What do conservatives fear?

[Philos]

Hi,

What is it that conservatives fear? They talk a tough game at all times and in all parts of the world, but there is something that they fear, viscerally, and on an existential level. What is it?

The Belgian writer, Lauryssens, writes of a proto – fascist in pre ww11 Germany:

“For Moeller van den Bruck there is no doubt that again the arch enemy of German culture is liberalism, which stands for everything that is corrupt.”

The last line of the above could have been written by an American Christian Republican in the year 2017. “..liberalism, which stands for everything that is corrupt.” The line is universal - “everything” and finally judgemental - “corrupt”. For those that hold to this belief, the words 'crooked Hillary' would likely have been a lighting rod to what they already know is true, and the sight of Obama's polished shoes on the president's desk in the oval office? I'll leave that to the imagination.

Of course there is a religious ontology to this thinking for the American Christian Republicans: the “fall” of man. Again, for those who believe this story, there is no reasoning to be done, for the world is fallen and can never be put right by liberal, and as they believe, tainted secular tinkering with God's plan. Such dangerously wrong ideas and practices lead straight to the horrors of socialism, communism and the demon. For them, it is a done deal.

I'll confess that there is little comfort in the above analysis, but sometimes it is reassuring to look into the distorting mirror of the other's mind and see it as it is. Fearful.

A.

 

[untermensche]

A death cult. No doubt.

Don't bother me with stories of how we can make this world better.

I'll be in heaven soon.

 

[LordKiran]

Hi,

What is it that conservatives fear? They talk a tough game at all times and in all parts of the world, but there is something that they fear, viscerally, and on an existential level. What is it?

The Belgian writer, Lauryssens, writes of a proto – fascist in pre ww11 Germany:

“For Moeller van den Bruck there is no doubt that again the arch enemy of German culture is liberalism, which stands for everything that is corrupt.”

The last line of the above could have been written by an American Christian Republican in the year 2017. “..liberalism, which stands for everything that is corrupt.” The line is universal - “everything” and finally judgemental - “corrupt”. For those that hold to this belief, the words 'crooked Hillary' would likely have been a lighting rod to what they already know is true, and the sight of Obama's polished shoes on the president's desk in the oval office? I'll leave that to the imagination.

Of course there is a religious ontology to this thinking for the American Christian Republicans: the “fall” of man. Again, for those who believe this story, there is no reasoning to be done, for the world is fallen and can never be put right by liberal, and as they believe, tainted secular tinkering with God's plan. Such dangerously wrong ideas and practices lead straight to the horrors of socialism, communism and the demon. For them, it is a done deal.

I'll confess that there is little comfort in the above analysis, but sometimes it is reassuring to look into the distorting mirror of the other's mind and see it as it is. Fearful.

A.

There's two political spectrums in the US and it's overly simplistic to say there is only one:

Spectrum 1: The religious fundamentalists who see this country as (Rightly or wrongly) founded on the princibles and morality of the bible and the secularists who see the country as (Again, rightly or wrongly) founded by diests who saw their nation as preceding the yoke of any religious denomination.

Spectrum 2: The socially and politically right leaning who's ideology emphasizes property rights and the rights of people as individuals, and the left leaning who's ideology emphasizes social/civil rights and the rights of people as groups.

Sometimes there's some overlap but on the whole these spectrum exist relatively independent of one another. So when you ask "What do conservatives fear?" that begs a follow up question: "Which ones?" Some fear a world of oppressive central control where they are reduced to cogs in the greater machine of the nation. Others fear a world that has left them and their religious institutions behind as time inexorably marches on. They fear a world that has rendered their old institutions redundant and obsolete.

And hell, some just don't like the look of those colored folks who moved in next door, keeping up the whole neighborhood with their drunken parties and blasting their obnoxious foreign music out of their bedroom window every Saturday afternoon.

 

[bigfield]

It depends on which conservatives you speak to.

My grandfather is a conservative but he doesn't fear anything. He believes the left-wing parties are not competent governors and doesn't want them in power, but I don't think that qualifies in this context.

Many of my business acquaintances vote primarily on which party they believe will provide them a safer business environment. Their criteria are subjective: they fear increased increased worker rights, increased company tax, increased regulations (eg. WHS), and they dislike anything that threatens business confidence, which includes almost any change to the status quo.

In the media we see groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby who fear any perceived threats to their flock; their campaign against Safe Schools, an campaign to end the bullying of LGBT children, is an expression of such fear.

So among other things, conservatives fear threats to their personal prosperity and to the moral standards of society. In a sense they are the same as progressives but they have different perspectives.

 

[Philos]

Folks,

While the OP does mention the USA as an example, the embedded quote relates to Weimar Germany and OP question is about conservatism in all parts of the world.

So, whilst there are some distinctions within conservatism (small 'c' big 'C') I'm interested in a deeper root. For example, there are many kinds of alcoholic drink, but all alcoholic drinks are based on ethanol. What is the 'ethanol' of conservatism?

Someone elsewhere came up with a good one, "A conservative is afraid that someone, somewhere, that they think is inferior, is being treated as an equal." So, on this view, we could say that a root of conservatism is the belief in the fairness of inequality. There is no liberal that I know, or any left winger, that has expressed such a belief, but all the conservatives that I know have expressed it in various ways over the years.

A.

 

[bigfield]

Someone elsewhere came up with a good one, "A conservative is afraid that someone, somewhere, that they think is inferior, is being treated as an equal." So, on this view, we could say that a root of conservatism is the belief in the fairness of inequality.

That's listed on the wiki page for Conservatism (as 'preserve...the social hierarchy'):

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions like religion, monarchy and the social hierarchy as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity...

To frame that in terms of fears, you could say that conservatives fear secularism, republicanism and equality.

 

[bilby]

Conservatives fear change.

That's why they avoid people who ask "Any spare change?"

Probably.

 

[LordKiran]

Folks,

While the OP does mention the USA as an example, the embedded quote relates to Weimar Germany and OP question is about conservatism in all parts of the world.

So, whilst there are some distinctions within conservatism (small 'c' big 'C') I'm interested in a deeper root. For example, there are many kinds of alcoholic drink, but all alcoholic drinks are based on ethanol. What is the 'ethanol' of conservatism?

Someone elsewhere came up with a good one, "A conservative is afraid that someone, somewhere, that they think is inferior, is being treated as an equal." So, on this view, we could say that a root of conservatism is the belief in the fairness of inequality. There is no liberal that I know, or any left winger, that has expressed such a belief, but all the conservatives that I know have expressed it in various ways over the years.

A.

I mean if you really want the big picture approach then fine though if you're actually looking to understand or gain new insight on conservatives, then I suggest you leave prejudiced ideas like "A conservative is afraid that someone, somewhere, that they think is inferior, is being treated as an equal." behind.

Conservatism at it's core, is fairly reactionary. This is because the primary driver for most conservative movements are based on the idea that people don't like things that are different. People in general don't like feelings of uncertainty, insecurity, ignorance, chaos, ect. People generally like to feel safe and secure in their surroundings. People don't like to think about how we could die at any moment if a cosmic ray managed to snipe our solar system into un-being. Rather, they like being secure in the knowledge that the celestial clockwork they are familiar with will continue ticking along as it has for the last few eons.

The reason a liberal german empire can become a totalitarian state is the same reason a similar fate befell The Russian Empire. People want a reliable future that isn't jeopardized with radical or sudden changes to the social order or political/economic climate.

 

[Philos]

That's listed on the wiki page for Conservatism (as 'preserve...the social hierarchy'):

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions like religion, monarchy and the social hierarchy as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity...

To frame that in terms of fears, you could say that conservatives fear secularism, republicanism and equality.

bigfield,

Yes, I think you're pretty much on the money with this one. However, I'm particularly interested in the 'equality' angle.

The philosopher John Rawls, in his book 'A Theory of Justice' suggested a thought experiment. He imagined that a person could be reincarnated in a society of either 1. Fairness and everyone having enough to get by or 2. Unfairness and a high chance of being rich or destitute. Rawls, a left wing thinker, had the idea that most people would choose 1. However, in my discussions over the years I have found quite a few conservative types who opted for 2.

This implies to me that conservatives, while apparently fearing change, may not fear risk so much. Maybe their fear of equality and liking of inequality leads them to think that they will most likely be the lucky ones, so what the heck? There is certainly something in this thought experiment that gives us a clue to both conservative and liberal thinking. One point is that liberals generally think quite a lot about the suffering of others and hope/try to ameliorate such suffering. This would indicate their choice of 1. which again has been my experience in discussions with liberal types.

A.

 

[Angry Floof]

Fear of change. The way of viewing the world is closed, absolutist, obedient/authoritarian, black-and-white, punishing, and condemnatory of outgroups, non-conformists, and dissenters. In other words, anything outside of white wing 'Merica is scary to conservatives on the whole.

 

[Valjean]

They fear novelty, unfamiliarity, unpredictability, change and "ickyness."
They crave a safe, familiar, predictable world.

 

[bilby]

That's listed on the wiki page for Conservatism (as 'preserve...the social hierarchy'):



To frame that in terms of fears, you could say that conservatives fear secularism, republicanism and equality.

bigfield,

Yes, I think you're pretty much on the money with this one. However, I'm particularly interested in the 'equality' angle.

The philosopher John Rawls, in his book 'A Theory of Justice' suggested a thought experiment. He imagined that a person could be reincarnated in a society of either 1. Fairness and everyone having enough to get by or 2. Unfairness and a high chance of being rich or destitute. Rawls, a left wing thinker, had the idea that most people would choose 1. However, in my discussions over the years I have found quite a few conservative types who opted for 2.

This implies to me that conservatives, while apparently fearing change, may not fear risk so much. Maybe their fear of equality and liking of inequality leads them to think that they will most likely be the lucky ones, so what the heck? There is certainly something in this thought experiment that gives us a clue to both conservative and liberal thinking. One point is that liberals generally think quite a lot about the suffering of others and hope/try to ameliorate such suffering. This would indicate their choice of 1. which again has been my experience in discussions with liberal types.

A.

This seems to be a common belief - that whatever happens, you will be one of the leading characters, and not a mere extra. Everyone is the star of their own story, so they say things like "Oh, I do wish I had been born in the Middle Ages" - The assumption being that they would be a knight, a princess or a king. The same happens with 'past life regression' - everyone turns out to have been important in their past life. This rather flies in the face of the fact the 99% of medieval humanity were dirt-poor serfs who lived short tedious and grindingly poor lives dominated by hard labour, famine and disease; And that princesses and kings were semi-mythical creatures in their world, that a peasant might, if he was incredibly fortunate, glimpse in the distance once or even twice in his entire miserable life.

This same ego-centric idea that it is others who will play the menial roles in life is what leads poor white Americans to vote republican - so that when they become millionaires, they won't be imposed upon by excessive taxes. It's also the reason why people buy lottery tickets and engage in other forms of gambling with tiny odds of winning. People just cannot bring themselves to truly believe that they are ordinary. But of course, extraordinary people are rare exceptions, so most people are doomed to be disappointed.

 

[Philos]

This same ego-centric idea that it is others who will play the menial roles in life is what leads poor white Americans to vote republican - so that when they become millionaires, they won't be imposed upon by excessive taxes. It's also the reason why people buy lottery tickets and engage in other forms of gambling with tiny odds of winning. People just cannot bring themselves to truly believe that they are ordinary. But of course, extraordinary people are rare exceptions, so most people are doomed to be disappointed.

bil,

I get that. Maybe the Trump voters think - 'Oh Trump is rich, so if I vote for him, then I'll be rich too, just like him'.

For me, I would vote for a competent, kindly and serious minded leader, not thinking that anything will rub off on me, but that the person shares the values that I already have or work towards. Mine is not pecking order thinking in this respect, but I know it is a minority mind set in the world at large.

A.

 

[abaddon]

Someone elsewhere came up with a good one, "A conservative is afraid that someone, somewhere, that they think is inferior, is being treated as an equal." So, on this view, we could say that a root of conservatism is the belief in the fairness of inequality....

... Maybe their fear of equality and liking of inequality leads them to think that they will most likely be the lucky ones, so what the heck? There is certainly something in this thought experiment that gives us a clue to both conservative and liberal thinking. One point is that liberals generally think quite a lot about the suffering of others and hope/try to ameliorate such suffering. This would indicate their choice of 1. which again has been my experience in discussions with liberal types.

Yeah, sorta. I don't know about the "liking" inequality.

That aspect of conservatism is more a matter of looking out for "me and mine" than wanting or liking inequality. They're all about fairness and equality of opportunity, they just don't want to see others get something unless "me and mine" get something too. They can't see the other perspective, where anyone else than "me and mine" getting something can be fair. They can only see someone else's gain as their loss. If Patty has fallen and skinned her knee during recess, and the teacher gives Patty a candy to help "make it better", little Sammy who has no skinned knee (and maybe a box of candies as well) is now crying "That's not fair!"

That he has more than Patty doesn't look like unfairness to him. But if, in the distribution of anything, he doesn't gain when anyone else gains is what unfairness is.

It's not a like of inequality, it's a like of equal opportunity; and inequity doesn't qualify as a lack of equal opportunity to the conservative mind. The inequities of life are either "just how it is" or the Will of God or the necessary structure to avoid Chaos, or due to the poor's failure to grasp their opportunities. So if Patty skins her knee, it's her own fault and that's just how it is. Tough shit for Patty. But if Patty gets something for it and he doesn't, that's the entirety of the inequity right there because she's being treated as "special" and he's not.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The inequities of life are either "just how it is" or the Will of God or the necessary structure to avoid Chaos, or due to the poor's failure to grasp their opportunities. So if Patty skins her knee, it's her own fault and that's just how it is. Tough shit for Patty. But if Patty gets something for it and he doesn't, that's the entirety of the inequity right there because she's being treated as "special" and he's not.

That hits old school conservatism pretty well, but now we've got the regressive left with focus on groups instead of individuals, so its more like Patty skins her knee, and she gets a candy, and so do all the girls, because Patty is a girl, and none of the boys do, because a boy didn't skin his knee. And even if a boy did skin his knee, so long as that is the exception to the norm, that boy will not get a candy either, because he's not in the right group. And then people call anybody who finds that off a modern day "conservative".

 

[Philos]

It's not a like of inequality, it's a like of equal opportunity; and inequity doesn't qualify as a lack of equal opportunity to the conservative mind. The inequities of life are either "just how it is" or the Will of God or the necessary structure to avoid Chaos, or due to the poor's failure to grasp their opportunities. So if Patty skins her knee, it's her own fault and that's just how it is. Tough shit for Patty. But if Patty gets something for it and he doesn't, that's the entirety of the inequity right there because she's being treated as "special" and he's not.

abaddon,

This is interesting moral philosophy. I have never met a conservative who didn't rush to remind me of the universal pecking order. Now, they might believe that the pecking order is 'the Will of God' or 'social Darwinism' or they might just like punching down.

I agree with your last line. Conservatives do like to feel "special" in my experience and don't like this vibe going to others. I call it the politics of envy.

A.

 

[Philos]

That hits old school conservatism pretty well, but now we've got the regressive left with focus on groups instead of individuals, so its more like Patty skins her knee, and she gets a candy, and so do all the girls, because Patty is a girl, and none of the boys do, because a boy didn't skin his knee. And even if a boy did skin his knee, so long as that is the exception to the norm, that boy will not get a candy either, because he's not in the right group. And then people call anybody who finds that off a modern day "conservative".

Jolly,

Yes, I think you have explained the conservative mindset very clearly.

A.

 

[ronburgundy]

Change and uncertainty.

Focusing on social conservatives (which includes religious conservatives), they are the one's who harp on about "tradition" and long for the "good 'ol days". They want strict gender norms, and generally oppose efforts by others to fight discrimination and inequality. The believe in simplistic black and white morality determined by unquestionable authority (aka God and whatever source they have deemed speaks for him). The tend to worship the military, not just because they love it when they kill brown people and heathens, but because they love the simple mindless authoritarianism that is inherent to military power structures.


All of this arises from a deep seeded fear of the unknown. Authoritarian structures are simple. Black and white morality simplifies the messy reality that all morality is subjective, a human creation, and relative to one's goals and preferences. Tradition must be preserved because it makes the future more certain and known, because it will be forced to be like the past that we already know. And the more intolerant and strict the acceptable norms are within that tradition, the less room for unfamiliar deviations.

There is a very strong correlation between how religious a person is and how much they endorse social conservatism even in areas that are not directly tied to religious ideology. What they share is a basis in a desire for fear-reducing simplicity and certainty, however irrationally obtained.

Economic issues have more independence from this but still some degree of overlap. The objective reality is that variability in economic outcomes is extremely complex and random luck factors play a massive role. IOW, the reality of economics in complicated, messy, and uncertain. No valid inferences can be drawn from how well a person is doing to how smart they are, how hard working, how deserving of their situation. Uncertainty-fearing conservatives in social realms fear this reality and prefer the black-white simplicity that the blind faith in the free-market provides, denying the massive role of undeserved luck and unfair biases, and believing that economic outcomes are essentially what is deserved based on each person's merits. They oppose government regulation due to their absurdly irrational and demonstrably false faith that an unregulated market magically results in such a meritocracy. This usually coheres with the believe that any group-level inequalities in outcomes must be due to some groups being inherently less deserving of success (whether by God's design or genetics). That creates a nice tidy little structure to humanity that these fear-based simplicity seekers crave and fits well with social conservative notions that people vary in their basic moral worth.

This shared desire for reality-defying simplicity is why social and economic conservatives overlap quite a bit and make useful allies even when some economic conservatives don't directly endorse the specific social policies of social conservatives.

 

[Bronzeage]

What conservatives fear more than change, is that change has already occurred.

 

[RavenSky]

Hi,

What is it that conservatives fear?

freedom