Template talk:Conservatism sidebar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Entry points

See Ideology#Political_ideologies – Kaihsu 19:32, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Does Bioconservatism really belong here (and does this template really belong on that page)? It seems to me that it has little to do with conservatism in the usual sense that word is used in a political context: it is "conservative" merely in the sense of "averse to risk". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed it. -Willmcw 20:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

There seems little point in a template with three items, two of which are terms not used outside the US.Ruzmanci 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

These things take time. I think one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia -- well, aside from taking up all my spare time -- is that many people think that everything needs to be changed right this minute. Rick Norwood 19:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Figures

I entered Barry Goldwater and had him removed as not a significant conservative figure. I am adding him back, as he most certainly is a significant conservative figure. --Elliskev 19:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello there Elliskev! Down to business. Barry Goldwater is a marginal figure because he was only involved in the American conservative movement, and only influenced a part of it at that. As you know, we separated American conservatism because of these concerns. Reagan belongs on the list because he won two historic elections, represents the ascendent movement of Anglo-conservatism today, he depending on your opinion may contributed to the fall of the USSR, and is still widely read and discussed. Goldwater's claim to fame is that through a dismal loss at the polls he spurred a particular wing of the conservative movement (namely, economic conservatism). Mainstream conservatives will not invoke his name because he is seen as crankish, whatever his merits, which means he is not important to the movement. Lastly, Goldwater's writing and influence is the least among the men currently on the list by far, as he only matters to (again) a small group of Americans.

Keeping in mind we will soon add German, Russian, Islamist conservatives, etc, we must exercise considerable parsimony in choosing who goes here. There is good reason to try to limit members to one of every (broad) type of conservative, and to the most important of that type. Since there is already one person representing the "American" tradition in conservatism on the menu, namely Reagan (and I think we might be able to find someone more representative) Goldwater would be a good choice to excise when I begin adding more people.

Anyone else have comments? Ogo 20:30ish Oct 12

I think you underestimate (misunderestimate?) the status of Barry Goldwater. If you ask educated Americans to name two conservatives, they would probably name Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley. Reagan and the two Bushes are, at least in intellectual circles, seen as rogue presidents, not as conservative presidents, leading the US into pointless wars, remaking society in radical ways, and greatly increasing both the spending and power of the federal government. Rick Norwood 19:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

All right -- how about we replace Reagan with Buckley? Ogo

I'd go along with that. --Elliskev 23:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Figures redux

This list could grow infinitely long if we put down every notable conservative statesman and intellectual. It needs to stay under ten and also include some non-Western folks sometime in the future, so we can't stack it (as is the tendency...) with American conservative writers.

So! Proposed criteria:

1. Folks on the list should have universal claim to their conservative credentials. Conservatives from Russia to England would recognise the conservative as roughly similar to their own, or at least constitutive of one of the world's major brands. For instance, this rules out Reagan and Thatcher, who are examples of the liberal conservative Anglo free-marketin' kind and not universally liked even among their own.

2. Only one (or at most two) representatives of a major national/cultural brand of conservatism. Only the best, best, best need apply. Parsimony dictates one must choose the cream of the crop. This means Burke over Kirk. I still think Buckley, Strauss, and Goldwater are too many bloody Americans, but...

Specific excisions:

• Disraeli -- famous statesman but not universally acclaimed, and England has Burke besides.
• Churchill -- famous statesman but not definitively a conservative. he switched parties a lot, for one thing. the pro-war left claims him as surely as the right, for another.
• Russell Kirk -- one of many noted writers. But if he's on the list, why not Richard Weaver, Allan Bloom, Robert Bork... Frankly, if Kirk is on the list and not Alexander Hamilton, then you'd need to add Hamilton and about twenty or thirty people in between their relative stations in order to justify Kirk. And I still say one out of Buckley, Strauss, and Goldwater should go, and my choice would be Goldwater.
• Konrad Adenauer -- something of a german nixon. not representative enough. metternich fills this spot much better.

Ogo 23:14 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

How about Cicero? Rick Norwood 01:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Ogo 20:20, 26Oct'05 (UTC)

Forgive my apostasy, but why does this template even need a "Figures" section? The templates for liberalism, libertarianism, etc. don't have them, nor do they have to try to sort out the ten most influential/famous/??? liberals or libertarians. --zenohockey 17:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The Figures section makes the template look awfully amateurish- like "ten of my favourite conservatives". It's hopelessly POV, and we'd be much better off without it. Mark¹ 03:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. And even amateurishness aside, it's ridiculous to isolate ten or fewer figures as central to conservatism. If this were a case, for say, American conservatism, you could probably do it. But not on a worldwide, timeless scale. If we were to have a vote, I'd say we should remove the figures section and flesh out Ideas instead. -Joshuapaquin 00:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Done and done. --ogo 13:25 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Traditionalism

I have removed the link to Traditionalism from the "Ideas" section. The link was a redirect to Tradition, a page which had no discussion whatsoever of the pertinence of tradition to politics. There is a subheading there called "traditionalism", but it refers only to the religious sense. Surely there are better things to put in the ideas section? -Joshuapaquin 07:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

We might want to put Morality in. I think a link to Tradition is fine, but the Tradition article ought to be improved. Perhaps something like Personal responsibility, but that's not common to all strands of conservatism, since a lot of traditional conservatives emphasize community and family over individualism. —thames 20:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not really know what should be thrown in there, but some ideas might be Nationalism, Limited government, Free trade, Laissez-faire, or Natural law. Maybe something about decentralisation of government? Some of these might not be true "conservative" ideas, but it is just a thought. Tradition seems to be fine though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think links to natural law, and perhaps liberty or liberalism would be appropriate. -Joshuapaquin

Well, probably not liberalism, since this is about conservatism. Liberty might be too American. But Natural law I think is good for this. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean liberalism in the classical liberalism sense. That is (from the article): Liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a free market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent, a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have by law equal rights and an equal opportunity. The contrast between the historical meaning of the word with the modern usage has been the subject of quite some discussion! -Joshuapaquin 15:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, except this template is not just for current ideology and usage. What about classic conservatism? Were classic conservatism, neoconservatism, classic libearlism, all the same? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Classical liberalism wasn't really in competition with Conservatism the way we think of Liberals and Conservatives opposing each other today. But "Classical liberalism" has a distinct meaning, much the way "Neoconservatism" does; Classical conservatism does not -- a search on google seems to indicate that when that phrase is used, it is simply referring to the basic Burkean ideas of avoiding ideological influence over society.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is this: Don't think of Classical liberalism as connected to the contemporary word "Liberal". Don't think of it as contrasting a classical form of conservatism. Think of it as a building block of modern conservative ideology. And for that reason, I think it deserves a place in the template. -Joshuapaquin 07:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Economics

Should the box contain a link to classical or neoclassical economics as economic concepts important to many conservatives? Fishal 05:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Classical economics is associated with Liberalism (in the classical liberalism sense). Many conservative orders favor non-liberal economic systems--tribal, or third way, or traditional, etc. Conservatism is mostly associated with liberal economics in North America. —thames 05:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Neotraditionalism

Google returns 837 hits (slightly more for "neotraditionalist"). Article has only one editor and three edits over the course of eleven minutes. Deserving of a spot in the template? -Joshuapaquin 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've taken it out. The creator (Albrock) says on his talk page that it is a term frequently used among laymen in the US South, but not among academics. I'm inclined to assume good faith and honesty, but the failure on google test is pretty severe. So I'm taking this out, until it can be factually established that this political movement does in fact exist. -Joshuapaquin 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ideas

The ideas section looks very sparse. It's a hard section to fill, mostly because of the diversity of movements of ideologies labeled "conservative" throughout the world and throughout history. I propose adding two ideas, but I'm interested in what others think should be included. I think both Morality and Conservationism could be added to the ideas section. —thames 17:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Above, under the "Neotraditionalism" heading, their was some discussion of this. Morality was suggested as something that should be in the template. I'd hesitate with that, because I think all political movements would lay a claim to that particular idea.

Now, in North America, Conservative movements are rarely associated with Conservationism (at least, not in the sense that the article on Conservationism describes). So unless that's different internationally, I'm not so sure about that one either.

I'll stick by what I said before, that Classical liberalism should be listed. -Joshuapaquin (strawpoll) 20:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not worried by the fact that the ideas section is sparse; believe me, you don't want the template getting too long (I've seen it happen to others, and it generally creates a mess of things). The ideas that should be listed must, IMO, meet two criteria:

1. They should have a strong association with conservatism, and no such association with other ideologies.
2. They should be found (more or less) in conservative movements all over the world, as opposed to conservative movements in a particular country.

Classical liberal ideas (such as natural law) are considered conservative in the Anglo-Saxon countries, but not anywhere else. Including them in the template would mean giving it an Anglocentric (or Americocentric) bias. Morality is found in every ideology. After all, every ideology says that something is good and something else is bad. That's morality. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Social conservatism and tradtion are mutually exclusive with Freedom (political) and Individual rights when enforced by law. Is there a way for the template to note that the ideas section is self-contradictory?

Regarding Christian democracy

I brought up this issue on the talk page for Christian Democracy. In short, I propose replacing Christian Democracy on this template with Christian right. Christian democracy takes a broadly leftist approach to economic matters, and could seemingly be placed on the leftism template with as much justification as here. Juan Ponderas

Actually, different Christian Democrats take different approaches on economic matters. In Europe, virtually every single Christian Democratic party supports "right-wing" (that is, free market) economics. In Latin America the Christian Democrats support leftist policies instead. What all Christian Democrats have in common is their social conservatism. And notice that conservatism itself isn't necessarily pro free market. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Point taken regarding economic policies, but to a degree its relative to native politics; I suspect what's considered right-wing in Germany would be considered leftist in the United States. And I stand by my comparison to libertarians; while they personally disagree on social issues such as the death penalty, they are united by their right-wing economic policies. By conservatism itself I assume you mean resistance to rapid change, which doesn't imply free markets; however, I don't see how Christian Democrats fit such a definition. Juan Ponderas 05:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Standards for links

I think we need to develop some kind of standard to determine what should be in this template. I'm looking at the links that are there now, and note that the following articles have almost no content:

• Liberal conservatism
• National conservatism

Others are very weak, including:

• Social conservatism

Or are out-of-place in the template, compared to other links:

• Fiscal conservatism.

I would propose that we adopt the following guidelines:

1. The article must exist, and have been developed beyond 'stub' status.
2. The article must be clearly pertinent in a general overview of Conservatism.
3. The article must be relevant internationally.

Thoughts? -Joshuapaquin 19:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like the idea of some kind of standard, but I don't really care for your third guideline. I see nothing wrong with including American conservatism or Canadian conservatism, etc. in the template. It would be good to see an idea of how conservatism is regarded around the world. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Electionworld's edits

The template increased in width today, with the "Part of the series on" made larger. It's actually looking pretty different at the top for a few tweaky changes, and to be honest I liked it better before. Thoughts? -Joshuapaquin 06:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Conservative ideas

I see there has been a proliferation of links in the 'ideas' section, and an anon user's recent attempt to trim it down has been reverted. I mostly agree with anon's edits, and propose the following two criteria for what does not count as a conservative idea:

1. The idea does not have to be unique to conservatism, but it must not be something shared by conservatism and its main political opponents (specifically, liberalism and socialism). Ideas shared by just about everyone across the political spectrum (like freedom and morality) certainly don't count as conservative ideas.
2. The idea must not be something that is only endorsed by some conservatives in some parts of the world. In particular, please do not list things that are central only to American conservatism, like free markets and individual rights. Many conservatives support some degree of government intervention in the economy and believe that tradition trumps individual rights. Also, originalism is a specifically American issue. You can create a separate template for American conservatism if you wish, but this one is about worldwide conservatism.

-- Nikodemos 02:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism is not necessarily a conservative idea (conservatives in China support communism)... Neither is heirarchy nor private property. Social conservatism probably is an aspect, albiet it really depends on the society in relationship to other societies. Social order? Who knows? Tradition--probably the only accurate one on the list. ER MD 07:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism is not keeping society the same, it is a political ideology and movement, largely defined by the western terms where it originated. Thus communism is not ever conservative, no matter how long it has been in power. 69.104.57.74 10:00, July 20 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I would argue that hierarchy is a conservative idea - all conservatives share it, and all major opponents of conservatism oppose it to some degree. Also, note that "fiscal conservatism" is an exclusively American term, and rule of law is not necessarily conservative. -- Nikodemos 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with heirarchy--maybe you could show a link where conservatives advocate a heirarchy but it and of itself is not a conservative idea. It may be the byproduct of keeping a society together that already has some form of social heirarchy, but not a main prinicle--conservatives in a socialist system do not necessarily support it. It does seem that rule of law is an aspect. Liberals embrace individuality, whereas a conservative believes that the laws and civil order is superior to maintence of a scoiety and hence, individuality and freedom are somewhat restrained. Hence rule of law has to be an aspect. ER MD 07:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rule of law is a much more general concept than that. It simply refers to a political situation where everyone has to obey the law - as opposed to, say, traditional monarchies, where the king was above the law. As such, rule of law is shared by all modern political ideologies. They may disagree on what the law should be, but they agree that everyone should be bound by it.

Rule of law is not supported by all modern political ideologies. There are still monarchs who support monarchy, and such ideologies as anarchy and fascism and, in practice, communism. 69.104.57.74 10:00, July 20 2006 (UTC)

As for hierarchy, even conservatives in China support it, since they support the role of the Communist Party as leader of society. But perhaps we should link to social order instead, since there is clearly no controversy there. All conservatives support social order and oppose the individualism of the liberals and the class struggle of the socialists. -- Nikodemos 22:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism does not oppose individualism. In it's modern, western derived form, it is usually all about it, except if it seriously conflicts with social order and/or morality, usually defined as the traditional Judeo-Christian morality. One can not define conservatism as simply those for keeping society the same or orderly(whose order), as that redefines it for every society, and thus it does not exist. One conservative may try to "conserve" democracy, the other monarchy, one individual freedom, the other total social control, depending on the society. Perhaps if a society was totally dedicated to anarchy the "conservatism" there would try to make sure no rule of law was instituted. So you can't use the definition of what all "conservatives" in the world have in common, defining conservatism as just keeping things the same, as that defines it out of existence. Conservatism, as a political movement, which is what this template is about, is based on the western notions of Judeo-Christian morality, private property, rule of law, democracy, capitalism, individual freedom ect. 69.104.57.74 10:00, July 20 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, I would disagree with a few of the terms that you use. I agree that monarchs created laws at a whim(more of a dictatorship), but they technically just created new law and not necessarily violated the law. I agree that all systems of government have rule of law as one of its function. I would only put it in conservative since the philosophical stance is that the stability of government and institutions is more important that individual rights. Liberalism, on the other hand, (at least in the classical view) argues that individual rights were more important that the laws established by the "traditional" monarchies. Hence, individuality or civil rights might be more apt for liberalism and not for conservatism. Basically it is a parallel structure. I agree that heirarchy is not the appropriate word. Some "traditional" governments did espose that heirarchy was necessary but they put it in terms of the "ruling class" (or whatever term they used) since they argued that it was necessary for somebody to make decisions for the "uneducated" proletariat. True, it may have established a heirarchy, but the ideology did not necessarily state that heirarchy was goal, instead it was the fact that they believed they made better decisions for the people. As an example, communism and socialism had the beliefs that society be essentially equal in terms of means and ends, yet they eventually form heirarchical strutures to accomplish these goals. I would agree that social order is an aspect of conservatism, but it is not necessary a principle. Rule of law technically creates social order, obviously based on the laws that it creates. ER MD 20:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Who on God's good earth put patriotism as a conservative stance? I am a liberal myself and there are others like me, and we are liberal because we are patriotic. True, conservatives are more likely to support national tradition and actions (My country, right or wrong), but this is love of tradition, not country, thus it isn't patriotism. SuperWikiman 10:39, 28 June 2006(UTC)

Strange formatting?

Can someone who does templates look at this one? On my Platform/browser at least (Apple/Firefox) it doesn't seem to allow text to be next to it (i.e. it moves it all down until after the template). For example, on the Conservatism page when it loads all I see is white space and the template until I scroll down. If I delete the template and look at the preview it looks fine.--Koeppen 05:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. It looks fine on American Conservatism, perhaps it's the Conservatism page not the template?--Koeppen 05:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Must have been the ghost in the shell, it looks fine now and doesn't look like any changes have been made.--Koeppen 22:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideas

I have readded several conservative ideas. I'll simply make this point. As the liberalism template is defined in western terms and western history, as liberalism is a product of the west largely, so Burke's conservatism is largely a reaction to excesses of western liberalism in the west and around the world, and so is defined by what it is in the west, which are the ideas I've listed. As I said before, every society has "conservatives" who are for keeping that society the same, but as every society is different, then so are "conservatives" different everywhere, and thus there really is no such thing as conservatism. This is obviously not true, and so "conservatism" is defined as a political movement, but which political movement? Not communism, not ararchy, and not liberalism, although modern conservatives are much like liberals of yesterday. The modern conservative political movement is largely for much of liberalism minus what is perceived as liberal excesses. Conservatism is for free markets, democracy, freedom, but not for socialism, moral relativism, pacifism. Either we define it as the political movement it is today, or it does not really exist and so should be deleted. 69.104.245.166 12:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if we define conservatism in purely Western terms, the ideas section should still contain ideas that are either unique to conservatism or that are emphasized far more by conservatives than by anyone else. In other words, when determining the contents of the ideas section, we should be asking ourselves: What separates conservatism from other political ideologies?

Anon, I take issue with several of the ideas you added. First, originalism is purely an American issue. We may define conservatism in strictly Western terms, but it would be absurd to define it in strictly American terms. Second, individual rights and free markets are liberal concepts. True, they have been embraced by most modern conservatives, but that doesn't make them key conservative ideas. There are many things that modern conservatives accept but that more rightfully belong to other ideologies. For example, most modern conservatives accept the welfare state, but no one could claim that the welfare state is a conservative idea. And there are many self-described conservatives in Europe that oppose free markets and many of the individual rights proposed by liberals. Third, freedom is a broad concept that all ideologies claim to uphold. Fourth, and finally, there may be some merit in considering capitalism a conservative idea if we limit ourselves to Western conservatism. -- Nikodemos 00:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On you're first point, you're wrong. What is uniquely conservative is not the sole definition of conservatism. Libertarianism for instance is also for free markets and private property, as is liberalism. They can share ideas without being totally the same. These things are what most conservatives today are for, and therefore they do define modern conservatism. Conservatives do have a goal of tradition and slow gradual change versus revolutionary change, but what are they actually for conserving today? The things that they feel are the best products of the history of the west minus what they feel are the worst products of modern liberalism, such as moral relativism and a creep toward socialism.

Fair enough about originalism. And most modern conservatives do not accept the welfare state, even though most conservative leaning political parties do, the ideology does not. Most conservatives do not oppose the free market or individual rights. 68.122.15.254 08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, how do we know what "most" conservatives do or do not support? It's not as if either of us conducted a poll among self-described conservatives worldwide to see what their views are.

There are two ways to determine what ideas can be called "conservative": (1) Take a poll among self-described conservatives and see what they believe (which we cannot do), or (2) look at the ideas supported by prominent conservative ideologues. I have serious misgivings about including free markets and individual rights on a conservatism template precisely because conservative ideologues spent over a hundred years (the 19th century) arguing against those things. Conservatism eventually accepted free markets and individual rights, but only in the same way that it accepted the welfare state. And even today, many conservatives argue for protectionism (against free markets), and for the preservation of various cultural norms against some of the individual rights advocated by liberals. -- Nikodemos 21:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We can find a poll, which I will look for. I guarantee you that most conservatives today do support the free market and individual rights. The 19th century? Isn't it the 21st? What did "conservatives" support in the 5th century BC? Come on. Most "liberals" in the 19th century were not for massive welfare for instance, but most "liberals" today are. And most conservatives have not accepted the welfare state but actively work against it. It's right leaning political parties that have accepted it in some way for political reasons. Which conservatives argue for protectionism? I can only think of a few, while I can think of vastly many more who are against it, and you could argue if they favor protectionism they are not really conservative. And individual rights is a cultural norm, a cultural norm of the modern west. Now tell me which individual rights are opposed by conservatives? Other than certain sex acts and drug use, I can't think of any. And "liberals" of the past were largely opposed to these types of things too. As I have said, today's conservatism is largely what liberalism was in the past minus what they feel is it's excesses such as massive welfare, utopian pacisism, near socialism, group rights, reverse discrimination to help members of selected minorities, unsustainable social mores ect..., all of which many modern "liberals" favor. I'll get back to you when I find a poll. Until then, they are to be reinserted. Have a nice day. 71.237.90.136 07:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, I think this template is suffering from the same problems we saw on Template:Christian Democracy sidebar and Template:Political ideologies without criteria for inclusion, this will never work. We must get some third sources and/or criteria to include ideas here -and on other ideology templates-.

Furthermore I do believe that "71.237.90.136" edits are biased towards the current US conservatism/liberalism divide. We must also look at what conservatives in other parts of the world and periods in history (with the realization that conservatism only developed in the 1800s as a reaction to the French revolution): protectionism is certainly a part of that broader picture. C mon 11:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Economics & the Individual

In the ideas section, Capitalism, Free Market, and Individual rights are mostly unique to Anglo-American "conservatism." Conservatism elsewhere in the world does not favor these ideas. German conservatism was essentially socialist. American paleoconservatives favor protectionism. Even English conservatism has things like the single land tax which is not a capitalist/free market idea. Capitalism/Free markets/Individual rights belong broadly in the liberal tradition, not the conservative tradition. Adam Smith and Locke were liberals not conservatives, and were rebelling against the conservatism of mercantilism and the monarchy. Individual rights in most places in the world is not a conservative idea but a very liberal idea--in most places conservatives favor communitarian approaches, putting the nation or the community or other group identity over the individual.—Perceval 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what I have been trying to explain to the anon user above. With your and C mon's approval, I will edit the template accordingly. -- Nikodemos 23:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you guys are defining conservatism as simply those people who are for keeping their society the same, and if that is to be the definition then the only idea allowed would be tradition, and conservatives are obviously for more than that. And they are not always for tradition. Many conservatives today are for instance against the welfare state, which is a generations old tradition in the west. Conservatism is a political movement, and the ideas I have reinserted are recognized by almost everyone as favored by modern conservatives. I will find appropriate cites for them since this issue is obviously not going away, but any ideas you delete or put in will also need cites, and none really are currently cited. 71.56.217.130 09:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Collapsable sections

There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like this, such as {{Social democracy sidebar}}, {{Christian Democracy sidebar}} etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New template

Recently, I have created a new version of this conservatism template. After I created this, however, some editors still revert this back to the old version. Thus, I elaborate my opposition to the old version below.

The old template contains not just one, but several flaws. First, this new template, which looks smaller, leaves more space left for other content. Contrastingly, the larger size of the old template, three-halves the height of this new version, does not quite fit in many of the smaller articles. If we place the old version of the template in the small article, cultural conservatism, then its large size will stretch the article to leave an impermissibly large white space at the bottom.

Larger articles, besides small ones, will benefit from this smaller version too. If we use the old template in the article compassionate conservatism, then the larger size will push the text below the introductory section down.

Second, this newer version has a style consistent to the template proposals by User:C_mon/template. This template has the same width dimension and background color in similar templates such as {{social democracy sidebar}} and {{Christian democracy sidebar}}.

Third, this template, due to its small size, does not need show/hide collapsible sections, as in similar political templates. This small template already leaves enough room for other content even without the collapsible sections. However, if we want to use the old template, then we must implement show/hide sections, due to the large size of the old version. This new template does not require any show/hide sections because of its small size, which makes it better to use.

Radical restyling

I reverted some radical change made without discussion. Better talking before. 79.16.23.207 (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

I am adding Fascism to the template. Fascism is an important or at least a historically significant branch of conservativism. --195.30.17.81 (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to mix up right wing European activities like Fascism with an ideology that in Europe is often called Liberal. None of the people or groups on the template are connected to fascism. Rjensen (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User: 195.30.17.81 is a sockpuppet of banned user Magyar nem ember--B@xter⁹ 20:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)