The Foundations Of Modern Conservatism

As liberalism ideology evolved and championed by the economic leaders, it pose a threat to the existing social settings such as the presence of the nobility, and the church. The attempt to defend existing social arrangement is what brought about conservatism. Conservatives stood against the ideas of liberals in a rational for maintaining existing traditional political structures and the centralization of power. They stood against transferring political responsibility to the common people under the disguise of equality (Shively, 2014).

Secondly, traditional conservatism holds close the belief that we are morally flawed, which again is a highly pessimistic view of human nature. Thomas Hobbes was also in support of this idea, deeming humans to be innately selfish and greedy with not possibility of being perfectible. He can be quoted as saying we want ‘power after power’, meaning that once we

Starting during the 1970s, factions of American conservatives slowly came together to form a new and more radical dissenting conservative movement, the New Right. The New Right was just as radical as its liberal opposite, with agendas to increase government involvement beyond the established conservative view of government’s role. Although New Right politicians made admirable advances to dissemble New Deal economic policies, the movement as a whole counters conservativism and the ideologies that America was founded on. Although the New Right adopts conservative economic ideologies, its social agenda weakened the conservative movement by focusing public attention to social and cultural issues that have no place within the established Old

President Ronald Reagan changed the way society viewed public speaking and politics and continues to make his impact on the world today as his rhetoric serves at the outlines of numerous governmental leaders such as President Trump (Costa). While his speeches occurred over thirty years ago over television and radio, Reagan is still remembered as being a monumental orator in history as his speeches are still highly critiqued in both academic settings and public history (Hayward)(Peters and Woolley). Throughout my paper, I will analyze the rhetorical devices Reagan used that were meant to unite, in order to help readers understand the rhetorical devices used in political rhetoric, which consequently both united and excluded certain people. Understanding past rhetoric of an orator such as Reagan will lead to a better understanding of the rhetorical devices used by political figures and the impacts they

The history of American conservatism reveals the diversity of the ideologies and values that comprise the modern public philosophy. This history also reveals the fragility of the conservative coalition. Conservatives agree primarily on the concepts that they oppose, rather than on principles that they share. Professor James Ceaser argues that “much of the unity that exists among conservatives stems from their shared antipathy to liberalism. It serves as the common heart that beats in the breast of the conservative movement’s diverse and often fractious components.” Ceaser provides a useful analogy for the conservative movement. The “common heart” of conservatism is an antagonism towards liberalism that supplies the blood to the movement’s four heads: Traditionalism, Classical Libertarianism, Neoconservatism, and the Religious Right. Caesar asserts that, in politics, there is no shame “to relying in the adhesive nature supplied by a common

Conservatism, traditional or new, was one of the most powerful ideologies in Europe. Otto von Bismarck practiced a new form of conservatism because he advocated for lower class, religious freedoms, and socialized the education system. This new form of conservatism received backlash by most other political groups.

After reading “The Conservative Ascendancy: How the Republican Right Rose to Power in Modern America”, written by Donald Critchlow, I learned how the modern conservative movement swept through the country. Critchlow talks about the changing of attitude in America and how it affected the conservative movement. He covers the Reagan era which was considered the golden age of modern conservatism, along with several other important events. Along with the revival of the churches and the New Deal. For this response I will discuss Critchlow’s argument and how he supported it. Along with Critchlow’s view on neo-conservatives and whether they damaged or helped the conservative movements. The final thing I will talk about is who Critchlow mentioned in

Liberals had dominated American society for most of the 1900s. The 1960s was widely known for being the age of counterculture, social reforms, and liberals. The era witnessed many advancements like racial equality such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a strong advancement in political liberalism, and a significant increase in the power and influence of government-funded social programs as a result of Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society reforms. Beginning with the election of Nixon, however, followed a gradual return to conservatism whether religiously, politically, or economically. The resurgence of conservatism in American politics and government in the years 1964-2005, was caused in

The New Right has significantly revised the relationship between conservatism and tradition, however. The New Right attempts to fuse economic libertarianism with state and social authoritarianism. As such, it is a blend of radical, reactionary and traditional features. Its radicalism is evident in its robust efforts to dismantle or ‘roll back’ interventionist government and liberal social values. This radicalism is clearest in relation to the liberal New Right, which draws on rational theories and abstract principles, and so dismisses tradition. New Right radicalism is nevertheless reactionary in that both the liberal and conservative New Right hark back to a 19th century ‘golden age’ of supposed economic prosperity and moral fortitude. However, the conservative New Right also makes an appeal to tradition, particularly through its emphasis on so-called ‘traditional values’.

This statement is asking whether all forms of conservatism’s values and actions in the past are because they wish to reflect the interests of those in society who are better off, sacrificing the interests of the less well off in doing so. The current debate is very unclear as opinion on this does, and always has varied greatly. Generally, left-wing labour supporters believe this statement is true whereas the rest of society do not agree. Conservatives have strenuously denied this claim over the years. This essay will argue that Conservatism does in fact merely reflect the interests of the privileged and prosperous, despite this claim being

When deciding on who will fully represent the people’s ideologies in government on the local, state, and national level, there are many factors that are taken into consideration. With the movement of minorities (Black Americans in 1960s) and women (in the 1980s) towards the Democratic Party in favor of its liberal ideologies, there has been more movement of white men towards the Republican Party in favor of its conservative ideas (racial, religion, and gender roles.) These conservative beliefs have divide Democrats from Republicans at both the elite and mass levels throughout time, especially today in 2016. The slogan “Make America Great Again” has many underlying ideologies that promote racism and misogyny. First, by looking at attitudes

The 1950s in America are often described as a time of complacency. By contrast, the 1960s and 1970s were a time of great change. But the economy of the 70s was not stable because of the Oil crisis and presidents did not seem to find a solution to get the economy work again. For the right, the federal government had been spending too much money on the social programs. Conservatism believes that the best way to run a society is to maintain social and political framework and that the government should be as limited as possible,

The blending of ideas and beliefs of people from different cultures has posed a challenge to the social construct of many cities and nations for thousands of years. Comparing the ideas of Michael Schwalbe and Thomas Sowell as it pertains to sociological adaption between the members and beliefs of different races and cultures could pose a difficult task for some, but after reviewing each of their thoughts in regard to this subject, one’s own beliefs will sway them either to support Schwalbe’s view or Sowell’s view and the one that they, as individuals, are likely to agree with will determine their position on this subject. Schwalbe’s view focused on being mindful of other differences so that there can be more social equality amongst all people and that this equality could only come about over time by people treating each other with more “respect and compassion and refusing to participate in recreating inequalities even in little ways”. However, Sowell’s view seemed to be a bit more realistic as it centered on the notion that differences amongst people are somewhat of a catalyst for change and the change that these differences bring about can still be used as an advantage for all mankind. If society was to truly become equal and society’s differences were a thing of the past, some may say this would create a Utopia, I feel that instead of a Utopia, this could lead to our demise.

In the absence of an existential external threat, conservatives must look for domestic antagonists, of which there are many. Abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, climate-focused environmental policy, gun control and stem cell research are equally promising targets. Though the presence of such common antagonists might strengthen the conservative coalition, they may prove to be fragile ground on which to build a new conservative solidarity. Rather than seeking common enemies, the Conservative movement must work on uniting itself from within. It should focus on narrowing the internal divisions and reconciling its disparate identities. If conservatism is to remain a prominent political force in the future, it is more likely to succeed by standing for something identifiable and compelling, rather than standing against anything that tends to liberalism.

it has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. ”1 As a political philosophy, conservatism itself leans to favor the authority and rigid tradition that its proponents support over progress as a society and freedom for the