Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Regulation on what sex you have to be to be in the military, for instance. Do budgets never grow under Republicans? It's not that clearcut. Doug Weller talk 06:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Republicans spend but they don't spend more than Democrats. The main, and about the only, area where Democrats favor less spending than Republicans is on national defense, and the military only accounts for less than 20% of the federal budget. As for military regulations, there are countless (tattoos can be disqualifying, for example). Such rules don't expand the scope of government over the private sector. They just control what form the military takes. VictorD7 (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that. Looking at just

Reagonomics

, a conservative government tripled the national debt (so the US went from largest international creditor to largest debtor) and spent a larger percentage of GDP (which I'd argue is more important than total expenditure) than any president from Carter through Obama. I'm revising the section heading to be more accurate.

You can't compare gender discrimination with tattoos. I'm talking about social regulation. The most obvious area is gender issues - segregation used to be the most obvious but that is done more subtly today. Conservatives still regulate what couples can do in bed. [[Sodomy laws in the United States|Sodomy] laws still exist. Most state adultery laws are in conservative states. This is interesting. "liberals do not have a monopoly on social engineering; conservatives read the Constitution as a document that reserves (particularly to the states) the police power to legislate for the public health, welfare, safety, and morals. However, conservatives are apt to refer to the community's right, thg majority's right, or society’s right as euphemisms for government power because conservative rhetoric remains anti-government. Contrary to the conventional understanding of social engineering as liberal, the legacy of Warren Court activism includes constitutional doctrines that limit social engineering based upon the traditional governmental powers to "legislate morality." Doug Weller talk 10:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

See also Social conservatism in the United States. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That "conservative government" you mention had a Democratic Congress. Reagan didn't get the spending cuts he wanted through. And no, while peak spending/GDP hit a Reagan era high of 22.3% in 1982 (and fell to 20.3% by his final year), Obama hit 24.4%, the highest since WW2. It did decline to 20.7% by his final year, with a Republican Congress, but that was still higher than Bush's final year. Not that any of this necessarily means anything anyway to the fact that conservatives (not the same thing as Republicans) generally call for less spending while Democrats (not the same thing as liberals) generally call for more. This article is about ideology, not necessarily empirical results. Especially when those results are clouded by dynamics like both parties often getting their spending priorities while little to nothing gets cut. And you're still confusing military standards, shaped in large part by life and death considerations, with private society. Indeed a better example of "social engineering" in the military would be liberals in the civilian government imposing trendy agenda items on it against its will and informed advice, though "social engineering" mostly pertains to using government to manipulate private citizens. Nobody regulates what consenting adults do in bed. Sodomy laws were struck down years ago with no real opposition after having been rarely enforced (typically as an excuse to nail a suspected criminal they couldn't get other ways). Radical feminists are doing more than social conservatives to regulate romantic/sexual behavior between adults by stretching the bounds of concepts like "harassment" and "consent" beyond how most people of both sexes have traditionally conceived of them, causing some female pundits to question if the "MeToo" movement is taking women back to the Victorian era. And if you're trying to refer to things like laws against prostitution, poker, and the regulation of drugs, those are supported by a majority of both liberals and conservatives and aren't a distinguishing trait. The most fierce and articulate opposition against such restrictions come from libertarians, an essential component of the conservative constellation. It's typically ideological moderates who support such prohibitions. Abortion, the most important issue to social conservatives, is in its own category since that deals with homicide and is no more about "social engineering" than other homicide laws are. VictorD7 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Abortion deals with homicide? I won't comment on the rest as this discussion is clearly pointless and I have no time to do more here. Doug Weller talk 09:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Homicide" is morally neutral and may be justified or unjustified. It simply describes what happens. One can deny that abortion is homicide I guess, though it's a well established scientific fact that a fetus is biologically a human life, but certainly at the very least Pro Lifers view it as homicide, so you can't honestly discuss the issue without acknowledging that. VictorD7 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Conservatives indeed increase the debt more than "liberals." That's because they typically increase defense spending, cut taxes for higher income people and pursue monetary policies that create unemployment, which reduces the tax base. However, they do cut spending in other areas, believing that those cuts combined with the supposed stimulus of tax cuts will lead to higher tax revenues. So indeed that intend to spend less but voodoo economics doesn't work.

Incidentally, anti-abortion laws have no effect on the rate of abortions which is why it is 50% higher in the U.S. than in Canada where there are no anti-abortion laws at all.[1] That may be because pro-choice people generally also oppose access to contraception or any support for children once they are born. TFD (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

There have been a very large number of edits to this article in the past day or so, many of them designed to promote the idea that conservatives are essentially libertarian. Example: "Liberty is a core value, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market." Since most conservatives support President Trump's tariffs and deficits, that seems questionable. My inclination is to revert to the last stable edit, but at least one editor has been working very hard to keep the article objective, so I am not going to do that. I just want to support using reliable sources, not propaganda, to back up claims about conservatism in the United States. There are a large number of reasons that people identify as conservative, but libertarianism is not the most influential reason by a long shot. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, conservatism is not the same as libertarianism. Anyone who thinks it is doesn't really have a clue. Libertarians comes in various flavors: some libertarians are more conservative, some are more liberal, but libertarianism, as a whole, is neither conservative nor liberal, it's libertarianism, a thing unto itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

None of those edits are new to this article and they're strongly reinforced by sourcing already in it, like the Buckley quote in the top section under the lead. "Libertarian" and "conservative" aren't necessarily the same but there's heavy overlap. libertarians are basically a subset of American conservatives, and a libertarian tendency permeates the conservative movement enough that one can't accurately describe "conservativism" without it.

Ronald Reagan (Reason, 1975): "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

William F. Buckley (National Review mission statement, 1955): "It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side."

Since you mention it I'll add that, while Trump has certainly received lots of criticism from various flavors of conservatives, libertarians certainly like his tax cuts and deregulation, and most like his nominations of constitutionalist judges. The stripe of libertarians who favor more lenient criminal sentencing are also pleased with his recent criminal reform bill. VictorD7 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Modern American conservatism is normally defined as a combination of libertarianism, traditionalism and anti-communism, with different emphases among various supporters. Whether or not Trump is a conservative by any definition is irrelevant, he has brought conservatives into government and aligns with them in Congress. If he could have won the Democratic nomination, he would have aligned with them, most likely. TFD (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You didn't respond to me quoting the two most important 20th Century conservative figures above, but since you just altered the segment in a strange way I guess you need more. This is from a peer reviewed sociological journal article I added as a source in fixing the sentence just now: "Moreover, they have long proven capable of being comfortable partners with free-market advocates in an enduring political coalition whose primary political value is liberty".

Of course no one said "conservatism is the same as libertarianism". I agree with what TFD said about the blend of different elements. But liberty is a core value of the conservative coalition and it's ubiquitous in conservative rhetoric in a way it isn't in liberal rhetoric. The philosophical reason for groups like social conservatives, libertarians, and others uniting is rooted in the shared belief that liberty is a God-given natural right from an authority higher than earthly government. VictorD7 (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

VictorD7 argues in the edit comment "Conservatism, in the modern ideological sense of the word represented by the con. movement, represents the broad, common denominator ideology of all major US parties until the left arose around the turn of the 20th Century. The movement is a reaction against the left and an attempt to preserve those core, formerly consensus American values." I don't think so. --Who makes that claim?? for example Labor Unions were a HOTLY debated and fought out issue (violent strikes & repression) in 1870s and 1890s. Likewise slavery before Civil war. Likewise race hatred against blacks, Chinese, Mexicans well before 1900. Nativism in 1850s looks much like Nativism "Build that wall" in 2019. Prohibition was bitterly contested every year from 1840s-1930s. There were very bitter debates starting in 1790s over helping rich companies through tariffs and banks (this month's debate on generosity to Amazon in New York City echoes the old rhetoric of Andrew Jackson!) I think most historians of conservatism (Rossiter, Kirk, Allitt, Schneider for example) are aware of this. Rjensen (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I didn't say there weren't contentious issues in the 19th Century, hence my use of "common denominator" values. But all the major US parties broadly supported core American principles like individual liberty, constitutionalism, free market economics, limited government, and the Judeo-Christian ethic (including the Lockean theistic premise that serves as the foundation for the natural rights theory immortalized in the Declaration of Independence). The differences were over things like tariffs, monetary policy, and foreign policy on an ad hoc, case by case basis. The most divisive issue of course was slavery, but, like abortion today, that was an aberrational, wildcard, stand-alone issue that initially cut across party lines before polarizing into Democrats supporting it and Whigs (and later Republicans) opposing it. There wasn't fundamental disagreement about what it means to be American. There was a consensus about the relationship between the individual citizen and the government, essentially a libertarian one. No party, for example, really championed an income tax, economic redistribution, a massive welfare state, heavy business regulation, or the nationalization of industry. No party tried to confiscate all the privately held gold in the country as FDR later would, or impose price fixing schemes on products. Socialism was preached by fringe street agitators, not in the Senate, Congress, mainstream media, or even most of academia. Neither party would have dropped "so help you God" from oaths taken before Congressional committees as Democrat Steny Hoyer recently moved to do, let alone boo the mention of "God" like a chorus of delegates did at the 2012 DNC. Parties generally respected constitutional process and didn't seek to impose agenda items like abortion and gay marriage (neither of which was supported by any major party in the 19th Century) through the courts that they couldn't get passed at the ballot box, let alone use activist judges to rule against a president they oppose in knee jerk fashion on virtually every issue in a sabotage campaign no matter how precedented and soundly constitutional the president's actions are, or how almost certain everyone is that the president's actions would eventually be upheld by the Supreme Court. Courts from Marbury v. Madison onward occasionally struck down laws or actions they deemed unconstitutional of course, but their judicial temperaments were respected enough by all sides that appointments didn't become a partisan issue until the late 20th Century because neither side was trying to use the courts to impose their agenda until then.

Socialism, the left, or "modern liberalism" didn't exist in America to a significant degree until the end of the 19th Century, hence the "modern" qualifier. There's a big difference between Democrat presidents Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson (conservatives prefer Cleveland). One thing this article gets right is the broad nature of "conservatism" even in the modern ideological sense which this page mostly features. As the Buckley quote and other included sources make clear, the "conservative" movement arose in reaction to radical changes imposed by the left over the previous few decades. Pretty much every historical source, regardless of bias, agrees that there was a big shift in the size and scope of government in the early to mid 20th Century. FDR himself called it a "New Deal", and Wilson is a "progressive" icon whose tenure saw the enactment of the first permanent US income tax. That launched an ongoing battle over the future relationship between the individual and the state, and the scope of government. The narrow connection between commonly used dictionary definitions of "conservative" and the conservative movement is that they're trying to preserve the core American values they believe are under assault and threatened extinction by the left ("modern liberalism"). Conservatives internally include some of the divisions of the 19th Century, with both supporters and opponents of tariffs, loose and tight monetary advocates, hawks and doves on foreign policy, etc. (not slavery because that's a dead issue and everyone opposes it today). What they unite to oppose are more recent developments that seek to "fundamentally transform" America into something else, namely the push toward socialism (or "modern liberalism"). They would love to finally defeat the left once and for all and return to arguing with each other over those other, lesser issues. The conservative "movement" may not have existed until the 1950s, but that was because there was no reason for it until then. Conservatism, in the modern ideological sense of the word, long predated "modern liberalism" and roughly represents traditional, formerly consensus American values. VictorD7 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well no. I think you're swallowing polemics from a small fringe group out in Southern California that demonizes Woodrow Wilson. The California group looks at the textbooks Wilson wrote in the late 19th century and sees some praise for Hegel & Germany. At that time Wilson admired Cleveland, denounced William Jennings Bryan, and voted for the gold Democrats in 1896. He was personally very close to Grover Cleveland while president of Princeton. The Californians don't like Wilson's Hegelianism as expressed in the 1880s. Wilson pretty much dropped Hegel after 1900--none of his many speeches as president echoes it in any way that I can tell. As president Wilson fought very hard against socialism at home (he put Debs in prison--It was Harding who freed Debs) and fought communism abroad, even sending US troops against Soviet Russia. Biographies of William Buckley by John Judas and Bridges-Coyne mention Wilson only in passing re Buckley's father (who opposed Wilson's foreign policy). The leading histories by conservatives, such as Donald Critchlow The conservative ascendancy (2011) and Gregory Schneider Conservatism in America (2003) ignore Wilson entirely. George Nash in his standard history The conservative intellectual movement in America (1976) mentions Wilson only to note that Russell Kirk and George W. Bush both considered Wilson to be basically conservative. Patrick Allitt Conservatives: ideas and personalities throughout American history (2009) emphasizes how popular Wilson's foreign-policy was to Hoover, GW Bush and the neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz who invoked the memory of Wilson when he declared that "it was right to use American power to make the world safe for democracy" [Allitt p 211] So the consensus of conservative historians does not denounce Wilson or call him socialist. VictorD7 also says that pre 1900 "major US parties broadly supported core American principles like individual liberty, constitutionalism, free market economics, limited government, and the Judeo-Christian ethic" -- Yes and I think that remains true as well for all major parties in the 20th century. As for 2019 – well That gets us into current issues like declaring a national emergency to evade Congressional responsibility for spending decisions. Let's avoid very current issues and keep the article in long-term perspective. Rjensen (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

VictorD7 says that "No party, for example, really championed an income tax, economic redistribution, a massive welfare state, heavy business regulation, or the nationalization of industry." Well no. Both the GOP (1861) and the Democrats (1894) imposed an income tax. "economic redistribution" was proposed by Radical Republicans in 1860s (and actually attempted by General Sherman). A "massive welfare state" was set up by the GOP for US Army veterans and their families (See Theda Skocpol Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in United States (1995). Jefferson set up a welfare state for Native Americans on reservations--it still operates in 2019. No "heavy business regulation"?? Well the Democrats imposed sharp restrictions on banks and abolished both 1st and 2nd national banks. "nationalization of industry" did happen (arms industry yes--see Springfield Armory and Boston Navy Yard and many others--all privatized after WW2. Also the entire RR industry nationalized in 1917 when the RR system froze up and could no longer move war freight. VictorD7 goes on: "No party tried to confiscate all the privately held gold in the country as FDR later would, or impose price fixing schemes on products. " He's mostly right about gold. However In January 1861 Louisiana troops invaded the US Mint in New Orleans and confiscated all the gold and silver; Confederate units raided several US towns and took all the money in the banks. There was lots of price fixing in colonial era and Revolutionary era. In 1630 Massachusetts fixed wage rates for carpenters, bricklayers etc. at two shillings a day. In 1776 Connecticut set maximum prices for many of the necessities of life. Rjensen (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You're posting exceptions I already anticipated with my language ("really championed")--a war time, temporary tax by Republicans and tiny 2% tax in the 1890s (when both parties were being pulled in the direction of the newly created left) that was quickly struck down as unconstitutional. Wilson's was permanent. US military benefits are job benefits considered well earned, not "welfare". Most Americans know the difference. Indian welfare was generally seen as compensation for removal and reservation status, and a unique situation as opposed to general economic redistribution throughout society, which the vast majority of American commentators from the founding fathers (e.g. Federalist Papers) to judges to politicians to academics condemned. Nationalization in 1917?!? Have you already forgotten our ongoing debate on Wilson, the progressive icon? Plus that was another wartime measure. As were the Civil War seizures you cite. 1630? The early colonies were only recently removed from the socialism that had almost strangled them in the cradle and were still loyal monarchists. These absurd "examples" are beneath you, Rjensen. They're cherry-picked exceptions that only reinforce my position. Context and perspective. In 1900 federal outlays were about 3% of GDP, and had mostly been at or below that level throughout previous US history. In 1919 federal spending was 24% GDP. It's been in the teens or 20s most of the years since. Clearly much had changed. VictorD7 (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong about the income tax. In the 1890s – in peacetime – it was proposed by President Cleveland and the conservative Democrats. Supreme court struck it down, so the 16th amendment to the Constitution was needed to permit the federal income tax (1913). Wilson had nothing to do with it, 16th amendment was a conservative Republican proposal championed by President Taft and Senator Nelson W. Aldrich (His daughter married John D Rockefeller Junior). RS state: "William Howard Taft declared himself in support of income taxation, and of legislation, both before and during the campaign of 1908." he called a special session of Congress in 1909--with big GOP majorities--to get it passed. Source: Dimensions of Law in the Service of Order: Origins of the Federal Income Tax, 1861-1913 by Robert Stanley pp 186, 195, 198. As for military benefits, no they were not "considered as earned" until Republicans championed them in the 1880s as a welfare measure To solidify its hold on the veteran vote. There were plenty of veterans from 1812 war and the Mexican war, also Indian campaigns and the peacetime Army, but they received only minimal benefits until president Harrison dramatically expanded the pension system – versus President Cleveland who had vetoed hundreds of private pension bills. So big government spending comes in with the Conservative Republican party in 1888--The Classical-liberal Cleveland Democrats fought back and denounced "the billion-dollar Congress" Dems scored a big victory in 1890. Jefferson thought it was a good idea to create a welfare state the Indians, something entirely new in world history. As for economic redistribution condemned by the founding fathers, judges and politicians-- I'm not sure who you're talking about. Names please. So far you've been unable to provide a single reliable scholarly source, but maybe you can try on this one topic. As for "redistribution," not much of that happened during the progressive era. The New Deal did not tax the rich and give the money to the poor, it borrowed the money from bondholders and repaid every bond. (Its major tax increase was Social Security, which was very carefully designed to return the money to the people who paid in when they got older.) The main thrust of liberal programs was to raise wages by strengthening labor unions, with the workers paying both Social Security and income taxes at much higher levels than before 1941. Re colonies: there's a curious mention of "socialism that had almost strangled them in the cradle" ??? I think that's nonsense. Not even Glenn Beck makes that claim. Railroads were indeed nationalized in WWI, but the progressives rejected calls to keep them govt owned and instead returned them to private ownership. From the time the American Revolution, throughout the 19th and most of the first half of the 20th century, virtually the entire armaments industry was nationalized. After WW2 it was nationalized and sold off. I suppose lots of people are unaware that the armories and naval shipyards in the United States were owned & operated by the federal government until late 20th century. Rjensen (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you're wrong because you're not even paying attention to what I wrote. 1890s? That's the "end of the 19th Century" I've been talking about where "both parties were pulled to the left", which was coming into existence as a major political force by that point. By dwelling on it you're only underscoring my point. Even that modest proposal wasn't the "champion(ing)" I described earlier. If any major political party had been championing the income tax as a major issue then maybe the entire first half of US history wouldn't have transpired without a permanent income tax. Just because military veterans' benefits are expanded or newly created at some point when they didn't exist before doesn't change the fact that they're seen as job benefits (which change over time), not "welfare". Maybe the problem here is a lack of basic comprehension and applied reasoning ability. There's a qualitative difference between compensation for services rendered and unearned "welfare" for the general population. For that matter there's a difference between providing Indian tribes relocated to reservations with compensation (which actually wouldn't have been "entirely new in world history"; government patronage is as old as civilization) and "welfare" as understood today. Jefferson didn't provide welfare to Americans. He was famously one of the most libertarian of the founding fathers (and staunchly anti-tax, associating taxation with "wretchedness and oppression"). I'm not as up on the writings of "Glenn Beck" as you are, but if you want education on the early colonies' transition from disastrous communal ownership to private property there are countless sources from Thomas DiLorenzo to the Cengage textbook History of the American Economy by Gary Walton that I've used as a source here before. Sourcing? This is a talk page, not an article. The former doesn't require sourcing, unlike your still unsourced claim about social conservatives seeking to "require prayer" that you've inserted into the article that will have to be properly sourced or removed. That said, you've ignored my very heavily sourced paragraphs below annihilating your comments about Wilson and conservatives. But I'll patiently oblige you. For a RS on the founding fathers' view of using government for economic redistribution, how about James Madison in Federalist 10? "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects." "But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property." "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results". "It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency." "It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole." "From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions." "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State." His views represented the broad American consensus from the founding until the rise of the left around the turn of the 20th Century.

I'm glad you concede Cleveland and his Democrats were classical liberals (so were Whigs, Republicans, and even Federalists for that matter). Hopefully you acknowledge that Wilson was a "modern liberal", a qualitatively different ideology. But I'm not sure what your point is there. Are you trying to argue that Republicans were the more left wing party? Wrong. Even during the TR/Taft era Republicans were the more conservative party. Bryan and liberal Democrats derided Republicans as "the party of business". Republicans attacked Democrats from the right, for example in the 1908 platform: "The present tendencies of the two parties are even more marked by inherent differences. The trend of Democracy is toward socialism, while the Republican party stands for a wise and regulated individualism. Socialism would destroy wealth, Republicanism would prevent its abuse. Socialism would give to each an equal right to take; Republicanism would give to each an equal right to earn. Socialism would offer an equality of possession which would soon leave no one anything to possess, Republicanism would give equality of opportunity which would assure to each his share of a constantly increasing sum of possessions. In line with this tendency the Democratic party of to-day believes in Government ownership, while the Republican party believes in Government regulation. Ultimately Democracy would have the nation own the people, while Republicanism would have the people own the nation." TR reflected that leftward shift I mentioned earlier but he mostly just talked a "progressive", trust busting game. Wilson dwarfed him on trust busting and overall economic intervention. Wilson enthusiastically supported the income tax he signed and you misleadingly tried to disassociate him from, and jacked the TMR up to 77%! Harding and Coolidge dramatically slashed both taxes and spending in the years that followed. FDR jacked the TMR up to 94%! His programs weren't just funded by "bonds", LOL. He signed multiple huge tax hikes, the one in 1935 called the "soak the rich" tax, though he raised taxes on people across the income spectrum. And he raised numerous kinds of sometimes innovative taxes, excise taxes (e.g. gasoline, liquor, tobacco), income taxes, estate taxes, punitive (e.g. on farmers who produced too much), gift taxes, dividend taxes, "excess profits" taxes on businesses, etc..

FDR himself disagreed with you about his support for redistribution. "The disturbing effects upon our national life that come from great inheritances of wealth and power can in the future be reduced, not only through the method I have just described, but through a definite increase in the taxes now levied upon very great individual net incomes." That's the opposite of Madison's ideology quoted above. It might help focus this discussion if you clarified precisely what you disagree with me on in terms of central theme, instead of posting a scattershot of cherry-picked "examples" that are easily refuted by counterexamples or big picture evidence and lead to a sprawling debate. Trimming weird ad-ons like who married whom would be nice too. This isn't a soap opera it's a debate about ideology. Conservative Mary Matalin married liberal James Carville. So what? At least you've dropped that weird third person style you tried for a while and resumed addressing me directly.

Is it your position that there wasn't a significant ideological shift in the country around the turn of the 20th Century, particularly one demanding a far more expansive role for government? VictorD7 (talk)

No, Wilson is almost universally described as a "progressive icon" and the "first modern liberal" president by historians left and right, not just "a small fringe group out in Southern California" (LOL!). I'll quickly quote from our own article on Woodrow Wilson. "As president, he oversaw the passage of progressive legislative policies unparalleled until the New Deal in 1933.....He is generally regarded as a key figure in the establishment of modern American liberalism, and a strong influence on future presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.[2] Cooper argues that in terms of impact and ambition, only the New Deal and the Great Society rival the domestic accomplishments of Wilson's presidency." "During his first term, Wilson presided over the passage of his progressive New Freedom domestic agenda. Later tax acts implemented a federal estate tax and raised the top income tax rate to 77 percent. Wilson also presided over the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, which created a central banking system in the form of the Federal Reserve System. Two major laws, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, were passed to regulate and break up large business interests known as trusts." None of that is in dispute. As for you, for some reason, mentioning a few conservative books that don't mention Wilson, there are plenty that do. Conservative scholar Ronald Pestritto (among others) wrote an entire book focusing on him (https://www.amazon.com/Woodrow-Liberalism-American-Intellectual-Culture/dp/0742515176/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=5D7V69ZPSG2CHRKQ5HAW from the description: "Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism highlights Wilson's sharp departure from the traditional principles of American government, most notably the Constitution. Ronald J. Pestritto persuasively argues that Wilson's unfailing criticism places him clearly in line with the Progressives' assault on the original principles of American constitutionalism.") and has savaged the "Godfather of Liberalism" elsewhere (https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/woodrow-wilson-godfather-liberalism). Conservative historian Jim Powell called Wilson the "worst president in American history" (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/133289/wilsons-war-by-jim-powell/9780307422712/). Doctor Thomas Sowell singled him out for condemnation: "A hundred years ago, the President of the United States was Woodrow Wilson — the first president to openly claim that the Constitution of the United States was outdated, and that courts should erode the limits that the Constitution placed on the federal government." (https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/12/14/a-year-of-anniversaries) Other conservative works echo this (e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=vyq4DQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false "Constitutional grade: F" ). Jonah Goldberg has targeted Wilson in Liberal Fascism (https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189) and elsewhere. David Keene, Washington Times opinion editor, former chair of the American Conservative Union, and former president of the NRA, said as an undergraduate he ranked Wilson as the 3rd most evil person of the 20th Century, behind Hitler and Lenin (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/10/woodrow-wilson-legacy-tainted-by-racism-attacks-on/). Criticism of Wilson often ties his legacy to current leftists (e.g. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-recycles-wilson-fdr-socialism/). Conservative pundits from Ann Coulter to Dinesh D'Souza to Glenn Beck to Mark Levin routinely denounce Wilson. So do the prominent conservative think tanks like Heritage (https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-american-politics) and Cato (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/woodrow-wilsons-racism-isnt-only-reason-princeton-shun-name). Criticism of Wilson is ubiquitous at all levels of the conservative movement. I'm hard pressed to name a single pro-Wilson conservative. If you can find some they'd be the "fringe". No one describes Grover Cleveland as a "progressive icon" or a "modern liberal" president. Much of the commentary on Cleveland finds him indistinguishable from the Republican presidents who preceded and followed him.

Wilson had Debs arrested because he was calling for people to resist the draft during WW1, not because he was a socialist. Yes, Harding freed him, underscoring that conservatives support individual liberty, and not just for those who "conform to conservative values". I agree that "Wilsonian idealism" in foreign policy influenced a strain of later conservative leaders, most famously George W. Bush, but that's a narrow element of Wilson's legacy, and one condemned by many conservatives including your Russell Kirk. Even there Bush and most other similar Republicans don't support Wilson's League of Nations-style internationalism, preferring a robust, sovereign America capable of unilateral action.

All that aside, you don't really have a point. Even if Wilson wasn't the first modern liberal president as he was, it would just mean that FDR was, making the rise of the left even more recent. That doesn't change the reality that there was a huge shift away from traditional American principles and practice in the 20th Century, one our own sourcing states the conservative movement was a reaction against. Outright socialism, now openly popular among Democrats, is especially antithetical to those core founding American values I listed regardless of which side one's on. Leftists have discussed the Constitution as an "obstacle" to "progress" or "social justice" from Wilson through Obama. Not coincidentally the founding fathers are routinely derided by modern liberals. As for your "national emergency" comment, yes. Let's leave out a completely constitutional order explicitly authorized by statutory law and the other 30+ emergency declarations made over the decades that are still in effect, focusing instead on the big picture. The conservative movement was a reaction to the break from core founding American values. VictorD7 (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit Break - the big ideologically divisive issues are new

The above isn't going anywhere. Instead let's try reframing the issue for clarity and focus, Rjensen. The 19th Century issues that are still live--tariffs, central bank/monetary, foreign policy (e.g. hawks/doves)--have all sides on them represented within the conservative movement. What unites conservatives is universal opposition to socialism. Most conservatives oppose the bulk of LBJ's Great Society and the more libertarian inclined oppose at least portions of FDR's New Deal and other interventionist policies, with the most hardcore opposing the government expansions of the "progressive era". On the social side most conservatives oppose abortion, gun control, and gay marriage (and polygamous and incestuous marriage), all relatively recent changes supported by the American left (except for polygamy and incest, which are generally opposed by all sides). Can we agree on this? VictorD7 (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

too generalized and no cited support from reliable secondary sources. do libertarians oppose abortion and gay rights? What about conservatives and nativism and anti-immigrant laws? discrimination against minorities? rejection of Congressional control of spending (on the Wall)? Rjensen (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobody supports "discrimination against minorities" (except for affirmative action laws that discriminate against Asians as well as whites), or a "rejection of Congressional control of spending" (though many think it's odd that the president somehow has more power in recent decades to suddenly wage war on the other side of the world without new congressional authorization than to defend America's own borders without new authorization; truth is both are justified by bills already passed by congress), or "nativism" (not the proper term for those, including legal immigrants, who support enforcing immigration laws) or "gay rights" (special rights sure; conservatives support gays having the same rights any other individual does; they oppose violating the 1st Amendment to force someone whose conscience opposes gay marriage to make a product specifically celebrating gay marriage, just as they oppose forcing a private atheist or Muslim business owner to make a product specifically celebrating Christianity). I said most conservatives (including most libertarians and even Ron and Rand Paul) oppose abortion (mostly a debate about when life begins rather than a strictly ideological issue) This is a TP discussion, not an article where sourcing is needed. This section you started doesn't make a specific edit proposal but rather launches a vague political discussion presumably so editors can get on the same page or at least establish an understanding of where they stand conceptually to facilitate future collaboration. I posted reliable sources up the wazoo above but it's not leading to productive discussion. To avoid sprawl it would be better to try to keep this discussion focused on the general at least for now. Please address my above comment under the edit break. Do you disagree with what I said? What is it you think unites and defines the conservative movement if not what I posted, which reflects comments from Buckley and others already in our own article? VictorD7 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It is true that U.S. liberalism today supports greater government spending than was the case circa 1800. But so does U.S. conservatism. The Reagan revolution did not bring government spending back to 1800 levels, abolish the standing army, return to the gold standard, abolish income tax, abolish federal police agencies, eliminate entitlements and leave the UN. That was a dream of some of his initial hard core supporters, such as Ron Paul, but Paul ended up running against him and never had large support, even among conservatives.

Opposition to socialism is rather circular, because socialism is defined as whatever conservatives oppose. Hence in Venezuela, Maduro is opposed because he is supposedly a socialist, but conservatives support his opponent who leads a member party of the Socialist International.

TFD (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That's like saying socialists in France or Spain aren't real socialists because when "Socialist" parties take over they don't abolish the free market and create a socialist state. A nation is a like a great ship. It takes a while to steer it in a new direction. It's about trajectory and incremental change. Conservatives didn't believe the US was a socialist state in the 1950s or that it is today. They were alarmed by the strong pull in the socialist direction, "creeping socialism", and were concerned that if it continued without check the country was in danger of losing its classic core values like rugged individualism, limited government, strong nuclear family, etc.., so launched a movement to pull things back in that direction. It's like tug of war. And, as you've said elsewhere, there are degrees of extremity among ideological adherents. My point in this section is that the things most or all conservatives oppose, that define the ideological movement, are relatively recent 20th/21st Century innovations (at least in America). You can't say that about the left. The issues they're most passionate about.....abortion,* gay marriage, gun control, banning pet sales, regulating the size of soft drinks people are allowed to buy, expanding government control over business, banning tobacco use, raising taxes for the purpose of economic redistribution, overtly prioritizing the censorship of "hate speech" (however they choose to define that) over free speech, etc., certainly aren't an attempt to return to founding American principles, which is why leftist activists routinely denounce the founding fathers (and often "white men" in general), call the Constitution an "outdated" "obstacle" to "social justice", and attack America itself as a force for evil in the world that should be "fundamentally transformed". (*one caveat being abortion was more taboo than illegal early on until physicians led the charge to abolish it in the 19th Century after medical knowledge of the fetus and the extent of its humanity had increased; unlike slavery, however, there was no real strong opposition to prohibiting abortion in every state by the turn of the 20th Century.) As for Venezuela, Chavez and Maduro defined themselves as socialists and implemented socialist policies. It's not just US conservatives calling them that. Guaido is the less bad alternative, has been opposing what he called the drift toward "totalitarianism" since back when Chavez was in power even before the million percent inflation hit and 3 million people fled the country, and is supported by virtually every Latin American country and much of the rest of the world, not just US conservatives. VictorD7 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

None of these issues are socialist issues. Many socialists opposed abortion, same sex marriage, gun control, etc. Guaido might be one of them. TFD (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Expanding government control over the private sector and economic redistribution, which I listed, are certainly socialist issues. The others have heavy overlap among supporters, but my point was they're relatively new as major policy pushes. Modern liberals are less inspired by Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Locke, and Smith than they are by Marx, Dewey, Sanger, Keynes and Sontag. VictorD7 (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense--redistribution was central to 19c America: the tariff took money away from the consumer who paid the tax and subsidized high prices for manufacturer and high wages for his factory workers. This was very explicit in Jefferson and Grover Cleveland. Regulation started with banks in 1790s and with railroads in 1870s. They were the biggest industries. Rjensen (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. Tariffs were imposed to raise general revenue for normal government functioning, indirect sectional economic impact aside, and it was a minimal government by today's standards which is why there was no income tax. Jefferson in particular was openly hostile to all direct, internal taxes (associating them with "wretchedness and oppression") and he also wanted lower tariffs (though some were needed for revenue). That's radically different from using taxes for the express purpose of directly addressing economic "inequality" at large in society. Even the national security concern of protecting industry isn't the same as the Marxist precept "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" which is more in line to varying degrees with the views of FDR (I quoted for you above) and other modern liberals. Your claims ignore the left's own literature (e.g. Thomas Dewey, Herbert David Croly, Woodrow Wilson) acknowledging and celebrating the ideological change in the late 19th Century that led to the "progressive" movement and later "New" Deal and necessarily involved an attempt to redefine the American social contract.VictorD7 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

VictorD7 is never going to change his mind. Either we simply revert his edits when they contradict the mainstream view, or we allow Wikipedia to assert that conservatism is essentially libertarianism. This is not supported by reliable sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Rick Norwood on this. It's an ignorance of the reliable secondary sources that bothers me most. Rjensen (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Since Rjensen is the one who's demonstrated ignorance of basic history and a failure to even read his own sources (e.g. his false "require" school prayer claim), Rick Norwood hasn't even participated in this section discussion until this drive by personal attack, and neither has responded to my reasonable, well founded comments and questions with substance (I'm always open to changing my mind; are you?), I'll caution both of you against leaping to ad hominem insults, false personal smears, or reverting any well sourced edit I or any other editor makes as such moves likely wouldn't stand up to scrutiny by the broader community. I didn't start this section and it contained no specific edit proposal. My participation here is a good faith indulgence of Rjensen's initiation of a political discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

reL my "ignorance of basic history" take a look at my Wiki article Richard J. Jensen. Rjensen (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh I've known your identity for years, since I saw some youtube clips of a talk you gave about editing the War of 1812 page. Though I partly agreed with your general points I wasn't awed by your delivery or mastery of the material. I meant it when I said I'm glad you're here because in the past your input has been better than the typical editor's, but I have too much experience with professors for you to wow me with an appeal to personal authority. Your past's only impact here is to leave me disappointed with your current performance, along with the fact that you've apparently camped out permanently on this page and it only has a dismal "C" rating. Your boasting would be less laughable if you hadn't been so reckless in your absurd edit that you left this sentence sitting for days because you never bothered to proofread it: "Social conservatives oppose abortion and restricting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender LGBT rights, while privileging traditional..." I let it stand all this time because it was technically correct (conservatives support gays having the same rights anyone else does; they opposed redefining marriage) until an IP address popped in today and fixed your grammar for you. The edit now requires revision for accuracy. I would have been more impressed if you had substantively engaged in this discussion that you started. Maybe demonstrate some critical thinking ability or at least try to answer my question about what you think unites and defines the conservative movement. It ain't views on tariffs, immigration (see WSJ, open borders corporate crowd), or railroads, that's for sure. The purpose of the question was to draw out exactly where and how you think my comment you quoted clashes with what's already in this article (especially see the featured Buckley piece, which is consistent with what I said), but I guess you have nothing to say with this section after all. You certainly failed to demonstrate any "ignorance" on my part. You just asserted that without citing a single source or fact I supposedly didn't know. In case you don't remember who I am, you might want to go back and check the archives. VictorD7 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

VictorD7 wrote "Rjensen is the one who's demonstrated ignorance of the basic facts of history". Then, since that attack didn't work, Victor D7 wrote "Though I partly agreed with your general points I wasn't awed by your delivery or mastery of the material." So, if you can't attack the facts, attack the person. This is why I find discussion with Libertarians pointless. Rjensen has answered your arguments, I see no good in my giving essentially the same answers. Wikipedia reports what mainstream sources say, even if that disagrees with libertarian dogma. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Everything you said was false (as a more careful reading of the above shows), but I appreciate you confessing that your political bias is so strident that you find discussion with libertarians, a vast category of people, "pointless". Wikipedia is supposed to be a politically neutral encyclopedia (

WP:NPOV), not warped into a propaganda vehicle by editors who are so hostile to an entire political philosophy that they feel any discussion with people who subscribe to it is "pointless". I, by contrast, have collaborated productively with people from diverse ideological perspectives. VictorD7 (talk

) 19:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I know of no conservatives who support mandating school prayer. Even if the intention was to say that conservatives want to require schools to allow voluntary prayer, at best it's misleading since that language wasn't included. I ask Rjensen to consider tweaking his new wording from "allowing localities to require school prayer" to "allowing school prayer" or at least just "support....school prayer". Being vague and accurate is better than being specific and wrong. VictorD7 (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ok here's a better source: "Before 1962, at least 12 states either permitted or required prayer and Bible reading in public schools," The Supreme Court in numerous cases struck all such requirements down. In response attacks on the Supreme Court ever since have been staples of the social conservative rhetoric. see Glenn H. Utter; James L. True (2004). Conservative Christians and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. pp. 51–53. Rjensen (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Still weak. "12 states" out of 50 "either permitted or required" prayer? So an undefined subset of 12 schools allegedly "required prayer"......before 1962? Your old source, which was clearly anti-"religious right", conceded that most social conservatives want voluntary prayer allowed. Your new source quote doesn't contradict that. And yet your new article text is present tense and you chose to say they want to "require school prayer", highlighting the most extreme imaginable position instead of the one actually held by most (or all) social conservatives. Are you really going to force me to revert the text tomorrow and clutter the lead with sources describing in detail conservatives' support for voluntary prayer, or can we be reasonable here? While we've clashed on some things I remember you being an asset to this site overall in the past and was glad to see you're still editing here. VictorD7 (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Should add that of course the Supreme Court actually PROHIBITED led prayers in public schools throughout the country, they didn't just strike down "required prayer". That prohibition is what's sparked social conservative criticism of the court on this issue. The main debates today center around prayers at football games. The legal ground is still in flux because courts have handed down contradictory rulings. VictorD7 (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all this is a historical article, and this history is a live issue in 21st century. I think Wiki should explore the prayer issue in historical context. Secondly the prayer issue to this day fuels attacks by social conservatives against the Supreme Court. Indeed the court is now politicized so that Supreme Court appointments and lower court federal court appointments are intensely fought over in Congress, as we saw last 2 years. Third the prayer issue is not ancient history. (A) Supreme Court's ruling in the 2014 case Town of Greece v. Galloway which made Legal a prayer before town meetings. (B) Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) (said that student-initiated invocations at football games amounted to impermissible coercion because they carried the perception of school endorsement of student prayer); (C) Lee v. Weisman (1992) Supreme Court held that the graduation ceremony prayers coerced students to stand and remain silent = impermissible establishment of religion. Fourth there are some closely related 1st Amendment issues, such as freedom of religion to discriminate against gays in a business setting, and requiring the teaching of creationism as a scientific alternative to evolution. Rjensen (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And you haven't found any conservatives who support "requiring" anyone to pray. I agree the school prayer issue has fueled social conservative criticism of the Supreme Court; the issue being the court prohibiting it. Whether we think a strict separationist judge ruling that merely subjecting non-praying individuals to the sounds of prayer constitutes unconstitutional "coercion" is legally sound or absurd, the unqualified language currently in the lead can easily be misinterpreted as going much further than that and requiring active participation in the prayer. Certainly conservatives don't view it as such and speak of "voluntary prayer". I'm fine with getting into nuanced details, but the lead isn't the place for that. Given the complexity of this issue it's better to simplify the wording along the lines of "support allowing school prayer". That's clear and accurate regardless of how one personally feels about it. If a reader feels that any prayer in public school is inherently "coercion" then they'll still feel that way having read that text. There's no misleading or manipulation. I'll discuss the other issues you raise later, perhaps in another section. For now let's focus on this narrow text issue. VictorD7 (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am old enough to remember when the conservative stance was required prayer in the public schools. The supreme court struck that down, and so the fallback position was "voluntary" school prayer, where schools relied on peer pressure to force the unwilling to pray, and on bullies to hurt them if they didn't. As an example of a clearly false statement in the post above by VictorD7, "The issue being the court prohibiting it." This is clearly false unless you argue that there is a difference between "the court prohibiting it" and "the court prohibiting it", or argue that the antecedent of "it" is not "school prayer" but something that does not appear earlier in the sentence. The Supreme Court has never prohibited school prayer, and the American Civil Liberties Union has fought a number of high-profile cases in which individual students have had their right to pray in the public schools upheld, after conservative principals tried to make a big deal about not allowing students to pray to attract attention to the supposed and utterly false idea of "prohibition". I teach at a public university, and to illustrate to my class that the supposed prohibition of "prayer in the public schools" is totally false, I stood up in front of my class and prayed. I even violated the scriptural prohibition against praying out loud, and prayed out loud. That was my perfect right. What is not my right is to coerce others to pray. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

False. That SCOTUS ruling happened near the beginning of the conservative movement and the longstanding policies inherited that you're describing weren't the result of that movement. Your alleged personal demonstration is irrelevant (people break the law all the time) and your understanding is incorrect. The Supreme Court prohibited organized (led) prayer, even if participation was voluntary,[2] and the confused state of the sometimes conflicting court rulings and fear of lawsuits by groups like the ACLU has caused many school districts to err on the side of going further and banning religious displays and even student group prayers on campus.[3] Strict separationists seek to sterilize all religious references from the public sphere, including legislature prayers and prayers at football games,[4] only being thwarted on the former by a 5-4 SCOTUS vote.[5] I included multiple reliable sources outlining the repeated pushes by the modern conservative movement over the past half century to allow "voluntary" prayer.

• Peer reviewed journal article [6]: "Republican platform endorsed a constitutional amendment that would have overturned the Supreme Court’s recent school prayer decisions and allowed voluntary school prayer."

• Secondary source [7]: "…who early in the session introduced a constitutional amendment to allow “voluntary participation by students or others in prayer…..Further efforts to overturn the school prayer cases were made in 1971 and 1976. In 1971, the House considered a constitutional amendment declaring that “nothing contained in this Constitution shall abridge the right of persons lawfully assembled, in any public building which is supported in whole or in part through the expenditure of public funds, to participate in voluntary prayer or meditation…..Since the mid-1970s, the school prayer issue has surfaced periodically, a favorite issue of the “moral majority” and the religious right. In 1979, the Senate adopted a bill to withdraw the federal courts’ jurisdiction over all cases involving voluntary school prayer. ….In 1981 the House overwhelmingly adopted a rider to the Justice Department Appropriations Bill prohibiting the Justice Department from using any funds “to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer and meditation in the public schools….prospects for some sort of action on the school prayer issue brightened somewhat when a constitutional amendment restoring voluntary school prayer was endorsed by President Ronald Reagan in 1982….In 1982 Helms tried to attach another rider to withdraw the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases dealing with voluntary school prayer"

• Another secondary source [8]: "To illustrate, organized prayer in public schools (struck down by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional “establishment” of religion) is often defended as involving the free exercise rights of students to engage in “voluntary” prayer."

• Another peer reviewed journal article [9]: "Prayer and Bible reading in public schools have led to three major Supreme Court decisions; they are the impetus for approximately 200 constitutional amendments in the U.S. Congress, amendments designed to permit voluntary prayer in public schools or curtail federal court jurisdiction in school prayer cases."

• LA Times [10]: "The Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that public school sponsored prayer violated constitutionally mandated church-state separation. Ten years ago, a Republican-led Senate rejected a proposal for a voluntary school prayer amendment. A constitutional amendment requires a hard to get two-thirds approval in both the House and Senate, plus ratification by two-thirds of the states."

• CS Monitor [11]: "By so doing, observers believe, the President is trying to head off legislation now before Congress that would not only reinstitute voluntary prayer in the schools, but remove the US Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review cases in this area."

• Another peer reviewed article [12]: "In the run up to the 1980 elections Reagan had endorsed efforts for a constitutional amendment to allow for voluntary organized prayer in public schools."

• How many sources do you need? VictorD7 (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

One problem with "voluntary" school prayer is that students are required to attend the school, and if they opt out of prayers they are highly visible oddballs and liable to nasty peer ridicule and pressure. Rjensen (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Our personal policy preferences and speculation on impact don't matter here. The legislators (e.g. [13]), activists, and reliable sources characterize the push as being for "voluntary" prayer. That said, one could make the "peer" "pressure" argument about any school activity. The other side's concern is about mandated schooling that takes up a massive percentage of the daily hours in a child's formative years suddenly being purged of any religious influence, forcing society into a dramatically more secular direction from the top down, and part of a larger push by strict separationists to sterilize all religious references and activities from the public sphere. A compromise proposal might be to reduce the sentence to a vague summary line which would be more appropriate for a lead anyway than commenting on a bunch of specific issues. Perhaps something like "Social conservatives emphasize the importance of virtue in society and decry what they see as the degradation of traditional morality." We shouldn't be giving undue detailed emphasis to a cherry-picked, niche area anyway. For example we don't mention the estate tax, gun control, social security reform, etc. in the lead. Covering prayer and these other social issues down in the body instead is better because there's room to flesh out nuances and represent the different points of view we're discussing here. VictorD7 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Rjensen: I tried to fix the pov changes made by VictorD7, and he simply reverted my posts, without answering any of the points I raised, claiming below that I am unfit to edit Wikipedia. If you disagree with VictorD7, please make your own edit. I will back up any attempt at a rational edit.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

False. My edits are neutral and supported by extensive reliable sourcing, which you deleted. Yours aren't. If anything I've answered your points to a fault all over this page while you've almost totally ignored mine. You showcased your bias by announcing that "I find discussion with Libertarians pointless". You didn't even just personally attack me, but libertarians in general (and who knows what other groups you feel that way about). Discussion is a vital part of collaborative editing. If you can't discuss edits with an entire ideological category of people then you're crippled when it comes to editing in a neutral, collaborative fashion. You did that to yourself, not me. (For the record I'm not even a "Libertarian". I'll refrain from explaining the impact of capitalization since you aren't paying me tuition and it's beside the point.) VictorD7 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted a claim that conservatives in the United States favor free trade, since right now there is a trade war going on in which the liberals favor free trade and the conservatives favor protective tariffs. The source cited does not say that conservatives favor free trade for its own sake, the source says that conservatives favor big business. Conservatives favor free trade as long it is good for big business, and oppose free trade when big business wants them to oppose free trade.

I also pointed out that all major American parties favor freedom, despite sources added to this article that claim conservatives favor "rugged individualism" while liberal beliefs are "mushy". It is hard to imagine clearer examples of bias.

Finally, the last paragraph needs some serious work, since it confuses very recent history with the history of the first half of the 20th century. I'll get to that another day. I think it best to focus on one thing at a time, and the one thing this time out is the clearly false claim that conservatives favor freedom and liberals don't. In many cases, including several decided five to four by the Supreme Court in 2019, conservatives favor their freedom to force other people to adhere to Christian morality, but oppose freedom of people to do follow their own religion or their own desires. Recent examples: Dunn v. Ray in which the court upheld a lower court ruling that a Moslem could have a Christian minister but not an Imam present at his execution, Stone v. Trump where the Court refused to hear a case where transgendered people serving in the military should be summarily thrown out, many after years of honorable service, for no other reason than there gender choice. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a legitimate talk page section but a political rant. You don't link to a single example or cite a single source in this rambling, POV diatribe. I haven't seen all of your edits but here you deleted two different clauses supported by multiple reliable sources (and deleted those sources), along with others posted on the talk page but not yet used (e.g. [14]), and replaced them with completely unsourced clauses, one of them false and the other not even grammatically correct despite the grammar problem having already been pointed out to you. Above you said you "find discussion with Libertarians pointless". That statement of rabid bias of such breathtaking sweep only shows that your own ability to collaboratively edit on political topics in a neutral fashion is crippled. You can't edit a

WP:NPOV encyclopedia like this if you can't even engage in meaningful discussions with people with different beliefs. Perhaps you should consider taking a step back from this article, at least for a while. VictorD7 (talk

) 20:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"despite sources added to this article that claim conservatives favor "rugged individualism" " Individualism advocates "that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group". It is closely related to ethical egoism, which advocates that people should primarily act according to their self-interest. Dimadick (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@VictorD7: wow. Talk about lack of good faith!. Rick's post reads to me as a legitimate talk page post. A lot of talk page posts don't link to examples or cite sources, and I see neither rambling or a violation of NPOV. Every editor of a political talk page has a pov, and if they were all the same I might worry. Rick didn't say a word about you, but you've shown a lack of good faith in his post and told him he shouldn't be editing this article. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I assumed nothing. I described his actions and quoted where he said he views even having discussions with an entire ideological category of people as "pointless". It's vital that editors be willing to discuss and collaborate with others of diverse viewpoints. His subject line levels a charge against people (allegedly "attempting" to make "non-standard claims") that he doesn't support. You certainly should include evidence if you're making accusations (as I did in my comment about him). His op is a list of his personal opinions on several scattershot political issues ranging from free trade to religion. Guidelines here warn that "This page is not a forum for general discussion about Conservatism in the United States." He proposes nothing specific and I can't even find the "free trade" edit his opening sentence claims he made. It doesn't appear in his recent edits. Maybe he got confused. Sourcing is particularly important since he goes from being wrong on free trade (tariffs are one area where much of the liberal leadership supports Trump [15]) to mischaracterizing court rulings to not understanding the basic concept of military standards and practices (people can be rejected for all sorts of reasons, from height to having a tattoo in the wrong place, none of which has anything to do with the government imposing anything on the private sector). And he's spoken about me a lot all over this page. Worse, he's indicated his inability to collaborate with an entire category of people. Hopefully you don't share his prejudice. VictorD7 (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@VictorD7: I'm not paying close attention but I wish I'd noticed your suggestion above. This was stating the social conservative view of virtue in Wikipedia's own words, and that is to me an obvious NPOV violatin. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

How about "Social conservatives emphasize the importance of what they consider virtue in society and decry what they see as the degradation of traditional morality."  ? That addresses the concern you raised and is undeniably true. Do you at least acknowledge what I said above about the current text creating an undue emphasis skew where it lists a bunch of specific issues when the rest of the lead doesn't (e.g. no mention of gun control, social security, healthcare, estate tax, capital gains tax, or even many broad topics like environmentalism or healthcare)? It even cherry-picks by not listing all the major social conservative issues (e.g. impact of welfare on families, breakdown of nuclear family and destructive result of rise in single parent homes, school choice, parental rights over education and child raising, prayer at football games and legislative sessions, religious references in national/state mottos, military chaplains, charitable giving). And the current text has a POV bias because the "favor restricting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender LGBT rights" segment is a liberal characterization. Conservatives say they support gays having the same rights as other individuals. They don't want the government violating the First Amendment by forcing Christian bakers to make cakes celebrating gay-themed events. But they also don't want to force atheist bakers to make cakes endorsing Christianity, or force Jews to make cakes endorsing Nazism. Does that mean they favor restricting Christian rights? Technically yes, because a low level "right" can be any privilege granted by anybody, but that's not what people envision when they read that someone favors "restricting" someone's "right's". That's why the wording is garbage. It's misleading and threatens to leave readers with the false impression that conservatives might want to make homosexual behavior illegal, make gays wear yellow stars in public, imprison or kill gays as Islamist (and some communist) nations traditionally have, or any number of other nonsense items. Rick Norwood illustrated this with his POV edit summary where he justified his deletion by asserting that being "anti-gay" isn't "defending virtue". Purely his personal opinion.

Because these specific issues are so complex and controversial they should only be covered in the body where there's room to flesh out detailed descriptions and include different views, including conservatives' (the most important views to this article since that's what we're supposed to be covering) and leftist views like Norwood's. Otherwise I and/or other editors will have to try to bring the article back toward neutrality by adding to the segment to explain these differences and mention the other, sometimes even more important issues, making the lead even more skewed and unwieldy in that one area. Keeping this skewed, POV text in the lead would be inviting other editors who randomly show up over the months and years to change it, causing edit disputes. It's an edit warring time bomb. It's not encyclopedic and serves no legitimate purpose in the lead. VictorD7 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

in economics, this whole area:

The economic philosophy of American conservatives tends to be more liberal allowing for more economic freedom. Economic liberalism can go well beyond fiscal conservatism's concern for fiscal prudence, to a belief or principle that it is not prudent for governments to intervene in markets. It is also, sometimes, extended to a broader "small government" philosophy. Economic liberalism is associated with free-market or laissez-faire economics.

Economic liberalism, insofar as it is ideological, owes its creation to the "classical liberal" tradition, in the vein of Adam Smith, Friedrich A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises.

Classical liberals and libertarians support free markets on moral, ideological grounds: principles of individual liberty morally dictate support for free markets. Supporters of the moral grounds for free markets include Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. The liberal tradition is suspicious of government authority and prefers individual choice, and hence tends to see free market capitalism as the preferable means of achieving economic ends.

Modern conservatives, on the other hand, derive support for free markets from practical grounds. They argue that free markets are the most productive markets. Thus the modern conservative supports free markets not out of necessity, but out of expedience. The support is not moral or ideological, but driven on the Burkean notion of prescription: what works best is what is right.

A belief in the importance of the civil society is another reason why conservatives support a smaller role for the government in the economy. As noted by Alexis de Tocqueville, there is a belief that a bigger role of the government in the economy will make people feel less responsible for the society. These responsibilities would then need to be taken over by the government, requiring higher taxes. In his book Democracy in America, Tocqueville described this as "soft oppression."

Has ZERO CITATIONS.

49.147.99.237 (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

take a look at George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945 (2008) pp 446-55. Rjensen (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Although, nearly everyone in the world agrees that a few years in the gulags would do most conservatives some good, I have removed the sentence "however when that liberty is taken through bias policing policies they side with the violent and racist police practices" from the opening paragraph since it's inflammatory, not supported by the citation, and refuted by other sources in this article. We're also likely to attract attention from talk radio and other alt-right media groups with strong statements like this, regardless of truthfulness, notability, and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.14.124 (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Should warmongering be added as one of the traits closely associated with conservatives in the United States?

Also, should the article include some mention of the conservative's

You would need a source that says they are warmongers. Bear in mind that liberals have supported the same wars. Your second point is not actually a paradox but is explained by the law of unintended consequences. Conservatives believe that arming the public and keeping out undesirable foreigners makes the country safer. And most liberals (or at least their politicians) support the Second Amendment and restrictions on immigration, restrictions on abortion and the death penalty. TFD (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In the 1920s to 1950s the usual conservative position --Hoover, Robert Taft--was isolationism and very strong opposition to WW2, as well as opposed to NATO, Goldwater changed all that in 1960s. Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Bear in mind that liberals have supported the same wars." This is generalizing in an abstruse way. "In the 1920s to 1950s" I'm talking about now and how the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used today. -ApexUnderground (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You would have to provide a realible source for your any changes you want to make to the article. This article btw is about conservatism in the U.S., not just today. It's not that abstruse to note that only one member of Congress or the Senate voted against the

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists 2001 that has been used to wage war on Afghanistan, the Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iraq, and Somalia. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 received the support of the Democratic leadership. 2/3 of House Democrats and 85% of senators voted for a higher military budget than the Trump administration requested.[16] TFD (talk

) 07:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The Democrat candidate for president in 2016 - Hillary Clinton - voted yes to invade Iraq and she spent countless hours convincing other Democrats to also vote for the invasion. It is a fact and on record. She also was involved years later along with Barack Obama, bombing Libya which killed tens of thousands of people, and led to the millions of refugees that have flooded into Italy during the past 8 or so years. That is not even getting into Syria and how Obama lied about never putting new boots on the ground, but secretly did anyway and got caught. If you want to go back in time - JFK kickstarted the involvement in Vietnam and LBJ put it on steroids. Bill Clinton got involved in bombing Serbia in the 90s, which is debatable if she should have or not. Etc. Etc. Etc 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:BC54:6BD2:31DD:67DF (talk)

"promote positive life values (Christianity), and on the other hand are xenophobic, pro-war" I don't see a contradiction here. Christianity is not pacifistic, it embraces conflict. In Matthew 10, the agitator Jesus clearly states:

• "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it." See: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10&version=NIV Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's possible to take words out of context and present a totally different message. The word sword here is used as an allegory. The disciples did not literally carry swords and kill people. The war on poverty in comparison did not mean killing poor people. TFD (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The article already notes that US Conservatives believe in American Exceptionalism......which tends to be at the root of a lot of our wars. (That is, in my opinion. And probably a few other RS you could find.) In the interest of NPOV, it may be best to leave it there and let the reader conclude from that what he/she will.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Per

But it is not a defining aspect. America First was anti-war and that position was reflected in Robert Taft and Ron Paul and even the rhetoric of George W. Bush and Trump. Reagan probably set a record by invading only one country during his two terms. Meanwhile liberal administrations have had their share of waging war too. TFD (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Although i know this question is a troll i will bite.

Wasn't it Obama & Hillary Clinton who carpet bombed Libya which killed 10s of thousands of people and left it in ruins which it still is today? Yes it was. Syria - Obama said he would never put "new boots on the ground" but he did anyways and was caught, which makes him a warmongering liar. Along with destroying Libya. Not too mention all of the drone strikes done on innocent families just trying to do a wedding under Obama's regime...So sure - add warmongering to the list but it would need to be placed under the liberalism in the US list as well and also for Obama & Hillary's wikis. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:BC54:6BD2:31DD:67DF (talk)

This is not the place for political debate. The only topic here is the article, and proper comments are references to reliable sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Kind Tennis Fan, a year ago, posted the following (only visible to editors) "". Today, a year later, he changed all the dates in the article to mdy dates. No discussion, no posts in talk. Using mdy dates is like giving distances as feet, miles, inches. It neither goes from smallest to largest nor from largest to smallest. Wikipedia allows mdy dates, but does not require or recommend them. Is there any objection to removing the template and changing back to day month year format? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I saw the edit by User:Nanalist and I think it's good. But I also think there should be a real environmentalism section. Not much to say yet, although I found one possible source: How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism by Roger Scruton.

--DIlARWzJXpwE (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

An editor recently added a section on abortion. This seems to be out of place & POV and it should probably be blanked. It takes on a aspect of abortion really tangential to the point of the article which is conservative beliefs. We already have an article on the Mexico City policy. We mention conservative opposition to abortion elsewhere to the article.

At the very least, if kept, we should develop the section further (i.e. the history of the response of the conservative movement to abortion) and probably not give so much WEIGHT to this one aspect.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a section is justified because this is a major liberal-conservative wedge issue. But the writing violates synthesis. It says that conservative policies in fact lead to increased abortions, but the sources don't explicitly say that. TFD (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Aside from the POV/SYN issues....I just wondered was it entirely necessary considering we acknowledge their stance on abortion elsewhere. I'll see what I can put together on the history of the conservatives since Roe v. Wade. Should the part about Mexico City Policy remain at all?Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the section; the article definitely needs include a section on a totemic issue like abortion, but there wasn't any useful content there. Honestly though, a lot of the article isn't great. There's a number of disjointed sections and tangents (looking at you "Veterans organizations"). --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The following section contradicts free market thinking and is more a Trump era policy, that previously was pushed by trade unions (that ironically, were Democrat policies). There is also no source. Can it be removed? Or clarified to what specific factions of conservatism with a source?

"On the other hand, some conservatives tend to oppose free-market trade policies and support protectionism instead. They want government intervention to support the economy and protect American jobs. They oppose free trade on the ground that it benefits other countries (especially China) at the expense of American workers. However, in spite of their support for protectionism, they tend to support other free-market principles like low taxes, small government and balanced budgets."

Agreed. Outside of a handful of Republicans (i.e. Pat Buchanan and a few more), the vast majority of them have supported just about every free trade deal that has come along.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This faction always was against them though, and in the Trump-era that view's the one in vogue. That's worth noting. J390 (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That's true. So what could we call it -- the Paleoconservatism faction of conservatism? Who else priortises the restoration of controls upon free trade and a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism? Here's a column by Pat which articulates the value and potentially is how we reference it: https://www.unionleader.com/opinion/columnists/pat-buchanan-tariffs----the-taxes-that-made/article_7cc3014d-29d3-5999-add5-7e46c223b37c.html.

talk

) 02:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That's right, it should be in the paleoconservative section. J390 (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)