Category: Conservatism

Introduction

Political ideologies in the United States have undergone several changes in the past century. For instance, the country moved from nationalism to liberalism during its economic upsurge. Moreover, there have been notable differences between classical conservatism and contemporary conservatism. This shows that the countrys ideologies have changed over time. Before the World War II, the world had three conflicting ideologies, namely, fascism, communism and liberalism.

The liberals and communists came together to fight fascists in the World War II. Once fascists were defeated, a conflict arose between liberal and communists, which led to the Cold War that lasted 40 years. The latter was defeated, however, it did not stop conflict among the liberals.

Issues like race, gender, and gay, among others raised concern over the future of liberalism. This paper will explore the differences between classical conservatives and conservatives. It will also try to explore what the conservatives claim to conserve (Dolbeare and Cummings 115).

Differences between classical conservatives and conservatives

Classical conservatism is coined from Edmund Burkes criticism of liberalism. It majored mainly on liberals view of human nature, governance, and freedom. According to classical liberals, humans are naturally rational, calculative, self-interested as well as competitive. In this regard, they maximize their advantage at the expense of others; they are governed by a system of law.

Moreover, this system is governed by a minimal state that comprised of civil society that has a social contract to protect property and liberty. However, classical conservatives believe that humans are not self-interested (Ball and Dagger 46-83). In fact, according to Burke, humans are creatures of customs, traditions, and habits, moreover, he believes that individuals pass but the society remains.

Moreover, classical conservatives believe that freedom is an indisputable value; the only thing is that it interferes with another persons enjoyment. In addition, classical conservatives do not believe that freedom has to be a good thing; they believe that it can be and cannot. Classical conservatives, therefore, believe that democracy gives people too much power to control themselves and it is liable to abuse (Ball and Dagger 46-83).

On the other hand, conservatives (also known as modern conservatives) attach themselves to modern society values more than classical conservatives do. For instance, they believe that freedom works when it allows individuals to compete with others, which is especially relevant in terms of economics.

This ideology is quite different from classical conservatives who do not encourage self-interest. In essence, modern conservatives regard capitalism as freedom (Ball and Dagger 93-120).

Moreover, conservatives claim that problems are intricately simple being quite different from the classical conservative view that consists in the fact that problems are usually complex given its social fabric (Ball and Dagger 93-120). Interestingly, modern conservatives have watered-down most of their original ideologies to such an extent that they are closely linked to classical liberals.

Conclusion

From the discussion above, it can be noted that conservatives have watered down most of their former believes with changing political systems in the United States. It can also be noted that conservatives are much closer to liberals than their classical counterparts are.

Moreover, it is clearly seen what conservatives consider to have remained, given the changes that have occurred over the centuries. For instance, while classical conservatives are suspicious of capitalism, conservatives are not. In addition, modern conservatives believe that problems are easy to solve, something that is highly disputed by their classical counterparts (Ball and Dagger 93-120).

Worked Cited

Ball, Terence, and Dagger, Richard. Political Ideologies and the Democratic ideal, New York, NY: Pearson Press, 2009.

Dolbeare, Kenneth, and Cummings Michael. American Political Thought, Washington: CQ Press, 2009. Print.

What is meant by the term Nixonomics, including wage and price controls? What was the overall effect of Nixons economic policies on the United States? Explain

The Vietnam War and Johnsons fiscal policy has led instability in the American economic system when Nixon became President, with significant price hikes and inflation. Nixonomics refers to general economic policy which Nixon applied during his presidency, that included a number of different approaches that he attempted to reverse the economic situation. At first, he attempted to use the Friedman monetary theory which suggested that prices could be lowered by cutting the money supply. This was unsuccessful and led to an even greater recession. Afterward, Nixon attempted to use jawboning, which sought to pressure businesses and trade unions to maintain low prices and wages but resulted in continuous stagflation (Moss and Thomas 2012, 163).

With a lack of success, Nixon applied Keynesian economics to unbalance the budget with the purpose to stimulate demand and employment. However, the inflation and unemployment remained at high levels. In 1971, Nixon froze wages, prices, and rents, enabled tax cuts and introduced a 10 percent tariff (Moss and Thomas 2012, 164).

Eventually, the freeze was removed, but guidelines were still in place. Such strict measures had a profound effect on ending the recession and rise of GDP, but eventually, the controls were undermined by businesses and inflation rose again. Unfortunately, Nixons erratic economic policies were shortcoming and led to more instability. His approach almost destroyed the US economy and believed to be the cause of a deep recession in 1973. Furthermore, it led to a discussion of how far the government should ultimately intervene in the American free market economy.

What was Watergate and how did it affect U.S. politics? Explain

After Nixons reelection in 1972, he felt empowered to drive the country into a conservative direction, both politically and economically. He reorganized the government to be more influential towards his authority and greatly conflicted with the Democratic Congress. Watergate refers to a political scandal which emerged that revealed Nixon, his administration, and campaign using immoral and dirty methods to maintain control and prevent leaks.

From the start of his presidency, Nixon abused his power and engaged in illegal activities such as placing wiretaps and using the IRS to blackmail opponents and raise illicit campaign funds. The scandal is most known for the Watergate break-in to the Democratic National Committee. Afterward, Nixon engaged in direct cover-up efforts that led to a constitutional crisis (Moss and Thomas 2012, 171).

Watergate led to a profound and deep impact on U.S. politics and society. First, it led to a significant mistrust of the American public in the honesty and campaign tactic of elected officials as well as the general involvement of the government in the election process. U.S. politics saw a tremendous reverberation by introducing numerous laws and guidelines on election finances and management. For a time, U.S. politics was characterized by a weakened presidency as Congress sought to aggressively face any executive challenges. Furthermore, candidates were expected to maintain an unblemished moral record. In general, Watergate led to a symbolical and literal cleansing of U.S. politics.

Describe Nixons China Policy. What was its significance to the Cold War?

Nixons policy on China was a very reasonable and diplomatic approach. As China was experiencing conflicts with the Soviet Union, its leader Mao reached out to the United States after years of political and economic isolation. Nixon accepted this and with the help of Henry Kissinger, began rebuilding diplomatic relations with China. Nixon was under some political pressure as well since most European allies already had normalized their relations with China, and there was pressure to unseat Taiwan from the UN and establish China in its place.

Many American politicians and businesses were encouraging for the bilateral relationship to prosper despite Chinas Communist government. Meanwhile, Nixon hoped that a good standing with China will lead to a positive agreement to withdraw the US from Vietnam (Moss and Thomas 2012, 182).

The relaxation of tension with China was beneficial to Cold War rhetoric in the Southeast Asia region. Nixon viewed that this move of establishing diplomatic relations was not in support of Communism but rather helping an exchange of ideologies and knowledge. Nixon believed that China has numerous internal problems and was not focused on exporting the Communist revolution like the Soviet Union. China was recognized as a key player in the region and could help the United States to achieve necessary outcomes (Nixon 1969). Eventually, this relationship led to the US withdrawal from Vietnam as part of the treaty negotiated at the Paris Peace Accords in December of 1972 (Nixon 1973).

What was the energy crisis? How did it come about and what was the U.S. response to it? Discuss

The energy crisis of the 1970s represented a perpetual petroleum shortage for businesses and consumers as well as rapidly increasing prices on gasoline. The energy crisis began when OPEC countries led by Saudi Arabia chose to boycott oil shipments to the US as part of a geopolitical protest that the US was actively supporting Israel in its military conflicts against Arab states. Despite OPEC removing the embargo months later, the cost for a barrel of crude oil and subsequent price for a gallon of gasoline rose exponentially between 1970 and 1980. This strongly affected many American industries and regions dependent on their prosperity as oil prices and lack of government economic incentives led to their decline (Moss and Thomas 2012, 196).

However, the US began to slowly adapt. In the last days of his presidency, Nixon created the Federal Energy Office which focused on energy policy and conservation. He began an initiative to establish American energy independence by increasing domestic oil production through oil fields in Alaska and offshore drilling. This led to the production of not only more oil but coal and natural gas as well while increasing investment into nuclear and non-renewable energy. However, this was met with public protest and plans were halted as American imported up to 40 percent of its oil usage (Moss and Thomas 2012, 197).

What was the Iranian Hostage crisis? How did this crisis reveal the foreign policy weakness of the Carter administration? Describe the circumstances surrounding the release of the hostages. What are some possible lessons that the United States could learn from this experience? Explain

For years Iran served as a strategic ally to the US in the region and against the Soviet Union. The Carter administration was close with the Iranian Shah and despite some public disdain, the CIA noted that there were no revolutionary tendencies. This was inherently the policy weakness of the Carter administration, reliance on Iran and assuming that there will be no anti-American tendencies or change of government.

In 1979, clergy led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seeking to establish an Islamic republic began an assault on the shah. Eventually, the government was overthrown, and a new Islamic government came into power. Khomeini immediately denounced both, the US and the Soviet Union which threw US leaders into confusion. Despite Carter attempting to normalize relations with the new government, he was rejected and anti-American radical groups began to emerge (Moss and Thomas 2012, 207).

The Iranian Hostage crisis began when a well-organized group of radicals and Iranian university students attached the US embassy and took hostage a number of diplomats, CIA officers, and military liaisons. The crisis dominated US foreign policy as diplomatic relations were severed. A secret military operation was planned but miserably failed which symbolized the inability of Americans to protect its citizens.

Eventually, the previous Shah died, and Iran was deeply distracted by a war with Iraq. An agreement was made which guaranteed the release of the hostages in return for $8 billion of Iranian assets being released (Moss and Thomas 2012, 207). This crisis indicates that the US leadership could do better in practicing diplomacy and understanding nationalist movement. Instead of using invasive and solely beneficial politics, it is vital to understand domestic sentiments in foreign countries.

References

Nixon, Richard. 1969. Informal Remarks in Guam With Newsmen. The American Presidency Project. Web.

Nixon, Richard. 1973. Address to the Nation Announcing Conclusion of an Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam. The American Presidency Project. Web.

Moss, George D., and Evan A. Thomas. 2012. Moving on: The American People Since 1945, 5th ed. London: Pearson.

Definition

Accounting conservatism implies that all revenue cash flow should have asymmetrical verification requirements for profit gains and losses. The greater the degree of separation in verification, the stronger the conservatism (known as differential verification). This approach results in a repetitive understatement of net asset values. This influences the financial period reports, but conservatism tends to take a broader approach to cumulative firm income.

Conservative accounting is beneficial when a firm chooses to use contracting. The limited information and liability of external firms are offset by conservatism and helps to contain managers in reporting account measures. Moral and hazard problems continue to exist in financial reporting, and the constraints applied by conservatism offset bias and opportunistic managerial practice. It helps to raise the firm value limiting payouts to executives and shareholders, deferring tax payments, and reducing political costs of regulators.

In addition, understating net assets protects from litigation and negative public opinion. Overall, the benefits to conservatism are united by the principle of limiting payouts and meticulous verifiability of profits, which aid in providing accurate information to all involved parties.

Contracting Explanations

Contracting implies debt and management compensation contracts, the companys organization arrangement, managerial control systems, and even tax payments. Unlike other explanations, contracting has been used for corporate and management purposes for centuries, which influenced modern accounting. Timeliness is necessary to efficiently reflect the actions of managers and shareholders on the firms value as well as avoid dysfunctional outcomes. Verification is critical for contract enforcement and legal liability through control of cash flows. It reduces the possibility of payouts that violate contractual obligations. Overall, the firm value increases as conservatism eliminate manager bias and the possibility of negative net present value projects.

Conservative accounting acts as a method of providing information to investors as it acts to verify the estimates of future cash flows. This increases the quality of the information in all accounting reports. The firm value is maximized through downward-biased estimates as any gains are deferred until there is verification that they exist. Asymmetric verifiability reduces positive earnings bias. However, the information perspective, based on regulation objectives, supports further downward-bias on net assets.

Other Explanations

Conservatism protects from litigation under the Securities Acts, which is more likely if net assets are overstated. Tax law encourages conservatism as the deferment of income helps to reduce the value of taxes based on accounting reports. Conservatism is supported by the regulation perspective since losses from overvalued assets are more prominent in a political process. A shift away from conservatism causes goodwill impairment, which requires an evaluation of unverifiable and non-contractible future cash flows. Unlike the FASB, the SEC enforces a high level of conservatism due to the political repercussions caused by overvaluation.

Implications for Regulators and Standard Setters

The FASB should be more inclined towards conservatism as a standard since it is an efficient measure of performance and net assets even without contracting. Their current neutral approach does not ensure the verifiability of market estimates or manager bias. The FASB standards encourage managers to create valuations of future cash flows. They are incompetent in determining firm valuations as the market has many informed participants. The FASB should focus on the core of accounting, which is to provide verifiable information that can be used by the market to gather information and produce a firm valuation. Neither the FASB of the SEC are consistent in their policy, which may lead to fraud and overvaluations that conservatism seeks to address.

Summary of Zhangs Article

The article in question explores the effects of accounting conservatism on the debt contracting process. It is stressed that conservatism is associated with certain benefits to lenders, which makes this approach seem less attractive for borrowers. Hence, the focus on fair value is quite common. The author states that the role of conservatism has been well-researched, but the field lacks empirical evidence of its impact on both lenders and borrowers. This study addresses the mentioned gap. The researcher comes up with the following hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 1a: The more conservative borrowers tend to violate debt covenants more often as compared to the less conservative borrowers.
• Hypothesis 1b: The more conservative borrowers tend to violate debt covenants sooner as compared to the less conservative borrowers.
• Hypothesis 2: More conservative borrowers tend to have lower interest rates.

The author evaluates accounting conservatism with the help of several measures. These aspects include earnings sensitivity to negative changes as compared to sensitivity to positive changes, nonoperating accruals, and the explanatory power of positive and negative changes, earnings skewness. These measures are also used to check the hypothesis developed.

To check the three hypotheses mentioned above, the author uses a sample of 327 companies that experienced one or more adverse negative price shock between 1999 and 2000. The eligible companies debt contracting documentation was available. The companies had to be characterized by a certain degree of conservatism. The major contributions of the research, as stated by the author, include the provision of empirical data concerning the benefits of debt contracts to both lenders and borrowers. Furthermore, the article can be helpful for standard establishers who try to choose between the fair value approach and conservatism.

It is found that the more conservative borrowers tend to violate debt contracts when some adverse price shocks occur. At the same time, conservative borrowers have lower interest rates. These findings are regarded as evidence of the benefits of accounting conservatism for both borrowers and lenders. It is emphasized that the majority of works on the matter focus on the benefits of accounting conservatism for lenders. However, this research also unveils some positive outcomes for borrowers. In simple terms, conservatism is beneficial as lenders manage to mitigate their downside risks while borrowers get lower interest rates. Conservatism is also seen as a factor contributing to the efficiency of the debt contracting process.

The researcher mentions certain limitations to the study in question. The major limitation is associated with the sample size. It is noted that due to the limited number of companies participating in the research, the findings can hardly be generalized. Besides, bank loans became the focus of the paper while private placements and public debt were not analyzed. Therefore, there are chances that the outcomes can be somewhat different.

At that, the author stresses that the findings are still relevant as bank loans can be regarded as an appropriate illustration of the benefits of conservatism. Finally, the researcher mentions some areas for further consideration. For instance, it is beneficial to focus on the role of conservatism in the development of accounting policies. Future research can address the limitations mentioned above.

Summary of Nikolaevs Article

The article under analysis dwells upon the relevance of accounting conservatism to debt covenants development. The major focus is on the timely recognition of losses and their correlation with the use of covenants. The author states that covenants are aimed at minimizing the opportunism of managers and mitigating the risks of bondholders. However, even debt contracts do not ensure that this major goal will be met as loss recognition can still be untimely.

The major finding reported is that the use of covenants in the process of public debt contracts development positively correlates with timely recognition of losses. The researcher emphasizes that public debt contracts are associated with limited demand for timely recognition of economic losses.

At the same time, the author notes that managers still tend to report losses promptly due to several reasons. These factors include the need to maintain the companys reputation and litigation risks. The author hypothesizes that timely loss recognition grows if debt covenants are used in the process of public debt contract development. The second hypothesis is as follows: firms relying on the extensive use of covenants tend to focus on timely loss recognition after the debt issue.

The third hypothesis is as follows: if a firm relies on private debt, the association between timely recognition of losses and the use of covenants in public debt contracts decreases. Finally, the researcher hypothesizes that the association between timely recognition of losses and covenants used in public debt contracts becomes more apparent if the number of covenants in private credit contracts is significant. The sample size is significant as the author analyzes 5,420 company-year observations during the period between 1980 and 2006. The corresponding accounting documents from 2,466 firms were analyzed.

The major findings of this study are consistent with the existing research but add valuable insights into the matter. For instance, the author reports that companies using covenants extensively in public debt contracts tend to exhibit high timely loss recognition. Moreover, the growth of timely loss recognition often takes place a year after some debt issues. The author concludes that the use of covenants in public debt contracts promotes timely recognition of losses. At that, the occurrence of private date negatively affects timely loss recognition. The researcher stresses that the use of covenants in public debt contracts cannot be regarded as a replacement for timely recognition of losses.

The researcher identifies two major limitations to the present study. First, there are chances that timely loss recognition and the use of covenants in public debt contracts are complementary to each other. It is also vital to remember numerous factors affecting the development of companies and managerial decisions. Second, it is noted that the tightness of covenants is difficult to estimate due to limited resources although this factor can play an important role in the process of contract development and managerial opportunism.

Nevertheless, the implications of the study in question are apparent. Standard setters can benefit from the research as they will understand that covenants do not ensure timely loss recognition. On the contrary, the use of covenants is associated with a strong demand for timely loss recognition. Finally, it is essential to remember that public debt contracts are often associated with timely recognition of losses especially if some debt issues persist while the existence of some private debt issues tends to hurt timely loss recognition.

The stark variation in correction system around the world has fascinated me ever since I found out about how President Duterte of the Philippines was taking the issue of drugs in his country, into his own hands. Comparing these unlawful acts to what happens to criminals in Norway, the country of my father, Norway, I became intrigued as to why there would be this disparity across the globe. Under further investigation, there seemed to be a correlation between the style of government in a country and the justice system, in particular the incarceration policy of that country. The recent right of centre governance in both the Philippines and the Indonesia as well as the USA in the late 20th century corresponded with a harsher, no-nonsense operation whereas in Norway, socialism led the way for a country in which a mass murderer was given the chance to study for a university degree whilst behind bars. Was it that the values of an administration caused a country to have a certain legal system?

The essence of right wing politics is that there will be a natural hierarchy in society based upon the natural law and economics of the world (Wikipedia, 2019). From an economic viewpoint, centre-right politics pushes for capitalism in which private ownership of property and wealth is favoured in order to promote profits for individuals rather than the state. Central to capitalism is the idea of having a competitive market by deregulating industry and reducing both corporation tax which should boost productivity, efficiency, growth and ultimately should lead to an increase in GDP. Therefore, there will clearly be both winners and losers as those which don’t continue to improve will eventually fall behind and surrender the benefits of succeeding in this very individualistic economic system. From a social standpoint, there is a spectrum over how liberal or conservative a certain party or government is. However, there is a general trend towards conservativism as you go away from the centre towards the right. For instance, a relatively liberal, right wing party such as the Progress Party in Norway wants to reduce the power of the state and the public sector when it comes to the economy but is in favour of same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples (Wikipedia, 2019). In comparison, in Indonesia, the central government does not stop provinces such as Aceh, in the northwest, from giving out punishments such as 100 lashes from gay sex (Wikipedia, 2019).

This conservatism can be seen in the penal systems of these right-wing countries where the law tends to punish criminals harshly, often with lengthy prison sentences and in some countries, an abuse of government power can lead to extrajudicial punishment by state actors. Since Rodrigo Duterte assumed his position as President of the Philippines, a reported 20,000

At the heart of a liberal welfare state such as Norway is the goal to obtain the benefits of capitalism whilst combatting its harsher effects such as leaving behind the poor and less fortunate in the wake of everyone else’s prosperity (Wikipedia, 2019). A well-developed welfare system attempts to accommodate everyone in society and give equal opportunities to all, avoiding the poverty supplied by cut-throat capitalism. As you gravitate towards the left, socialism morphs into communism where the state have near complete control over all affairs. Not only are all public services like transport or energy nationalised, instead of just being regulated, but the government takes most of the revenue produced by any business and then redistributes it evenly among all citizens. In its purest form, it aims to provide complete equality but problems arise when workers realise they can either slack off or toil away and still receive the same monetary compensation for their labour. Eventually everyone’s productivity decreases and the country’s economy stalls. This is why socialist countries must be careful to not get too involved with the private matters of business. Whilst the focus of this essay on more central politics, it is imperative to highlight the problems of straying too far from the centre.

There is a clear difference in judicial system when crossing the divide from conservatism to liberalism; a divide that separates two different viewpoints of how criminals should be dealt with. Just the use of the word ‘dealt’ encapsulates this discord. In 1972 USA, when New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller introduced draconian drug laws that meant “mandatory prison sentences of 15 years to life for drug dealers and addicts — even those caught with small amounts of marijuana, cocaine or heroin” (Mann, 2013), it signalled a complete about-turn of policy from the governor, and eventually the rest of the country. It paved the way for the federal government adopting mandatory minimum and ‘three strikes and you’re out’ laws 20 years later (where even very small-scale drug pushers faced life imprisonment for a third federal drug felony) (BBC, 2015). The focus of the penal system was now whole-heartedly on punishment and a “Let ‘em rot, throw away the key” mentality (Teichner, 2012). Turning our focus towards the liberalism of Norway, the word ‘dealt’ is used when referring to the cars in Texas Hold ‘em or by customer service assistants when helping that one tricky patron but is nowhere to be seen near a prison or a court of law. With a justice and penal system centred around prevention of crime by restoration and rehabilitation (into society) of prisoners, mass-murderers such as Anders Bering Breivik are given the chance to study political science at the University of Oslo (bearing in mind his attack was politically-motivated) (Pickles, 2018). Meanwhile the maximum prison sentence is 21 years (with the option of instalments of five years after these 21, as decided by a parole board) for any crime. One objection to the Norwegian system is that prisoners live in relative “luxury” (left) whilst some impoverished law-abiding citizens live in worse conditions than these but the reoffending rate of just 20% (compared to 76.6% rearrested within five years in the US) in Norway suggests the model works. Fundamental to this system is the idea that the punishment for the crime is the lack of freedom rather than the view that there is a necessity for retribution for a crime in the form of suffering whilst in prison (as there is in the USA).

The endeavour for rehabilitation can be seen in the use of capital punishment. The last execution in peacetime, in Norway, was in 1876 (Wikipedia, 2019), while in the US, 29 states have made use of capital punishment since 2000 (Wikipedia, 2019). At the very least, these executions were legal and constitutional but in the Philippines and recently Indonesia, the number of extrajudicial killings has risen in the last three or so years. Since Rodrigo Duterte became President of the Philippines in June 2016, the so-called ‘war on drugs’ has resulted in the ruthless murder of upwards of five thousand Filipinos, who the government claim.

To both capitalists and socialists, the democratic socialism seen in Norway is the dream. It combines equal amounts of free market capitalism to allow for a competitive economic system whilst not skimping on a strong social safety net that ensures a basic level of equality for everyone in the society. The egalitarianism doesn’t stop there though; a legal and correction system founded on rehabilitating prisoners back into society allows for criminals to be given a second chance even if they have done something worthy of life imprisonment elsewhere in the world.

Despite the common narrative of a conservative ascendancy in the 1970s, the decade also saw continued radical activism and resistance to bring about great reform in American society. Although the 1970s saw a conservative ascendency in electoral politics, ultimately leading to the consequential election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the decade also saw expanded, intensified, and often successful protest efforts bred by broader action and the continued endeavor for civil rights and liberal objectives. Ultimately, the 1970s was encompassed by an active and tenacious liberal spirit, but also saw a rise in conservatism as a winning political power.

An understanding of late 20th century America substantially evolves around the two terms that dominate the current political discourse – the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism. Conservatism in the US is underpinned by the advocacy of Judeo-Christian ethics, anti-communism, individualism, American exceptionalism, and respect for American traditions. Although Democrats were once important figures in the early history of the conservative movement, as of the 1960s, conservatism is widely associated with and based on the Republican Party whilst the Democratic Party is considered liberal. Modern liberalism in the US consolidates both the ideas of civil liberty and equality with the endorsement of social justice and a mixed economy.

The 1970s saw an immense transformation of American economic and cultural life, dramatically reshaping the political landscape, even more so than the 1930s.1 Due to its unsettled and precarious nature, its larger significance has become apparent only in retrospect, its influence fully recognized only recently. Race relations, religion, family life, politics, and popular culture of the 1970s marked “the most significant watershed of modern US history, the beginning of our time.” 2 Many conventional portraits of the 1970s paints a picture of backlash, a simple conservative recoil from the perceived excesses of the 1960s. In reality, the 1970s comprised of more complicated political developments than the rise of the right as commonly argued; the collective picture of grassroots action, widespread protest, burgeoning radicalism, and growing federal government involvement in the lives of ordinary citizens must not be overlooked in order to understand the decade as a plethora of under-the-radar reform, much of it detached from the realm of electoral politics.3

The 1970s was preceded by a progressive era, as the 1960s widely dismissed conservatism as a winning political power. The literary critic Lionel Trilling even wrote bluntly in 1950 that “in the US at this time, liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition”4. The political movement of the American New Left, which also reflected a political inclination happening internationally, took on anarchist elements and looked to libertarian socialist traditions of American radicalism, typifying a continuation and revival of established leftist and liberal objectives. The student movements of the New Left were concerned with anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, and violent and nonviolent activist orientations.5 As a result of multiple protests and the Women’s Liberation movement of the 1960s, the 1970s also saw the first notable decline in sex segregation in the US in a century, as activists in the Women’s Liberation movement helped bring about a fundamental realignment of gender roles in the US. Sixties radicalism also helped dismantle the disenfranchisement of Jim Crow and withdraw US troops from Vietnam. The counterculture of the 1960s changed the mindsets of how many Americans viewed the world and the society they lived in. This liberal sentiment continued into the 1970s and made extensive changes to American society, as the organizational and legislative triumphs of the 1960s rooted in liberal ideals established the foundation for progressive action in workplaces, prisons, welfare offices, and small communities in the 1970s.

The 1970s did arguably see a considerable shift towards the right in politics as conservatives began developing their agenda, following a generation of “New Deal democratic hegemony”.6 While conservative activists and voters had been around since long before the 1970s, major organizational changes such as the mobilization of grassroots activism and reform of the Republican Party allowed for the flourishing of a conservative movement that is widely acknowledged during this decade. By the late seventies, the failed domestic and foreign policies of Democrat Jimmy Carter left Americans disgruntled and unsatisfied with their government and the actual or perceived liberal leadership since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and yearned to re-embrace American exceptionalism. The conservative movement of the 1970s culminated in the 1980 presidential election, as Republican Ronald Reagan defeated Democrat Jimmy Carter. Historians have asserted that this election was a realigning election that marked the beginning of the “Reagan Revolution”, where the American public saw a return of conservative ideals with the leadership of President Reagan, which had lasting impacts in domestic and foreign US policy.

However, these conservative wins of the 1970s often recounted in historiography must not overshadow the persistent influence and growth of liberalist reformism. The internal conflicts over Vietnam and social issues such as race relations had fragmented the Democratic Party and diminished its clout as a representative of liberal values and an opposition to the Republican Party in the electoral race. Despite this, liberalism was far from an emasculated political force, and the emerging right of the 1970s faced consequential opposition and resistance from liberals. Historians may utilize one-dimensional narratives and often speak of the failures of president Jimmy Carter to justify an ultimate triumph of conservatism to define the 1970s7, however, this treatment of liberalism presents an incomplete argument, minimizing its influence to a marginal, fringe element that was out of touch with mainstream politics. In reality, liberalism had endured as an undefeated ideology throughout the seventies, as the antifeudal, egalitarian ideology of individual rights and freedoms manifested into the formative years of the decade.

The seventies saw a range of extraordinary organizations around issues varying from health and reproduction to corporate responsibility to home-schooling and girls’ sports teams, along with the recognition that these issues were legitimate subjects for public debate in order for the government to ensure individuals the necessary autonomy to pursue personal development. These causes, such as feminism and gay rights, garnered massive political support in formal political channels and at the grassroots, transforming everyday interpersonal interactions in society. Additionally, the proliferation of activism was evident in the expansion of the sixties civil rights movement into new arenas that grew beyond the 1960s’ struggle for public integration and voting rights. The 1970s African American struggle for civil rights not only raised new issues and scored important new advances, but also welcomed into its ranks other previously marginal individuals in the movement, such as welfare mothers and African American feminists, allowing them to gain stature and political voice as they made concrete legislative gains. The struggle for gay liberation also continued into the 1970s, based around challenging organizations in order to protest the model that defined homosexuality as a ‘sickness’, fight for social services to homosexuals, and help foster a vibrant gay cultural life in many of America’s major cities.8 After the Stonewall Riot of June 1969, by July, activists in New York had formed the Gay Liberation Front, whilst other groups began to emerge in cities and campuses across the nation. By just 1973, there were more than 800 gay organizations, compared to 50 existing in 1969.9 During the 1970s, the gay rights movement achieved a number of important victories, including new allies in other organizations who offered their support, the removal of homosexuality from the American Psychological Association’s list of mental disorders in 1973, and the Civil Service Commission’s removal of their blanket ban on employing homosexuals in 1975. By 1976, 17 states had also abolished their laws prohibiting sodomy.10 As such, the movement culture of the 1960s flourished after 1970, as activists of diverse causes embraced the tactics of the freedom struggles and counterculture from the decade preceding them. Activism took on an even more progressive and liberal form as direct-action protests and guerrilla theatre became the characteristic mode of action for the civil rights, women’s liberation, and gay rights movements. There was not only a continuation of 1960s activism but also standardization of direct-action techniques as a legitimate part of politics; activists used protest styles such as marches and sit-ins from the 1960s to advance new causes across the political spectrum in the 1970s.11 1970s protestors also further developed the central ideological constructs of 1960s social movements including participatory democracy, authenticity, and the idea that the personal is political 12, highlighting the enduring and expanding liberal spirit of the time. Liberalism was far from being in decline, as the seventies became the zenith for grassroots activism.

Collectively, these events paint a compelling picture of political ferment in the 1970s, consisting of progressive social movements, empowered minority groups, and conservative accommodations to the government. In order to reconcile this revision of the decade with the conservative ascendency in electoral politics, it is noteworthy to realize that the grassroots struggle for racial justice and sexual equality have exerted a far more intensive impact than that of the liberal political economy of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society.13 These impulses towards minority representation and affirmative action have proven more resilient to conservative challenges than the New Deal’s essential economic factors, as organized labor experienced a catastrophic decline, the value of minimum wage had eroded, the tax code became regressive, and the privatization of public services became commonplace.14 However, this divergence also testifies to some extent to the remarkable potency of the social movements and their moral dedication, as many business groups and opponents of civil rights and feminism embraced affirmative action by the 1980s. Ultimately, it is evident that the emerging New Right competed with steady opposition from grassroots radicals, and operated in a political landscape permanently altered by the tactics, ideas, and experiences of the Great Society, the counterculture, and activists.

There are inevitable complications in conceptualizing and organizing historical developments by decade, though historians try their best to force order and coherence through periodization.15 The 1970s upheld liberalism as a compelling intellectual force but also gave way to a potent and influential conservative evolution that assisted in inaugurating the consequential presidency of Ronald Reagan, as the social contract of mutual dependence and government oversight that emerged during the New Deal became replaced by a return of traditional principles in the likes of individualism and unrestrained economic acquisition. The seventies were not simply an interval between the two dominating narratives of the flamboyantly revolutionary and liberal sixties and the conservative boom of the eighties, but a complex combination of the two ideologies which converged into its own unique and unprecedented period of time, spiraling into a divergent array of movements, both liberal and conservative.

References

1. D’Emilio, John. 1940-1970. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States. Chicago.
2. Hall, Simon. 2008. ‘Protest Movements in the 1970s: The Long 1960s.’ Journal of Contemporary History 43, no. 4: 655-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40543228.
3. Keys, Barbara. 2014. ‘THE BIRTH OF A NEW ERA: TEACHING THE 1970s.’ Australasian Journal of American Studies 33, no. 1: 120-31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44706141.
4. Keys, Barbara, Jack Davies, And Elliott Bannan. 2014. ‘THE POST-TRAUMATIC DECADE: NEW HISTORIES OF THE 1970s.’ Australasian Journal of American Studies 33, no. 1: 1-17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44706134.
5. Lynd, Staughton. 1969. ‘The New Left.’ The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 382: 64-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1037115.
6. Mills, Charles W. 2008. ‘Racial Liberalism.’ PMLA 123, no. 5: 1380-397. New York: Modern Language Association. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25501942.
7. Petracca, Mark P. 1990. ‘Politics beyond The End of Liberalism.’ PS: Political Science and Politics 23, no. 4: 566-69. doi:10.2307/419892.
8. Phillips-Fein, Kim. 2008. The Great Utopia: How American Business Fought the New Deal Order. New York.
9. Schulman, Bruce J. 2008. ‘Comment: The Empire Strikes Back — Conservative Responses to Progressive Social Movements in the 1970s.’ Journal of Contemporary History 43, no. 4: 695-700. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40543231.
10. Shulman, Bruce. J. 2001. The Seventies: The Great Shift in American Culture, Society, and Politics. New York.
11. Trilling, Lionel. 1950. “Preface.” In The Liberal Imagination: Essays on Literature and Society. New York: Viking Press.
12. Zelizer, Julian E. ‘Rethinking The History Of American Conservatism.’ Reviews in American History 38, no. 2 (2010): 367-92. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40865368.

“Modern English Conservatism was mostly birthed out of coalition between classical Liberals and Social Conservatives in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century”. It contains the constellation of governmental ideologies including Fiscal ideology, free exchange or economical Liberalism, party Conservatism, ideology, Bio-Conservatism, and Religious Conservatism, also as help for a strong military, small government, and state rights.

Liberalism is frequently contrasted with Conservatism, but these two are non-diametrically opposed. Liberal emphasis on individual liberty contrasts with conventional Conservatives which support the powerful, if not autocratic, a government that imposes one or more religions, as well as conventional norms regarding the family, sexual morality, the subordinate role of women, And traditional beliefs of people.

However, the distinction between Liberalism and conservatism breaks down within contemporary Conservatism, Which is partially determined by the economic terms of 19th- and 20th-century classical liberalism. These terms primarily consider the administration’s laissez-faire attitude toward profitable markets and its enforcement of solid personal property and contract rights. These methods mostly determine the official position (if not usually the knowledge) of the modern Republican Party in the United States since Ronald Reagan’s administration in the decades, And likewise of this Conservative Party in the UK within the Margaret Thatcher period, and Donald Trump. And much of this conservative attitude is concentrated in the country’s region (rural regions with reduced population density), as contrasted with the more progressive cities and college towns.

Liberals think education should be given to all citizens, regardless of their background or income level. Furthermore, education is a necessary component of the American economy.

Conservatives Argue that education should not be free or compulsory. Conservatives also believe that the federal government should not interfere with private education. This view is supported by the fact that there are no laws in place that prohibit private schools from enrolling students. Also, conservatives believe that public schools should not interfere with private education.

Pell Grants are a major issue in America. They provide funding for many educational programs. These funds are provided by the federal government through state and local governments. This money is used to pay for the school’s tuition.

Conservatives argue that the federal government should not fund these programs because it would make them more expensive. However, the federal government does not have enough money to cover all of these expenses.

Liberals believe that the government should be able to help people who need it most. This is why they support the idea of free college. Liberals also believe that the government should not be able to take money away from schools.

Furthermore, Standardized testing is also a hot-button issue that has been debated in the past few years. Students are being asked to take tests that are not based on their ability or intelligence.

Conservatives argue the test should be used as an indicator of how well a student can perform in school. This is because if a student does not pass the test, then he or she will have to pay for tuition.

Liberals, however, are against standardized testing. They believe that students should be allowed to learn at their own pace and with their abilities. Therefore, they want to ensure that every student receives the same education. Liberals also believe that the test should be used to determine whether a student has the potential to succeed in life.

References

1. Mastropieri, Margo A. The Inclusive Classroom (p. 18). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.
2. Mastropieri, Margo A. The Inclusive Classroom (p. 19). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.
3. Mastropieri, Margo A. The Inclusive Classroom (p. 20). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

‘Conservatism’, as a distinct ideology, arose in the early nineteenth century as a body of thought that was opposed to the values and ideals of the French Revolution. Conservatism is suspicious and resistant to political, social, and economic change, supports traditional ways of doing things, has a generally negative view of human nature – seen as fundamentally imperfect – and wants to maintain an organic society. As while other ideologies preached reform and revolution, conservatism stood in defense of an increasingly embattled traditional social order. Traditional conservatives see distinctions between people and a hierarchical structure of society as natural and inevitable. They support the traditional social order. However, modern conservatives of the ‘New Right’ reject many of the tenets of conservatism and support a view of society, which has more in common with classical liberalism than conservatism.

Conservatism has never been a single doctrine and varied widely across Europe and America. The triggers for the development of modern Conservatism were:

The French Revolution and its Enlightenment values of rationalism, liberty, rights, etc. Conservatives reacted against this, in defense of the old social and political order. A founding text of modern conservatism in England was Edmund Burke’s ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’ (1792). Burke argued that society was like a social organism that had taken centuries to evolve, and that the French revolutionaries were destroying the accumulated wisdom of many generations in the name of abstract ideals and the application of reason. Traditional (Burkean) conservativism defends the status quo and the established order of things against radical or revolutionary change. Society is not like a machine that can be taken apart and reassembled. It is more like a living creature. It is complex and interconnected, and changing any part of it can have consequences for the entire organism. A well-organized society is the product of centuries. It is built out of institutions, which have stood the test of time: the family, church, private property, etc. All members of the community are bound together in an organic whole and sustained by custom and tradition. Each member knows his role and place and society works best when each carries out the duties associated with his/her role and does not try to usurp them. This produces an orderly, hierarchical, and stable society.

However, Burke believed that gradual, prudent change, was necessary; ‘” to change in order to conserve”. Changes should be made on the basis of experience by men of wisdom and good judgment rather than on the basis of theories or abstract concepts such as human rights. The aim should be to make pragmatic decisions that result in changes that work.

Elsewhere in Europe, many conservatives rejected all change, which led to the revolutions of 1848. Conservatives sought to conserve the old social and economic order against the economic and social changes

Conservatives value and defend tradition for a number of reasons it being a core theme throughout the ‘ideology’. Some Conservatives believe on religious grounds that traditional customs and practices are ‘God gave’ (e.g. homosexuality is wrong, a marriage must be between a man and a woman, etc.) However, today these arguments are mainly only made by religious fundamentalists. Burke (1729-1997) argued that the living generation is in a ‘partnership’ with previous dead generations, and those which are yet to be born. In support of this, G.K.Chesterton (1874-1936) called tradition a “democracy of the dead”. In this view, tradition reflects the accumulated wisdom of past (dead) generations. The practices and institutions which exist today have been ‘tested by the time’ – those which have survived have done so because they worked.

Another core theme is conservatism is the belief in human imperfection. Conservatives argue that human beings are naturally imperfect and imperfectible creatures, and recognition of this should be the foundation of political and social institutions. This is a major difference from Socialism as those (socialists) who believe that human beings can be improved through changing their social conditions and environment are deluded. Human imperfection is understood in many ways; one way is that human beings are psychologically imperfect beings. They are dependent, unstable, and fear isolation. They consequently are drawn to those things which give them security and belonging. They like what is safe and familiar, and to ‘know their place’. They feel safe and secure in an established social order where life is stable and unpredictable, and they are not forced to make decisions and choices of their own. The other being is that human beings are morally imperfect. Whereas socialists explain immoral or criminal behavior as something that is learned from the social environment (and can therefore be changed if the environment is improved), Conservatives are more likely to view it as innate. Humans are naturally selfish and greedy, and driven by a desire for power (Hobbes). Crime is a product of base human instincts. Society is only possible if there are strong laws to deter people from violent and anti-social behavior. Law is the foundation of order

Hierarchy, order, and authority are also key features of conservatism, however, conservatives have differing views from one another. Traditional conservatives believe that society is naturally hierarchical. This means, a society that is characterized by fixed or established social gradations or ranks, usually established in a pyramidal structure. The idea of social equality is treated as nonsense or unachievable. Power, status, and wealth, have always, and always will, are unequally distributed. Neo-liberal and libertarian conservatives have rejected ideas of a fixed hierarchy and embraced the liberal conception of meritocracy and social mobility based on hard work and talent. They remain committed to the idea that inequality is natural but believe this is due to peoples’ different abilities, skills, and attitudes. In addition, they believe that inequality is economically positive because it creates aspiration, competition, and dynamism, as people try to outperform their peers.

Property is another key feature of conservatism and ownership is believed by Conservatives to have deep social and psychological advantages that go beyond the accumulation of wealth. The property provides security in an uncertain world, giving people a feeling of confidence in having something ‘to fall back on if things get worse. Ownership also makes people less vulnerable to the power of others. For example, someone who owns a business cannot be sacked or made redundant. “Private property is one of the best institutions which have ever evolved, to protect us from the bullying of others”. (Roger Scruton. ‘The Meaning of Conservatism”) The property provides people with a stake in society (i.e. they have something to lose if social order is not maintained). They respect the property of others because they want their own property to be respected, and respect the law that guarantees the security of property. Hence, property ownership becomes the basis for an orderly and stable society and opposition to anarchy, For Burke, the stability of the social order lay primarily in the landowning class for they are the “great oaks that shade a country”.

During the 19th century, conservatism and the balance of power were essential to politics. Conservative leaders tried to preserve the legitimacy of monarchies amidst the growing influence of political parties aligning with socialist or Marxist ideologies, as well as an increasing desire for labor insurance and social legislation. As countries grew increasingly nationalistic, leading to events such as German unification, leaders such as Otto von Bismarck had to preserve their power with new methods. Otto von Bismarck’s government demonstrated these methods through new conservatism because he advocated for reforms in labor laws, religious and civil rights, and education, and he received criticism for catering to liberal, socialist, and religious parties.

Bismarck didn’t align with traditional conservatism because of the values in his legislation. Document 1 states that from 1869 to 1878, Bismarck’s government passed laws abolishing restrictions on citizenship because of religion and advocating for the separation of church and state in education. Bismarck was legislating after the Treaty of Westphalia, so he was allowed to dictate the religion of his territory, but he instead chose to further religious toleration, which doesn’t align with the conservative character of religious influence in government. Bismarck also seeks to benefit his government in Document 6, where he endorses his bill that insures workers against accidents with the argument that the state has a duty to protect its citizens. Bismarck was supporting his own bill, so he may have been exaggerating his concern with protection by the state to influence the working class. However, he still showed concern with protecting the working class and therefore gaining their loyalty to the state that provides for them. As stated in Document 3 by Hermann Wagener, the influence of the masses including the working class and the army is essential to increasing trust in the government. Hermann Wagener was a conservative, so he may have been trying to further his cause through his emphasis on social reform, but increasing the government’s power was essential to Bismark’s regime. By putting policies regarding religion and labor laws in place, he aimed to increase his support. These methods, as well as Bismarck’s devotion to the unification of Germany, show that his ultimate goal was to protect the state and his position as leader, and his ability to do so without using traditional conservativism.

Another reason that Bismarck’s government exemplified a new conservatism was that he appealed to many different parties, not just traditional conservatism. This is demonstrated in Document 4, where Bismarck is portrayed as shifting his policy to appeal to liberals, conservatives, and ultramontanes. Bismarck received criticism from both socialists and liberals for aligning with the other’s ideals. In Document 2, socialist Wilhelm Liebknecht laments that the Reichstag held control over legislation and states that any hope of the SDP influencing the government is pointless. Even though Liebknecht was influenced by his socialist viewpoint, the idea that Bismarck favored certain political parties was also true for liberals. Eugen Richter, a liberal journalist, stated in Document 7 that Bismarck’s system of government allowed for the domination of the socialist party and conflict between political ideas. Richter was biased against Bismarck because he was liberal, but the fact that both the socialist and liberal parties in Germany believed that Bismarck favored certain parties shows that his style of government was a new form of conservatism that secured power for the state by not aligning completely with conservative, liberal, or socialist values.

The conservative ideology takes off in the eighteenth century during the French Revolution of 1789. The revolutionaries replace the Old Regime, an old society based on order and hierarchy, with a new society based on freedom, fraternity, and equality. At the moment when the National Assembly is constituted, two streams cross it: supporters of the king’s power, attached to the model of France before 1789, they wish to preserve certain elements of ancient society and are placed on the right. On the left, there are the partisans of its limitation, attached to the achievements of the Revolution, they wish to erect the sovereign power of the people.

Conservatism is structured from this event. In Reflections on the French Revolution (1790), the Anglo-Irish political theorist Edmund Burke, both liberal and conservative, condemns the revolutionary ideology for the simplicity of its conception of the world and society and expresses its preference for a regime that preserves certain liberal gains while remaining based on respect for national traditions and local customs. In the conservative ideology, there are different levels of traditionalists but they all agree that there has to be traditionalism in our society in order to lead a country correctly. Traditionalism is the attachment to traditions, beliefs, customs, values, usages, and ideas transmitted by tradition. Convinced that society must preserve its political, moral, and religious forms at all costs, traditionalists seek to perpetuate them from generation to generation (Merriam Webster Thesaurus). It considers that traditions are the legitimate expression of the true needs of society and, consequently, the principle of reason can only be superficial, inappropriate, and unhealthy. It seems to contradict the principles of democratization. In politics, democratization is the process that allows a regime to evolve towards democracy or strengthen its democratic character. If it is an authoritarian regime, a dictatorship, or any non-democratic regime evolving towards democracy, we are talking about a democratic transition (Oxford Dictionaries.com).

However, conservatism is a complex ideology to fully understand. Non-conservatives consider it as an authoritarian ideology that allows a group of the elite to lead, creating a block against democratization, while conservatives would have desired to be described as “common sense” (Andrew Heywood, Palgrave, 2017) with traditions to respect and apply. Nevertheless, when analyzed, it can be said that conservatives use tradition as one of their key elements to preserving order and security from the instability of democracy, making both defenses of tradition and reaction against democratization linked.

While there are different inclinations of conservatism, tradition is one of the key elements that differentiate this ideology from any other. In fact, the foundation of conservatism consists in the defense of tradition. According to Edward Shils (1981), an influential American sociologist, tradition is “anything transmitted or handed down from the past to the present”. Tradition thus refers to the continuous transmission of cultural content throughout history from a founding event to an immemorial past. Conservatives believe that tradition is essential because it comprises all of the wisdom accumulated from the previous generations. Edmund Burke, the father of Anglo-American conservatism, distinctly argues, in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), that “wisdom resides largely in experience, tradition, and history” (Andrew Heywood, Palgrave, 2017). Indeed, he declares in his work that the French Revolution’s main values such as liberty, equality, and fraternity are only “abstract principles” (Andrew Heywood, Palgrave, 2017) that only create instability and chaos. For example, conservatives have fought for the status of the Monarchy because “it embodies historical wisdom and experience” (Andrew Heywood, Palgrave, 2017), and represents a strong, authoritarian, and leading institution that ensures safety and order.

Conservatives say that tradition is a strong sign of identity and belonging to a group. In fact, it allows a community or a society to become aware of itself, its peculiarities, and its specificities, which brings it closer together. Tradition constitutes the cultural roots of a people and participates in the foundation of a society. As reported by Michael Oakeshott in Rationalism in Politics (1962), conservatives “prefer the familiar to the unknown, fact to mystery, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss”. Here, he emphasizes clearly the fact that we should conserve what has already been here, such as institutions and traditions, rather than change traditions or our society into one that is thought to be better but that turns out to be worst. For example, in the United States, the Republican Party, known to have conservative values, is strongly against “gun law reforms”. They argue that Americans should have the right to be armed as it’s their right, as it is written in the constitution. This right has been given to the American people for centuries, changing it would supposedly be a violation of their rights and their culture and would not necessarily lead to a better outcome. This traditionalist attitude is not only seen in the United States but all around the world. In fact, in Argentine, women can not abort in their country. In June 2018, the Argentine Senate refused the law authorizing abortion. As for Ireland, the Argentine population is Catholic and very conservative. But the country was under additional pressure from the Church. Thus, the pontiff, Argentine of origin, did not hesitate to speak. Pope Francis had clearly shown his strongest opposition. This shows that a country with strong religious heritages will stick to its traditions as they wish to respect the wisdom of past generations. In fact, as Burke says “we should respect the actions and the votes of the dead, who will always out-number the living” (Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790). This shows clearly that the root of conservatism is in the defense of traditions.

However, other conservatives do not believe in change, and because of that, defending traditions can be seen, by non-conservatives, as a means to fight against democratization. These conservatives are the most radical ones and are often the ones that non-conservatives are the most aware of. As they are “reclaiming the past” (Andrew Heywood, Palgrave, 2017), they are the most contradicting to the progressive era since the Enlightenment. The most obvious reason why conservatism could be better understood as a reaction against democratization is that it was developed in the late 18th century during the French Revolution. Indeed, the French Revolution was born of the difficulties of the monarchy and the contestations of absolutism. It marked a total break from the old regime in the political field, but also economic, social, and cultural. A new political and social universe had emerged, and the French, who were only subjected, became citizens involved in the political life of a unified sovereign nation. But the Revolution also created lasting divisions in French society, between the most progressive and the most conservative. In fact, the revolutionary period was marked by great political instability between 1789 and 1799 but also by economic and social difficulties that favor popular uprisings. Consequently, many people started to want a political regime that would guarantee the political, social, and economic stability of the country while keeping the legacy of 1789. The aristocrats, the royalists, and the high clergy were against reforms and wanted to regain their powers. Indeed, Joseph de Maistre who was a famous French political writer was one of the biggest critics of the French Revolution. In On the Pope (1819), he declares that total Restauration of the French Monarchy is the only solution to re-establish order in France. Only a monarch that has been given a supreme divine power can offer security, order, and prosperity. If such an event structured the root of conservatism, it certainly shows that conservatism could be better understood as a reaction against democratization.

Furthermore, Joseph de Maistre’s authoritarian conservatism has inspired many other governments with its strict principles. In fact, the newly elected Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, whose campaign slogan was ‘Brazil above all, God above all, is on a social and religious level very conservative, with a strong military presence. Former captain of the army, Bolsonaro does not hide his nostalgia for the time when his country was a military dictatorship, ‘Yes, I am in favor of a dictatorship! We will never solve the nation’s problems with this irresponsible democracy.” he once told congress in 1992 (The Guardian, 2018). This shows that still today, conservatism is still an ideology highly described by a sentiment of anti-democratization and a will to go back to a more glorious past with a strong hierarchy, authority, and power that nearly resembles one of a king.

Finally, In Europe, the exasperation with regard to the political class, the European Union, unemployment, stagnation or lower wages, and mass immigration that has been simmering for several decades, will be added to the shock of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, whose devastating effects continue to be felt on the continent. The widely shared impression that the governments in power for decades have not listened to the grievances of the people, are content to consolidate their hold on political and economic power, and are unable to provide solutions to problems such as immigration, structural unemployment and inequalities have led to widespread loss of confidence in democratic institutions. These factors have all largely contributed to the rise or re-emergence of populist parties, which pit the wisdom of the people against the corruption of the elites, or extreme right parties in Europe. Since 2008, political groups such as the National Front in France, the Alternative for Germany, the Danish People’s Party, and the Party for Dutch Freedom have all had considerable electoral success (Chideya, 2016). Although none of these parties won an absolute majority, the increased presence in national parliaments forced traditional parties to listen to their demands. In Europe, there is a growing closeness between the positions of conservative and far-right candidates. This anxiety-provoking feeling of insecurity pushes European countries to return to tried and tested conservative values of the family against the individual, religion against changing morals, the nation against federalism, and ‘protectionism’ against globalization.

Nevertheless, some conservatives and again Edmund Burke, are not necessarily against change. In fact, as Burke says, conservatives need to accept “change in order to conserve” (Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790). Since defending tradition is one of their basic purposes, conservatives are willing to adapt or reform their traditions. Indeed, Burke also says “A state without means to change (…) is without the means of its conservation.” (Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790). Here, we can also prove it with the example of the English Monarchy. Indeed, the Monarchy, in the late 17th century, was reformed into a constitutional monarchy. In order to stay, it had to adapt to the current environment. So it can still be argued that conservatism is not against democratization but only wishes to have slow changes in order to lead correctly without creating chaos and instability while still holding on to experience and tradition.

Although the defense of traditions and reaction against democratization are two different traits of conservatism, we can still see a link between the two of them. Indeed, as Michael Oakeshott said in Rationalism in Politics (1962), conservatives “prefer the familiar to the unknown, fact to mystery, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss”. Here, we can see that in the conservative ideology, it is mostly believed that governments should strictly enforce the values of tradition and especially those concerning family, order, and hierarchy in order to insert a leader that would guarantee its people’s safety, stability, and the safeguard of the nation’s identities. The most obvious example that could illustrate that is the Iranian Islamic Revolution. The principles of the conservatives of the new Iranian government are a sharia-based society defending the principle of velayat-e faqih, consecrating the primacy of religious power over political power, and with a guide whom they consider to be designated by God. The Iranian Islamic radical traditionalists are generally anti-Western, and with the establishment of paramilitary forces, less than two years after the fall of the monarchy, the conservative forces removed from the political scene the nationalist and liberal elements who participated in the Revolution. This revolution can be seen as a reactionary one as the Iranian people wanted to gain back their autonomy and keep the values that Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi seemed to be erasing. Indeed, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi wanted to transform his country on the Western model. The Shah attacked the bazaar, a symbol of the traditional Iranian identity which he preferred to transform into Western supermarkets, accusing them of contributing to inflation. As a result, the “dissatisfaction with the present and the distrust of the future” (Andrew Heywood, Palgrave, 2015) of the Iranian people allowed Khomeini to re-establish ancient Islamic traditions. This shows that one does not come without the other either. A society that reacts against democratization needs to defend long-established traditions that bring security and experience, and a society that desires strong traditions are anxious about the principles of democracy that seem too abstract.

Conclusively, the objectives of conservatism are a never-ending argument between different ideals. It can have different meanings or goals depending on what people believe. Non-conservatives will mostly understand conservatism as a reaction against democratization because it contradicts the modern and progressive era. However, conservatives will say that it is better understood as a defense of traditions because it is the essence of their ideology regardless if it contradicts or not democratization in order to create a stable and safe environment for the people. However, the debate does not have a clear answer as both defense of traditions and the reaction against democratization can be linked. To truly understand conservatism, one has to comprehend every aspect of it and the context in which this ideology is used.