Religious Fanaticism and other Wikipedia pages

Religious fanaticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (February 2009)
Religious fanaticism is uncritical zeal or with an obsessive enthusiasm related to one's own, or one's group's, devotion to a religion – a form of human fanaticism which could otherwise be expressed in one's other involvements and participation, including employment, role, and partisan affinities.


Contents  [hide]
1 Features
2 Examples of religious fanaticism 2.1 Christianity
2.2 Islam
2.3 Judaism
3 See also
4 Citations
5 Further reading

Features[edit]
Steffen gives several features associated with religious fanaticism or extremism:
"Spiritual needs"... human beings have a spiritual longing for understanding and meaning, and given the mystery of existence, that spiritual quest can only be fulfilled through some kind of relationship with ultimacy, whether or not that takes the form as a "transcendent other." Religion has power to meet this need for meaning and transcendent relationship.[1]
Attractiveness... it presents itself in such a way that those who find their way into it come to express themselves in ways consistent with the particular vision of ultimacy at the heart of this religious form.[2]
A "live option"... it is present to the moral consciousness as a live option that addresses spiritual need and satisfies human longing for meaning, power, and belonging.[3]
Examples of religious fanaticism[edit]
Christianity[edit]
See also: Christianity and violence

Ambox scales.svg
 This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (April 2011)
Ever since Christianity was established, some of those in authority have sought to expand and control the church, often through the fanatical use of force. Grant Shafer says, "Jesus of Nazareth is best known as a preacher of nonviolence. [4] The start of Christian fanatic rule came with the Roman Emperor Constantine I as Catholicism. Ellens says, "When Christianity came to power in the empire of Constantine, it proceeded almost to viciously repress all non-Christians and all Christians who did not line up with official Orthodox ideology, policy, and practice".[5] An example of Christians who didn't line up with Orthodox ideology is the Donatists, who "refused to accept repentant clergy who had formerly given way to apostasy when persecuted".[6] Fanatic Christian activity, as Catholicism, continued into the Middle Ages with the Crusades. These wars were attempts by the Catholics, sanctioned by the Pope, to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims. Charles Selengut, in his book Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence, said:

The Crusades - were very much holy wars waged to maintain Christianity's theological and social control- On their way to conquering the Holy Land from the Muslims by force of arms, the crusaders destroyed dozens of Jewish communities and killed thousands because the Jews would not accept the Christian faith. Jews had to be killed in the religious campaign because their very existence challenged the sole truth espoused by the Christian Church.[7]
Shafer adds that, "When the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they killed Muslims, Jews, and native Christians indiscriminately".[8] Another prominent form of fanaticism came a few centuries later with the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition was the monarchy's way of making sure their people stayed within Catholic Christianity. Selengut said, "The inquisitions were attempts at self-protection and targeted primarily "internal enemies" of the church".[9] The driving force of the Inquisition was the Inquisitors, who were responsible for spreading the truth of Christianity. Selengut continues, saying:

The inquisitors generally saw themselves as educators helping people maintain correct beliefs by pointing out errors in knowledge and judgment. . . .Punishment and death came only to those who refused to admit their errors. . . .during the Spanish Inquisitions of the fifteenth century, the clear distinction between confession and innocence and remaining in error became muddled. . . .The investigators had to invent all sorts of techniques, including torture, to ascertain whether . . . new converts' beliefs were genuine.[9]
Islam[edit]
See also: Islam and violence
Since Osama bin Laden's fatwa in 1998, radical jihad has increasingly become an internationally recognized term. Bin Laden's concept, though, is very different from the actual meaning of the term. In the religious context, jihad most nearly means "working urgently for a certain godly objective, generally a positive one".[10] The word jihad in Arabic means 'struggle'. The struggle can be a struggle of implementing the Islamic values in daily activities, a struggle with others to counter arguments against Islam, or self-defense when physically attacked because of belief in Islam. According to Steffen, there are portions of the Qur'an where military jihad is used. As Steffen says, though, "Jihad in these uses is always defensive. Not only does ‘jihad' not endorse acts of military aggression, but ‘jihad' is invoked in Qur'anic passages to indicate how uses of force are always subject to restraint and qualification".[11] This kind of jihad differs greatly from the kind most commonly discussed today.
Thomas Farr, in an essay titled "Islam's Way to Freedom", says that, "Even though most Muslims reject violence, the extremists' use of sacred texts lends their actions authenticity and recruiting power". (Freedom 24) He goes on to say, "The radicals insist that their central claim—God's desire for Islam's triumph—requires no interpretation. According to them, true Muslims will pursue it by any means necessary, including dissimulation, civil coercion, and the killing of innocents". (Freedom 24)
According to certain observers this disregard for others and rampant use of violence is markedly different from the peaceful message that jihad is meant to employ. Although fanatic jihadists have committed many terroristic acts throughout the world, perhaps the best known is the September 11 attacks. According to Ellens, the al-Qaeda members who took part in the terrorist attacks did so out of their belief that, by doing it, they would "enact a devastating blow against the evil of secularized and non-Muslim America. They were cleansing this world, God's temple".[12]
Judaism[edit]
See also: Judaism and violence
[icon] This section requires expansion. (October 2010)
See also[edit]
Bigotry
Importance of religion by country
Partisan
Religious violence
Religious terrorism
Workaholism
Citations[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Steffen, Lloyd. p. 119.
2.Jump up ^ Steffen, Lloyd. p. 120.
3.Jump up ^ Steffen, Lloyd. p. 121.
4.Jump up ^ Shafer, Grant. p. 193.
5.Jump up ^ Ellens, J. Harold. p. 42–43.
6.Jump up ^ Shafer, Grant. p. 236.
7.Jump up ^ Selengut, Charles. "Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence." p. 22.
8.Jump up ^ Shafer, Grant. p. 239.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Selengut, Charles. p. 70.
10.Jump up ^ Ellens, J. Harold. p. 45.
11.Jump up ^ Steffen, Lloyd. p. 224.
12.Jump up ^ Ellens, J. Harold. p. 35.
Further reading[edit]
Anderson, Paul. "Genocide or Jesus: A God of Conquest or Pacifism?" Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol 4. Ed. J. Harold Ellens. Westport: Praegers, 2004.
Edwards, John. "Review: Was the Spanish Inquisition Truthful?" The Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1997): 351-66.
Ellens, J. Harold, ed. The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3. Westport: Praegers, 2004.
Ellens, J. Harold, ed. Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol 4. Westport: Praegers, 2004.
Farr, Thomas. "Islam's Way to Freedom." First Things 187 (2008): 24-28.
Johnson, J. T. "Opinion, Jihad and Just War." First Things (2002):12-14.
Selengut, Charles. Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.
Shafer, Grant. "Hell, Martyrdom, and War: Violence in Early Christianity." The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3. Ed. J. Harold Ellens. Westport: Praegers, 2004.
Steffen, Lloyd. Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
Беляев, И.А. Религиозный фанатизм как иллюзорная компенсация недостаточности духовно-душевных составляющих целостного мироотношения / И.А. Беляев // Вестник Челябинской государственной академии культуры и искусств. — 2011. — № 4 (28). — С. 68-71.


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































  


Categories: Religious behaviour and experience








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Español
Esperanto
Italiano
مصرى
Nederlands
Русский
Edit links
This page was last modified on 21 April 2015, at 17:37.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_fanaticism







Page semi-protected

Conservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religious Conservatism)
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about conservatism as a political and social philosophy. For other uses, see Conservatism (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Conservatism
Blue flag waving.svg

Variants[show]
















Concepts[show]












People[show]







































































Organizations[show]












Religious[show]







National variants[show]












Related topics[show]
















Conservatism portal
Politics portal

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of the Politics series
Party politics

Political spectrum

Far-left/Radical left ·
 Left-wing

Centre-left
Centre/Radical centre

Centre-right
Right-wing ·
 Far-right/Radical right


Party platform

Extremist ·
 Radical

Reformist ·
 Moderate

Syncretic
Conservative ·
 Reactionary

Fundamentalist


Party system

Non-partisan ·
 Single-party

Dominant-party ·
 Two-party ·
 Multi-party


Coalition

Hung parliament ·
 Confidence and supply ·
 Minority government ·
 Rainbow coalition ·
 Grand coalition ·
 Full coalition
 National Unity government
Majority government

Lists
Political parties by country
Political parties by UN geoscheme
Political ideologies

Politics portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of the culture and civilization. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[1][2] The first established use of the term in a political context originated with François-René de Chateaubriand in 1818,[3] during the period of Bourbon restoration that sought to roll back the policies of the French Revolution. The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views. There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues. Edmund Burke, an 18th-century politician who opposed the French Revolution but supported the American Revolution, is credited as one of the main theorists of conservatism in Great Britain in the 1790s.[4] According to Quintin Hogg, the chairman of the British Conservative Party in 1959, "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself."[5]


Contents  [hide]
1 Development of Western conservatism 1.1 Great Britain
1.2 Germany
1.3 United States
1.4 Latin Europe
2 Forms of conservatism 2.1 Liberal conservatism
2.2 Conservative liberalism
2.3 Libertarian conservatism
2.4 Fiscal conservatism
2.5 National and traditional conservatism
2.6 Cultural and social conservatism
2.7 Religious conservatism
2.8 Progressive conservatism
3 Historic conservatism in different countries 3.1 Belgium
3.2 Canada
3.3 Colombia
3.4 Denmark
3.5 Finland
3.6 France
3.7 Greece
3.8 Iceland
3.9 Italy
3.10 Luxembourg
3.11 Norway
3.12 Sweden
3.13 Switzerland
3.14 United Kingdom
4 Modern conservatism in different countries 4.1 Australia
4.2 South Korea
4.3 United States
5 Characteristics of conservatism in France, Italy, Russia, UK and US
6 Psychology
7 Notes
8 References
9 Further reading 9.1 Primary sources
10 Online sources
11 External links

Development of Western conservatism
Great Britain
Main article: Conservatism in the United Kingdom
Part of the Politics series on
Toryism
The Royal Oak in which Charles II hid to escape capture by the Roundheads is a prominent symbol of Toryism

Characteristics[show]













General topics[show]











People[show]



















Related topics[hide]
Conservatism ·
 Distributists ·
 Miguelism ·
 Vendéens ·
 Chouans ·
 Legitimism ·
 Carlism ·
 Sanfedismo ·
 Viva Maria ·
 Cristeros ·
 Reactionary ·
 High Tory ·
 Blue Tory ·
 Red Tory ·
 Veronese Easter
 
British portal
Politics portal

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
In Britain, conservative ideas (though not yet called that) emerged in the Tory movement during the Restoration period (1660–1688). Toryism supported a hierarchical society with a monarch who ruled by divine right. Tories opposed the idea that sovereignty derived from the people, and rejected the authority of parliament and freedom of religion. Robert Filmer's Patriarcha: or the Natural Power of Kings, published posthumously in 1680 but written before the English Civil War of 1642-1651, became accepted as the statement of their doctrine. However, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 destroyed this principle to some degree by establishing a constitutional government in England, leading to the hegemony of the Tory-opposed Whig ideology. Faced with defeat, the Tories reformed their movement, now holding that sovereignty was vested in the three estates of Crown, Lords, and Commons[6] rather than solely in the Crown. Toryism became marginalized during the long period of Whig ascendancy in the 18th century.



Edmund Burke (1729–1797)
Conservatives typically see Richard Hooker (1554-1600) as the founding father of conservatism, along with the Marquess of Halifax (1633-1695), David Hume (1711-1776) and Edmund Burke (1729-1797). Halifax promoted pragmatism in government, whilst Hume argued against political rationalism and utopianism.[7] Burke served as the private secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham and as official pamphleteer to the Rockingham branch of the Whig party.[8] Together with the Tories, they were the conservatives in the late 18th century United Kingdom.[9] Burke's views were a mixture of liberal and conservative. He supported the American Revolution of 1765-1783 but abhorred the violence of the French Revolution (1789- ). He accepted the liberal ideals of private property and the economics of Adam Smith (1723-1790), but thought that economics should remain subordinate to the conservative social ethic, that capitalism should be subordinate to the medieval social tradition and that the business class should be subordinate to aristocracy.[10] He insisted on standards of honor derived from the medieval aristocratic tradition, and saw the aristocracy as the nation's natural leaders.[11] That meant limits on the powers of the Crown, since he found the institutions of Parliament to be better informed than commissions appointed by the executive. He favored an established church, but allowed for a degree of religious toleration.[12] Burke justified the social order on the basis of tradition: tradition represented the wisdom of the species and he valued community and social harmony over social reforms.[13] Burke was a leading theorist in his day, finding extreme idealism (either Tory or Whig) an endangerment to broader liberties, and (like Hume) rejecting abstract reason as an unsound guide for political theory. Despite their influence on future conservative thought, none of these early contributors were explicitly involved in Tory politics. Hooker lived in the 16th century, long before the advent of toryism, whilst Hume was an apolitical philosopher and Halifax similarly politically independent. Burke described himself as a Whig.
Shortly after Burke's death in 1797, conservatism revived as a mainstream political force as the Whigs suffered a series of internal divisions. This new generation of conservatives derived their politics not from Burke but from his predecessor, the Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751), who was a Jacobite and traditional Tory, lacking Burke's sympathies for Whiggish policies such as Catholic Emancipation and American independence (famously attacked by Samuel Johnson in "Taxation No Tyranny"). In the first half of the 19th century many newspapers, magazines, and journals promoted loyalist or right-wing attitudes in religion, politics, and international affairs. Burke was seldom mentioned but William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806) became a conspicuous hero. The most prominent journals included The Quarterly Review, founded in 1809 as a counterweight to the Whigs' Edinburgh Review, and the even more conservative Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. Sack finds that the Quarterly Review promoted a balanced Canningite toryism; was neutral on Catholic emancipation and only mildly critical of Nonconformist Dissent; it opposed slavery and supported the current poor laws. It was "aggressively imperialist". The high-church clergy of the Church of England read the Orthodox Churchman's Magazine which was equally hostile to Jewish, Catholic, Jacobin, Methodist, and Unitarian spokesmen. Anchoring the ultra tories, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine stood firmly against Catholic emancipation, and favoured slavery, cheap money, mercantilism, the Navigation acts, and the Holy Alliance.[14]
In the 19th century, conflict between wealthy businessmen and the aristocracy split the British conservative movement, with the aristocracy calling for a return to medieval ideas while the business classes advocated laissez-faire capitalism.[15]
Although conservatives opposed attempts to allow greater representation of the middle class in parliament, in 1834 they conceded that electoral reform could not be reversed and promised to support further reforms so long as they did not erode the institutions of church and state. These new principles were presented in the Tamworth Manifesto of 1834, which historians regard as the basic statement of the beliefs of the new Conservative Party.[16]

photograph

Robert Peel (1788–1850)
Some conservatives lamented the passing of a pastoral world where the ethos of noblesse oblige had promoted respect from the lower classes. They saw the Anglican Church and the aristocracy as balances against commercial wealth.[17] They worked toward legislation for improved working conditions and urban housing.[18] This viewpoint would later be called Tory Democracy.[19] However since Burke there has always been tension between traditional aristocratic conservatism and the wealthy business class.[20]
In 1834 Tory Prime Minister Robert Peel issued the Tamworth Manifesto in which he pledged to endorse moderate political reform. This marked the beginning of the transformation of British conservatism from High Tory reactionism towards a more modern form based on "conservation". The party became known as the Conservative Party as a result, a name it has retained to this day. Peel, however, would also be the root of a split in the party between the traditional Tories (led by the Earl of Derby and Benjamin Disraeli) and the 'Peelites' (led first by Peel himself, then by the Earl of Aberdeen). The split occurred in 1846 over the issue of free trade, which Peel supported, versus protectionism, supported by Derby. The majority of the party sided with Derby, whilst about a third split away, eventually merging with the Whigs and the radicals to form the Liberal Party. Despite the split, the mainstream Conservative Party accepted the doctrine of free trade in 1852.



Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013)
In the second half of the 19th century the Liberal Party faced political schisms, especially over Irish Home Rule. Leader William Gladstone (himself a former Peelite) sought to give Ireland a degree of autonomy, a move that elements in both the left and right wings of his party opposed. These split off to become the Liberal Unionists (led by Joseph Chamberlain), forming a coalition with the Conservatives before merging with them in 1912. The Liberal Unionist influence dragged the Conservative Party towards the left; Conservative governments passing a number of progressive reforms at the turn of the 20th century. By the late 19th century the traditional business supporters of the UK Liberal Party had joined the Conservatives, making them the party of business and commerce.[21]
After a period of Liberal dominance before the First World War, the Conservatives gradually became more influential in government, regaining full control of the cabinet in 1922. In the interwar period conservatism was the major ideology in Britain[citation needed], as the Liberal Party vied with the Labour Party for control of the left. After the Second World War, the first Labour government (1945-1951) under Clement Attlee embarked on a program of nationalization of industry and the promotion of social welfare. The Conservatives generally accepted those policies until the 1980s. In the 1980s the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher, guided by neoliberal economics, reversed many of Labour's programmes.[22]
Small conservative political parties -such as the United Kingdom Independence Party (founded in 1993) and the Democratic Unionist Party (founded in 1971) - began to appear, although they have yet to make any significant impact at Westminster (as of 2014 the DUP comprises the largest political party in the ruling coalition in the Northern Ireland Assembly).
Germany
Main article: Conservatism in Germany
Conservative thought developed alongside nationalism in Germany, culminating in Germany's victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War, the creation of the unified German Empire in 1871, and the simultaneous rise of Otto von Bismarck on the European political stage. Bismarck's "balance of power" model maintained peace in Europe for decades at the end of the 19th century. His "revolutionary conservatism" was a conservative state-building strategy designed to make ordinary Germans—not just the Junker elite—more loyal to state and emperor, he created the modern welfare state in Germany in the 1880s. According to Kees van Kersbergen and Barbara Vis, his strategy was:
granting social rights to enhance the integration of a hierarchical society, to forge a bond between workers and the state so as to strengthen the latter, to maintain traditional relations of authority between social and status groups, and to provide a countervailing power against the modernist forces of liberalism and socialism.[23]
Bismarck also enacted universal male suffrage in the new German Empire in 1871.[24] He became a great hero to German conservatives, who erected many monuments to his memory after he left office in 1890.[25]
With the rise of Nazism in 1933, agrarian movements faded and was supplanted by a more command-based economy and forced social integration. Though Adolf Hitler succeeded in garnering the support of many German industrialists, prominent traditionalists openly and secretly opposed his policies of euthanasia, genocide, and attacks on organized religion, including Claus von Stauffenberg, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Henning von Tresckow, Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen, and the monarchist Carl Friedrich Goerdeler.
More recently, the work of conservative CDU leader Helmut Kohl helped bring about German Reunification, along with the closer integration of Europe in the form of the Maastricht Treaty. Today, German conservatism is often associated with Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose tenure has been marked by attempts to save the common European currency (EURO) from demise.
United States
Main article: Conservatism in the United States
In the United States, conservatism is rooted in the American Revolution and its commitment to republicanism, sovereignty of the people, and the rights and liberties of Englishmen while expelling the king and his supporters. Most European conservative writers do not accept American conservatism as genuine; they consider it to be a variety of liberalism. Modern American liberals in the New Deal do not disagree with that consensus view, but conservatives spend much more emphasis on the Revolutionary origins, with the Tea Party advocates using an episode from the 1770s for their name and some even dress in costumes from that era at their rallies.
Historian Gregory Schneider identifies several constants in American conservatism: respect for tradition, support of republicanism, "the rule of law and the Christian religion," and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[26]



Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821)
Latin Europe
Another form of conservatism developed in France in parallel to conservatism in Britain. It was influenced by Counter-Enlightenment works by men such as Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald. Latin conservatism was less pragmatic and more reactionary than the conservatism of Burke.[citation needed] Many Continental or Traditionalist conservatives do not support separation of Church and state, with most supporting state recognition of and cooperation with the Catholic Church, such as had existed in France before the Revolution.
Eventually conservatives added patriotism and nationalism to the list of traditional values they support. German conservatives were the first to embrace nationalism, which was previously associated with liberalism and the Revolution in France.[27]
Forms of conservatism
Liberal conservatism
Main article: Liberal conservatism
Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values and policies with classical liberal stances.[28] As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings. Historically, the term often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. It contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.
Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered conservative. In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, such as Italy and Spain, the terms liberal and conservative may be synonymous. The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, such as in the writings of Russell Kirk).
A secondary meaning for the term liberal conservatism that has developed in Europe is a combination of more modern conservative (less traditionalist) views with those of social liberalism. This has developed as an opposition to the more collectivist views of socialism. Often this involves stressing what are now conservative views of free-market economics and belief in individual responsibility, with social liberal views on defence of civil rights, environmentalism and support for a limited welfare state. In continental Europe, this is sometimes also translated into English as social conservatism.
Conservative liberalism
Main article: Conservative liberalism
Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism that combines liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, the right wing of the liberal movement.[29][30][31] The roots of conservative liberalism are found at the beginning of the history of liberalism. Until the two World Wars, in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy. Events after World War I brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism.[32]
Libertarian conservatism
Main article: Libertarian conservatism
Libertarian conservatism describes certain political ideologies within the United States and Canada which combine libertarian economic issues with aspects of conservatism. Its five main branches are Constitutionalism, paleolibertarianism, neolibertarianism, small government conservatism and Christian libertarianism. They generally differ from paleoconservatives, in that they are in favor of more personal and economic freedom.
Agorists such as Samuel Edward Konkin III labeled libertarian conservatism right-libertarianism.[33][34]
In contrast to paleoconservatives, libertarian conservatives support strict laissez-faire policies such as free trade, opposition to any national bank and opposition to business regulations. They are vehemently opposed to environmental regulations, corporate welfare, subsidies, and other areas of economic intervention.
Many conservatives, especially in the United States, believe that the government should not play a major role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose efforts to charge high tax rates and to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work.
Fiscal conservatism
Main article: Fiscal conservatism



Taxpayer March on Washington: Conservative protesters walking down Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.
Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.[35] Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, argued that a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer:

...[I]t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.
Most conservatives believe that government action cannot solve society's problems, such as poverty and inequality. Many believe that government programs that seek to provide services and opportunities for the poor actually encourage dependence and reduce self-reliance. Most conservatives oppose affirmative action policies-that is, policies in employment, education, and other areas that aim to counteract past discrimination by giving special help to members of disadvantaged groups. Conservatives believe that the government should not give special treatment to individuals on the basis of group identity.
Many conservatives, especially in the United States, believe that the government should not play a major role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose efforts to charge high tax rates and to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work.
National and traditional conservatism
Main articles: National conservatism and Traditional conservatism



Gianfranco Fini, former President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, in 2004.
National conservatism is a political term used primarily in Europe to describe a variant of conservatism which concentrates more on national interests than standard conservatism as well as upholding cultural and ethnic identity,[36] while not being outspokenly nationalist or supporting a far-right approach.[citation needed] In Europe, national conservatives are usually eurosceptics.[37][38]
National conservatism is heavily oriented towards the traditional family and social stability as well as in favour of limiting immigration. As such, national conservatives can be distinguished from economic conservatives, for whom free market economic policies, deregulation and fiscal conservatism are the main priorities. Some commentators have identified a growing gap between national and economic conservatism: "most parties of the Right [today] are run by economic conservatives who, in varying degrees, have marginalized social, cultural, and national conservatives."[39] National conservatism is also related to traditionalist conservatism.
Traditionalist conservatism is a political philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order, tradition, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, and the intersecting spheres of loyalty.[40] Some traditionalists have embraced the labels "reactionary" and "counterrevolutionary", defying the stigma that has attached to these terms since the Enlightenment. Having a hierarchical view of society, many traditionalist conservatives, including a few Americans, defend the monarchical political structure as the most natural and beneficial social arrangement.
Cultural and social conservatism
Main articles: Cultural conservatism and social conservatism
Cultural conservatives support the preservation of the heritage of one nation, or of a shared culture that is not defined by national boundaries.[41] The shared culture may be as divergent as Western culture or Chinese culture. In the United States, the term cultural conservative may imply a conservative position in the culture war. Cultural conservatives hold fast to traditional ways of thinking even in the face of monumental change. They believe strongly in traditional values and traditional politics, and often have an urgent sense of nationalism.
Social conservatism is distinct from cultural conservatism, although there are some overlaps. Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering. Social change is generally regarded as suspect.
A second meaning of the term social conservatism developed in the Nordic countries and continental Europe. There it refers to liberal conservatives supporting modern European welfare states.
Social conservatives (in the first meaning of the word) in many countries generally favour the pro-life position in the abortion controversy and oppose human embryonic stem cell research (particularly if publicly funded); oppose both eugenics and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;[42] support a traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one woman; view the nuclear family model as society's foundational unit; oppose expansion of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in same-sex relationships; promote public morality and traditional family values; oppose atheism,[43] especially militant atheism, secularism and the separation of church and state;[44][45][46] support the prohibition of drugs, prostitution, and euthanasia; and support the censorship of pornography and what they consider to be obscenity or indecency. Most conservatives in the U.S. support the death penalty.
Religious conservatism
See also: Religious Right



March for Life in Paris, France, 2012
Religious conservatives principally seek to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws.[47]
In most modern democracies, political conservatism seeks to uphold traditional family structures and social values. Religious conservatives typically oppose abortion, homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage. In some cases, conservative values are grounded in religious beliefs, and some conservatives seek to increase the role of religion in public life.
Progressive conservatism
Main article: Progressive conservatism
Progressive conservatism incorporates progressive policies alongside conservative policies. It stresses the importance of a social safety net to deal with poverty, support of limited redistribution of wealth along with government regulation to regulate markets in the interests of both consumers and producers.[48] Progressive conservatism first arose as a distinct ideology in the United Kingdom under Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli's "One Nation" Toryism.[48][49]
There have been a variety of progressive conservative governments. In the UK, the Prime Ministers Disraeli, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan,[50] and present Prime Minister David Cameron are progressive conservatives.[51][52]
In the United States, the administration of President William Howard Taft was progressive conservative and he described himself as "a believer in progressive conservatism"[53] and President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared himself an advocate of "progressive conservatism".[54] In Germany, Chancellor Leo von Caprivi promoted a progressive conservative agenda called the "New Course".[55] In Canada, a variety of conservative governments have been progressive conservative, with Canada's major conservative movement being officially named the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada from 1942 to 2003.[56] In Canada, the Prime Ministers Arthur Meighen, R.B. Bennett, John Diefenbaker, Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, and Kim Campbell led progressive conservative federal governments.[56]
Historic conservatism in different countries
Further information: Right-wing politics and Political spectrum
Conservative political parties vary widely from country to country in the goals they wish to achieve. Both conservative and liberal parties tend to favor private ownership of property, in opposition to communist, socialist and green parties, which favor communal ownership or laws requiring social responsibility on the part of property owners. Where conservatives and liberals differ is primarily on social issues. Conservatives tend to reject behavior that does not conform to some social norm. Modern conservative parties often define themselves by their opposition to liberal or labor parties. The United States usage of the term conservative is unique to that country.[57]
According to Alan Ware, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK retained viable conservative parties into the 1980s.[58] Ware said that Australia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malta, New Zealand, Spain and the US had no conservative parties, although they had either Christian Democrats or liberals as major right-wing parties. Canada, Ireland, and Portugal had right-wing political parties that defied categorization: the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada; Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and Progressive Democrats in Ireland; and the Social Democratic Party of Portugal.[59] Since then, the Swiss People's Party has moved to the extreme right and is no longer considered to be conservative.[60]
Klaus von Beyme, who developed the method of party categorization, found that no modern Eastern European parties could be considered conservative, although the communist and communist-successor parties had strong similarities.[61]
In Italy, which was united by liberals and radicals (risorgimento), liberals not conservatives emerged as the party of the Right.[62] In the Netherlands, conservatives merged into a new Christian democratic party in 1980.[63] In Austria, Germany, Portugal and Spain, conservatism was transformed into and incorporated into fascism or the far right.[64] In 1940, all Japanese parties were merged into a single fascist party. Following the war, Japanese conservatives briefly returned to politics but were largely purged from public office.[65]
Louis Hartz explained the absence of conservatism in Australia or the United States as a result of their settlement as radical or liberal fragments of Great Britain. Although he said English Canada had a negligible conservative influence, subsequent writers claimed that loyalists opposed to the American Revolution brought a Tory ideology into Canada. Hartz explained conservatism in Quebec and Latin America as a result of their settlement as feudal societies.[66] The American conservative writer Russell Kirk provided the opinion that conservatism had been brought to the US and interpreted the American revolution as a "conservative revolution".[67]
Conservative elites have long dominated Latin American nations. Mostly this has been achieved through control of and support for civil institutions, the church and the armed forces, rather than through party politics. Typically the church was exempt from taxes and its employees immune from civil prosecution. Where national conservative parties were weak or non-existent, conservatives were more likely to rely on military dictatorship as a preferred form of government. However in some nations where the elites were able to mobilize popular support for conservative parties, longer periods of political stability were achieved. Chile, Colombia and Venezuela are examples of nations that developed strong conservative parties. Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador and Peru are examples of nations where this did not occur.[68] The Conservative Party of Venezuela disappeared following the Federal Wars of 1858-1863.[69] Chile's conservative party, the National Party disbanded in 1973 following a military coup and did not re-emerge as a political force following the subsequent return to democracy.[70]
Belgium
Founded in 1945 as the Christian People's Party, the Flemish Christian Democrats (CD&V) dominated politics in post-war Belgium. In 1999, the party's support collapsed and it became the country's fifth largest party.[71][72][73] Currently the N-VA (nieuw-vlaamse alliantie / new-Flemish alliance) is the largest party in Belgium.[74]
Canada
Main article: Conservatism in Canada
Canada's Conservatives had their roots in the Loyalists – Tories – who left America after the American Revolution. They developed in the socio-economic and political cleavages that existed during the first three decades of the 19th century, and had the support of the business, professional and established Church (Anglican) elites in Ontario and to a lesser extent in Quebec. Holding a monopoly over administrative and judicial offices, they were called the "Family Compact" in Ontario and the "Chateau Clique" in Quebec. John A. Macdonald's successful leadership of the movement to confederate the provinces and his subsequent tenure as prime minister for most of the late 19th century rested on his ability to bring together the English-speaking Protestant oligarchy and the ultramontane Catholic hierarchy of Quebec and to keep them united in a conservative coalition.[75]
The Conservatives combined pro-market liberalism and Toryism. They generally supported an activist government and state intervention in the marketplace, and their policies were marked by noblesse oblige, a paternalistic responsibility of the elites for the less well-off.[76] From 1942, the party was known as the Progressive Conservatives, until 2003, when the national party merged with the Canadian Alliance to form the Conservative Party of Canada.[77]
The conservative Union Nationale governed the province of Quebec in periods from 1936 to 1960, in a close alliance with English Canadian business elites and the Catholic Church. This period, known as the Great Darkness ended with the Quiet Revolution and the party went into terminal decline.[78]
Colombia
Main article: Conservatism in Colombia
The Colombian Conservative Party, founded in 1849, traces its origins to opponents of General Francisco de Paula Santander's 1833–37 administration. While the term "liberal" had been used to describe all political forces in Colombia, the conservatives began describing themselves as "conservative liberals" and their opponents as "red liberals". From the 1860s until the present, the party has supported strong central government, and supported the Catholic Church, especially its role as protector of the sanctity of the family, and opposed separation of church and state. Its policies include the legal equality of all men, the citizen's right to own property and opposition to dictatorship. It has usually been Colombia's second largest party, with the Colombian Liberal Party being the largest.[79]
Denmark
Founded in 1915, the Conservative People's Party of Denmark. was the successor of Højre (literally "right"). In the 2005 election it won 18 out of 179 seats in the Folketing and became a junior partner in coalition with the Liberals.[80] The party is preceded by 11 years by the Young Conservatives (KU), today the youth movement of the party. The Party suffered a major defeat in the parliamentary elections of September 2011 in which the party lost more than half of its seat and also lost governmental power. A liberal cultural policy dominated during the postwar period. However, by the 1990s disagreements regarding immigrants from entirely different cultures ignited a conservative backlash.[81]
Finland
The conservative party in Finland is the National Coalition Party (in Finnish Kansallinen Kokoomus, Kok). The party was founded in 1918 when several monarchist parties united. Although in the past the party was right-wing, today it is a moderate party. While the party advocates economic liberalism, it is committed to the social market economy.[82]
France
Conservatism in France focused on The rejection of the French Revolution, support for the Catholic Church, and the restoration of the monarchy. The monarchist cause was on the verge of victory in the 1870s but then collapsed because of disagreements on who would be king, and what the national flag should be.[83] Religious tensions heightened in the 1890-1910 era, but moderated after the spirit of unity in fighting the First World War.[84] An extreme form of conservatism characterized the Vichy regime of 1940-1944 with heightened anti-Semitism, opposition to individualism, emphasis on family life, and national direction of the economy.[85]
Following the Second World War, conservatives in France supported Gaullist groups and have been nationalistic, and emphasized tradition, order, and the regeneration of France.[86] Gaullists held divergent views on social issues. The number of Conservative groups, their lack of stability, and their tendency to be identified with local issues defy simple categorization. Conservatism has been the major political force in France since the second world war.[87] Unusually, post-war French conservatism was formed around the personality of a leader, Charles de Gaulle, and did not draw on traditional French conservatism, but on the Bonapartism tradition.[88] Gaullism in France continues under the Union for a Popular Movement.[89] The word "conservative" itself is a term of abuse in France.[90]
Greece
The main interwar conservative party was called the People's Party (PP), which supported constitutional monarchy and opposed the republican Liberal Party. It was able to re-group after the Second World War as part of a United Nationalist Front which achieved power campaigning on a simple anticommunist, ultranationalist platform. However, the vote received by the PP declined, leading them to create an expanded party, the Greek Rally, under the leadership of the charismatic General Alexandros Papagos. The conservatives opposed the far right dictatorship of the colonels (1967–1974) and established the New Democratic Party following the fall of the dictatorship. The new party had four objectives: to confront Turkish expansionism in Cyprus, to reestablish and solidify democratic rule, to give the country a strong government, and to make a powerful moderate party a force in Greek politics.[91]
The Independent Greeks, a newly formed political party in Greece has also supported conservatism, particularly national and religious conservatism. The Founding Declaration of the Independent Greeks strongly emphasises in the preservation of the Greek state and its sovereignty, the Greek people and the Greek Orthodox Church.[92]
Iceland
Founded in 1926 as the Conservative Party, Iceland's Independence Party adopted its current name in 1929. From the beginning they have been the largest vote-winning party, averaging around 40%. They combine liberalism and conservatism, supporting nationalization and opposed to class conflict. While mostly in opposition during the 1930s, they embraced economic liberalism, but accepted the welfare state after the war and participated in governments supportive of state intervention and protectionism. Unlike other Scandanivian conservative (and liberal) parties, it has always had a large working-class following.[93]
Italy
After WW2 in Italy the conservative theories were mainly represented by the Christian Democracy, which government form the foundation of the Republic until party's dissolution in 1994. Officially DC refused the ideology of Conservatism, but in many aspects, for example family values, it was a typical social conservative party.
In 1994 the media tycoon and entrepreneur Silvio Berlusconi founded the liberal conservative Forza Italia movement. Berlusconi won three elections in 1994, 2001 and 2008 governing the country for almost ten years as Prime Minister.
Besides FI, now the conservative ideas are mainly expressed by the New Centre-Right party led by Angelino Alfano, former Berlusconi's protégé who split from the reborn Forza Italia founding a new conservative movement. Alfano is the current Minister of the Interior in the government of Matteo Renzi.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg's major conservative party, the Christian Social People's Party (CSV or PCS) was formed as the Party of the Right in 1914, and adopted its present name in 1945. It was consistently the largest political party in Luxembourg and dominated politics throughout the 20th century.[94]
Norway
The Conservative Party of Norway (Norwegian: Høyre, literally "right") was formed by the old upper class of state officials and wealthy merchants to fight the populist democracy of the Liberal Party, but lost power in 1884 when parliamentarian government was first practised. It formed its first government under parliamentarism in 1889, and continued to alternate in power with the Liberals until the 1930s, when Labour became the dominant political party. It has elements both of paternalism, stressing the responsibilities of the state, and of economic liberalism. It first returned to power in the 1960s.[95] During Kåre Willoch's premiership in the 1980s, much emphasis was laid on liberalizing the credit- and housing market and abolishing the NRK TV and radio monopoly, while supporting law and order in criminal justice and traditional norms in education[96]
Sweden
Sweden's conservative party, the Moderate Party, was formed in 1904, two years after the founding of the liberal party.[97] The party emphasizes tax reductions, deregulation of private enterprise, and privatization of schools, hospitals and kindergartens.[98]
Switzerland
There are a number of conservative parties in Switzerland's parliament, the Federal Assembly. These include the largest, the Swiss People's Party (SVP),[99] the Christian Democratic People's Party (CVP),[100] represented in the Federal Council or cabinet by Doris Leuthard (in 2011), and the Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland (BDP),[101] which is a splinter of the SVP created after a failed attempt to expel Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf from the SVP.[101]
The Swiss People's Party (SVP or UDC) was formed from the 1971 merger of the Party of Farmers, Traders, and Citizens, formed in 1917 and the smaller Swiss Democratic Party, formed in 1942. The SVP emphasized agricultural policy, and was strong among farmers in German-speaking Protestant areas. As Switzerland considered closer relations with the European Union in the 1990s, the SVP adopted a more militant protectionist and isolationist stance. This stance has allowed it to expand into German-speaking Catholic mountainous areas.[102] The Anti-Defamation League, a non-Swiss lobby group based in the USA has accused them of manipulating issues such as immigration, Swiss neutrality and welfare benefits, awakening anti-Semitism and racism.[103] The Council of Europe has called the SVP "extreme right", although some scholars dispute this classification. Hans-Georg Betz for example describes it as "populist radical right".[104]
United Kingdom
Main article: Conservatism in the United Kingdom
Modern conservatism in different countries
While conservatism has been seen as an appeal to traditional, hierarchical society, some writers, such as Samuel P. Huntington, see it as situational. Under this definition, conservatives are seen as defending the established institutions of their time.[105]
Australia
Main article: Conservatism in Australia
The Liberal Party of Australia adheres to the principles of social conservatism and liberal conservatism.[106] It is Liberal in the sense of economics. The party is considered to be more right-wing than the Conservative Party (UK).[107] Other conservative parties are the National Party of Australia, a sister party of the Liberals, Family First Party, Democratic Labor Party, Shooters Party and the Katter's Australian Party.
The second largest party in the country, the Australian Labor Party's dominant faction is Labor Right, a socially conservative element. Australia is generally considered one of the most conservative western nations.[108] Australia undertook significant economic reform under the Australian Labor Party in the mid-1980s. Consequently issues like protectionism, welfare reform, privatization and deregulation are no longer debated in the political space as they are in Europe or North America. Moser and Catley explain, "In America, 'liberal' means left-of-center, and it is a pejorative term when used by conservatives in adversarial political debate. In Australia, of course, the conservatives are in the Liberal Party."[109] Jupp points out that, "[the] decline in English influences on Australian reformism and radicalism, and appropriation of the symbols of Empire by conservatives continued under the Liberal Party leadership of Sir Robert Menzies, which lasted until 1966."[110]
South Korea


 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2012)
Main article: Conservatism in South Korea
South Korea's major conservative party, the Saenuri Party or 새누리당, changed its form throughout its history. First it was the Democratic-Republican Party(1963~1980); its head was Park Chung-hee who seized power in a 1961 military coup d'état and ruled as an unelected military strongman until his formal election as president in 1963. He was president for 16 years, until his assassination on October 26, 1979. The Democratic Justice Party inherited the same ideology as the Democrati-Republican Party. Its head, Chun Doo-hwan, also gained power through a coup. His followers called themselves the Hanahoe. The Democratic Justice Party changed its form and acted to suppress the opposition party and to follow the people's demand for direct elections. The party's Roh Tae-woo became the first president who was elected through direct election. The next form of the major conservative party was the Democratic-Liberal Party. Again, through election, its second leader, Kim Young-sam, became the fourteenth president of Korea. When the conservative party was beaten by the opposition party in the general election, it changed its form again to follow the party members' demand for reforms. It became the New Korean Party. It changed again one year later since the President Kim Young-sam was blamed by the citizen for the IMF[clarification needed]. It changed its name to Grand National Party (Hannara-dang) (1998~2011). Since the late Kim Dae-jung assumed the presidency in 1998, GNP had not been the ruling party until Lee Myung-bak won the presidential election of 2007. It renamed to Saenoori Party (새누리당) in 2011.
United States
Main article: Conservatism in the United States



 President Ronald Reagan in 1982
The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism."[111] Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party. However, during the era of segregation many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a key role in the Conservative Coalition that largely controlled domestic policy in Congress from 1937 to 1963.[112]
Major priorities within American conservatism include support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[26] Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Some social conservatives see traditional social values threatened by secularism, so they support school prayer and oppose abortion and homosexuality.[113] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel.[114] Paleoconservatives, in opposition to multiculturalism, press for restrictions on immigration.[115] Most U.S. conservatives prefer Republicans over Democrats, and most factions favor a strong foreign policy and a strong military. The conservative movement of the 1950s attempted to bring together these divergent strands, stressing the need for unity to prevent the spread of "Godless Communism", which Reagan later labeled an "evil empire".[116] During the Reagan administration, conservatives also supported the so-called "Reagan Doctrine" under which the U.S., as part of a Cold War strategy, provided military and other support to guerrilla insurgencies that were fighting governments identified as socialist or communist.
Other modern conservative positions include opposition to world government and opposition to environmentalism.[117] On average, American conservatives desire tougher foreign policies than liberals do.[118]
Most recently, the Tea Party movement, founded in 2009, has proven a large outlet for populist American conservative ideas. Their stated goals include rigorous adherence to the U.S. Constitution, lower taxes, and opposition to a growing role for the federal government in health care. Electorally, it was considered a key force in Republicans reclaiming control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010.[119][120]
Characteristics of conservatism in France, Italy, Russia, UK and US
This is a broad Checklist of modern conservatism in five major countries.


France France
ItalyItaly
Russia Russia
United Kingdom United Kingdom
United States United States
Main parties Union for a Popular Movement, Arise the Republic, Movement for France, Front National Forza Italia, Northern League, Brothers of Italy, New Centre-Right United Russia, Liberal Democratic Party Conservative Party, UK Independence Party, Democratic Unionist Party, Ulster Unionist Party Republican Party
Government Strong defenders of republicanism. Opposed to Federalism Proponents of presidentialism and federalism Strong defenders of historical Russian sphere of influence
 Celebratory of Russia's Tsarist and Communist strong-man rule. Defends monarchism and unionism.
 Rejects republicanism.
 Supports unelected House of Lords chamber.
 Defends first-past-the-post voting system.
 Originally opposed to but now accepting of Scottish Devolution and Welsh Devolution.
 In Favor of English Votes for English Laws and sympathetic to ideas of English Devolution Supports federalism and republicanism.
State control Bonapartism, Gaullism.
 Moderate sized but centralised state FI, NL: Small decentralised state.
 Brothers of Italy, NCR: Small centralised state Statism.
 Strong, powerful, centralised state. Small centralised state. Small, minimal, decentralised state particularly at federal level.
 Strongly influenced by libertarianism.
Social views Rule of law, traditionalism, authority, liberty, defence of traditional family, public healthcare.
 Strongly supportive of French culture, Francophone, and against Americanisation. Traditionalism, opposition to immigration, criticism of multiculturalism, individualism, cult of personality, law and order, against abortion, gay marriage, civil unions and euthanasia.
 Critics of the Italian constitution and the Italian judiciary Rule of law, authority, cult of personality, state unity, public unity, law and order, traditionalism.
 Against modernism and Western culture. Hierarchy, rule of law, liberty, freedom, traditionalism, British stoicism, against abortion in Northern Ireland. Freedom, liberty, individualism, traditionalism, law and order, gun ownership, defence of traditional family, against euthanasia, abortion, and gay marriage.
 Strong supporters of the American Constitution and the separation of powers.
Religious views Defends secularism.
 Influenced by Catholic social teaching. Critics of laicism, influenced by the Roman catholic church Strong adherents to the Russian Orthodox Church. High Anglicanism.
Presbyterianism in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The 2012 Republican platform states: "We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage."[121]
Economic views UMP, DLR and MPF: Social market economy, distributism, nationalisation of major industries, loosely influenced by neoliberalism, moderate welfare system.
 FN: Nationalisation of major industries, protectionism and moderate re-distribution of wealth. Neoliberalism, protectionism, low taxation, Flat tax, opposition to wealth taxes Mixture of state regulation and market freedoms, nationalisation only of strategic industries, moderate re-distribution of wealth, rejection of communism. Neoliberalism, low taxation, flat tax, privatisation, free trade, small welfare state but unopposed to nationalised healthcare. Neoliberalism, economic liberalism, free trade, low taxation
 Opposes government-run healthcare.
International government UMP: Supportive of the United Nations and NATO. Moderately supportive of the European Union.
 FN, DLR and MPF: Sceptical about the United Nations, NATO and the European Union. FI, NCR: Supportive of NATO, various factions are moderately supportive or sceptical about the EU.
 Nl, Brothers of Italy: Sceptical about the EU and NATO Supportive of Commonwealth of Independent States and the Eurasian Economic Union. Sceptical about the United Nations. Supportive of the United Nations, NATO, and the Commonwealth. Sceptical about the European Union. Supportive of NATO.
 Critical of United Nations.
Military Issues Opposed to Nuclear Disarmament. Nuclear disarmament Opposed to Nuclear Disarmament. Opposed to Nuclear Disarmament. Opposed to Nuclear Disarmanent.
International affairs UMP: Interventionist.
 FN, MPF and DLR: Non-interventionist. Factions are variously interventionist or non-interventionalist. Interventionist. Conservatives, UUP and DUP: Interventionist.
 UKIP: Non-interventionist. Factions are variously interventionist or non-interventionalist.
Psychology
See also: Biology and political orientation
Following the Second World War, psychologists conducted research into the different motives and tendencies that account for ideological differences between left and right. The early studies focused on conservatives, beginning with Theodor W. Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality (1950) based on the F-scale personality test. This book has been heavily criticized on theoretical and methodological grounds, but some of its findings have been confirmed by further empirical research.[122]
In 1973, British psychologist Glenn Wilson published an influential book providing evidence that a general factor underlying conservative beliefs is "fear of uncertainty".[123] A meta-analysis of research literature by Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway in 2003 found that many factors, such as intolerance of ambiguity and need for cognitive closure, contribute to the degree of one's political conservatism.[122] A study by Kathleen Maclay stated these traits "might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty." The research also suggested that while most people are resistant to change, liberals are more tolerant of it.[124]
According to psychologist Bob Altemeyer, individuals who are politically conservative tend to rank high in right-wing authoritarianism on his RWA scale.[125] This finding was echoed by Theodor Adorno. A study done on Israeli and Palestinian students in Israel found that RWA scores of right-wing party supporters were significantly higher than those of left-wing party supporters.[126] However, a 2005 study by H. Michael Crowson and colleagues suggested a moderate gap between RWA and other conservative positions. "The results indicated that conservatism is not synonymous with RWA."[127]
Psychologist Felicia Pratto and her colleagues have found evidence to support the idea that a high social dominance orientation (SDO) is strongly correlated with conservative political views, and opposition to social engineering to promote equality, though Pratto's findings have been highly controversial.[128] Pratto and her colleagues found that high SDO scores were highly correlated with measures of prejudice. They were refuted in this claim by David J. Schneider, who wrote that "correlations between prejudice and political conservative are reduced virtually to zero when controls for SDO are instituted".[129] Kenneth Minogue criticized Pratto's work, saying "It is characteristic of the conservative temperament to value established identities, to praise habit and to respect prejudice, not because it is irrational, but because such things anchor the darting impulses of human beings in solidities of custom which we do not often begin to value until we are already losing them. Radicalism often generates youth movements, while conservatism is a condition found among the mature, who have discovered what it is in life they most value."[130]
A 1996 study on the relationship between racism and conservatism found that the correlation was stronger among more educated individuals, though "anti-Black affect had essentially no relationship with political conservatism at any level of educational or intellectual sophistication". They also found that the correlation between racism and conservatism could be entirely accounted for by their mutual relationship with social dominance orientation.[131]
A 2008 research report found that conservatives are happier than liberals, and that as income inequality increases, this difference in relative happiness increases, because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of economic inequality.[132]
Notes
1.Jump up ^ Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, "Conservatism", Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Third Edition, "Sometimes it (conservatism) has been outright opposition, based on an existing model of society that is considered right for all time. It can take a 'reactionary' form, harking back to, and attempting to reconstruct, forms of society which existed in an earlier period.", Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5.
2.Jump up ^ "Conservatism (political philosophy)". Britannica.com. Retrieved on 1 November 2009.
3.Jump up ^ Jerry Z. Muller (1997). Conservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present. Princeton U.P. p. 26. ISBN 0691037116. "Terms related to 'conservative' first found their way into political discourse in the title of the French weekly journal, Le Conservateur, founded in 1818 by François-René de Chateaubriand with the aid of Louis de Bonald."
4.Jump up ^ Frank O'Gorman (2003). Edmund Burke: His Political Philosophy. Routledge. p. 171. ISBN 9780415326841.
5.Jump up ^ Quintin Hogg Baron Hailsham of St. Marylebone (1959). The Conservative Case. Penguin Books.
6.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, pp. ix, 21
7.Jump up ^ Jerry Z. Muller, ed. Conservatism: an anthology of social and political thought from David Hume to the present (Princeton University Press, 1997); Sheldon Wolin, 'Hume and Conservatism', American Political Science Review 48 (1954), 999-1016.
8.Jump up ^ Stanlis, Peter J. Edmund Burke: selected writings and speeches. New York: Transaction Publishers (2009), p. 18
9.Jump up ^ M. Morton Auerbach. The Conservative Illusion. Columbia University Press (1959). p. 33.
10.Jump up ^ Auerbach, The Conservative Illusion. (1959), p. 40
11.Jump up ^ Auerbach, The Conservative Illusion. (1959), p. 37
12.Jump up ^ Auerbach, The Conservative Illusion (1959), pp. 52–54
13.Jump up ^ Auerbach, The Conservative Illusion, (1959), p. 41
14.Jump up ^ J.J. Sack, "The Memory of Burke and the Memory of Pitt: English Conservatism Confronts Its Past, 1806-1829," Historical Journal (1987) 30#3 pp. 623-640; in JSTOR; quote on p 627
15.Jump up ^ Auerbach, M. Morton The Conservative Illusion. Columbia University Press (1959), pp. 39–40
16.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, pp. 79–80
17.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, p. 83
18.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, p. 90
19.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, p. 121
20.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, pp. 6–7
21.Jump up ^ Feuchtwanger, p. 273
22.Jump up ^ Iain McLean and Laistair McMillan, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, "In the developed world neoliberalism is often coupled with Thatcherism ... .",p. 364, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5.
23.Jump up ^ Kersbergen, Kees van; Vis, Barbara (2013). Comparative Welfare State Politics: Development, Opportunities, and Reform. Cambridge UP. p. 38.
24.Jump up ^ Moore, Robert Laurence; Vaudagna, Maurizio (2003). The American Century in Europe. Cornell University Press. p. 226.
25.Jump up ^ Richard E. Frankel, "From the Beer Halls to the Halls of Power: The Cult of Bismarck and the Legitimization of a New German Right, 1898–1945," German Studies Review, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Oct., 2003), pp. 543–560 in JSTOR
26.^ Jump up to: a b Gregory Schneider, The Conservative Century: From Reaction to Revolution (Rowman & Littlefield. 2009) p. xii
27.Jump up ^ ams, Ian Political Ideology Today (2nd edition), Manchester University Press, 2002, p. 46
28.Jump up ^ Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science Ellen Grigsby, Cengage Learning, 2008 ISBN 978-0-495-50112-1, ISBN 978-0-495-50112-1 pp. 108, 109, 112, 347
29.Jump up ^ (French) Ipolitique.fr
30.Jump up ^ Parties-and-elections.de
31.Jump up ^ M. Gallagher, M. Laver and P. Mair, Representative Government in Europe, p. 221.
32.Jump up ^ Allen R.T., Beyond Liberalism, p. 13.
33.Jump up ^ "New Libertarian Manifesto" (PDF).
34.Jump up ^ "Interview With Samuel Edward Konkin III".
35.Jump up ^ Freeman, Robert M. (1999). Correctional Organization and Management: Public Policy Challenges, Behavior, and Structure. Elsevier. p. 109. ISBN 978-0-7506-9897-9.
36.Jump up ^ Mandal, V.C. (2007). Dictionary Of Public Administration. Sarup & Sons. p. 306. ISBN 978-81-7625-784-8.
37.Jump up ^ http://www.parties-and-elections.de/content.html
38.Jump up ^ Traynor, Ian, The EU's weary travellers The Guardian, April 4, 2006
39.Jump up ^ National questions - conservatives fragmenting as liberals unite, National Review, June 30, 1997
40.Jump up ^ Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O. Nelson, ed. (2006) American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, pp. 870–75.
41.Jump up ^ Seaton, James (1996). Cultural Conservatism, Political Liberalism: From Criticism to Cultural Studies. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-10645-5.
42.Jump up ^ The Next Digital Divide (utne article)
43.Jump up ^ "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." President George H. W. Bush, http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
44.Jump up ^ The World & I.: Volume 1, Issue 5 (1986). The World & I.: Volume 1, Issue 5. Washington Times Corp. Retrieved 19 August 2011. "militant atheism was incompatible with conservatism"
45.Jump up ^ Peter Davies; Derek Lynch (2002). The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-21494-0. Retrieved 19 August 2011. "In addition, conservative Chrsitians often endorsed far-right remines as the lesser of two evils, especially when confronted with militant atheism in the USSR."
46.Jump up ^ Peter L. Berger; Grace Davie; Effie Fokas (2008). Religious America, Secular Europe?: A Theme and Variations. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-6011-8. Retrieved 19 August 2011. "If anything the reverse is true: moral conservatives continue to oppose secular liberals on a wide range of issues."
47.Jump up ^ Andersen, Margaret L., Taylor, Howard Francis. Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society Cengage Learning, 4th Ed. (2005), pp. 469–70. ISBN 978-0-534-61716-5
48.^ Jump up to: a b Patrick Dunleavy, Paul Joseph Kelly, Michael Moran. British Political Science: Fifty Years of Political Studies. Oxford, England, UK; Malden, Massachusetts, USA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000. pp. 107–08.
49.Jump up ^ Robert Blake. Disraeli. Second Edition. London, England, UK: Eyre & Spottiswoode (Publishers) Ltd, 1967. p. 524.
50.Jump up ^ Trevor Russel. The Tory Party: its policies, divisions and future. Penguin, 1978. p. 167.
51.Jump up ^ David Marr. "Power Trip: The Political Journey of Kevin Rudd", Issue 38 of Quarterly Essay Series. Black Inc., 2010. p. 126. (British Conservative Party leader David Cameron launched the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos.)
52.Jump up ^ Ruth Lister. Understanding Theories and Concepts in Social Policy. Bristol, England, UK; Portland, Oregon, USA: The Policy Press, 2010. p. 53.
53.Jump up ^ Jonathan Lurie. William Howard Taft: The Travails of a Progressive Conservative. New York, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2012. p. ix.
54.Jump up ^ Günter Bischof. "Eisenhower, the Judiciary, and Desegregation" by Stanley I. Kutler, Eisenhower: a centenary assessment. p. 98.
55.Jump up ^ John Alden Nichols. Germany after Bismarck, the Caprivi era, 1890–1894: Issue 5. Harvard University Press, 1958. p. 260.
56.^ Jump up to: a b Hugh Segal. The Right Balance. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Douglas & McIntyre, 2011. pp. 113–48.
57.Jump up ^ Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-19-878076-2, pp. 31–33
58.Jump up ^ Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-19-878076-2
59.Jump up ^ Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-19-878076-2, p. 44
60.Jump up ^ Flecker, Jörg. Changing working life and the appeal of the extreme right. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007 ISBN 978-0-7546-4915-1, p. 19
61.Jump up ^ Lewis, Paul G. Political parties in post-communist Eastern Europe. Routledge, 2000. ISBN 978-0-415-20182-7 pp. 54-55
62.Jump up ^ Smith, Denis Mack. Modern Italy: a political history. University of Michigan Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0-472-10895-4 p. 31
63.Jump up ^ Daalder, Hans and Irwin, Galen A. Politics in the Netherlands: how much change? Routledge, 1989. ISBN 0-7146-3361-5 pp. 154-57
64.Jump up ^ Blinkhorn, Martin. Fascists and conservatives. Routledge, 1990. p. 7
65.Jump up ^ Takemae, Eiji, and Ricketts, Robert. The allied occupation of Japan. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003. ISBN 978-0-8264-1521-9 pp. 262–63
66.Jump up ^ Fierlbeck, Katherine. Political thought in Canada: an intellectual history. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. ISBN 978-1-55111-711-9 pp. 87–88
67.Jump up ^ Kirk, Russell. The Conservative Mind. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2001. ISBN 978-0-89526-171-7, 2001. ISBN 978-0-89526-171-7 pp. 6, 63
68.Jump up ^ Middlebrook, Kevin J. Conservative parties, the right, and democracy in Latin America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000 ISBN 978-0-8018-6386-8 pp. 1-52
69.Jump up ^ Peeler, John A. Latin American Democracies: Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1985. p. 79
70.Jump up ^ Oppenheim, Lois Hecht. Politics in Chile: socialism, authoritarianism, and market democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-8133-4227-6 pp. 151–52
71.Jump up ^ Annesley, Claire. A political and economic dictionary of Western Europe. London: Routledge, 2005. ISBN 978-1-85743-214-5, p. 124
72.Jump up ^ Zig Layton-Henry, ed. Conservative Politics in Western Europe (St. Martin's Press, 1982)
73.Jump up ^ Paul Lucardie and Hans-Martien Ten Napel, "Between confessionalism and liberal conservatism: the Christian Democratic parties of Belgium and the Netherlands." in David Hanley, ed. Christian Democracy in Europe: A Comparative Perspective (London: Pinter 1994) pp: 51-70.
74.Jump up ^ Philippe Siuberski (7 October 2014). "Belgium gets new government with Michel as PM". Yahoo News. AFP. Retrieved 7 November 2014.
75.Jump up ^ Kornberg, Allan and Mishler, William. Influence in Parliament, Canada. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1976. p. 38
76.Jump up ^ Schultze, Rainer-Olaf; Sturm, Roland and Eberle, Dagmar. Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America: reaping the benefits of an ideological victory?. Germany: VS Verlag, 2003. ISBN 978-3-8100-3812-8 p. 15
77.Jump up ^ Panizza, Francisco. Populism and the mirror of democracy. London: Verso, 2005. ISBN 978-1-85984-489-2 p. 180
78.Jump up ^ Conway, John Frederick. Debts to pay: the future of federalism in Quebec. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 2004. ISBN 978-1-55028-814-8 pp. 57, 77
79.Jump up ^ Osterling, p. 180
80.Jump up ^ Annesley, Claire. A political and economic dictionary of Western Europe. London: Routledge, 2005. ISBN 978-1-85743-214-5, p. 68
81.Jump up ^ Kasper Støvring, "The Turn from Cultural Radicalism to National Conservatism: Cultural Policy in Denmark." Telos 2009.148 (2009) pp: 54-72.
82.Jump up ^ Siaroff, Alan. Comparative European party systems: an analysis of parliamentary elections since 1945. New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., 2000. ISBN 978-0-8153-2930-5, p. 243
83.Jump up ^ Roger Price (2005). A Concise History of France. Cambridge UP. p. 225.
84.Jump up ^ Maurice Larkin, Religion, politics and preferment in France since 1890: La Belle Epoque and its legacy (Cambridge University Press, 2002)
85.Jump up ^ Stanley Hoffmann, "The Vichy Circle of French Conservatives" in Hoffmann, Decline or Renewal? France since the 1930's (1974) pp: 3-25.
86.Jump up ^ Richard Vinen, "The Parti républicain de la Liberté and the Reconstruction of French Conservatism, 1944–1951," French History (1993) 7#2 pp: 183-204.
87.Jump up ^ Viereck, Peter and Ryn, Claes G. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2005. ISBN 978-0-7658-0576-8 p. 205
88.Jump up ^ Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-19-878076-2, p. 32
89.Jump up ^ Hauss, Charles. Comparative Politics: Domestic Responses to Global Challenges. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2008. ISBN 978-0-495-50109-1 p. 116
90.Jump up ^ Knapp, Andrew and Wright, Vincent. The government and politics of France. New York: Routledge, 2006. ISBN 978-0-415-35733-3 p. 211
91.Jump up ^ Penniman, Howard Rae. Greece at the polls: the national elections of 1974 and 1977. Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1981. ISBN 978-0-8447-3434-7 pp. 49–59
92.Jump up ^ Founding Declaration of Independent Greeks
93.Jump up ^ Grofman, Bernard and Lijpart, Arend, editors. The evolution of electoral and party systems in the Nordic countries. New York: Agathon Press, 2002. "The Icelandic electoral system 1844–1999" by Olafur Th. Hardarson ISBN 978-0-87586-138-8, pp. 107–08
94.Jump up ^ Urwin, Derek W. A Dictionary of European History and Politics, 1945-1995. London: Pearson UK, 1996. ISBN 978-0-582-25874-7 p. 76.
95.Jump up ^ Heidar, Knut. Norway: elites on trial. Boulder Westview Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8133-3200-0, pp. 66–67
96.Jump up ^ Francis Sejersted Høyrebølgen Store norske leksikon. Retrieved 18 December 2013 (Norwegian)
97.Jump up ^ Grofman, Bernard and Lijpart, Arend, editors. The evolution of electoral and party systems in the Nordic countries. New York: Agathon Press, 2002. "The Icelandic electoral system 1844-1999" by Olafur Th. Hardarson ISBN 978-0-87586-138-8, pp. 107–235
98.Jump up ^ Thomas, Clive S. (editor). Political Parties and Interest Groups: Shaping Democratic Governance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2001. ISBN 978-1-55587-978-5 "Sweden: Weakening Links Between Political Parties and Interest Organizations" by Anders Widfeldt
99.Jump up ^ Ziebertz, Hans-Georg (2011). How Teachers in Europe Teach Religion: An International Empirical Study: An International Empirical Study in 16 Countries. Lit Verlag. p. 237. ISBN 978-3-643-10043-6.
100.Jump up ^ Juravich, Tom (2000). Ravenswood: The Steelworkers' Victory and the Revival of American Labor. Cornell University Press. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-8014-8666-1.
101.^ Jump up to: a b Schwok, René (2009). SWITZERLAND – EUROPEAN UNION: AN IMPOSSIBLE MEMBERSHIP?. Peter Lang. p. 143. ISBN 978-90-5201-576-7.
102.Jump up ^ Siaroff, Alan Comparative European Party Systems. New York: Garland, 2000. ISBN 0-8153-2930-X p. 446
103.Jump up ^ The Stephen Roth Institute. Anti-semitism worldwide Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002 ISBN 0-8032-5943-3 p. 120
104.Jump up ^ Hainsworth, pp. 44, 74
105.Jump up ^ Winthrop and Lovell, pp. 163–66
106.Jump up ^ Barns, Greg. Wanted:genuine liberal party for political scene. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2011
107.Jump up ^ Barns, Greg (15 November 2011). "Wanted: genuine liberal party for political scene". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
108.Jump up ^ After Howard's decade is Australia more conservative? Australian Review of Public Affairs Gabrielle Meagher and Shaun Wilson
109.Jump up ^ David Mosler; Robert Catley (1998). America and Americans in Australia. p. 83. ISBN 9780275962524.
110.Jump up ^ James Jupp (2004). The English in Australia. p. 172. ISBN 9780521542951.
111.Jump up ^ Leo P. Ribuffo, "20 Suggestions for Studying the Right now that Studying the Right is Trendy," Historically Speaking Jan 2011 v.12#1 pp. 2–6, quote on p. 6
112.Jump up ^ Kari Frederickson, The Dixicrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932–1968, p. 12, "...conservative southern Democrats viewed warily the potential of New Deal programs to threaten the region's economic dependence on cheap labor while stirring the democratic ambitions of the disfranchised and undermining white supremacy.", The University of North Carolina Press, 2000, ISBN 978-0-8078-4910-1
113.Jump up ^ Cal Jillson (22 February 2011). Texas Politics: Governing the Lone Star State. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780203829417. Retrieved 19 January 2012. "Social conservatives focus on moral or values issues, such as abortion, marriage, school prayer, and judicial appointments."
114.Jump up ^ Bruce Frohnen, ed. American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (2006) pp. ix–xiv
115.Jump up ^ Michael Foley (25 October 2007). American credo: the place of ideas in US politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191528330. Retrieved 18 January 2012. "Against accusations of being pre-modern or even anti-modern in outlook, paleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of multicultural programmes, the decentralization of the federal polity, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and isolationism in the conduct of American foreign policy, and a generally revanchist outlook upon a social order in need of recovering old lines of distinction and in particular the assignment of roles in accordance with traditional categories of gender, ethnicity, and race."
116.Jump up ^ Paul Edward Gottfried, Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right, p. 9, "Postwar conservatives set about creating their own synthesis of free-market capitalism, Christian morality, and the global struggle against Communism." (2009); Gottfried, Theologies and moral concern (1995) p. 12
117.Jump up ^ Peter J. Jacques; Riley E. Dunlap; Mark Freeman, The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism, Environmental Politics. v12 m3 (2008), pp. 349–85
118.Jump up ^ Peter Hays Gries, The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs (Stanford, 2014).
119.Jump up ^ Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (2012) pp. 45–82
120.Jump up ^ "Katie Couric interviews Tea Party Leaders", CBS News, January 25, 2010.
121.Jump up ^ see 2012 Republican NationalPlatform
122.^ Jump up to: a b Jost, J.J, Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A.A., & Sulloway, F.J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–75.
123.Jump up ^ Wilson, G.D. (Ed.)(1973) The Psychology of Conservatism, London: Academic Press.
124.Jump up ^ Berkeley.edu
125.Jump up ^ Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
126.Jump up ^ Rubinstein, G. (1996). "Two Peoples in One Land: A Validation Study of Altemeyer's Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale in the Palestinian and Jewish Societies in Israel". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 27 (2): 216–30. doi:10.1177/0022022196272005.
127.Jump up ^ Crowson, H. Michael, Stephen J. Thoma, and Nita Hestevold. "Is political conservatism synonymous with authoritarianism?." The Journal of Social Psychology 145.5 (Oct 2005): 571(22). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Remote Access. 20 May 2009 Galegroup.com
128.Jump up ^ Pratto, Felicia; Sidanius, Jim; Stallworth, Lisa M.; Malle, Bertram F. (1994). "Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (4): 741–63. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.
129.Jump up ^ The psychology of stereotyping, David J. Schneider, Guilford Press, 2005 ISBN 978-1-59385-193-4, ISBN 978-1-59385-193-4. p. 275
130.Jump up ^ The Social science encyclopedia, Jessica Kuper, Taylor & Francis, 1985 ISBN 978-0-7102-0008-2, ISBN 978-0-7102-0008-2. pp. 155–56
131.Jump up ^ Sidanius, J; Pratto, F; Bobo, L (1996). "Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance?" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (3): 476–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.476.
132.Jump up ^ Napier, J. L.; Jost, J. T. (2008). "Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?". Psychological Science 19 (6): 565–572. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02124.x. PMID 18578846.
References
Eccleshall, Robert. English Conservatism since the Restoration: An Introduction and Anthology. London: Unwin Hyman, 1990 ISBN 978-0-04-445346-8
Hainsworth, Paul. The extreme right in Western Europe, Abingdon, OXON: Routledge, 2008 ISBN 0-415-39682-4
Osterling, Jorge P. Democracy in Colombia: Clientelist Politics and Guerrilla Warfare. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1989 ISBN 0887382290, 9780887382291
Winthrop, Norman and Lovell, David W. "Varieties of Conservative Theory". In Winthrop, Norman. Liberal Democratic Theory and Its Critics. Beckenham, Kent: Croom Helm Ltd., 1983 ISBN 0-7099-2766-5, 9780709927662
Further reading
Blee, Kathleen M., and Sandra McGee Deutsch, eds. Women of the Right: Comparisons and Interplay Across Borders (Penn State University Press; 2012) 312 pages; scholarly essays giving a global perspective on women in right-wing politics.
Theodore Dalrymple. Our Culture, What's Left of It: the Mandarins and the masses /, 2005
Blinkhorn, Martin. Fascists and conservatives : the radical right and the establishment in twentieth-century Europe / 1990
Crunden, Robert Crunden. The Superfluous Men: Critics of American Culture, 1900–1945 1999
Fryer., Russell G. Recent conservative political thought : American perspectives 1979
The Conservative Movement / Paul E. Gottfried., 1993
The British Right : Conservative and right wing politics in Britain / Neill Nugent., 1977
America alone: the neo-conservatives and the global order / Stefan A. Halper., 2004
Conservatism / Ted Honderich.
The Conservative Mind / Russell Kirk., 2001
The Politics of Prudence / Russell Kirk., 1993
The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs / Peter Hays Gries, 2014 (Stanford University Press)
The conservative press in twentieth-century America / Ronald Lora., 1999
From the New Deal to the New Right: race and the southern origins of modern conservatism / Joseph E. Lowndes., 2008
Conservatism / Jerry Z. Muller.
Right-wing women: from conservatives to extremists around the world / P. Bacchetta., 2002
Unmaking law: the Conservative campaign to roll back the common law / Jay M. Feinman., 2004
Radicals or conservatives?: the contemporary American right / James McEvoy., 1971
Conservatism: Dream and Reality / Robert Nisbet., 2001
Ought the Neo-Cons be Considered Conservatives?: a philosophical response / AQ: Journal of Contemporary Analysis. 75(6):32–33/40. 2003
Conservatism / Noel O'Sullivan.
The new racism : conservatives and the ideology of the tribe / Martin Barker., 1982
A time for choosing: the rise of modern American conservatism / Jonathan M. Schoenwald., 2001
The Meaning of Conservatism / Roger Scruton.
Facing fascism: the conservative party and the European dictators, 1935–1940 / N. J. Crowson., 1997
The End of Politics: triangulation, realignment and the battle for the center ground / Alexander Lee and Timothy Stanley., 2006
Primary sources
Schneider, ed. Conservatism in America since 1930: a reader (2003)
Witonski, Peter, ed. The wisdom of conservatism (4 vol. Arlington House, 1971) 2396 pages)
Online sources
The Graphic Guide to Conservatism: a visual primer on the conservative worldview / Olivier Ballou. [1]. 2011
Conservatism / Kieron O'Hara / Reaktion Books, 2011 (Reviewed in The Montreal Review)
Carey, George (2008). "Conservatism". In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 93–5. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
External links

Find more about
Conservatism
 at Wikipedia's sister projects

Search Wiktionary Definitions from Wiktionary
Search Commons Media from Commons
Search Wikinews News stories from Wikinews
Search Wikiquote Quotations from Wikiquote
Search Wikisource Source texts from Wikisource
Search Wikibooks Textbooks from Wikibooks
Search Wikiversity Learning resources from Wikiversity


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Conservatism




































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Conservatism in Asia














































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Conservatism in Europe
















































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Conservatism in North America
























































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Conservatism in South America




























[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Political ideologies

















































Authority control
GND: 4032187-3 ·
 HDS: 17458
 

  


Categories: Conservatism
Political ideologies
Social theories


















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

View source

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Afrikaans
Alemannisch
አማርኛ
العربية
Aragonés
Asturianu
Azərbaycanca
Bân-lâm-gú
Башҡортса
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎
Български
Boarisch
Bosanski
Brezhoneg
Català
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Fiji Hindi
Føroyskt
Français
Frysk
Gaeilge
Galego
한국어
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Igbo
Ilokano
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Къарачай-малкъар
ქართული
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Kurdî
Кыргызча
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Limburgs
Magyar
Македонски
മലയാളം
मराठी
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پنجابی
Piemontèis
Polski
Português
Română
Русиньскый
Русский
Саха тыла
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
کوردیی ناوەندی
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
తెలుగు
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
ئۇيغۇرچە / Uyghurche
Tiếng Việt
Winaray
ייִדיש
粵語
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 June 2015, at 03:19.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#Religious_conservatism







Page semi-protected

Conservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religious Conservatism)
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about conservatism as a political and social philosophy. For other uses, see Conservatism (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Conservatism
Blue flag waving.svg

Variants[show]
















Concepts[show]












People[show]







































































Organizations[show]












Religious[show]







National variants[show]












Related topics[show]
















Conservatism portal
Politics portal

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of the Politics series
Party politics

Political spectrum

Far-left/Radical left ·
 Left-wing

Centre-left
Centre/Radical centre

Centre-right
Right-wing ·
 Far-right/Radical right


Party platform

Extremist ·
 Radical

Reformist ·
 Moderate

Syncretic
Conservative ·
 Reactionary

Fundamentalist


Party system

Non-partisan ·
 Single-party

Dominant-party ·
 Two-party ·
 Multi-party


Coalition

Hung parliament ·
 Confidence and supply ·
 Minority government ·
 Rainbow coalition ·
 Grand coalition ·
 Full coalition
 National Unity government
Majority government

Lists
Political parties by country
Political parties by UN geoscheme
Political ideologies

Politics portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of the culture and civilization. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[1][2] The first established use of the term in a political context originated with François-René de Chateaubriand in 1818,[3] during the period of Bourbon restoration that sought to roll back the policies of the French Revolution. The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views. There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues. Edmund Burke, an 18th-century politician who opposed the French Revolution but supported the American Revolution, is credited as one of the main theorists of conservatism in Great Britain in the 1790s.[4] According to Quintin Hogg, the chairman of the British Conservative Party in 1959, "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself."[5]


Contents  [hide]
1 Development of Western conservatism 1.1 Great Britain
1.2 Germany
1.3 United States
1.4 Latin Europe
2 Forms of conservatism 2.1 Liberal conservatism
2.2 Conservative liberalism
2.3 Libertarian conservatism
2.4 Fiscal conservatism
2.5 National and traditional conservatism
2.6 Cultural and social conservatism
2.7 Religious conservatism
2.8 Progressive conservatism
3 Historic conservatism in different countries 3.1 Belgium
3.2 Canada
3.3 Colombia
3.4 Denmark
3.5 Finland
3.6 France
3.7 Greece
3.8 Iceland
3.9 Italy
3.10 Luxembourg
3.11 Norway
3.12 Sweden
3.13 Switzerland
3.14 United Kingdom
4 Modern conservatism in different countries 4.1 Australia
4.2 South Korea
4.3 United States
5 Characteristics of conservatism in France, Italy, Russia, UK and US
6 Psychology
7 Notes
8 References
9 Further reading 9.1 Primary sources
10 Online sources
11 External links

Development of Western conservatism
Great Britain
Main article: Conservatism in the United Kingdom
Part of the Politics series on
Toryism
The Royal Oak in which Charles II hid to escape capture by the Roundheads is a prominent symbol of Toryism

Characteristics[show]













General topics[show]











People[show]



















Related topics[hide]
Conservatism ·
 Distributists ·
 Miguelism ·
 Vendéens ·
 Chouans ·
 Legitimism ·
 Carlism ·
 Sanfedismo ·
 Viva Maria ·
 Cristeros ·
 Reactionary ·
 High Tory ·
 Blue Tory ·
 Red Tory ·
 Veronese Easter
 
British portal
Politics portal

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
In Britain, conservative ideas (though not yet called that) emerged in the Tory movement during the Restoration period (1660–1688). Toryism supported a hierarchical society with a monarch who ruled by divine right. Tories opposed the idea that sovereignty derived from the people, and rejected the authority of parliament and freedom of religion. Robert Filmer's Patriarcha: or the Natural Power of Kings, published posthumously in 1680 but written before the English Civil War of 1642-1651, became accepted as the statement of their doctrine. However, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 destroyed this principle to some degree by establishing a constitutional government in England, leading to the hegemony of the Tory-opposed Whig ideology. Faced with defeat, the Tories reformed their movement, now holding that sovereignty was vested in the three estates of Crown, Lords, and Commons[6] rather than solely in the Crown. Toryism became marginalized during the long period of Whig ascendancy in the 18th century.



Edmund Burke (1729–1797)
Conservatives typically see Richard Hooker (1554-1600) as the founding father of conservatism, along with the Marquess of Halifax (1633-1695), David Hume (1711-1776) and Edmund Burke (1729-1797). Halifax promoted pragmatism in government, whilst Hume argued against political rationalism and utopianism.[7] Burke served as the private secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham and as official pamphleteer to the Rockingham branch of the Whig party.[8] Together with the Tories, they were the conservatives in the late 18th century United Kingdom.[9] Burke's views were a mixture of liberal and conservative. He supported the American Revolution of 1765-1783 but abhorred the violence of the French Revolution (1789- ). He accepted the liberal ideals of private property and the economics of Adam Smith (1723-1790), but thought that economics should remain subordinate to the conservative social ethic, that capitalism should be subordinate to the medieval social tradition and that the business class should be subordinate to aristocracy.[10] He insisted on standards of honor derived from the medieval aristocratic tradition, and saw the aristocracy as the nation's natural leaders.[11] That meant limits on the powers of the Crown, since he found the institutions of Parliament to be better informed than commissions appointed by the executive. He favored an established church, but allowed for a degree of religious toleration.[12] Burke justified the social order on the basis of tradition: tradition represented the wisdom of the species and he valued community and social harmony over social reforms.[13] Burke was a leading theorist in his day, finding extreme idealism (either Tory or Whig) an endangerment to broader liberties, and (like Hume) rejecting abstract reason as an unsound guide for political theory. Despite their influence on future conservative thought, none of these early contributors were explicitly involved in Tory politics. Hooker lived in the 16th century, long before the advent of toryism, whilst Hume was an apolitical philosopher and Halifax similarly politically independent. Burke described himself as a Whig.
Shortly after Burke's death in 1797, conservatism revived as a mainstream political force as the Whigs suffered a series of internal divisions. This new generation of conservatives derived their politics not from Burke but from his predecessor, the Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751), who was a Jacobite and traditional Tory, lacking Burke's sympathies for Whiggish policies such as Catholic Emancipation and American independence (famously attacked by Samuel Johnson in "Taxation No Tyranny"). In the first half of the 19th century many newspapers, magazines, and journals promoted loyalist or right-wing attitudes in religion, politics, and international affairs. Burke was seldom mentioned but William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806) became a conspicuous hero. The most prominent journals included The Quarterly Review, founded in 1809 as a counterweight to the Whigs' Edinburgh Review, and the even more conservative Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. Sack finds that the Quarterly Review promoted a balanced Canningite toryism; was neutral on Catholic emancipation and only mildly critical of Nonconformist Dissent; it opposed slavery and supported the current poor laws. It was "aggressively imperialist". The high-church clergy of the Church of England read the Orthodox Churchman's Magazine which was equally hostile to Jewish, Catholic, Jacobin, Methodist, and Unitarian spokesmen. Anchoring the ultra tories, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine stood firmly against Catholic emancipation, and favoured slavery, cheap money, mercantilism, the Navigation acts, and the Holy Alliance.[14]
In the 19th century, conflict between wealthy businessmen and the aristocracy split the British conservative movement, with the aristocracy calling for a return to medieval ideas while the business classes advocated laissez-faire capitalism.[15]
Although conservatives opposed attempts to allow greater representation of the middle class in parliament, in 1834 they conceded that electoral reform could not be reversed and promised to support further reforms so long as they did not erode the institutions of church and state. These new principles were presented in the Tamworth Manifesto of 1834, which historians regard as the basic statement of the beliefs of the new Conservative Party.[16]

photograph

Robert Peel (1788–1850)
Some conservatives lamented the passing of a pastoral world where the ethos of noblesse oblige had promoted respect from the lower classes. They saw the Anglican Church and the aristocracy as balances against commercial wealth.[17] They worked toward legislation for improved working conditions and urban housing.[18] This viewpoint would later be called Tory Democracy.[19] However since Burke there has always been tension between traditional aristocratic conservatism and the wealthy business class.[20]
In 1834 Tory Prime Minister Robert Peel issued the Tamworth Manifesto in which he pledged to endorse moderate political reform. This marked the beginning of the transformation of British conservatism from High Tory reactionism towards a more modern form based on "conservation". The party became known as the Conservative Party as a result, a name it has retained to this day. Peel, however, would also be the root of a split in the party between the traditional Tories (led by the Earl of Derby and Benjamin Disraeli) and the 'Peelites' (led first by Peel himself, then by the Earl of Aberdeen). The split occurred in 1846 over the issue of free trade, which Peel supported, versus protectionism, supported by Derby. The majority of the party sided with Derby, whilst about a third split away, eventually merging with the Whigs and the radicals to form the Liberal Party. Despite the split, the mainstream Conservative Party accepted the doctrine of free trade in 1852.



Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013)
In the second half of the 19th century the Liberal Party faced political schisms, especially over Irish Home Rule. Leader William Gladstone (himself a former Peelite) sought to give Ireland a degree of autonomy, a move that elements in both the left and right wings of his party opposed. These split off to become the Liberal Unionists (led by Joseph Chamberlain), forming a coalition with the Conservatives before merging with them in 1912. The Liberal Unionist influence dragged the Conservative Party towards the left; Conservative governments passing a number of progressive reforms at the turn of the 20th century. By the late 19th century the traditional business supporters of the UK Liberal Party had joined the Conservatives, making them the party of business and commerce.[21]
After a period of Liberal dominance before the First World War, the Conservatives gradually became more influential in government, regaining full control of the cabinet in 1922. In the interwar period conservatism was the major ideology in Britain[citation needed], as the Liberal Party vied with the Labour Party for control of the left. After the Second World War, the first Labour government (1945-1951) under Clement Attlee embarked on a program of nationalization of industry and the promotion of social welfare. The Conservatives generally accepted those policies until the 1980s. In the 1980s the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher, guided by neoliberal economics, reversed many of Labour's programmes.[22]
Small conservative political parties -such as the United Kingdom Independence Party (founded in 1993) and the Democratic Unionist Party (founded in 1971) - began to appear, although they have yet to make any significant impact at Westminster (as of 2014 the DUP comprises the largest political party in the ruling coalition in the Northern Ireland Assembly).
Germany
Main article: Conservatism in Germany
Conservative thought developed alongside nationalism in Germany, culminating in Germany's victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War, the creation of the unified German Empire in 1871, and the simultaneous rise of Otto von Bismarck on the European political stage. Bismarck's "balance of power" model maintained peace in Europe for decades at the end of the 19th century. His "revolutionary conservatism" was a conservative state-building strategy designed to make ordinary Germans—not just the Junker elite—more loyal to state and emperor, he created the modern welfare state in Germany in the 1880s. According to Kees van Kersbergen and Barbara Vis, his strategy was:
granting social rights to enhance the integration of a hierarchical society, to forge a bond between workers and the state so as to strengthen the latter, to maintain traditional relations of authority between social and status groups, and to provide a countervailing power against the modernist forces of liberalism and socialism.[23]
Bismarck also enacted universal male suffrage in the new German Empire in 1871.[24] He became a great hero to German conservatives, who erected many monuments to his memory after he left office in 1890.[25]
With the rise of Nazism in 1933, agrarian movements faded and was supplanted by a more command-based economy and forced social integration. Though Adolf Hitler succeeded in garnering the support of many German industrialists, prominent traditionalists openly and secretly opposed his policies of euthanasia, genocide, and attacks on organized religion, including Claus von Stauffenberg, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Henning von Tresckow, Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen, and the monarchist Carl Friedrich Goerdeler.
More recently, the work of conservative CDU leader Helmut Kohl helped bring about German Reunification, along with the closer integration of Europe in the form of the Maastricht Treaty. Today, German conservatism is often associated with Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose tenure has been marked by attempts to save the common European currency (EURO) from demise.
United States
Main article: Conservatism in the United States
In the United States, conservatism is rooted in the American Revolution and its commitment to republicanism, sovereignty of the people, and the rights and liberties of Englishmen while expelling the king and his supporters. Most European conservative writers do not accept American conservatism as genuine; they consider it to be a variety of liberalism. Modern American liberals in the New Deal do not disagree with that consensus view, but conservatives spend much more emphasis on the Revolutionary origins, with the Tea Party advocates using an episode from the 1770s for their name and some even dress in costumes from that era at their rallies.
Historian Gregory Schneider identifies several constants in American conservatism: respect for tradition, support of republicanism, "the rule of law and the Christian religion," and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[26]



Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821)
Latin Europe
Another form of conservatism developed in France in parallel to conservatism in Britain. It was influenced by Counter-Enlightenment works by men such as Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald. Latin conservatism was less pragmatic and more reactionary than the conservatism of Burke.[citation needed] Many Continental or Traditionalist conservatives do not support separation of Church and state, with most supporting state recognition of and cooperation with the Catholic Church, such as had existed in France before the Revolution.
Eventually conservatives added patriotism and nationalism to the list of traditional values they support. German conservatives were the first to embrace nationalism, which was previously associated with liberalism and the Revolution in France.[27]
Forms of conservatism
Liberal conservatism
Main article: Liberal conservatism
Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values and policies with classical liberal stances.[28] As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings. Historically, the term often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. It contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.
Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered conservative. In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, such as Italy and Spain, the terms liberal and conservative may be synonymous. The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, such as in the writings of Russell Kirk).
A secondary meaning for the term liberal conservatism that has developed in Europe is a combination of more modern conservative (less traditionalist) views with those of social liberalism. This has developed as an opposition to the more collectivist views of socialism. Often this involves stressing what are now conservative views of free-market economics and belief in individual responsibility, with social liberal views on defence of civil rights, environmentalism and support for a limited welfare state. In continental Europe, this is sometimes also translated into English as social conservatism.
Conservative liberalism
Main article: Conservative liberalism
Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism that combines liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, the right wing of the liberal movement.[29][30][31] The roots of conservative liberalism are found at the beginning of the history of liberalism. Until the two World Wars, in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy. Events after World War I brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism.[32]
Libertarian conservatism
Main article: Libertarian conservatism
Libertarian conservatism describes certain political ideologies within the United States and Canada which combine libertarian economic issues with aspects of conservatism. Its five main branches are Constitutionalism, paleolibertarianism, neolibertarianism, small government conservatism and Christian libertarianism. They generally differ from paleoconservatives, in that they are in favor of more personal and economic freedom.
Agorists such as Samuel Edward Konkin III labeled libertarian conservatism right-libertarianism.[33][34]
In contrast to paleoconservatives, libertarian conservatives support strict laissez-faire policies such as free trade, opposition to any national bank and opposition to business regulations. They are vehemently opposed to environmental regulations, corporate welfare, subsidies, and other areas of economic intervention.
Many conservatives, especially in the United States, believe that the government should not play a major role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose efforts to charge high tax rates and to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work.
Fiscal conservatism
Main article: Fiscal conservatism



Taxpayer March on Washington: Conservative protesters walking down Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.
Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.[35] Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, argued that a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer:

...[I]t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.
Most conservatives believe that government action cannot solve society's problems, such as poverty and inequality. Many believe that government programs that seek to provide services and opportunities for the poor actually encourage dependence and reduce self-reliance. Most conservatives oppose affirmative action policies-that is, policies in employment, education, and other areas that aim to counteract past discrimination by giving special help to members of disadvantaged groups. Conservatives believe that the government should not give special treatment to individuals on the basis of group identity.
Many conservatives, especially in the United States, believe that the government should not play a major role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose efforts to charge high tax rates and to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work.
National and traditional conservatism
Main articles: National conservatism and Traditional conservatism



Gianfranco Fini, former President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, in 2004.
National conservatism is a political term used primarily in Europe to describe a variant of conservatism which concentrates more on national interests than standard conservatism as well as upholding cultural and ethnic identity,[36] while not being outspokenly nationalist or supporting a far-right approach.[citation needed] In Europe, national conservatives are usually eurosceptics.[37][38]
National conservatism is heavily oriented towards the traditional family and social stability as well as in favour of limiting immigration. As such, national conservatives can be distinguished from economic conservatives, for whom free market economic policies, deregulation and fiscal conservatism are the main priorities. Some commentators have identified a growing gap between national and economic conservatism: "most parties of the Right [today] are run by economic conservatives who, in varying degrees, have marginalized social, cultural, and national conservatives."[39] National conservatism is also related to traditionalist conservatism.
Traditionalist conservatism is a political philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order, tradition, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, and the intersecting spheres of loyalty.[40] Some traditionalists have embraced the labels "reactionary" and "counterrevolutionary", defying the stigma that has attached to these terms since the Enlightenment. Having a hierarchical view of society, many traditionalist conservatives, including a few Americans, defend the monarchical political structure as the most natural and beneficial social arrangement.
Cultural and social conservatism
Main articles: Cultural conservatism and social conservatism
Cultural conservatives support the preservation of the heritage of one nation, or of a shared culture that is not defined by national boundaries.[41] The shared culture may be as divergent as Western culture or Chinese culture. In the United States, the term cultural conservative may imply a conservative position in the culture war. Cultural conservatives hold fast to traditional ways of thinking even in the face of monumental change. They believe strongly in traditional values and traditional politics, and often have an urgent sense of nationalism.
Social conservatism is distinct from cultural conservatism, although there are some overlaps. Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering. Social change is generally regarded as suspect.
A second meaning of the term social conservatism developed in the Nordic countries and continental Europe. There it refers to liberal conservatives supporting modern European welfare states.
Social conservatives (in the first meaning of the word) in many countries generally favour the pro-life position in the abortion controversy and oppose human embryonic stem cell research (particularly if publicly funded); oppose both eugenics and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;[42] support a traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one woman; view the nuclear family model as society's foundational unit; oppose expansion of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in same-sex relationships; promote public morality and traditional family values; oppose atheism,[43] especially militant atheism, secularism and the separation of church and state;[44][45][46] support the prohibition of drugs, prostitution, and euthanasia; and support the censorship of pornography and what they consider to be obscenity or indecency. Most conservatives in the U.S. support the death penalty.
Religious conservatism
See also: Religious Right



March for Life in Paris, France, 2012
Religious conservatives principally seek to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws.[47]
In most modern democracies, political conservatism seeks to uphold traditional family structures and social values. Religious conservatives typically oppose abortion, homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage. In some cases, conservative values are grounded in religious beliefs, and some conservatives seek to increase the role of religion in public life.
Progressive conservatism
Main article: Progressive conservatism
Progressive conservatism incorporates progressive policies alongside conservative policies. It stresses the importance of a social safety net to deal with poverty, support of limited redistribution of wealth along with government regulation to regulate markets in the interests of both consumers and producers.[48] Progressive conservatism first arose as a distinct ideology in the United Kingdom under Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli's "One Nation" Toryism.[48][49]
There have been a variety of progressive conservative governments. In the UK, the Prime Ministers Disraeli, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan,[50] and present Prime Minister David Cameron are progressive conservatives.[51][52]
In the United States, the administration of President William Howard Taft was progressive conservative and he described himself as "a believer in progressive conservatism"[53] and President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared himself an advocate of "progressive conservatism".[54] In Germany, Chancellor Leo von Caprivi promoted a progressive conservative agenda called the "New Course".[55] In Canada, a variety of conservative governments have been progressive conservative, with Canada's major conservative movement being officially named the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada from 1942 to 2003.[56] In Canada, the Prime Ministers Arthur Meighen, R.B. Bennett, John Diefenbaker, Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, and Kim Campbell led progressive conservative federal governments.[56]
Historic conservatism in different countries
Further information: Right-wing politics and Political spectrum
Conservative political parties vary widely from country to country in the goals they wish to achieve. Both conservative and liberal parties tend to favor private ownership of property, in opposition to communist, socialist and green parties, which favor communal ownership or laws requiring social responsibility on the part of property owners. Where conservatives and liberals differ is primarily on social issues. Conservatives tend to reject behavior that does not conform to some social norm. Modern conservative parties often define themselves by their opposition to liberal or labor parties. The United States usage of the term conservative is unique to that country.[57]
According to Alan Ware, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK retained viable conservative parties into the 1980s.[58] Ware said that Australia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malta, New Zealand, Spain and the US had no conservative parties, although they had either Christian Democrats or liberals as major right-wing parties. Canada, Ireland, and Portugal had right-wing political parties that defied categorization: the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada; Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and Progressive Democrats in Ireland; and the Social Democratic Party of Portugal.[59] Since then, the Swiss People's Party has moved to the extreme right and is no longer considered to be conservative.[60]
Klaus von Beyme, who developed the method of party categorization, found that no modern Eastern European parties could be considered conservative, although the communist and communist-successor parties had strong similarities.[61]
In Italy, which was united by liberals and radicals (risorgimento), liberals not conservatives emerged as the party of the Right.[62] In the Netherlands, conservatives merged into a new Christian democratic party in 1980.[63] In Austria, Germany, Portugal and Spain, conservatism was transformed into and incorporated into fascism or the far right.[64] In 1940, all Japanese parties were merged into a single fascist party. Following the war, Japanese conservatives briefly returned to politics but were largely purged from public office.[65]
Louis Hartz explained the absence of conservatism in Australia or the United States as a result of their settlement as radical or liberal fragments of Great Britain. Although he said English Canada had a negligible conservative influence, subsequent writers claimed that loyalists opposed to the American Revolution brought a Tory ideology into Canada. Hartz explained conservatism in Quebec and Latin America as a result of their settlement as feudal societies.[66] The American conservative writer Russell Kirk provided the opinion that conservatism had been brought to the US and interpreted the American revolution as a "conservative revolution".[67]
Conservative elites have long dominated Latin American nations. Mostly this has been achieved through control of and support for civil institutions, the church and the armed forces, rather than through party politics. Typically the church was exempt from taxes and its employees immune from civil prosecution. Where national conservative parties were weak or non-existent, conservatives were more likely to rely on military dictatorship as a preferred form of government. However in some nations where the elites were able to mobilize popular support for conservative parties, longer periods of political stability were achieved. Chile, Colombia and Venezuela are examples of nations that developed strong conservative parties. Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador and Peru are examples of nations where this did not occur.[68] The Conservative Party of Venezuela disappeared following the Federal Wars of 1858-1863.[69] Chile's conservative party, the National Party disbanded in 1973 following a military coup and did not re-emerge as a political force following the subsequent return to democracy.[70]
Belgium
Founded in 1945 as the Christian People's Party, the Flemish Christian Democrats (CD&V) dominated politics in post-war Belgium. In 1999, the party's support collapsed and it became the country's fifth largest party.[71][72][73] Currently the N-VA (nieuw-vlaamse alliantie / new-Flemish alliance) is the largest party in Belgium.[74]
Canada
Main article: Conservatism in Canada
Canada's Conservatives had their roots in the Loyalists – Tories – who left America after the American Revolution. They developed in the socio-economic and political cleavages that existed during the first three decades of the 19th century, and had the support of the business, professional and established Church (Anglican) elites in Ontario and to a lesser extent in Quebec. Holding a monopoly over administrative and judicial offices, they were called the "Family Compact" in Ontario and the "Chateau Clique" in Quebec. John A. Macdonald's successful leadership of the movement to confederate the provinces and his subsequent tenure as prime minister for most of the late 19th century rested on his ability to bring together the English-speaking Protestant oligarchy and the ultramontane Catholic hierarchy of Quebec and to keep them united in a conservative coalition.[75]
The Conservatives combined pro-market liberalism and Toryism. They generally supported an activist government and state intervention in the marketplace, and their policies were marked by noblesse oblige, a paternalistic responsibility of the elites for the less well-off.[76] From 1942, the party was known as the Progressive Conservatives, until 2003, when the national party merged with the Canadian Alliance to form the Conservative Party of Canada.[77]
The conservative Union Nationale governed the province of Quebec in periods from 1936 to 1960, in a close alliance with English Canadian business elites and the Catholic Church. This period, known as the Great Darkness ended with the Quiet Revolution and the party went into terminal decline.[78]
Colombia
Main article: Conservatism in Colombia
The Colombian Conservative Party, founded in 1849, traces its origins to opponents of General Francisco de Paula Santander's 1833–37 administration. While the term "liberal" had been used to describe all political forces in Colombia, the conservatives began describing themselves as "conservative liberals" and their opponents as "red liberals". From the 1860s until the present, the party has supported strong central government, and supported the Catholic Church, especially its role as protector of the sanctity of the family, and opposed separation of church and state. Its policies include the legal equality of all men, the citizen's right to own property and opposition to dictatorship. It has usually been Colombia's second largest party, with the Colombian Liberal Party being the largest.[79]
Denmark
Founded in 1915, the Conservative People's Party of Denmark. was the successor of Højre (literally "right"). In the 2005 election it won 18 out of 179 seats in the Folketing and became a junior partner in coalition with the Liberals.[80] The party is preceded by 11 years by the Young Conservatives (KU), today the youth movement of the party. The Party suffered a major defeat in the parliamentary elections of September 2011 in which the party lost more than half of its seat and also lost governmental power. A liberal cultural policy dominated during the postwar period. However, by the 1990s disagreements regarding immigrants from entirely different cultures ignited a conservative backlash.[81]
Finland
The conservative party in Finland is the National Coalition Party (in Finnish Kansallinen Kokoomus, Kok). The party was founded in 1918 when several monarchist parties united. Although in the past the party was right-wing, today it is a moderate party. While the party advocates economic liberalism, it is committed to the social market economy.[82]
France
Conservatism in France focused on The rejection of the French Revolution, support for the Catholic Church, and the restoration of the monarchy. The monarchist cause was on the verge of victory in the 1870s but then collapsed because of disagreements on who would be king, and what the national flag should be.[83] Religious tensions heightened in the 1890-1910 era, but moderated after the spirit of unity in fighting the First World War.[84] An extreme form of conservatism characterized the Vichy regime of 1940-1944 with heightened anti-Semitism, opposition to individualism, emphasis on family life, and national direction of the economy.[85]
Following the Second World War, conservatives in France supported Gaullist groups and have been nationalistic, and emphasized tradition, order, and the regeneration of France.[86] Gaullists held divergent views on social issues. The number of Conservative groups, their lack of stability, and their tendency to be identified with local issues defy simple categorization. Conservatism has been the major political force in France since the second world war.[87] Unusually, post-war French conservatism was formed around the personality of a leader, Charles de Gaulle, and did not draw on traditional French conservatism, but on the Bonapartism tradition.[88] Gaullism in France continues under the Union for a Popular Movement.[89] The word "conservative" itself is a term of abuse in France.[90]
Greece
The main interwar conservative party was called the People's Party (PP), which supported constitutional monarchy and opposed the republican Liberal Party. It was able to re-group after the Second World War as part of a United Nationalist Front which achieved power campaigning on a simple anticommunist, ultranationalist platform. However, the vote received by the PP declined, leading them to create an expanded party, the Greek Rally, under the leadership of the charismatic General Alexandros Papagos. The conservatives opposed the far right dictatorship of the colonels (1967–1974) and established the New Democratic Party following the fall of the dictatorship. The new party had four objectives: to confront Turkish expansionism in Cyprus, to reestablish and solidify democratic rule, to give the country a strong government, and to make a powerful moderate party a force in Greek politics.[91]
The Independent Greeks, a newly formed political party in Greece has also supported conservatism, particularly national and religious conservatism. The Founding Declaration of the Independent Greeks strongly emphasises in the preservation of the Greek state and its sovereignty, the Greek people and the Greek Orthodox Church.[92]
Iceland
Founded in 1926 as the Conservative Party, Iceland's Independence Party adopted its current name in 1929. From the beginning they have been the largest vote-winning party, averaging around 40%. They combine liberalism and conservatism, supporting nationalization and opposed to class conflict. While mostly in opposition during the 1930s, they embraced economic liberalism, but accepted the welfare state after the war and participated in governments supportive of state intervention and protectionism. Unlike other Scandanivian conservative (and liberal) parties, it has always had a large working-class following.[93]
Italy
After WW2 in Italy the conservative theories were mainly represented by the Christian Democracy, which government form the foundation of the Republic until party's dissolution in 1994. Officially DC refused the ideology of Conservatism, but in many aspects, for example family values, it was a typical social conservative party.
In 1994 the media tycoon and entrepreneur Silvio Berlusconi founded the liberal conservative Forza Italia movement. Berlusconi won three elections in 1994, 2001 and 2008 governing the country for almost ten years as Prime Minister.
Besides FI, now the conservative ideas are mainly expressed by the New Centre-Right party led by Angelino Alfano, former Berlusconi's protégé who split from the reborn Forza Italia founding a new conservative movement. Alfano is the current Minister of the Interior in the government of Matteo Renzi.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg's major conservative party, the Christian Social People's Party (CSV or PCS) was formed as the Party of the Right in 1914, and adopted its present name in 1945. It was consistently the largest political party in Luxembourg and dominated politics throughout the 20th century.[94]
Norway
The Conservative Party of Norway (Norwegian: Høyre, literally "right") was formed by the old upper class of state officials and wealthy merchants to fight the populist democracy of the Liberal Party, but lost power in 1884 when parliamentarian government was first practised. It formed its first government under parliamentarism in 1889, and continued to alternate in power with the Liberals until the 1930s, when Labour became the dominant political party. It has elements both of paternalism, stressing the responsibilities of the state, and of economic liberalism. It first returned to power in the 1960s.[95] During Kåre Willoch's premiership in the 1980s, much emphasis was laid on liberalizing the credit- and housing market and abolishing the NRK TV and radio monopoly, while supporting law and order in criminal justice and traditional norms in education[96]
Sweden
Sweden's conservative party, the Moderate Party, was formed in 1904, two years after the founding of the liberal party.[97] The party emphasizes tax reductions, deregulation of private enterprise, and privatization of schools, hospitals and kindergartens.[98]
Switzerland
There are a number of conservative parties in Switzerland's parliament, the Federal Assembly. These include the largest, the Swiss People's Party (SVP),[99] the Christian Democratic People's Party (CVP),[100] represented in the Federal Council or cabinet by Doris Leuthard (in 2011), and the Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland (BDP),[101] which is a splinter of the SVP created after a failed attempt to expel Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf from the SVP.[101]
The Swiss People's Party (SVP or UDC) was formed from the 1971 merger of the Party of Farmers, Traders, and Citizens, formed in 1917 and the smaller Swiss Democratic Party, formed in 1942. The SVP emphasized agricultural policy, and was strong among farmers in German-speaking Protestant areas. As Switzerland considered closer relations with the European Union in the 1990s, the SVP adopted a more militant protectionist and isolationist stance. This stance has allowed it to expand into German-speaking Catholic mountainous areas.[102] The Anti-Defamation League, a non-Swiss lobby group based in the USA has accused them of manipulating issues such as immigration, Swiss neutrality and welfare benefits, awakening anti-Semitism and racism.[103] The Council of Europe has called the SVP "extreme right", although some scholars dispute this classification. Hans-Georg Betz for example describes it as "populist radical right".[104]
United Kingdom
Main article: Conservatism in the United Kingdom
Modern conservatism in different countries
While conservatism has been seen as an appeal to traditional, hierarchical society, some writers, such as Samuel P. Huntington, see it as situational. Under this definition, conservatives are seen as defending the established institutions of their time.[105]
Australia
Main article: Conservatism in Australia
The Liberal Party of Australia adheres to the principles of social conservatism and liberal conservatism.[106] It is Liberal in the sense of economics. The party is considered to be more right-wing than the Conservative Party (UK).[107] Other conservative parties are the National Party of Australia, a sister party of the Liberals, Family First Party, Democratic Labor Party, Shooters Party and the Katter's Australian Party.
The second largest party in the country, the Australian Labor Party's dominant faction is Labor Right, a socially conservative element. Australia is generally considered one of the most conservative western nations.[108] Australia undertook significant economic reform under the Australian Labor Party in the mid-1980s. Consequently issues like protectionism, welfare reform, privatization and deregulation are no longer debated in the political space as they are in Europe or North America. Moser and Catley explain, "In America, 'liberal' means left-of-center, and it is a pejorative term when used by conservatives in adversarial political debate. In Australia, of course, the conservatives are in the Liberal Party."[109] Jupp points out that, "[the] decline in English influences on Australian reformism and radicalism, and appropriation of the symbols of Empire by conservatives continued under the Liberal Party leadership of Sir Robert Menzies, which lasted until 1966."[110]
South Korea


 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2012)
Main article: Conservatism in South Korea
South Korea's major conservative party, the Saenuri Party or 새누리당, changed its form throughout its history. First it was the Democratic-Republican Party(1963~1980); its head was Park Chung-hee who seized power in a 1961 military coup d'état and ruled as an unelected military strongman until his formal election as president in 1963. He was president for 16 years, until his assassination on October 26, 1979. The Democratic Justice Party inherited the same ideology as the Democrati-Republican Party. Its head, Chun Doo-hwan, also gained power through a coup. His followers called themselves the Hanahoe. The Democratic Justice Party changed its form and acted to suppress the opposition party and to follow the people's demand for direct elections. The party's Roh Tae-woo became the first president who was elected through direct election. The next form of the major conservative party was the Democratic-Liberal Party. Again, through election, its second leader, Kim Young-sam, became the fourteenth president of Korea. When the conservative party was beaten by the opposition party in the general election, it changed its form again to follow the party members' demand for reforms. It became the New Korean Party. It changed again one year later since the President Kim Young-sam was blamed by the citizen for the IMF[clarification needed]. It changed its name to Grand National Party (Hannara-dang) (1998~2011). Since the late Kim Dae-jung assumed the presidency in 1998, GNP had not been the ruling party until Lee Myung-bak won the presidential election of 2007. It renamed to Saenoori Party (새누리당) in 2011.
United States
Main article: Conservatism in the United States



 President Ronald Reagan in 1982
The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism."[111] Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party. However, during the era of segregation many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a key role in the Conservative Coalition that largely controlled domestic policy in Congress from 1937 to 1963.[112]
Major priorities within American conservatism include support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[26] Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Some social conservatives see traditional social values threatened by secularism, so they support school prayer and oppose abortion and homosexuality.[113] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel.[114] Paleoconservatives, in opposition to multiculturalism, press for restrictions on immigration.[115] Most U.S. conservatives prefer Republicans over Democrats, and most factions favor a strong foreign policy and a strong military. The conservative movement of the 1950s attempted to bring together these divergent strands, stressing the need for unity to prevent the spread of "Godless Communism", which Reagan later labeled an "evil empire".[116] During the Reagan administration, conservatives also supported the so-called "Reagan Doctrine" under which the U.S., as part of a Cold War strategy, provided military and other support to guerrilla insurgencies that were fighting governments identified as socialist or communist.
Other modern conservative positions include opposition to world government and opposition to environmentalism.[117] On average, American conservatives desire tougher foreign policies than liberals do.[118]
Most recently, the Tea Party movement, founded in 2009, has proven a large outlet for populist American conservative ideas. Their stated goals include rigorous adherence to the U.S. Constitution, lower taxes, and opposition to a growing role for the federal government in health care. Electorally, it was considered a key force in Republicans reclaiming control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010.[119][120]
Characteristics of conservatism in France, Italy, Russia, UK and US
This is a broad Checklist of modern conservatism in five major countries.


France France
ItalyItaly
Russia Russia
United Kingdom United Kingdom
United States United States
Main parties Union for a Popular Movement, Arise the Republic, Movement for France, Front National Forza Italia, Northern League, Brothers of Italy, New Centre-Right United Russia, Liberal Democratic Party Conservative Party, UK Independence Party, Democratic Unionist Party, Ulster Unionist Party Republican Party
Government Strong defenders of republicanism. Opposed to Federalism Proponents of presidentialism and federalism Strong defenders of historical Russian sphere of influence
 Celebratory of Russia's Tsarist and Communist strong-man rule. Defends monarchism and unionism.
 Rejects republicanism.
 Supports unelected House of Lords chamber.
 Defends first-past-the-post voting system.
 Originally opposed to but now accepting of Scottish Devolution and Welsh Devolution.
 In Favor of English Votes for English Laws and sympathetic to ideas of English Devolution Supports federalism and republicanism.
State control Bonapartism, Gaullism.
 Moderate sized but centralised state FI, NL: Small decentralised state.
 Brothers of Italy, NCR: Small centralised state Statism.
 Strong, powerful, centralised state. Small centralised state. Small, minimal, decentralised state particularly at federal level.
 Strongly influenced by libertarianism.
Social views Rule of law, traditionalism, authority, liberty, defence of traditional family, public healthcare.
 Strongly supportive of French culture, Francophone, and against Americanisation. Traditionalism, opposition to immigration, criticism of multiculturalism, individualism, cult of personality, law and order, against abortion, gay marriage, civil unions and euthanasia.
 Critics of the Italian constitution and the Italian judiciary Rule of law, authority, cult of personality, state unity, public unity, law and order, traditionalism.
 Against modernism and Western culture. Hierarchy, rule of law, liberty, freedom, traditionalism, British stoicism, against abortion in Northern Ireland. Freedom, liberty, individualism, traditionalism, law and order, gun ownership, defence of traditional family, against euthanasia, abortion, and gay marriage.
 Strong supporters of the American Constitution and the separation of powers.
Religious views Defends secularism.
 Influenced by Catholic social teaching. Critics of laicism, influenced by the Roman catholic church Strong adherents to the Russian Orthodox Church. High Anglicanism.
Presbyterianism in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The 2012 Republican platform states: "We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage."[121]
Economic views UMP, DLR and MPF: Social market economy, distributism, nationalisation of major industries, loosely influenced by neoliberalism, moderate welfare system.
 FN: Nationalisation of major industries, protectionism and moderate re-distribution of wealth. Neoliberalism, protectionism, low taxation, Flat tax, opposition to wealth taxes Mixture of state regulation and market freedoms, nationalisation only of strategic industries, moderate re-distribution of wealth, rejection of communism. Neoliberalism, low taxation, flat tax, privatisation, free trade, small welfare state but unopposed to nationalised healthcare. Neoliberalism, economic liberalism, free trade, low taxation
 Opposes government-run healthcare.
International government UMP: Supportive of the United Nations and NATO. Moderately supportive of the European Union.
 FN, DLR and MPF: Sceptical about the United Nations, NATO and the European Union. FI, NCR: Supportive of NATO, various factions are moderately supportive or sceptical about the EU.
 Nl, Brothers of Italy: Sceptical about the EU and NATO Supportive of Commonwealth of Independent States and the Eurasian Economic Union. Sceptical about the United Nations. Supportive of the United Nations, NATO, and the Commonwealth. Sceptical about the European Union. Supportive of NATO.
 Critical of United Nations.
Military Issues Opposed to Nuclear Disarmament. Nuclear disarmament Opposed to Nuclear Disarmament. Opposed to Nuclear Disarmament. Opposed to Nuclear Disarmanent.
International affairs UMP: Interventionist.
 FN, MPF and DLR: Non-interventionist. Factions are variously interventionist or non-interventionalist. Interventionist. Conservatives, UUP and DUP: Interventionist.
 UKIP: Non-interventionist. Factions are variously interventionist or non-interventionalist.
Psychology
See also: Biology and political orientation
Following the Second World War, psychologists conducted research into the different motives and tendencies that account for ideological differences between left and right. The early studies focused on conservatives, beginning with Theodor W. Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality (1950) based on the F-scale personality test. This book has been heavily criticized on theoretical and methodological grounds, but some of its findings have been confirmed by further empirical research.[122]
In 1973, British psychologist Glenn Wilson published an influential book providing evidence that a general factor underlying conservative beliefs is "fear of uncertainty".[123] A meta-analysis of research literature by Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway in 2003 found that many factors, such as intolerance of ambiguity and need for cognitive closure, contribute to the degree of one's political conservatism.[122] A study by Kathleen Maclay stated these traits "might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty." The research also suggested that while most people are resistant to change, liberals are more tolerant of it.[124]
According to psychologist Bob Altemeyer, individuals who are politically conservative tend to rank high in right-wing authoritarianism on his RWA scale.[125] This finding was echoed by Theodor Adorno. A study done on Israeli and Palestinian students in Israel found that RWA scores of right-wing party supporters were significantly higher than those of left-wing party supporters.[126] However, a 2005 study by H. Michael Crowson and colleagues suggested a moderate gap between RWA and other conservative positions. "The results indicated that conservatism is not synonymous with RWA."[127]
Psychologist Felicia Pratto and her colleagues have found evidence to support the idea that a high social dominance orientation (SDO) is strongly correlated with conservative political views, and opposition to social engineering to promote equality, though Pratto's findings have been highly controversial.[128] Pratto and her colleagues found that high SDO scores were highly correlated with measures of prejudice. They were refuted in this claim by David J. Schneider, who wrote that "correlations between prejudice and political conservative are reduced virtually to zero when controls for SDO are instituted".[129] Kenneth Minogue criticized Pratto's work, saying "It is characteristic of the conservative temperament to value established identities, to praise habit and to respect prejudice, not because it is irrational, but because such things anchor the darting impulses of human beings in solidities of custom which we do not often begin to value until we are already losing them. Radicalism often generates youth movements, while conservatism is a condition found among the mature, who have discovered what it is in life they most value."[130]
A 1996 study on the relationship between racism and conservatism found that the correlation was stronger among more educated individuals, though "anti-Black affect had essentially no relationship with political conservatism at any level of educational or intellectual sophistication". They also found that the correlation between racism and conservatism could be entirely accounted for by their mutual relationship with social dominance orientation.[131]
A 2008 research report found that conservatives are happier than liberals, and that as income inequality increases, this difference in relative happiness increases, because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of economic inequality.[132]
Notes
1.Jump up ^ Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, "Conservatism", Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Third Edition, "Sometimes it (conservatism) has been outright opposition, based on an existing model of society that is considered right for all time. It can take a 'reactionary' form, harking back to, and attempting to reconstruct, forms of society which existed in an earlier period.", Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5.
2.Jump up ^ "Conservatism (political philosophy)". Britannica.com. Retrieved on 1 November 2009.
3.Jump up ^ Jerry Z. Muller (1997). Conservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present. Princeton U.P. p. 26. ISBN 0691037116. "Terms related to 'conservative' first found their way into political discourse in the title of the French weekly journal, Le Conservateur, founded in 1818 by François-René de Chateaubriand with the aid of Louis de Bonald."
4.Jump up ^ Frank O'Gorman (2003). Edmund Burke: His Political Philosophy. Routledge. p. 171. ISBN 9780415326841.
5.Jump up ^ Quintin Hogg Baron Hailsham of St. Marylebone (1959). The Conservative Case. Penguin Books.
6.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, pp. ix, 21
7.Jump up ^ Jerry Z. Muller, ed. Conservatism: an anthology of social and political thought from David Hume to the present (Princeton University Press, 1997); Sheldon Wolin, 'Hume and Conservatism', American Political Science Review 48 (1954), 999-1016.
8.Jump up ^ Stanlis, Peter J. Edmund Burke: selected writings and speeches. New York: Transaction Publishers (2009), p. 18
9.Jump up ^ M. Morton Auerbach. The Conservative Illusion. Columbia University Press (1959). p. 33.
10.Jump up ^ Auerbach, The Conservative Illusion. (1959), p. 40
11.Jump up ^ Auerbach, The Conservative Illusion. (1959), p. 37
12.Jump up ^ Auerbach, The Conservative Illusion (1959), pp. 52–54
13.Jump up ^ Auerbach, The Conservative Illusion, (1959), p. 41
14.Jump up ^ J.J. Sack, "The Memory of Burke and the Memory of Pitt: English Conservatism Confronts Its Past, 1806-1829," Historical Journal (1987) 30#3 pp. 623-640; in JSTOR; quote on p 627
15.Jump up ^ Auerbach, M. Morton The Conservative Illusion. Columbia University Press (1959), pp. 39–40
16.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, pp. 79–80
17.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, p. 83
18.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, p. 90
19.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, p. 121
20.Jump up ^ Eccleshall, pp. 6–7
21.Jump up ^ Feuchtwanger, p. 273
22.Jump up ^ Iain McLean and Laistair McMillan, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, "In the developed world neoliberalism is often coupled with Thatcherism ... .",p. 364, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5.
23.Jump up ^ Kersbergen, Kees van; Vis, Barbara (2013). Comparative Welfare State Politics: Development, Opportunities, and Reform. Cambridge UP. p. 38.
24.Jump up ^ Moore, Robert Laurence; Vaudagna, Maurizio (2003). The American Century in Europe. Cornell University Press. p. 226.
25.Jump up ^ Richard E. Frankel, "From the Beer Halls to the Halls of Power: The Cult of Bismarck and the Legitimization of a New German Right, 1898–1945," German Studies Review, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Oct., 2003), pp. 543–560 in JSTOR
26.^ Jump up to: a b Gregory Schneider, The Conservative Century: From Reaction to Revolution (Rowman & Littlefield. 2009) p. xii
27.Jump up ^ ams, Ian Political Ideology Today (2nd edition), Manchester University Press, 2002, p. 46
28.Jump up ^ Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science Ellen Grigsby, Cengage Learning, 2008 ISBN 978-0-495-50112-1, ISBN 978-0-495-50112-1 pp. 108, 109, 112, 347
29.Jump up ^ (French) Ipolitique.fr
30.Jump up ^ Parties-and-elections.de
31.Jump up ^ M. Gallagher, M. Laver and P. Mair, Representative Government in Europe, p. 221.
32.Jump up ^ Allen R.T., Beyond Liberalism, p. 13.
33.Jump up ^ "New Libertarian Manifesto" (PDF).
34.Jump up ^ "Interview With Samuel Edward Konkin III".
35.Jump up ^ Freeman, Robert M. (1999). Correctional Organization and Management: Public Policy Challenges, Behavior, and Structure. Elsevier. p. 109. ISBN 978-0-7506-9897-9.
36.Jump up ^ Mandal, V.C. (2007). Dictionary Of Public Administration. Sarup & Sons. p. 306. ISBN 978-81-7625-784-8.
37.Jump up ^ http://www.parties-and-elections.de/content.html
38.Jump up ^ Traynor, Ian, The EU's weary travellers The Guardian, April 4, 2006
39.Jump up ^ National questions - conservatives fragmenting as liberals unite, National Review, June 30, 1997
40.Jump up ^ Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O. Nelson, ed. (2006) American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, pp. 870–75.
41.Jump up ^ Seaton, James (1996). Cultural Conservatism, Political Liberalism: From Criticism to Cultural Studies. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-10645-5.
42.Jump up ^ The Next Digital Divide (utne article)
43.Jump up ^ "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." President George H. W. Bush, http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
44.Jump up ^ The World & I.: Volume 1, Issue 5 (1986). The World & I.: Volume 1, Issue 5. Washington Times Corp. Retrieved 19 August 2011. "militant atheism was incompatible with conservatism"
45.Jump up ^ Peter Davies; Derek Lynch (2002). The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-21494-0. Retrieved 19 August 2011. "In addition, conservative Chrsitians often endorsed far-right remines as the lesser of two evils, especially when confronted with militant atheism in the USSR."
46.Jump up ^ Peter L. Berger; Grace Davie; Effie Fokas (2008). Religious America, Secular Europe?: A Theme and Variations. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-6011-8. Retrieved 19 August 2011. "If anything the reverse is true: moral conservatives continue to oppose secular liberals on a wide range of issues."
47.Jump up ^ Andersen, Margaret L., Taylor, Howard Francis. Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society Cengage Learning, 4th Ed. (2005), pp. 469–70. ISBN 978-0-534-61716-5
48.^ Jump up to: a b Patrick Dunleavy, Paul Joseph Kelly, Michael Moran. British Political Science: Fifty Years of Political Studies. Oxford, England, UK; Malden, Massachusetts, USA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000. pp. 107–08.
49.Jump up ^ Robert Blake. Disraeli. Second Edition. London, England, UK: Eyre & Spottiswoode (Publishers) Ltd, 1967. p. 524.
50.Jump up ^ Trevor Russel. The Tory Party: its policies, divisions and future. Penguin, 1978. p. 167.
51.Jump up ^ David Marr. "Power Trip: The Political Journey of Kevin Rudd", Issue 38 of Quarterly Essay Series. Black Inc., 2010. p. 126. (British Conservative Party leader David Cameron launched the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos.)
52.Jump up ^ Ruth Lister. Understanding Theories and Concepts in Social Policy. Bristol, England, UK; Portland, Oregon, USA: The Policy Press, 2010. p. 53.
53.Jump up ^ Jonathan Lurie. William Howard Taft: The Travails of a Progressive Conservative. New York, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2012. p. ix.
54.Jump up ^ Günter Bischof. "Eisenhower, the Judiciary, and Desegregation" by Stanley I. Kutler, Eisenhower: a centenary assessment. p. 98.
55.Jump up ^ John Alden Nichols. Germany after Bismarck, the Caprivi era, 1890–1894: Issue 5. Harvard University Press, 1958. p. 260.
56.^ Jump up to: a b Hugh Segal. The Right Balance. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Douglas & McIntyre, 2011. pp. 113–48.
57.Jump up ^ Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-19-878076-2, pp. 31–33
58.Jump up ^ Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-19-878076-2
59.Jump up ^ Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-19-878076-2, p. 44
60.Jump up ^ Flecker, Jörg. Changing working life and the appeal of the extreme right. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007 ISBN 978-0-7546-4915-1, p. 19
61.Jump up ^ Lewis, Paul G. Political parties in post-communist Eastern Europe. Routledge, 2000. ISBN 978-0-415-20182-7 pp. 54-55
62.Jump up ^ Smith, Denis Mack. Modern Italy: a political history. University of Michigan Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0-472-10895-4 p. 31
63.Jump up ^ Daalder, Hans and Irwin, Galen A. Politics in the Netherlands: how much change? Routledge, 1989. ISBN 0-7146-3361-5 pp. 154-57
64.Jump up ^ Blinkhorn, Martin. Fascists and conservatives. Routledge, 1990. p. 7
65.Jump up ^ Takemae, Eiji, and Ricketts, Robert. The allied occupation of Japan. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003. ISBN 978-0-8264-1521-9 pp. 262–63
66.Jump up ^ Fierlbeck, Katherine. Political thought in Canada: an intellectual history. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. ISBN 978-1-55111-711-9 pp. 87–88
67.Jump up ^ Kirk, Russell. The Conservative Mind. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2001. ISBN 978-0-89526-171-7, 2001. ISBN 978-0-89526-171-7 pp. 6, 63
68.Jump up ^ Middlebrook, Kevin J. Conservative parties, the right, and democracy in Latin America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000 ISBN 978-0-8018-6386-8 pp. 1-52
69.Jump up ^ Peeler, John A. Latin American Democracies: Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1985. p. 79
70.Jump up ^ Oppenheim, Lois Hecht. Politics in Chile: socialism, authoritarianism, and market democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-8133-4227-6 pp. 151–52
71.Jump up ^ Annesley, Claire. A political and economic dictionary of Western Europe. London: Routledge, 2005. ISBN 978-1-85743-214-5, p. 124
72.Jump up ^ Zig Layton-Henry, ed. Conservative Politics in Western Europe (St. Martin's Press, 1982)
73.Jump up ^ Paul Lucardie and Hans-Martien Ten Napel, "Between confessionalism and liberal conservatism: the Christian Democratic parties of Belgium and the Netherlands." in David Hanley, ed. Christian Democracy in Europe: A Comparative Perspective (London: Pinter 1994) pp: 51-70.
74.Jump up ^ Philippe Siuberski (7 October 2014). "Belgium gets new government with Michel as PM". Yahoo News. AFP. Retrieved 7 November 2014.
75.Jump up ^ Kornberg, Allan and Mishler, William. Influence in Parliament, Canada. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1976. p. 38
76.Jump up ^ Schultze, Rainer-Olaf; Sturm, Roland and Eberle, Dagmar. Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America: reaping the benefits of an ideological victory?. Germany: VS Verlag, 2003. ISBN 978-3-8100-3812-8 p. 15
77.Jump up ^ Panizza, Francisco. Populism and the mirror of democracy. London: Verso, 2005. ISBN 978-1-85984-489-2 p. 180
78.Jump up ^ Conway, John Frederick. Debts to pay: the future of federalism in Quebec. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 2004. ISBN 978-1-55028-814-8 pp. 57, 77
79.Jump up ^ Osterling, p. 180
80.Jump up ^ Annesley, Claire. A political and economic dictionary of Western Europe. London: Routledge, 2005. ISBN 978-1-85743-214-5, p. 68
81.Jump up ^ Kasper Støvring, "The Turn from Cultural Radicalism to National Conservatism: Cultural Policy in Denmark." Telos 2009.148 (2009) pp: 54-72.
82.Jump up ^ Siaroff, Alan. Comparative European party systems: an analysis of parliamentary elections since 1945. New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., 2000. ISBN 978-0-8153-2930-5, p. 243
83.Jump up ^ Roger Price (2005). A Concise History of France. Cambridge UP. p. 225.
84.Jump up ^ Maurice Larkin, Religion, politics and preferment in France since 1890: La Belle Epoque and its legacy (Cambridge University Press, 2002)
85.Jump up ^ Stanley Hoffmann, "The Vichy Circle of French Conservatives" in Hoffmann, Decline or Renewal? France since the 1930's (1974) pp: 3-25.
86.Jump up ^ Richard Vinen, "The Parti républicain de la Liberté and the Reconstruction of French Conservatism, 1944–1951," French History (1993) 7#2 pp: 183-204.
87.Jump up ^ Viereck, Peter and Ryn, Claes G. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2005. ISBN 978-0-7658-0576-8 p. 205
88.Jump up ^ Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-19-878076-2, p. 32
89.Jump up ^ Hauss, Charles. Comparative Politics: Domestic Responses to Global Challenges. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2008. ISBN 978-0-495-50109-1 p. 116
90.Jump up ^ Knapp, Andrew and Wright, Vincent. The government and politics of France. New York: Routledge, 2006. ISBN 978-0-415-35733-3 p. 211
91.Jump up ^ Penniman, Howard Rae. Greece at the polls: the national elections of 1974 and 1977. Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1981. ISBN 978-0-8447-3434-7 pp. 49–59
92.Jump up ^ Founding Declaration of Independent Greeks
93.Jump up ^ Grofman, Bernard and Lijpart, Arend, editors. The evolution of electoral and party systems in the Nordic countries. New York: Agathon Press, 2002. "The Icelandic electoral system 1844–1999" by Olafur Th. Hardarson ISBN 978-0-87586-138-8, pp. 107–08
94.Jump up ^ Urwin, Derek W. A Dictionary of European History and Politics, 1945-1995. London: Pearson UK, 1996. ISBN 978-0-582-25874-7 p. 76.
95.Jump up ^ Heidar, Knut. Norway: elites on trial. Boulder Westview Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8133-3200-0, pp. 66–67
96.Jump up ^ Francis Sejersted Høyrebølgen Store norske leksikon. Retrieved 18 December 2013 (Norwegian)
97.Jump up ^ Grofman, Bernard and Lijpart, Arend, editors. The evolution of electoral and party systems in the Nordic countries. New York: Agathon Press, 2002. "The Icelandic electoral system 1844-1999" by Olafur Th. Hardarson ISBN 978-0-87586-138-8, pp. 107–235
98.Jump up ^ Thomas, Clive S. (editor). Political Parties and Interest Groups: Shaping Democratic Governance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2001. ISBN 978-1-55587-978-5 "Sweden: Weakening Links Between Political Parties and Interest Organizations" by Anders Widfeldt
99.Jump up ^ Ziebertz, Hans-Georg (2011). How Teachers in Europe Teach Religion: An International Empirical Study: An International Empirical Study in 16 Countries. Lit Verlag. p. 237. ISBN 978-3-643-10043-6.
100.Jump up ^ Juravich, Tom (2000). Ravenswood: The Steelworkers' Victory and the Revival of American Labor. Cornell University Press. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-8014-8666-1.
101.^ Jump up to: a b Schwok, René (2009). SWITZERLAND – EUROPEAN UNION: AN IMPOSSIBLE MEMBERSHIP?. Peter Lang. p. 143. ISBN 978-90-5201-576-7.
102.Jump up ^ Siaroff, Alan Comparative European Party Systems. New York: Garland, 2000. ISBN 0-8153-2930-X p. 446
103.Jump up ^ The Stephen Roth Institute. Anti-semitism worldwide Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002 ISBN 0-8032-5943-3 p. 120
104.Jump up ^ Hainsworth, pp. 44, 74
105.Jump up ^ Winthrop and Lovell, pp. 163–66
106.Jump up ^ Barns, Greg. Wanted:genuine liberal party for political scene. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2011
107.Jump up ^ Barns, Greg (15 November 2011). "Wanted: genuine liberal party for political scene". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
108.Jump up ^ After Howard's decade is Australia more conservative? Australian Review of Public Affairs Gabrielle Meagher and Shaun Wilson
109.Jump up ^ David Mosler; Robert Catley (1998). America and Americans in Australia. p. 83. ISBN 9780275962524.
110.Jump up ^ James Jupp (2004). The English in Australia. p. 172. ISBN 9780521542951.
111.Jump up ^ Leo P. Ribuffo, "20 Suggestions for Studying the Right now that Studying the Right is Trendy," Historically Speaking Jan 2011 v.12#1 pp. 2–6, quote on p. 6
112.Jump up ^ Kari Frederickson, The Dixicrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932–1968, p. 12, "...conservative southern Democrats viewed warily the potential of New Deal programs to threaten the region's economic dependence on cheap labor while stirring the democratic ambitions of the disfranchised and undermining white supremacy.", The University of North Carolina Press, 2000, ISBN 978-0-8078-4910-1
113.Jump up ^ Cal Jillson (22 February 2011). Texas Politics: Governing the Lone Star State. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780203829417. Retrieved 19 January 2012. "Social conservatives focus on moral or values issues, such as abortion, marriage, school prayer, and judicial appointments."
114.Jump up ^ Bruce Frohnen, ed. American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (2006) pp. ix–xiv
115.Jump up ^ Michael Foley (25 October 2007). American credo: the place of ideas in US politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191528330. Retrieved 18 January 2012. "Against accusations of being pre-modern or even anti-modern in outlook, paleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of multicultural programmes, the decentralization of the federal polity, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and isolationism in the conduct of American foreign policy, and a generally revanchist outlook upon a social order in need of recovering old lines of distinction and in particular the assignment of roles in accordance with traditional categories of gender, ethnicity, and race."
116.Jump up ^ Paul Edward Gottfried, Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right, p. 9, "Postwar conservatives set about creating their own synthesis of free-market capitalism, Christian morality, and the global struggle against Communism." (2009); Gottfried, Theologies and moral concern (1995) p. 12
117.Jump up ^ Peter J. Jacques; Riley E. Dunlap; Mark Freeman, The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism, Environmental Politics. v12 m3 (2008), pp. 349–85
118.Jump up ^ Peter Hays Gries, The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs (Stanford, 2014).
119.Jump up ^ Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (2012) pp. 45–82
120.Jump up ^ "Katie Couric interviews Tea Party Leaders", CBS News, January 25, 2010.
121.Jump up ^ see 2012 Republican NationalPlatform
122.^ Jump up to: a b Jost, J.J, Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A.A., & Sulloway, F.J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–75.
123.Jump up ^ Wilson, G.D. (Ed.)(1973) The Psychology of Conservatism, London: Academic Press.
124.Jump up ^ Berkeley.edu
125.Jump up ^ Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
126.Jump up ^ Rubinstein, G. (1996). "Two Peoples in One Land: A Validation Study of Altemeyer's Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale in the Palestinian and Jewish Societies in Israel". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 27 (2): 216–30. doi:10.1177/0022022196272005.
127.Jump up ^ Crowson, H. Michael, Stephen J. Thoma, and Nita Hestevold. "Is political conservatism synonymous with authoritarianism?." The Journal of Social Psychology 145.5 (Oct 2005): 571(22). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Remote Access. 20 May 2009 Galegroup.com
128.Jump up ^ Pratto, Felicia; Sidanius, Jim; Stallworth, Lisa M.; Malle, Bertram F. (1994). "Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (4): 741–63. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.
129.Jump up ^ The psychology of stereotyping, David J. Schneider, Guilford Press, 2005 ISBN 978-1-59385-193-4, ISBN 978-1-59385-193-4. p. 275
130.Jump up ^ The Social science encyclopedia, Jessica Kuper, Taylor & Francis, 1985 ISBN 978-0-7102-0008-2, ISBN 978-0-7102-0008-2. pp. 155–56
131.Jump up ^ Sidanius, J; Pratto, F; Bobo, L (1996). "Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance?" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (3): 476–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.476.
132.Jump up ^ Napier, J. L.; Jost, J. T. (2008). "Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?". Psychological Science 19 (6): 565–572. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02124.x. PMID 18578846.
References
Eccleshall, Robert. English Conservatism since the Restoration: An Introduction and Anthology. London: Unwin Hyman, 1990 ISBN 978-0-04-445346-8
Hainsworth, Paul. The extreme right in Western Europe, Abingdon, OXON: Routledge, 2008 ISBN 0-415-39682-4
Osterling, Jorge P. Democracy in Colombia: Clientelist Politics and Guerrilla Warfare. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1989 ISBN 0887382290, 9780887382291
Winthrop, Norman and Lovell, David W. "Varieties of Conservative Theory". In Winthrop, Norman. Liberal Democratic Theory and Its Critics. Beckenham, Kent: Croom Helm Ltd., 1983 ISBN 0-7099-2766-5, 9780709927662
Further reading
Blee, Kathleen M., and Sandra McGee Deutsch, eds. Women of the Right: Comparisons and Interplay Across Borders (Penn State University Press; 2012) 312 pages; scholarly essays giving a global perspective on women in right-wing politics.
Theodore Dalrymple. Our Culture, What's Left of It: the Mandarins and the masses /, 2005
Blinkhorn, Martin. Fascists and conservatives : the radical right and the establishment in twentieth-century Europe / 1990
Crunden, Robert Crunden. The Superfluous Men: Critics of American Culture, 1900–1945 1999
Fryer., Russell G. Recent conservative political thought : American perspectives 1979
The Conservative Movement / Paul E. Gottfried., 1993
The British Right : Conservative and right wing politics in Britain / Neill Nugent., 1977
America alone: the neo-conservatives and the global order / Stefan A. Halper., 2004
Conservatism / Ted Honderich.
The Conservative Mind / Russell Kirk., 2001
The Politics of Prudence / Russell Kirk., 1993
The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs / Peter Hays Gries, 2014 (Stanford University Press)
The conservative press in twentieth-century America / Ronald Lora., 1999
From the New Deal to the New Right: race and the southern origins of modern conservatism / Joseph E. Lowndes., 2008
Conservatism / Jerry Z. Muller.
Right-wing women: from conservatives to extremists around the world / P. Bacchetta., 2002
Unmaking law: the Conservative campaign to roll back the common law / Jay M. Feinman., 2004
Radicals or conservatives?: the contemporary American right / James McEvoy., 1971
Conservatism: Dream and Reality / Robert Nisbet., 2001
Ought the Neo-Cons be Considered Conservatives?: a philosophical response / AQ: Journal of Contemporary Analysis. 75(6):32–33/40. 2003
Conservatism / Noel O'Sullivan.
The new racism : conservatives and the ideology of the tribe / Martin Barker., 1982
A time for choosing: the rise of modern American conservatism / Jonathan M. Schoenwald., 2001
The Meaning of Conservatism / Roger Scruton.
Facing fascism: the conservative party and the European dictators, 1935–1940 / N. J. Crowson., 1997
The End of Politics: triangulation, realignment and the battle for the center ground / Alexander Lee and Timothy Stanley., 2006
Primary sources
Schneider, ed. Conservatism in America since 1930: a reader (2003)
Witonski, Peter, ed. The wisdom of conservatism (4 vol. Arlington House, 1971) 2396 pages)
Online sources
The Graphic Guide to Conservatism: a visual primer on the conservative worldview / Olivier Ballou. [1]. 2011
Conservatism / Kieron O'Hara / Reaktion Books, 2011 (Reviewed in The Montreal Review)
Carey, George (2008). "Conservatism". In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 93–5. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
External links

Find more about
Conservatism
 at Wikipedia's sister projects

Search Wiktionary Definitions from Wiktionary
Search Commons Media from Commons
Search Wikinews News stories from Wikinews
Search Wikiquote Quotations from Wikiquote
Search Wikisource Source texts from Wikisource
Search Wikibooks Textbooks from Wikibooks
Search Wikiversity Learning resources from Wikiversity


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Conservatism




































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Conservatism in Asia














































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Conservatism in Europe
















































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Conservatism in North America
























































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Conservatism in South America




























[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Political ideologies

















































Authority control
GND: 4032187-3 ·
 HDS: 17458
 

  


Categories: Conservatism
Political ideologies
Social theories


















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

View source

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Afrikaans
Alemannisch
አማርኛ
العربية
Aragonés
Asturianu
Azərbaycanca
Bân-lâm-gú
Башҡортса
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎
Български
Boarisch
Bosanski
Brezhoneg
Català
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Fiji Hindi
Føroyskt
Français
Frysk
Gaeilge
Galego
한국어
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Igbo
Ilokano
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Къарачай-малкъар
ქართული
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Kurdî
Кыргызча
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Limburgs
Magyar
Македонски
മലയാളം
मराठी
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پنجابی
Piemontèis
Polski
Português
Română
Русиньскый
Русский
Саха тыла
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
کوردیی ناوەندی
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
తెలుగు
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
ئۇيغۇرچە / Uyghurche
Tiếng Việt
Winaray
ייִדיש
粵語
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 June 2015, at 03:19.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#Religious_conservatism









Zealots (Judea)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religious zeal)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Zealot" and "Zealous" redirect here. For other uses, see Zealot (disambiguation) and Zeal (disambiguation)

Zealots
Menora Titus.jpg
Leader
Judas of Galilee
Menahem ben Judah
John of Giscala
Simon bar Giora
Eleazar ben Simon
Eleazar ben Yair
Founded
6 CE
Dissolved
73 CE
Headquarters
Jerusalem,
Gush Halav,
Masada
Ideology
Jewish Nationalism,
Militarism,
Jewish Independence
Jewish Fundamentalism
Pharisism
Political position
Nationalist
The Zealots were originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Judaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy Land by force of arms, most notably during the First Jewish–Roman War (66-70). Zealotry was the term used by Josephus for a "fourth sect" during this period.


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 History
3 In the Talmud
4 Sicarii
5 Paul the Apostle
6 See also
7 Notes
8 External links

Etymology[edit]
The term "zealot", in Hebrew kanai (קנאי, frequently used in plural form, קנאים (kana'im)), means one who is zealous on behalf of God. The term derives from Greek ζηλωτής (zelotes), "emulator, zealous admirer or follower".[1][2]
History[edit]
Josephus' Jewish Antiquities[3] states that there were three main Jewish sects at this time, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Zealots were a "fourth sect", founded by Judas of Galilee (also called Judas of Gamala) in the year 6 against Quirinius' tax reform, shortly after the Roman Empire declared what had most recently been the tetrarchy of Herod Archelaus to be a Roman province, and that they "agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." (18.1.6)
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Zealots:[4]

Following Josephus ("B. J." ii. 8, § 1; "Ant." xviii. 1, §§ 1, 6), most writers consider that the Zealots were a so-called fourth party founded by Judas the Galilean (see Grätz, "Gesch." iii. 252, 259; Schürer, "Gesch." 1st ed., i. 3, 486). This view is contradicted, however, by the fact that Hezekiah, the father of Judas the Galilean, had an organized band of so-called "robbers" which made war against the Idumean Herod ("B. J." i. 10, § 5; "Ant." xiv. 9, § 2), and also during the reign of Herod, if not long before by the fact that the system of religious and political murders practised by the Zealots was in existence during the reign of Herod, if not long before.
The opposite has also been argued: that the group was not so clearly marked out (before the first war of 66-70/3) as some have thought.[5]
Simon the Zealot was listed among the apostles selected by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke [6] and in the Acts of the Apostles.[7]



 Statue of Simon the Zealot by Hermann Schievelbein at the roof of the Helsinki Cathedral.
Two of Judas' the Galilean's sons, Jacob and Simon, were involved in a revolt and were executed by Tiberius Alexander, the procurator of Iudaea province from 46 to 48.[8]
The Zealots had the leading role in the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE). The Zealots objected to Roman rule and violently sought to eradicate it by generally targeting Romans and Greeks. Another group, likely related, were the Sicarii, who raided Jewish habitations and killed Jews they considered apostate and collaborators, while also urging Jews to fight Romans and other Jews for the cause. Josephus paints a very bleak picture of their activities as they instituted what he characterized as a murderous "reign of terror" prior to the Jewish Temple's destruction. According to Josephus, the Zealots followed John of Gischala, who had fought the Romans in Galilee, escaped, came to Jerusalem, and then inspired the locals to a fanatical position that led to the Temple's destruction. They succeeded in taking over Jerusalem, and held it until 70, when the son of Roman Emperor Vespasian, Titus, retook the city and destroyed Herod's Temple during the destruction of Jerusalem.
In the Talmud[edit]
In the Talmud, the Zealots are the non-religious (not following the religious leaders), and are also called the Biryonim (בריונים) meaning "boorish", "wild", or "ruffians", and are condemned for their aggression, their unwillingness to compromise to save the survivors of besieged Jerusalem, and their blind militarism against the Rabbis' opinion to seek treaties for peace. They are further blamed for having contributed to the demise of Jerusalem and the Second Temple, and of ensuring Rome's retributions and stranglehold on Judea. According to the Babylonian Talmud, Gittin:56b, the Biryonim destroyed decades' worth of food and firewood in besieged Jerusalem to force the Jews to fight the Romans out of desperation. This event directly led to the escape of Johanan ben Zakai out of Jerusalem, who met Vespasian, a meeting which led to the foundation of the Academy of Jamnia which produced the Mishnah which led to the survival of rabbinical Judaism.[citation needed]
The Zealots advocated violence against the Romans, their Jewish collaborators, and the Sadducees, by raiding for provisions and other activities to aid their cause.
Sicarii[edit]
Main article: Sicarii
One particularly extreme group, perhaps a subgroup of the Zealots, was known in Latin as sicarii, meaning "violent men" or "dagger men" (sing. sicarius, possibly a morphological reanalysis), because of their policy of killing Jews opposed to their call for war against Rome. Perhaps many Zealots were sicarii simultaneously, and they may be the biryonim of the Talmud that were feared even by the Jewish sages of the Mishnah.
According to historian H.H. Ben-Sasson, the Sicarii, originally based in Galilee, "were fighting for a social revolution, while the Jerusalem Zealots placed less stress on the social aspect" and the Sicarii "never attached themselves to one particular family and never proclaimed any of their leaders king". Both groups objected to the way the priestly families were running the Temple.[8]
Paul the Apostle[edit]
See also: Paul of Tarsus and Judaism
Taking the Greek word zelotes in Acts 22:3 and Galatians 1:14 of the New Testament to mean a 'Zealot' with capital Z (the earliest Greek manuscripts are uncials or all capital letters), an article[9] by Mark R. Fairchild suggests that Paul the Apostle may have been a Zealot, which might have been the driving force behind his persecution of the Christians (see stoning of Saint Stephen) before his conversion to Christianity, and his incident at Antioch even after his conversion.
While most English translations of the Bible render this Greek word as the adjective "zealous", the word is a noun meaning 'adherent, loyalist, enthusiast; patriot, zealot'. A 'Zealot' with capital Z, however, would suggest a member of the particular Zealots, the group that emerged in Jerusalem ca. AD 6 according to Josephus, see above. In the two cited verses Paul literally declares himself as one who is loyal to God, or an ardent observer of the Law, but the relationship of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism is still debated. This does not necessarily prove Paul was revealing himself as a Zealot. A translation (the Modern King James Version of Jay P. Green) renders it as 'a zealous one'. Two modern translations (Jewish New Testament and Alternate Literal Translation) render it as 'a zealot'. The Unvarnished New Testament (1991) renders Galatians 1:14 as "...being an absolute zealot for the traditions...". These translations may not be inaccurate, but it is disputed by those who claim it gives the wrong association with the "Zealots".
The Greek word ζηλωτής (zēlōtḗs) is a noun. The comments above that treat it as an adjective are not founded upon the text. This does not necessarily mean that the translation ought to have a capital Z, but a philological argument would properly be based on uses of this word here and elsewhere in the same text, then the same author, then the NT in general, then in Greek in general, in that specific order. As it happens, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (accessed 4/14/15) shows not one instance of the noun ζηλωτής by a pre-Christian Era source. The Suda, a medieval Greek encyclopedia, defines a Ζηλωταί as "among the Jews guardians of the law" (παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις οἱ τοῦ νόμου φύλακες).
The (1881) Westcott-Hort edition of the New Testament has the following reading for Acts 22.3 (without diacritical marks):
εγω ειμι ανηρ ιουδαιος γεγεννημενος εν ταρσω της κιλικιας ανατεθραμμενος δε εν τη πολει ταυτη παρα τους ποδας γαμαλιηλ πεπαιδευμενος κατα ακριβειαν του πατρωου νομου ζηλωτης υπαρχων του θεου καθως παντες υμεις εστε σημερον
The same edition has the following for Galatians 1.14:
και προεκοπτον εν τω ιουδαισμω υπερ πολλους συνηλικιωτας εν τω γενει μου περισσοτερως ζηλωτης υπαρχων των πατρικων μου παραδοσεων
See also[edit]
Knanaya
Sikrikim, a modern group inspired by the Sicarii
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth a book about the life of Jesus by Reza Aslan
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Zealot, Online Etymology Dictionary
2.Jump up ^ Zelotes, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon", at Perseus
3.Jump up ^ book 18
4.Jump up ^ Jewishencyclopedia.com
5.Jump up ^ Richard Horsley's "Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs" and Tom Wright's "The New Testament and the People of God"
6.Jump up ^ Luke 6:15
7.Jump up ^ Acts 1:13
8.^ Jump up to: a b H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, page 275
9.Jump up ^ Journals.cambridge.org, "Paul's Pre-Christian Zealot Associations: A Re-examination of Gal. 1:14 and Acts 22:3" by Mark R. Fairchild, Ph.d
External links[edit]
 Look up zealot in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
 Look up zealotry in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
 Look up Zealot in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikisource-logo.svg Sydney F. Smith (1913). "Zeal". Catholic Encyclopedia.
Wikisource-logo.svg "Zealot". New International Encyclopedia. 1905.


SPQRomani.svgAncient Rome portal
 P history.svgHistory portal
 Star of David.svgJudaism portal
 

  


Categories: 6 establishments
1st century in religion
Ancient Jewish history during the Roman Empire
Ancient political movements
Early Christianity and Judaism
Jewish religious movements
National liberation movements








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Беларуская
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
Français
Frysk
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
Lietuvių
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
ייִדיש
粵語
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 2 June 2015, at 02:42.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots_(Judea)









Zealots (Judea)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religious zeal)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Zealot" and "Zealous" redirect here. For other uses, see Zealot (disambiguation) and Zeal (disambiguation)

Zealots
Menora Titus.jpg
Leader
Judas of Galilee
Menahem ben Judah
John of Giscala
Simon bar Giora
Eleazar ben Simon
Eleazar ben Yair
Founded
6 CE
Dissolved
73 CE
Headquarters
Jerusalem,
Gush Halav,
Masada
Ideology
Jewish Nationalism,
Militarism,
Jewish Independence
Jewish Fundamentalism
Pharisism
Political position
Nationalist
The Zealots were originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Judaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy Land by force of arms, most notably during the First Jewish–Roman War (66-70). Zealotry was the term used by Josephus for a "fourth sect" during this period.


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 History
3 In the Talmud
4 Sicarii
5 Paul the Apostle
6 See also
7 Notes
8 External links

Etymology[edit]
The term "zealot", in Hebrew kanai (קנאי, frequently used in plural form, קנאים (kana'im)), means one who is zealous on behalf of God. The term derives from Greek ζηλωτής (zelotes), "emulator, zealous admirer or follower".[1][2]
History[edit]
Josephus' Jewish Antiquities[3] states that there were three main Jewish sects at this time, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Zealots were a "fourth sect", founded by Judas of Galilee (also called Judas of Gamala) in the year 6 against Quirinius' tax reform, shortly after the Roman Empire declared what had most recently been the tetrarchy of Herod Archelaus to be a Roman province, and that they "agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." (18.1.6)
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Zealots:[4]

Following Josephus ("B. J." ii. 8, § 1; "Ant." xviii. 1, §§ 1, 6), most writers consider that the Zealots were a so-called fourth party founded by Judas the Galilean (see Grätz, "Gesch." iii. 252, 259; Schürer, "Gesch." 1st ed., i. 3, 486). This view is contradicted, however, by the fact that Hezekiah, the father of Judas the Galilean, had an organized band of so-called "robbers" which made war against the Idumean Herod ("B. J." i. 10, § 5; "Ant." xiv. 9, § 2), and also during the reign of Herod, if not long before by the fact that the system of religious and political murders practised by the Zealots was in existence during the reign of Herod, if not long before.
The opposite has also been argued: that the group was not so clearly marked out (before the first war of 66-70/3) as some have thought.[5]
Simon the Zealot was listed among the apostles selected by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke [6] and in the Acts of the Apostles.[7]



 Statue of Simon the Zealot by Hermann Schievelbein at the roof of the Helsinki Cathedral.
Two of Judas' the Galilean's sons, Jacob and Simon, were involved in a revolt and were executed by Tiberius Alexander, the procurator of Iudaea province from 46 to 48.[8]
The Zealots had the leading role in the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE). The Zealots objected to Roman rule and violently sought to eradicate it by generally targeting Romans and Greeks. Another group, likely related, were the Sicarii, who raided Jewish habitations and killed Jews they considered apostate and collaborators, while also urging Jews to fight Romans and other Jews for the cause. Josephus paints a very bleak picture of their activities as they instituted what he characterized as a murderous "reign of terror" prior to the Jewish Temple's destruction. According to Josephus, the Zealots followed John of Gischala, who had fought the Romans in Galilee, escaped, came to Jerusalem, and then inspired the locals to a fanatical position that led to the Temple's destruction. They succeeded in taking over Jerusalem, and held it until 70, when the son of Roman Emperor Vespasian, Titus, retook the city and destroyed Herod's Temple during the destruction of Jerusalem.
In the Talmud[edit]
In the Talmud, the Zealots are the non-religious (not following the religious leaders), and are also called the Biryonim (בריונים) meaning "boorish", "wild", or "ruffians", and are condemned for their aggression, their unwillingness to compromise to save the survivors of besieged Jerusalem, and their blind militarism against the Rabbis' opinion to seek treaties for peace. They are further blamed for having contributed to the demise of Jerusalem and the Second Temple, and of ensuring Rome's retributions and stranglehold on Judea. According to the Babylonian Talmud, Gittin:56b, the Biryonim destroyed decades' worth of food and firewood in besieged Jerusalem to force the Jews to fight the Romans out of desperation. This event directly led to the escape of Johanan ben Zakai out of Jerusalem, who met Vespasian, a meeting which led to the foundation of the Academy of Jamnia which produced the Mishnah which led to the survival of rabbinical Judaism.[citation needed]
The Zealots advocated violence against the Romans, their Jewish collaborators, and the Sadducees, by raiding for provisions and other activities to aid their cause.
Sicarii[edit]
Main article: Sicarii
One particularly extreme group, perhaps a subgroup of the Zealots, was known in Latin as sicarii, meaning "violent men" or "dagger men" (sing. sicarius, possibly a morphological reanalysis), because of their policy of killing Jews opposed to their call for war against Rome. Perhaps many Zealots were sicarii simultaneously, and they may be the biryonim of the Talmud that were feared even by the Jewish sages of the Mishnah.
According to historian H.H. Ben-Sasson, the Sicarii, originally based in Galilee, "were fighting for a social revolution, while the Jerusalem Zealots placed less stress on the social aspect" and the Sicarii "never attached themselves to one particular family and never proclaimed any of their leaders king". Both groups objected to the way the priestly families were running the Temple.[8]
Paul the Apostle[edit]
See also: Paul of Tarsus and Judaism
Taking the Greek word zelotes in Acts 22:3 and Galatians 1:14 of the New Testament to mean a 'Zealot' with capital Z (the earliest Greek manuscripts are uncials or all capital letters), an article[9] by Mark R. Fairchild suggests that Paul the Apostle may have been a Zealot, which might have been the driving force behind his persecution of the Christians (see stoning of Saint Stephen) before his conversion to Christianity, and his incident at Antioch even after his conversion.
While most English translations of the Bible render this Greek word as the adjective "zealous", the word is a noun meaning 'adherent, loyalist, enthusiast; patriot, zealot'. A 'Zealot' with capital Z, however, would suggest a member of the particular Zealots, the group that emerged in Jerusalem ca. AD 6 according to Josephus, see above. In the two cited verses Paul literally declares himself as one who is loyal to God, or an ardent observer of the Law, but the relationship of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism is still debated. This does not necessarily prove Paul was revealing himself as a Zealot. A translation (the Modern King James Version of Jay P. Green) renders it as 'a zealous one'. Two modern translations (Jewish New Testament and Alternate Literal Translation) render it as 'a zealot'. The Unvarnished New Testament (1991) renders Galatians 1:14 as "...being an absolute zealot for the traditions...". These translations may not be inaccurate, but it is disputed by those who claim it gives the wrong association with the "Zealots".
The Greek word ζηλωτής (zēlōtḗs) is a noun. The comments above that treat it as an adjective are not founded upon the text. This does not necessarily mean that the translation ought to have a capital Z, but a philological argument would properly be based on uses of this word here and elsewhere in the same text, then the same author, then the NT in general, then in Greek in general, in that specific order. As it happens, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (accessed 4/14/15) shows not one instance of the noun ζηλωτής by a pre-Christian Era source. The Suda, a medieval Greek encyclopedia, defines a Ζηλωταί as "among the Jews guardians of the law" (παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις οἱ τοῦ νόμου φύλακες).
The (1881) Westcott-Hort edition of the New Testament has the following reading for Acts 22.3 (without diacritical marks):
εγω ειμι ανηρ ιουδαιος γεγεννημενος εν ταρσω της κιλικιας ανατεθραμμενος δε εν τη πολει ταυτη παρα τους ποδας γαμαλιηλ πεπαιδευμενος κατα ακριβειαν του πατρωου νομου ζηλωτης υπαρχων του θεου καθως παντες υμεις εστε σημερον
The same edition has the following for Galatians 1.14:
και προεκοπτον εν τω ιουδαισμω υπερ πολλους συνηλικιωτας εν τω γενει μου περισσοτερως ζηλωτης υπαρχων των πατρικων μου παραδοσεων
See also[edit]
Knanaya
Sikrikim, a modern group inspired by the Sicarii
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth a book about the life of Jesus by Reza Aslan
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Zealot, Online Etymology Dictionary
2.Jump up ^ Zelotes, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon", at Perseus
3.Jump up ^ book 18
4.Jump up ^ Jewishencyclopedia.com
5.Jump up ^ Richard Horsley's "Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs" and Tom Wright's "The New Testament and the People of God"
6.Jump up ^ Luke 6:15
7.Jump up ^ Acts 1:13
8.^ Jump up to: a b H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, page 275
9.Jump up ^ Journals.cambridge.org, "Paul's Pre-Christian Zealot Associations: A Re-examination of Gal. 1:14 and Acts 22:3" by Mark R. Fairchild, Ph.d
External links[edit]
 Look up zealot in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
 Look up zealotry in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
 Look up Zealot in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikisource-logo.svg Sydney F. Smith (1913). "Zeal". Catholic Encyclopedia.
Wikisource-logo.svg "Zealot". New International Encyclopedia. 1905.


SPQRomani.svgAncient Rome portal
 P history.svgHistory portal
 Star of David.svgJudaism portal
 

  


Categories: 6 establishments
1st century in religion
Ancient Jewish history during the Roman Empire
Ancient political movements
Early Christianity and Judaism
Jewish religious movements
National liberation movements








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Беларуская
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
Français
Frysk
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
Lietuvių
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
ייִדיש
粵語
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 2 June 2015, at 02:42.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots_(Judea)