman was not really a conservative. The uneasy alliance between the libertarian conservatives and social conservatives is just another example of the truth of the old adage that politics makes strange bedfellows. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

While in the rest of the world, conservatism was associated with preserving pre-capitalist traditions, in the U.S. it is associated with preserving the capitalist tradition. TFD (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

That directly contradicts this article which states in the opening paragraph that conservatism is about preserving Christian values and American traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.88.254 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Not all all. Both the Christian values and American traditions they preserve are capitalist. TFD (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This is directly contradicted by the citation "Conservatives have not liked what they see as the 'mushy' and 'confused' morals and the political, sexual and social mores of the American Nation of the last 50 years. They want clarity. They want guidelines based on Christian values. They trust God. Most Conservatives believe any sexual activity outside of the marriage contract is wrong. They believe that abortion is equivalent to murder, and they oppose assisted suicide."

Basically the opposite of Friedman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.88.254 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Friedman's influence on conservatism was in economics. He provided an alternative of the Keynesian economics, which U.S. liberals including mainstream Republicans supported. They adopted Friedman's economics because they believed they came closer to Christian and American traditions of hard work, self-reliance and small government.

I don't think that Friedman was an advocate of drug use or the sexual revolution btw. In any case it doesn't matter what he actually believed but that conservatives saw him as an influence. In comparison, I don't think that they have necessarily adopted the true message of Jesus. But that doesn't mean they don't revere him.

TFD (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

So it's fine for me to use a picture on him in the libertarianism article? 82.12.134.74 (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That's something you would have to discuss over there. TFD (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

undue

A lot of Russell Kirk's opinions are provided in Conservatism in the United States#History without any rebuttal nor WP:SECONDARY sourcing. I find that a bit problematic to say the least. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Free trade in lead

Many Republicans, like Donald Trump, are more in favour of protectionism. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We can probably note that.....but conservatism in the United States has long been in favor of free trade. I'd make a concrete proposal as to what you want to add.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Many American Conservatives have abandoned all of their conservative beliefs in favor of personal loyalty to Donald Trump. Since this may be a temporary change, I'm not sure if we should try to cover this in the article. Free trade is one example of many. A balanced budget is another. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead says that conservatism "characteristically" supports free trade and a number of other policies. That doesn't mean it is true in every case. Note however that Trump phrased his argument for protectionism in terms of free trade. He claimed that China, Canada and Mexico were cheating and brought in retaliatory measures to make them trade fairly. He renegotiated NAFTA, he didn't cancel it. TFD (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of peer-reviewed research

A study published in one of the top sociology journals was removed because the study was "only" by a PhD candidate and because the editor who removed the content couldn't get through the paywall.[1] Neither of those reasons are good reasons for removal. It's pretty appropriate though that content on conservative distrust of science is being removed because of conservative distrust of science. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

At minimum, it needs proper attribution. A single, non-notable PhD student doesn't cut it to assert something this major as fact. Also, what you posted doesn't match what is said (at least in the abstract): he doesn't say "up until the 1980s" conservatives believed [this or that]....he says in the abstract: "Confidence in the scientific community became politically polarized in the United States at the turn of the twenty-first century...". If it became that at the turn of he century....that doesn't mean the tide completely changed some 20 years before. If you have the complete article (something I doubt; I doubt very seriously you buy and completely read all the studies you link to), then quote something from it to back it up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

(i) The quality of research is not measured by the position or notability of the author. A measure of quality is however the status of the journal, and this is a top sociology journal. (ii) You can read a summary of the study here[2] and see a tl;dr graph from the study here[3], (iii) There are all kinds of ways to access studies without paying for them. Anyway, paywalls are not a reason to remove content (WP:PAYWALL). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If I can't see it I can't verify it. But to make such a assertion, a single source (peer reviewed or not) doesn't cut it as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Furthermore, the very material you cite doesn't back what you tried to assert. In the graph for example, the lines between liberal and conservative (as far as faith in science goes) really begin to separate not in the 80's.....but in the mid-90's. Another one of your sources says something similar (at least about economic conservatives). So yes, this needs a overhaul if you want it in.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Snooginsnoogins edit

Snooginsnoogins offered an edit, which was reverted, and has offered another edit, with more substantial references. Here is that edit in its entirety.

"Attitudes towards science

Whereas liberals and conservatives held similar attitudes towards science up until the 1990s, conservatives in the United States subsequently began to display lower levels of confidence in science.[167][168][169][170] Conservatives are substantially more likely than moderates and liberals not to accept the scientific consensus on climate change.[171][172][170]"

The evidence for the conclusions is overwhelming. I do not see similar evidence for the statement that "liberals and conservatives held similar attitudes toward science up until the 1990s," A major factor in conservative thinking has always been a respect for tradition, and that has led to opposition to science whenever science goes against tradition. Conservatives and liberals had similar attitudes to science for a short time, between 1970 and 1990, but before that there was strong opposition to the "theory of evolution", which is fundamental to medical and biological sciences. I suggest the following change.

"Whereas liberals and conservatives held similar attitudes toward science between 1970 and 1990, ..." which is more in accord with the citations given. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It would probably be more accurate to say (based on the data): "Whereas liberals and conservatives held similar attitudes toward science from the 1970s to the 1990s, conservatives in the United States subsequently...." The data in the sources doesn't start exactly at 1970.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Rjensen's edit

Rjensen has added a paragraph to this article that redefines conservatism as simply an attack on liberalism. It also claims that, because liberals won one very close national election, liberals are now "dominant". But almost the entire post is not about conservatism at all, rather it is an attack on liberalism. It does not offer any evidence that liberalism really is the way it is described in the quote: anti-family, anti-religion, and so on. In any case, if the idea that conservatism is simply an attack on liberalism is a mainstream idea, it should not be attributed to a single source, since it changes the entire definition of conservatism in the lead.

I reverted this edit. Rjensen put it back. I would appreciate it if others would weigh in on this subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The value of the quote is that it is a clear expression in 2021 by a leading expert of the urgent need to defend conservative principles against a liberal onslaught. This edit follows the Wikipedia guideline: "Editors of controversial subjects should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. " (from Wikipedia:Quotations. Ross Douthat writes a widely-read weekly column in the NY TIMES. Here he summarizes idea from a class he is teaching at Yale. He warns that many American values are in danger from "liberal ideas taken to extremes." ie the family, traditional religion, entrepreneurship, etc. He is calling for conservatives to rally to their support. I find this highly revealing of the conservative mindset in 2021--it's highly defensive and focuses on traditional values and seems pessimistic. This Wikipedia article is NOT claiming that liberalism is anti-family etc. It is looking at the rhetoric of conservatives. Rick Norwood is a bit unclear--does he think Douthat is a fringe element who should not get much attention? I think Douthat represents the mainstream of political conservatism in 2021 -- best to read his entire VERY pessimistic essay at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/opinion/sunday/republicans-conservatism.html Rjensen (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC).

Perhaps we can compromise. Currently, the quote is in the section "Overview", suggesting that the is a major theme in American conservatism. What do you think about moving it to the section "Recent Policies"? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good idea! Rjensen (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Shall I make the change, or will you? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

you can do it. Rjensen (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Trump

We should elaborate about Trump, as he is undeniably the face of Conservatism in America and probably even the world. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Any ideas? Benjamin (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You would need sources for that. Trump isn't a conservative except in the U.S. sense. He hasn't for example asked that the stars and stripes be replaced with the Union Jack. TFD (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Except in the US sense? Well, this is an "in the United States" article. Benjamin (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I was replying to the comment that Trump is "is undeniably the face of Conservatism in America and probably even the world (my emphasis). Internationally, Trump's politics would be seen as liberalism or right-wing populism. TFD (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Conservative think tank" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Conservative think tank and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#Conservative think tank until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

"Conservative think tanks" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Conservative think tanks and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#Conservative think tanks until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mikenota. Peer reviewers: Okaitline.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Liberty activism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Liberty activism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#Liberty activism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

Somebody keeps adding American Imperialism to the article (as something conservatives support), but no source supports that (#5 certainly doesn't) and it's not in the main body. Please cite a source before adding back. Also, I altered the "science" aspect of the LEAD to more closely match what is in the main article. And finally, I would encourage whomever added sources #11 & 12 to check their format. (As that is non-standard for wiki.) Please discuss here before future alterationsRja13ww33 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the current version is reasonable. What change in the format of the references would you recommend.Rick Norwood (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it is mandatory, but I am use to book/journal citations being like [4] & [5]. The way it is now kind of sticks out. I thought about doing it myself....but as I am not as familiar with these sources as whomever posted them....i didn't.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The imperialism mention is a no-no. (As for creationism, I'll defer to the creatons to hash that out.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

POV pushing IP

IP user 71.117.29.63 has continuously replaced less-flattering material (but more-or-less accurate and correctly cited) material with material with an unsubtle pro-conservative slant, then edit-warred it back when I revert it. Some of it might be reasonable but mostly I think they’re here to POV push. Requesting comment please. Dronebogus (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC related to Conservatism template

There is an RfC on the page about the Oath Keepers, described in that article as a far-right armed extremist group whose members were heavily involved in the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol. Your views will help us get to a robust outcome.

The Oath Keepers were placed in the Conservatism in the United States template (which also appears at the top of this article page) several years ago and that template appears on the WP article page about the group. The RfC is about whether to remove that template from the page. See this long discussion and the poll in this section. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Color and Font

The simplistic white letters on Red background imitates cable news visuals which represents a caricature of conservatism that doesn't need to be present throughout this series. I think the tacky appearance of the heading is intended to poke fun at conservatives. 72.197.89.166 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No religious figure in collage

The collage has three supreme court justices who served concurrently but no one who specifically represents the religious facet of conservatism, e.g. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Francis Spellman.

For that matter no women either, e.g. Phyllis Schlafly, Jeane Kirkpatrick. 73.71.251.64 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump's Influence on Modern American Conservatism

As I've observed throughout time (I'm on the left so this is my perspective or I'm just saying the facts), the presidency of Donald Trump has had a visible influence on modern American conservatism; for example, Donald Trump was a self-proclaimed protectionist. As a result, I see conservatives lean towards protectionism alongside him.

Another example of this is conservatism's frequent questioning of epidemiology and safety of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic; synonymous to Trump's negation of the threat the virus posed to humanity, even subscribing to the racism he produced scapegoating China. We've also witnessed the ideology's commitment to defending capital even in the face of its evil. This leads me to conclude that the impact of Donald Trump's presidency is something worth documenting on this page. Western Progressivist (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Something expanding the part about trade would probably be worthwhile (and interesting). Although I am at a loss to recommend a good resource. Conservatives have (overall) favored free trade....but there have been exceptions. (Pat Buchanan comes to mind, among others.) Reagan typically used free trade rhetoric, but he did (for example) subject the Japanese to trade restrictions and so on. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan is a representative of Paleoconservatism. Palaeconservatives in general support protectionism and economic nationalism. Per the main article on the ideology: "Paleoconservatism differs from neoconservatism in opposing free trade and promoting republicanism. Paleoconservatives see neoconservatives as imperialists and themselves as defenders of the republic." As for Ronald Reagan, the man nearly started a trade war with Japan out of fear that American industry was under threat. Per the Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration: "Trade issues with Japan dominated relationships, especially the threat that American automobile and high tech industries would be overwhelmed. After 1945, the U.S. produced about 75 percent of world's auto production. In 1980, the U.S. was overtaken by Japan and then became world's leader again in 1994. In 2006, Japan narrowly passed the U.S. in production and held this rank until 2009, when China took the top spot with 13.8 million units. Japan's economic miracle emerged from a systematic program of subsidized investment in strategic industries—steel, machinery, electronics, chemicals, autos, shipbuilding, and aircraft. During Reagan's first term, Japanese government and private investors owned a third of the debt sold by the US Treasury, providing Americans with hard currency used to buy Japanese goods. In March 1985 the Senate voted 92–0 in favor of a Republican resolution that condemned Japan's trade practices as "unfair" and called on President Reagan to curb Japanese imports." Dimadick (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You would have to find sources that say this. All U.S. presidents from Reagan to Biden have been protectionist to a degree. TFD (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)