Talk:Conservatism in the United States
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservatism in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Conservatism in the United States. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Conservatism in the United States at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Material from Conservatism in the United States was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
No religious figure in collage[edit]
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)
The introduction should represent the article as a whole[edit]
This is a lengthy, thorough and well-sourced article. The introduction ought to be as concise as possible—and represent the article as a whole. Right now a fifth of the introduction is devoted to the topic of some conservatives' opposition to some sciences, for example climate science which is a heavily ideologized—and thus controversial—topic. In the article this topic is presented under a minor section under a subheading called "Other topics". It is not representative for the article as a whole. We should scratch it from the introduction and incorporate it into the already existing minor section, where it belongs. That sort of negative highlighting of controversial information also comes off as very provocative, biased, and unprofessional. Trakking (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think the lead is too short to do a good job of summarizing the article, and major parts of the article (e.g. History, Race and culture) are given no summary. In an appropriately sized lead, I think a short mention of the data on conservative views on science is due. I would support shortening it but not cutting it entirely. How about
"21st-century American conservatives question epidemiology, climate science, and evolution more frequently than moderates or liberals."
Takes us from 31 words to 16. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)- Agreed, the lead should be elaborated extensively, which would justify including this little piece of information.
- Please shorten it down to the suggested sentence and don't forget to add a "tend": conservatives tend to question climate science etc.… because it is not like the statement is true of all conservatives all the time. Trakking (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm fine with adding "tend to". I'd prefer to leave this up for a bit to see if anyone else weighs in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I came to the talk page to talk about this exact sentence. I think it's okay, but whether conservatives
"tend to question epidemiology ... more frequently than moderates or liberals"
is really a very nuanced take (maybe even cherry picked or jaded by current events). Before COVID, definitely not true. The quintessential antivaxxer was a white liberal. It's only because of responses to COVID specifically that someone might say that. This is overly simplistic. They certainly question government health recommendations lately, but they don't question the broader science of epidemiology in the way they tend to question evolution and climate change. 209.248.155.179 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I came to the talk page to talk about this exact sentence. I think it's okay, but whether conservatives
- I'm fine with adding "tend to". I'd prefer to leave this up for a bit to see if anyone else weighs in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Trump's Influence on Modern American Conservatism[edit]
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)
Deleted subsection on psychology[edit]
My subsection on Pychology was deleted by Trakking here with the summary
- (Undid revision 1169827941 by Louis P. Boog (talk) - removal of newly added information which has nothing to do with the specific topic at hand, namely AMERICAN conservatism; in fact, American conservatives, with their strong belief in personal responsibility, score higher on Openness to Experience than traditional conservatives in many other countries; also—Oakeshott was British).
Here is the offending text:
- Psychology
- The main predictor of conservatism for subjects of a "Big Five” personality test is a low score on “openness to new experiences”.<ref name= Eumenes-NC-2021>Eumenes of Cardia (2021). "Against Barstool Conservatism". New Conservatives. Retrieved 11 August 2023.. Where liberals/leftists want to tear down structures and overturn normalcy with exciting new utopian concepts, conservatism is the "defense of the normal”.[1]
- Michael Oakeshott coined the term “conservative disposition” in the 20th Century, to describe conservatism as a way of reacting to the world. To him, to be conservative meant “to prefer the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible (…) present laughter to utopian bliss”.[1]
In my defense
- much of the content from my deleted text is from an American conservative outfit called New Conservatives; and
- I'm not sure what devotion to Personal Responsibility has to do with high scores on Openness to Experience,
- and even if it is true that "American conservatives, ... score higher on Openness to Experience than traditional conservatives in many other countries", do they score than moderates or liberals? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why it should be included in this article as opposed to the Conservatism article which already has a Psychology section. The only thing connecting this to conservatism in the U.S. is the fact that an American conservative outlet published it in an opinion article on their blog, but I've never heard of them, they don't have a wiki page, and they haven't published anything for a year and a half. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- B-Class Libertarianism articles
- High-importance Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Top-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles