| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The historical origins and modern psychology of Anglo-Saxon conservatism; Rightism Defined | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 24 2013, 01:51 AM (557 Views) | |
| Berton | Feb 24 2013, 01:51 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The monograph below (a monograph is essentially a very long academic journal article) is both long and covers 1500 years of history -- and since both history and long articles tend not to be read, I think I had better summarize quickly what it says. It says: There has always been in Anglo-Saxon politics a major opposition between those who want to extend central government power and those who want to preserve individual liberties; Conservatives have been for the most part the chief repository for the individual liberties cause; Conservatism is a cautious psychological syndrome rather than a philosophy; That syndrome does naturally and strongly lead to both a respect for tradition and a policy preference for individual liberties. If you disagree with any of that, you had better keep reading LINK Edited by Berton, Feb 24 2013, 01:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Feb 24 2013, 02:16 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I made the mistake of reading Bertie's post, and part of the "monograph". That is the most self-contradictory rubbish it has ever been my misfortune to read. The author claims in one breath that conservatives are the leading agents of change and preservation of traditions, as if the two are two sides of the same coin. Worse, trying to relate anything Disraeli did to modern day conservatism is idiotic.
Can you imagine the US Right doing any of that? Almost as idiotic is claiming that there is any relationship between Conservatism as practiced in the British Commonwealth and the policies of the US Right, the most reactionary and disconnected to reality that has ever existed. As an example, Bertie, a true representative of the US Right, considers me, a typical representative of Anglo-Saxon Conservatism, as a flaming liberal, if not a an out and out communist. Edited by Brewster, Feb 24 2013, 02:29 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Banandangees | Feb 24 2013, 04:32 AM Post #3 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And that summation from one who thinks Obama is just left of center and that there are only three real "liberals" on this forum. Historical truth can always be argued, especially if it is taught from some of our known liberal institutions. All I see is that Berton just post a historical article on "conservativism" which I am sure is part true and part fiction. No need to get all "up tight." |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Feb 24 2013, 04:42 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ban, I'll accept that. The author may have stumbled over some little piece of truth in passing through on his way to somewhere else. As Winston Churchill put it,
Edited by Brewster, Feb 24 2013, 04:44 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Feb 24 2013, 06:29 AM Post #5 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I saw something the other day that claimed Liberal and Conservative brains are different. Not sure about that because I was a Con till recently thanks to the Koch's and the TP. |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Feb 24 2013, 12:36 PM Post #6 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The rights guaranteed in the bill of rights and the constitution mean nothing without a central government power elected by the people to guarantee those rights. The idea that more government means less individual liberty is flawed. It's a myth pushed by the wealthy elites. Their real agenda is protecting their wealth from government taxation. The big government = loss of liberty argument is to get a whole lot of gullible peons on their side.
|
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Feb 24 2013, 10:19 PM Post #7 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Constitution doesn't forbid "Big Government". |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 25 2013, 01:45 AM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
You can't define liberalism & conservatism of today in the context of medieval Britain. The forces there defy being pidgeon holed into those labels. You had the church, a the aristocracy and the peasantry. None of which have real parallels in today's world. The church, especially has had huge political power until the last 100 years or so, arguably more than government. They were the real "big government" for centuries. I would hardly label them as Liberal. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 25 2013, 01:52 AM Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
I seem to remember you first joining either the door or breach and you were quite a republican at that time. If you are one & the same. |
|
|
| Pat | Feb 25 2013, 02:15 AM Post #10 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If you dig even further into modern western governing and philosophy, you go back to England for most roots. At a time when feudal Europe was a mismatch of tribes with warrior leaders. England was too, but changed all that with the first form of central governing---the King. They invested it. but the lands also had noblemen who ruled districts yet agreed to come under the banner of one central figure. Studying the history of the British monarchy to modern day is fascinating. How does the above come into play with this topic? It was the Earls of Britain/England/Saxony that kept the Kings somewhat subdued. The Catholic rulers were knee deep in it too, but it was the Earls who when I can't remember if it was Stephen or Henry 1/2 who got too fancy plus was a poor leader, that decided to step in. The magna carta was penned as the very first agreement that gave ordinary people rights. And dampened the concept of supreme big government and big government intrusion in our lives. Another fascinating study. So it was the conservative ruling class that stood up for liberty and freedom, not so those who felt comfortable with a King's thumb on their heads and telling them how to live. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





3:10 AM Jul 12
