Talk:Conservatism in the United States

Social Conservatism and Christianity

It certainly looks like a veteran Edit Warrior has made this concept his new hill to die upon. Regardless, this article is entitled "Cosnervatism in the United States," and Conservative "morality" in the USA is based almost solely, 100%, upon Christian Biblical "morality" and tradition. To deny that is to contradict all of the sources used, as well as to do nothing but original research as well. Certainly, in Islamic countries, Conservative "morality" is based on Islam, rather than Christianity...but this article is about Conservatism in the USA...not other places. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

leading social conservatives usually use the term "Judeo-Christian". This is tied to their VERY strong support of Israel and use of Old Testament & also major role of Jewish conservatives typified by Commentary magazine & also Orthodox Jews . Rjensen (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

They may also claim that the morality is grounded in what God holds; that does not mean that we embrace that as fact for the article. The "Social" aspect of conservatism in the US has often been quite anti-semitic, and support for Israel is obviously not something that blankets the whole conservative history in the US (which many social conservatives view as a "Christian nation", no Judeo- about it.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, whether the term "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian" is used...we're talking about deriving "morality" from the Bible...and the person attempting to delete all references to Christianity has no legitimate, factual leg to stand on. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "Judeo" in Judeo-Christian is an afterthought, and the support of Isreal is motivated, in part, by a desire to bring about the second coming of Christ. But we should be careful, in discussing "Christian morality", to say something to the effect that "American Conservatives claim to base their beliefs on Christian morality". There is actually nothing at all Christian or Biblical about these beliefs, and many surveys have shown that most Americans who call themselves Christian have never read the Bible. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The source says, "Postwar conservatives set about creating their own synthesis of free-market capitalism, Christian morality, and the global struggle against Communism." (Edwards, Conservatism in America, p. 9) It does not seem to have much in common with the Christianity It is a specific type of protestant Christianity, although the appeal has been widened to Catholics and Jews. TFD (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The list of prominent conservatives

Alberto Gonzales was Attorney General for three years; a very prominent position where he was allowed to influence policy quite a bit, as is the case with the State, Defense, and Justice departments. If we can keep Bolton, who was United Nations ambassador, we can keep him. Bobby Jindal is a pretty influential governor who's seen as one of the party's rising stars. He has influenced the news quite a bit, moreso than Governor McDonnell, and is one of the most recognized Governors in the country, with multiple events putting him in the spotlight. Rand Paul and Rubio did just get elected last year, but you have to remember that McDonnell and even Christie were only elected the year before that. They are known for the positions they stake and for influencing policy in the Senate. These four are more prominent than S.E. Cupp, Dana Perino, and Eric Erickson as far as being influential conservatives goes. J390 (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree Rand Paul and Rubio are more prominent than Cupp, Perino, and probably Erickson. But I think our inclusion criteria is too leniant. I am a huge fan of Rand Paul but he has only been in Washington for half a year, and even then he is more of a libertarian than a conservative. Christie is becoming known nationwide as a sort of "in-your-face" conservative. McDonnell is somewhere in between. Anyway, that is all just my personal take...is there any way to prevent this list from becoming WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH? –CWenger (^ • @) 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If the list is becoming too lenient, why not trim people like Cupp and Perino? Jindal and Gonzales have had time to influence policy and get name recognition; Rand and Rubio will get time to influence it in time, are already starting to, and do have a national profile. We do have libertarians on this list, Rand Paul's dad coming to mind. McDonnell keeps a lower profile than Christie, so the criteria for including him wouldn't be as strong. J390 (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you are probably right. I was trying to balance any bias toward keeping more elected politicians, but Perino and Cupp probably wouldn't make the cut anyway. I am not sure Gonzales really influenced policy much. Jindal either—I think his biggest moment was the State of the Union speech response. I am for eliminating all the people discussed here except for Chris Christie, as I think he has really affected conservatism nationwide. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gonzales was in a powerful position as AG. He did get the spotlight during his tenure, like his contemporaries in the top positions in the Bush administration, and he even influenced policy on the EIT/torture debate before becoming AG, which wouldn't be enough on it's own (John Yoo). He belongs on a list that has John Bolton on it, although Bolton is also a high-profile pundit. A liberal list would likely have Reno and Holder, so a conservative list should probably have Gonzales more likely than not, as he did get sufficient name recognition in the news. Jindal has been in office four years, and in that time, has been one of the Governors with one of the highest national profiles. His biggest moments were probably the response to the SOTU and his efforts to clean up after the oil spill last year. Anyhow, he has indeed kept a higher national profile than McDonnell. We shouldn't have any stricter or more lenient policy towards keeping politicians than towards keeping pundits. But a pundit probably has to do more to become notable, since it's not just any one of them can influence policy as much as a politician in an elected or appointed position. Cupp and Perino would probably not make the cut under that criteria. Prominent radio hosts, of course, and TV hosts, should be kept. High-profile pundits should, but not more minor pundits. We can't pick run-of-the-mill politicians or pundits who haven't influenced things that much. So I guess the four listed should be either kept or if they aren't there should be some trimming down of entries that aren't really that notable. But Christie should definitely stay on this list. J390 (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole section is problematic because it is unsourced, and grounded in no visible standards. On what basis can we state definitively that Abraham Lincoln was a "conservative"? He fought for a break from tradition and strong change that included shifting power from the states to the federal government. Are there conservatives who claim him for their camp? Sure... but there are also conservatives who claim Barack Obama for their camp; should we thus include him? --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

we have discussed Lincoln at length here--most conservatives today hail him (while liberals seldom claim him anymore). The RS cover current personalities and are used as our source--see for example the Fronen, ed. Encyclopedia. Rjensen (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that conservatives hail him does not therefor make him a conservative; it can be just folks trying to claim a popular figure as their own. (As Archie Bunker said when a neighbor told him that Jesus was an Ethiopian: "The Ethopians say he was an Ethiopian; the Presbyterians say he was a Presbyterian...") I have seen some of the discussions here on it, and they don't seem to have reached consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln was the leader of the moderates and conservatives of the GOP against the Radicals, and called himself a conservative (esp in his fanmous 1860 Cooper Union address). He called slavery unamerican and fought its expansion. Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And I can point to a variety of historians labeling Lincoln a liberal; claiming him for the conservative camp fails to be WP:NPOV. People point to previous discussions here as though they reached consensus, which they did not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what "conservative" means. If it starts with Hamilton, who was a major influence on the German Conservative Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, then Lincoln was a conservative. But if it ends with the Tea Party, then it begins with people such as Samuel Adams. TFD (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

this is a historical article that risks distortion by defining terms good for 200+ years according to 2011's Tea Party--which is barely 2 years old and which seems to be split today (Cantor for example supports Boehner Plan and most TP's seem to reject it--but that's true for July 26 and who knows what will be on July 29!. Hence let's try to keep long-term perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 08:40, 27 July 2011

That's a big problem with building this article and particularly with trying to consistently apply the term in historic context. I look back at some of the earlier Lincoln arguments that seem to rely on things like Lincoln was against slavery, today's conservatives oppose slavery, and thus Lincoln is a conservative, overlooking that opposing slavery at the time was a strong fight against tradition, a radical change (and also, of course, that there is no substantial pro-slavery group in the U.S.) There is strong POV involved in deciding just what set of beliefs is "conservative" and how it applies to various times. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Slavery was not a tradition in the Northern States that elected Lincoln. TFD (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Lincoln from the list. He did not call himself a conservative, and was considered a morderate. Due to his status, people from both sides will claim him as their own. However, you'll find most criticism of Lincoln coming from southern paleoconservatives and right-wing libertarians like Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul and Thomas DiLorenzo. Liberal praise them for using the Ferderal Government to abolish slavery. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Was Lincoln a conservative (again!)

We have been over this ground repeatedly. The recent rewrite confuses three meanings of the word "conservative", it's original meaning, the way it was used in Lincoln's day, and the way it is used today. The original meaning of conservative was "one who supported the social hierarchy, including support for slavery. Lincoln was not a conservative in that sense. The sense in which Lincoln used the word, in his Cooper Union speech, was "one who supports the union", but he was using that word in that way in an effort to appeal to voters, and it no more makes him a conservative than Kennedy's Berlin speech makes him a Berliner. Finally, the recent rewrite pretends that the modern claim of conservatives -- that they are not pro Upper Class but really "pro-business", would have been meaningless in Lincoln's time.

To support a claim that Lincoln was a conservative, you need to cite a mainstream book that says so. In fact, on the basis that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, you should cite several major mainstream books that support your view. As I've pointed out, none of the major histories of the Civil War, none of the major biographies of Lincoln, say he was a conservative. It is a claim made by conservatives writing in support of conservatism. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This the first time I've ever heard any discussion about Lincoln and conservatism. I find your last statement puzzling. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of the great comedy skit by Dave Chapelle about the Race Draft. I love that we need extraordinary proof to state that a Republican was a conservative! If only that were the case today!  :) Arzel (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The idea that "Republicans=Conservatives" and "Democrats=Liberals" is a recent invention, and has only been (mostly) true since the late 1960s (See: Southern Strategy). Prior to that, there were plenty of Conservative, or even Far Right Democrats (like the KKK...), and plenty of Liberal, or even Far Left Republicans (like the Radical Republicans and Thaddeus Stevens). Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

the statements about Lincoln are fully sourced by leading scholars. All his biographers agree he led the conservative-moderate faction against the Radicals. In the case of Norwood he is erasing sourced material based on his own personal views with no citations to any scholar who might support his position. He seems to know more about Kennedy than Lincoln. Rjensen (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Being a conservative-moderate within a party does not make one conservative in the larger sense of even the time, as it's a relative description (just as today, a "conservative Democrat" may still be to the left of a "liberal Republican"), much less does it fit Lincoln as a conservative by today's measures. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln was a conservative Whig, his biographers all agree. He called himself a conservative in bipartisan terms, esp in the famous Cooper Union address. By 21st century measures, he was pro-business, pro-American dream, pro-military, pro-liberty, anti-slavery, anti-Radical, and strongly nationalistic. That's why 21st century conservatives like him. Rjensen (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In an article about conservatism in the U.S., a highly influential book about American conservatism trumps a Lincoln bio. Russell Kirk wrote up Lincoln as a conservative in the The Conservative Mind. That is certainly relevant to this article. That various authors have claimed Lincoln as a liberal does not disprove the claim that he was a conservatives. We don't have to resolve the paradox, just follow the sources. Lincoln explained why he considered himself a conservative in one of his most famous speeches. To leave this stuff out is to rewrite history because you don't like the way it happened. Kauffner (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

All those things are great in supporting that modern American conservatives try to embrace Lincoln and why, but to suggest that Kirk says something and thus is true is to suggest there is only one way to view conservatism, and that is Kirk's. Trying to say things like he was "pro-Business" and "pro-American dream" as making him a conservative is simply buying into a limited conservative view of who they are and who everyone else is. I doubt the plantation owners of the time thought much about the new federal regulations being laden on their industry, and the liberals of today will also tell you that they are pro-business, pro-American dream, and anti-slavery. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

NatGertler is perhaps unsure what happened when he says "I doubt the plantation owners of the time thought much about the new federal regulations being laden on their industry". There were no such regulations under Lincoln.Rjensen (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Slavery does not exist under common law and can only be established through regulation. However such regulations are prohibited by the U.S. constitution. TFD (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There was this little thing called the Emancipation Proclamation, which eliminated the rights of plantation owners (and others, of course, but it had the biggest impact there) from owning certain assets which had been of great import to their businesses. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are sources that say that Lincoln was a conservative, it should be easy to attribute the statements to those sources. If there are other sources that say that he is not a conservative, it should be equally as easy to attribute those sources. For the fairness of balanced POV, each side should be given due weight and/or represented here or in Lincoln's article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The section on Lincoln, as it stands at the moment, seems fair, giving ways in which Lincoln was more (lower case c) conservative than the radicals, but not claiming him as an (upper case C) Conservative, which in Lincoln's day meant pro-slavery. Kirk is not a major authority on Lincoln; he wrote to promote conservatism. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Kirk did not say that Lincoln was a conservative, because to him conservatism had died out in the North with the election of Jefferson. However, if we use the definition of conservative as the party of the establishment, then Lincoln was in a long tradition stretching from Hamilton to Roosevelt to George W. Bush that was willing to use the power of the federal government to advance public policy. If we believe that Gone with the Wind was a history book, then only southerners could be conservatives. If we use modern popular definitions, then conservatism was represented by the Copperheads. TFD (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Norwood is mistaken in arguing the conservative = pro-slavery. Not in 1860. The pro-slavery people wanted to expand slavery into the territories and (Dred Scott) be able to take and work their slaves in free states. They wanted to expand to Cuba (Ostend Manifesto). Lincoln (Cooper Union and many speeches) denounced this as a radical new innovation and argued that the Republicans were the true "conservatives" because they held to the original views of the Founding Fathers. Most historians in 21st century agree with Lincoln on this point; I don't know of any RS that support Norwood's position, and Norwood does not know any either. As for Kirk, he provides evidence of what conservatives believe, which is the topic of this article. Rjensen (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Kirk was very influential in mid-20th century Conservatism which was a fusion of various groups. But the meaning of the word has changed over time. In Lincoln's day, (lower case c) conservative meant (OED) "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion", while (capital C) Conservative meant (OED again) "of or relating to the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party in another country". The Republican party was not a (capital C) Conservative party. So, to discuss Lincoln in the (I think much too long) history section, and to say that he was "conservative" compared to the radical Republicans is fine. To claim him as a Conervative is not. He was conservative in fighting to preserve the union. The South was conservative in fighting to maintain their "peculiar institution". But none of these have anything to do with the Conservative political movement which is the subject of this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Norwood gives the British usage. For American usage better read Lincoln's Cooper Union speech and his other 1859-60 speeches, which as the RS report, emphasized that he was the conservative and the Democrats were trying to change American traditions. Lincoln repeatedly called himself a conservative, by which he said he meant faithful to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. That is a common conservative theme in 2011 (the Tea Party folk even dress up like Founding Fathers and use the 1773 Boston tea Party for their name). Here is what Lincoln said in a speech in Ohio in 1859: "The chief and real purpose of the Republican party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change in reference to it than that which the original framers of the Government hemselves expected and looked forward to." [Collected Works 3:404] Rjensen (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Tea Party folk dress up like Founding Fathers, but many of them don't know anything about the Founding Fathers. (Paul Revere rode to warn the British not to take away our guns.) Both Liberals and Conservatives claim to support Truth, Justice, and the American Way (and claim the other side doesn't). This is political rhetoric. As I've said before, Lincoln was a conservative, but not a Conservative. If Lincoln was a Conservative, at least one of the major books on Lincoln (by a Lincoln scholar, not by a Conservative advocate) would say so. In fact, if Lincoln were really a Conservative, all of the books about Lincoln would say so, just as all the of the books about Barry Goldwater say he was a Conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Norwood really should read Lincoln's speeches. As for biographies he should read Benjamin Thomas, Guelzo and Harris. He seems to have read none of them. Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There are countless books on Lincoln and the Civil War; nobody can read them all. I haven't read Thomas, Guelzo and Harris, but I have read Bruce Catton, Shelby Foote, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and many others. I've also read many of Lincoln's speeches, and memorized a few. By the way, the way the article reads after your recent edit is fine. (I still think the history section is too long, but I'm probably not the right person to try to shorten it.) Rick Norwood (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It brings us back to the question, what is conservatism in the United States? Is it the Federalist/Whig/Republican party? Is it the Hamiltonian view of a strong central government run by the elites? Is it a decentralized state run by the middle class? Is it support for the established church or support for sects? Is it support of tariffs or support of free trade? TFD (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, TFD, we're talking here about 30%-50% or so of the politically active population for the last 250 years, and that covers a LOT of territory. The goal of the article is indeed to answer how all the different movements relate to conservatism. Happily there are a lot of good RS. (I especially like Allitt and Fronen for their concise, to-the-point coverage.) Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln was certainly in the Federalist/Whig/Republican tradition. He was supported by the Northeastern establishment and by the wealthier Northern citizens. He does differ from other "conservatives" in that he appealed to radicals, rather than reactionaries. TFD (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln "appealed to radicals"??? he disagreed with the Radicals and vetoed their plans, and seemed to have the upper hand until he was killed. Identifying "conservative" with "reactionary" applies to Europe, not US. (Reagan, Friedman as reactionaries???) Rjensen (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Radicals voted for Lincoln in 1860 and some served in his administration, Copperheads did not. A typical "conservative" would have appealed to the Copperheads and radicals would have supported someone else. TFD (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, we're playing a shell game, where we have to guess which meaning is hidden under the shell "conservative", and it may get switched around in mid-sentence. Lincoln was a conservative (people who support the Constitution are conservative) and he was conservative (cautious, not radical) and he was a Whig, and the Whigs were conservative (support for the upper class) in contrast to the Jeffersonian Democrats (populist). But he put people of all views in his cabinet (see A Team of Rivels). He was a Liberal (fought a War to presevere the Federal Government against the Conservatives who believed in States Rights), he was liberal (generous in victory to the vanquished), and was a liberal Whig (later Republican) because he appealed to the common man rather than just the upper class, and was never a member of the upper class. In Lincolns day, the only captial C "Conservative" party was the Southern Whig party, and they did indeed call themselves "Conservative Whigs" to distinguish themselves from the Northern Whigs. Every American considered himself a Liberal.

This entire discussion has nothing to do with the article, which is about the capital C Conservative movement which began in the 1950s. Do we need to do with this article what we did with Liberalism in the United States, and split off Modern Conservatism in the United States?

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Norwood invents history. For example there never was a party that called itself "Conservative Whig". (There was a "Conservative" party in the South after Lincoln's death which probably is the source of Norwood's mistake.) Lincoln was one of the richest and most powerful men in Springfield, which makes him as "upper class" as anyone there. From 1840 onward till the death of the party about 1855 all the Whigs appealed to the common man, say the historians. "Every American considered himself a Liberal." is false. The term "Liberal" in American politics was first used in 1872 when anti-Grant people formed a party. Rjensen (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest...while I disagree that Lincoln could ever be considered a "Conservative," (Moderate maybe...but the Right in the 1860s were primarily pro-slavery) but I think Rjensen has put forth a reasonable defense that some reputable sources consider him to be such. I think the language should reflect the fact that there is no general consensus among all historians on this matter or anything, but if he wants to present Lincoln as being viewed as a "Conservative" by those sources, while also mentioning that there is some dissent on the matter, I think that would be a reasonable compromise. Also, I think any discussion of Lincoln as a "Conservative" should state that this largely comes from his being to the Right of the Radical Republicans and the other anti-slavery Left-Wingers, like Thaddeus Stevens, rather than falling into the pseudo-historical nonsense of trying to define the South as being "Left/Liberal," simply because of the racism of Southern Conservative Democrats...when Lincoln was clearly to the Left of those guys. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with making modern conservatism in the U.S. a separate article. There is no consensus on the meaning of conservatism for earlier periods, or even that it is meaningful to use the term. Bryonmorrigan, the theory that Lincoln was conservative does not imply that the South was liberal. Supposedly a conservative in a slave state would defend slavery while a conservative in a free state would not. TFD (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

the consensus of scholars is that conservatism today is a continuation of an ideology that emerged in the 18th century. Likewise all conservatives today say that. Who says otherwise? Rjensen (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, many modern Conservatives do indeed imply that the South, later also including the KKK and pro-Segregation Democrats, were "Left/Liberal," and that the Radical Republicans were actually "Right/Conservatives," simply due to their membership in the Republican Party...which is based on the fallacy of thinking that the GOP has always been a bastion of Conservatism. (A ludicrous idea...) While I don't think Rjensen was intending to make that kind of a statement, similar ones have been used in defense of the Lincoln=Conservative argument by other editors, and this article should not contribute to such absurd pseudo-historical claptrap. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter Viereck ("The revolt against the elite" (1955))[1] traced it to populism. Kirk said it had died out in 1800. Bryanmorrigan, we can deal with those fringe theories if they come up. But the South as conservative is a myth also. The planatation system was inherently capitalist, not some remnant of feudalism. TFD (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The South was still much more Socially Conservative than the North, as evidenced by their support for slavery. Left/Right is not always about economics...but we're digressing. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The theory that the South was conservative is central to Kirk's thesis that there is/was conservatism in the United States. There is nothing "conservative" about slavery. Slaves were private property. And "socially conservative" has nothing to do with conservatism. The Puritans, Methodists and Populists were "socially conservative". Mao's China was "socially conservative". TFD (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To address Rjensen's claim that I "invent" history, it is easy to make claims if you don't give your references. 1) Here is what the Wikipedia article Whig Party (United States) says, "In the South during the latter part of the war and Reconstruction, many former Whigs tried to regroup in the South, calling themselves "Conservatives" and hoping to reconnect with ex-Whigs in the North" I know we can't use Wikipedia as a reference, but I don't have access to the complete article that is given as a reference: Alexander, Thomas B. "Persistent Whiggery in the Confederate South, 1860-1877," Journal of Southern History, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Aug., 1961), pp. 305–329 online at JSTOR. The link only gives the first page. Maybe someone who can access the whole article can provide more information. 2) Being rich and powerful does not make one Upper Class, at best it makes one nouveau riche. One must be born into the Upper Class, thus organizations such as the DAR. Lincoln was consistently mocked for his lack of an Upper Class background. He was a "country bumpkin" who had no business meddling in the important business of politics. But I also doubt your assertion that Lincoln was rich and powerful even by Springfield standards. For four years he did not even have a bed of his own, but had to share one with another lawyer. When he proposed marriage to Mary Owens, he wrote "I am afraid you would not be satisfied. There is a reat deal of flourishing about in carriages here, which it would be your doom to see without shareing in it. You would have to be poor without the means of hiding your poverty." 3) While the Whig party began as a party of the Lower Class, over against the interest of the Upper Class, who the Whigs accused of being Masons (some of them were), after 1940, "Whigs ran well among almost all social classes in cities and trading centers, but they were especially attractive to the economic and social elite of those communities. Of men worth more than $100,000 in New York, for example, 85% were Whig", p. 116, Machael F. Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party. 4) According to Lewis Hartz, "The Liberal Tradiction in America", p. 3, "the American community is a liberal community". Even conservatives were proud to call themselves liberal, before the 1980s. As for your claim that "Liberal" was first used in American politics in 1972, here is Thomas Jefferson, writing about the struggle for religious freedom, "Among these, however, were some reasonable and liberal men, who enabled us, on some points, to obtain feeble majorities." Admittedly, the word "liberal" is not capitalized. But neither is the word "conservative", in the Cooper Union speech. (Actually, it is dangerous to discuss capitalization, because modern printers often surpress the frequent capitalization found in old documents.) In any case, Jefferson is using the word the way modern liberals use it, to mean opposition to an established church, and in opposition to modern Conservatives who claim "America is a Christian nation." Rick Norwood (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow you. The Whigs/Republicans were the party of the elites and Lincoln was their leader. (It does not matter what his class background was.) While Hartz called the two sides "whig" and "democrat", modern terminology is "conservative" and "liberal". TFD (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to fit history into tidy packages, but it won't fit. The Whig party in the US started out praising the common man and attacking the elite. Among other things, it was the anti-Masonic party. Try fitting anti-Masonic into the modern rubric of conservative and liberal! But its character changed dramatically over its short lifetime. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Norwood is quoting against me a section on "Reconstruction" that I wrote. After Lincoln's death former Whigs in the South called themselves "Conservatives" (they no longer used "Whig") and opposed the Radicals; Lincoln also opposed the Radicals esp in 1864-65 regarding reconstruction. The issue in 1850s was the Expansion of slavery--Lincoln denounced it as a violation of conservative principles. He started poor but by 1860 he was a leading citizen of Springfield and one of the richest men there. Ameericans don't talk much of an "upper class" -- Norwood gets that from European history where they did --and still do--have kings, queens and hereditary aristocrats. Rjensen (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As Lipet pointed out in The first new nation, American conservatives have always tried to portray their opponents as "elitist".[2] They have also tried to incorporate right-wing third party movements into the fold. While society has changed, there are parallels between the Anti-Masons and Whigs of the 1840s and the Tea Party and Republican Party of today. TFD (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen: so, there was never a "Conservative Whig" party, just former Whigs who changed their name to Conservative. Thanks for clearing that up. We all agree that Lincoln was "conservative" if you use the word to mean "not-radical". He may also have been a conservative poker player, for all I know. But that doesn't make him a Conservative. You write "Americans don't talk much of an "upper class" -- Norwood gets that from European history." Where do you get off pretending to know where I get my ideas. As it happens, I get my ideas about the Upper Class by being born into the Upper Class. My mother was a DAR. And people in the Upper Class talk about being in the Upper Class all the time, though they usually confine such talk to the Country Club and not to the public square these days. In Rossiter's day, they were proud to proclaim it. (I'm not offering my personal testomy as evidence for Wikipedia, just as evidence to refute your claim to know where Norwood gets his ideas.) Rick Norwood (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Should we include anything on Harry V. Jaffa since he is primarily responsible for bringing Lincoln into the conservative tradition beginning with his book "Crisis of the House Divided"? RetroLady64 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You would need a source that explains Jaffa's role. Curiously, in the book, Jaffa does not call Lincoln a conservative and mostly uses the term "conservative" to refer to supporters of slavery.[3] TFD (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can work on that. He has an essay entitle "Equality as a Conservative Principle" (1978) where he argues that Lincoln's stance on equal natural rights is the basis of American conservatism. But you are correct, Jaffa did refer to Douglas and supporters of slavery as "conservative" along with Calhoun, who he discusses in "A New Birth of Freedom." Perhaps it demonstrates the division among conservatism more than Lincoln not being apart of that camp. Anyway, I'll post my findings here before I put them in the article. RetroLady64 (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead 1950's?

I almost cried when I read this relic of Bullcrap. "has played an important role in American politics since the 1950s" 1950's?!?! As if the Republicans have done nothing significant before that point? Thomas Jefferson was a Jeffersonian (sometimes referred to ass Democratic-Republican) and is the first republican and he made drastic changes before, during, and after his presidency. It cannot be side that they have played an important role since then as if everything else important was done by other parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing the Republican party with Conservatism. Before about 1950, many Republicans were Liberal and many Democrats were Conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland was the first notably conservative president, "that conservative of conservatives", as the New York Times (1903) put it. Nineteenth century politics wasn't ideological. Mainstream politicians can be considered as either all conservative, or all liberal, according to the taste of the author. Kauffner (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Cleveland was within the radical tradition, supporting equality and free enterprise in opposition to the elitist capitalism of the Republicans. But his version of liberalism would join the Republicans, breaking with with populism and reformist liberalism. TFD (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

George Wallace

If you dispute his inclusion on this page, you might want to check out:

• The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics, by Dan T. Carter, Ph.D.
• From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963-1994, also by Dr. Carter
• George Wallace: Conservative Populist, by Lloyd Rohler, Ph.D.

(And those are just the ones with both his name and "Conservative" in the title! LOL.) --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

that is a misreading. Carter does NOT call Wallace a conservative. He says Wallace broke the whites away from their historical Dem party allegiance and that made them available to appeals from conservatives. Rjensen (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Carter addresses directly the kind of denial Rjensen practices here. From "George Wallace to New Gingrich", p. xiv: "The reluctance of neoconservatives to claim Wallace--with his gamy aura of racism-- is understandable. But the fundamental differences between the public rhetoric of the Alabama governor and the new conservatism sometimes seem more a matter of style than substance." I'm not going to quote the entire paragraph, but it is worth reading, since if focuses on the undercurrent of racism that is so much a part of conservative politics, from Eisenhower's condescending attitude toward Martin Luther King, Jr. to the current drive to require "picture ID's" of voters, something most whites have and many blacks lack.

Wallace was not a conservative when he first entered politics, and he became less conservative after he was shot, but when he ran for president, he ran as a conservative.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Imperfections

I propose that in the "Other Topics" section of the article a new subsection be added, about the philosophical or logical or other imperfections of Conservatism Philosophy. That is, if this article is to be complete, then the WP:NPOV policy cannot be distorted by making the article one-sided/rose-colored. And no, discussing liberal views is not the same thing as pointing out how certain aspects of conservatism clash with each other (or clash with actual facts; an article on liberalism should have its own "Imperfections" section. So, with respect to this article, there are whole books out there (reliable sources, right? http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Conservative-Hypocrisy-successfully-conservatism/dp/1452014345 ) that talk about problems. Just to get started, here is a specific example. First, something that might not quite be a Reliable Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/financial-focus/201007/clean-your-mess --do we need RS to support the extremely common issue of getting children to learn to clean up the messes they make? Maybe we do, because, more specifically, do Conservatives teach their children to clean up the messes they make? Assuming they do, then why, as adults, have Conservatives who run polluting industries been so unwilling to clean up the messes they make? The evidence suggests that "naked greed" is a major factor of Conservatism in America, yet the word "greed" isn't in the article even once! But then, greed is an Imperfection, see? V (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)