What is the philosophy behind right-wing conservatism?

Question

When I say conservatism, I am talking about the typical Rush Limbaugh / Sean Hannity / Pat Robertson type of conservatism, not liberterianism. What is the short coherent philosophy behind it? A philosophy that is as true today as it was 50, 100, and over 200 years ago?

Here is my take on it. It is not much of a philosophy to begin with, simply a reactionary movement to left-wing progressivism/liberalism. If there is any philosophy to it, it is this: to conserve their power and their values over others. Search for the origin of the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing".

Your typical conservative believes in using the government to RESTRICT social decisions and enforce a uniform collectivist morality: theirs. That is why they opposed interracial marriage, invitro fertilization, and civil rights for minorities and women in the past and oppose gay marriage and stem cell research today. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in using the government to enforce SOCIAL FREEDOM. People should have the right to their pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others.

Answer 1

God, flag, and arrogant militarism are all rallying points for conservatives; there is no consistent philosophy.

Answer 2

The conservatism that is taught today came after the Nixon administration which totally battred the Republican party and during the Carter administration which destroyed the Democratic party. The use of religion ideals from the Republican party and the anti religious ideals of the Democratic Party brought forth 20 years of Republicanism vs 8 years for the Democrats. Now the politicans themeselves are no different from politicans of old. They just want to win and will say anything to win. Remember Ronald Regan started out as a liberal Democrat until he found out he could gather more power as a conservative Republican.

Anti-immigration and this was actually the first plank of the Republican party. At the time, the plank was formed because middle class farmers in the North were getting hammered by guys using slaves in the south. Slaves made the products cheaper which lowered the wages of the middle class farmers of the north. Since the U.S. has been really trading with the world, the U.S. has gottened hammered by guys willing to work for $2 a day. The average wage hasn't beaten inflation for the last 20 years in the U.S. Illegal aliens have cut construction wages in half in the U.S. and construction use to be high paying jobs. Now there are plans to have Mexicans do trucking throught the U.S. and those wages would drop too.

Anti-union and lower taxes. If you want to see a pro union country, just look at France. The unemployment is very high (worse than the U.S. Great Depression) because people refuse to hire anybody because once hired they are impossible to fire. Businesses can't even try to take chances because if a company fails and goes into bankrupcy, it's illegal for the owner to start another business. Remember that people start businesses have only a 20% chance of success and it's their money that they are pouring into their investment. These are the same guys that unions attack to get money for their workers and Democrats were taxing to help the poor. If the unions what to do their thing, they should spend their own money creating businesses for their workers, but they know better than to do that. That's why businesses in general look to the Republican party.

Obviously lower taxes means less government programs to keep the balance in check. Now this is the sticky point where politicans are politicans. Almost every conservative Republican bashes the Republican politicans on this one subject. Economic conservatives (which can be different from social conservatives) don't like the national debt.

Isolation vs expansion of influence. In the begining, Republicans were very isolationists and it was the Democrats that were interested in expanding The U.S. influence (notice it's the Democrats that are complaining the U.S. has fallen out of favor with the rest of the world). WWI, WWII, the Cold War and the Arab terrorists hijacking planes in the '70s and taking people hostage has broken the Republican idea of isolationism as far as military campaigns go. This first strike, go it alone model is based on the history of the Barbary Wars of 1807-1815 (with a break in-between) before the Republican Party existed. Basically the U.S. was tired of the Arab terrorists (yep it wasn't 30 years as a country the U.S. went to war with the Arabs). The Europeans were fine paying bribes, but after a U.S. navy ship was captured for randsom and the Europeans refused to help, the U.S. went in with the first U.S. marines and some mercenaries from around the region and launched their own version of the movie 300, except these guys won with minor losses. Congress felt the U.S. was over it's head, the campaign was too expensive and desperately wanted to cut and run. So the U.S. did and then had to go back in later to finish the job, which the U.S. military did. Everything that was said and done during that campaign is being said about the campaigns in Iraq and Afganistan.

Individualism, it's basicaly individualism on the local level. The opposite is the government telling a person what to do. Yes this conflicts with the stance on abortion although they have declared it murder which is a basic law of any nation. The conservatives have also complained it falls under the "do no harm" that doctors take an oath to uphold. As far as gays go, that's not a Republican plank. Ronald Regan's daughter is gay, Dick Cheney has a gay daughter and the Lincoln Logs is a group of gay Republicans.

Religious planks:
Some politicans and voters are very religious and or bigoted so anti-gays and hostility of other religions and racism can arise, but I think this is just individuals rather than a movement.

Instead of the government helping people, they believe that people should help people on the local level. That's what religious institutions have been doing since they existed so the already have the structures to help. This can be a very huge problem since the First Amendment's seperation of Church and State. Things like the Boy Scouts with religious ties using school grounds instantly becomes an issue. School vouchers which can be used for religious schools also becomes an issue. One of the more bizzare Supreme Court rulings that rile religious conservatives is the banning of religious objects on government grounds including the displaying of the 10 Commandments in the court room. The compaint is, if you look at the overhang of the Sumpreeme court building, you will see an image of Moses displaying the 10 Commandments. There are even more displayes inside the building. The ruling would ban the Supreme Court from using its own building. Now there is attacks on prayers at school (although Congress has morning prayer) and the Pledge of Allegiance and the "In God We Trust" motto by the liberals. Even those 12 step programs have a religious undertone so even if labled successful, the government can't support them according to the liberals.

Answer 3

It seems that idealogues have the upper hand when it comes to reasoning with the masses; i.,e., the working class and middle class of the United States.
Just wrap a neo-conservative in a U.S. flag, clutching a bible and that's just about all it takes. All others are a threat to God and Country.
1. Anyone against the war in Iraq is a traitor.
2. Darwin is the winner against all reason that born wealthy has privelages that are only obtainable to a very lucky few who are not wealthy. Bill Gates, for instance, was not born wealthy and is pointed out to others as an example of what can happen in America. Not to mention extreme luck and fortuitous circumstances to his success. Not to use Bill Gates as a negative, but to just point out the weakness of the conservatives point of view. After all, people who have that kind of good fortune are few; while the children of wealthy go to Harvard, Yale and all the top notch Universities and collages in the world. Often, the poor and underpriviledged are described as a drag on the successes of the wealthy. Homeless people are a sad drag on the people who own mansions and large homes on the ocean coasts and rivers.

Answer 4

Well, you have to define what you mean because from a Conservatives point of view your characterization is a clear as mud.

I consider it self-reliance and discipline based. Individual liberty over nanny state. Belief in personal accountability, but opportunity (not a free ride). Loyalty to America (as opposed to globalism although friendships and trade that doesn't undermine American society with outsourcing and below living wage labor is fine.) Some of it, social 'right wing', I'll leave to others since it isn't my thing. However, calling me a liberal would make people who know me roar with laughter. I do realize that there are people further right than I am.

Answer 5

CONTINUED...

Your typical conservative also believes the government has no business regulating the economy, helping workers, or funding social programs to help the poor. The rich liberterian opposes it either because it will hurt him financially, on principle, or because he's uninformed of the robber barron era of the 1800s. The typical social conservative opposes it because he hates the idea of his tax dollars being spent to help some "lazy minority or illegal immigrant" who he believes is living the good life with his money. I base this opinion on the fact that the socially conservative white Southerner had no problem with FDR's very liberal social programs, but turned against the Democratic Party and our economic liberalism when we started supporting civil rights starting in 1948. That was the year Strom Thurmond broke away from the national party and started the State Rights pro-segregation CONSERVATIVE Democrat Party (aka Dixiecrats).

Answer 6

LOL looks like you answered your own question. It's a good one though because the word "conservative" means different things to different people...I think the new wave of "conservatives" such as Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc are best served as an outlet for people who want stability and a very clear definition of good/evil. It's a simpler way of life when you know who your enemies are (liberals, gay, muslims), and you are convinced of your own self-righteousness regardless of those pesky things called facts. In addition, I believe today's conservatives have a strong authoritarian streak, they are willing to trust this administration and to defend its policies to their dying breath, even if it is clear that the law was broken. (Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice?? Who cares, let's give him a pardon!) It's very sad to see, but to me, the philosophy behind this school of thought is to be a sheep - do what you're told and believe everything you hear (unless it reflects poorly on the administration of course, then you blame the media.).

Answer 7

Lets see.........

They all say God but none actually do what god says to do!

Things God says to do.........

Do not worship money, one cannot worship both money and god

Forgive

Be charitable to the unfortunate

Things right wingers do.........

Worship money

Give MORE money to people who already have plenty then take away money form the people who need it most

Over tax the poor and take benifits away from the old and poor

Slander anyone who does not agree with them

These things have not always been the republican way but at present time.........this is the right way

Answer 8

Conservatives at the time of the American revolution were called tories. Our founding fathers were liberals, and, freely described their political philosophy as such. Conservatism is just a reaction to liberal ideals.