Conservative Hardliners, and other hackneyed terms

[August1991]

It is sad that the word "conservative" has been so misused in common journalistic writing. Nowadays, "conservative" is synonym for "authoritarian" or "hardliner".

For example, I am tired of reading authoritarian mullahs in Iran described as "conservative". Here is how Wikipedia describes Iran's current Supreme Leader: "Khamenei is regarded by some as the figurehead of the country's conservative establishment."

Out of curiousity, I did a google search on "conservative hardliners". 3090 hits. A google search on "progressive hardliners" gives 9 (yes, nine) hits. "Conservative junta"? 732 hits. "liberal/progressive junta"? 628 combined total for both.

More examples?

Here's how the BBC described the regime in Burma in a news report:

Conservative elements in Burma's military junta have ousted Prime Minister Khin Nyunt and put him under house arrest, Thai officials say.

BBC

Stepping back further in time, here is how our CBC described the communist Russian parliament opposed to Yeltsin as president:

A conservative Russian parliament, upset with the quick pace of reform, passes a resolution authorizing it to suspend and remove the president.

CBC

Reuters reporters used the adjective "conservative" to describe the Chinese politicians who crushed the democracy protests in 1989:

Deng was paramount among Party elders who dominated behind the scenes while Zhao and his colleague, Hu Yaobang, coaxed officials to break up rural communes and strictures on private business that Communist leader Mao Zedong made his legacy.

But by the late 1980s, Zhao found it increasingly difficult to weave between conservatives enraged by the crumbling of Soviet socialism and the advances of market reforms and intellectuals and advisers who wanted to push past barriers to economic and then political liberalization.

Zhao says that in ousting him from power, Deng, then-premier Li Peng and Party conservatives trampled on rules meant to prevent a return to Mao's years of arbitrary, one-man power.

Link

"...conservatives enraged by the crumbling of Soviet socialism... " (WTF?)

I could go on, and on.

-----

Should I be distressed or sad that the word "conservative" has become synonym for authoritarian or oppression? Distressed maybe, but not surprised. The modern (American) liberal (aka a North American progressive) has raised oppression and victimhood to an ideology. Progressives defend the victims of oppression while combatting the authoritarian oppressors: that's their ideology.

The absurdity is that socialist (ie. truly leftist) regimes where the State controls the economy are now labelled as "conservative".

In my mind, it is leftists who deserve the identifying label of "authoritarian". Leftists (so called American liberals or North American progressives) want more State intervention. They want higher taxes, more government spending, more regulation, more State controls on what I can and cannot do. They want more and stronger unions, more civil rights legislation, more affirmative action. The progressives are the social engineers who want to use coercive laws to "change society" for the better.

In short, Leftists (whether in Iran or in the west) want a monopoly State to intervene more in daily life. Conservatives (whether in Iran or in the west) want the State to leave us all alone.

I think western reporters should describe the mullahs in Iran not as conservatives but as leftists or "politically correct progressives", because that's what they are.

Edited June 17, 2009 by August1991

[cybercoma]

I think in most senses when they're talking about conservatives they mean people who favour traditional views and systems, typically opposed to change.

[August1991]

I think in most senses when they're talking about conservatives they mean people who favour traditional views and systems, typically opposed to change.

Cybercoma, if I understand you properly, the 20th century is filled with Leftist experiments that failed and the Leftists now blame the Right for the failures because, according to you, the Right prefers the Status Quo. Status quo? No conservative (or someone on the Right) wants the status quo if it means a socialist regime.

Conservatives today, around the world, are people who want a less intrusive, less authoritarian State.

[cybercoma]

Conservatives today, around the world, are people who want a less intrusive, less authoritarian State.

Which would be a return to the way things were at the Turn of the Century (1900), hence traditional values. In other countries where religion plays a strong role in society, it may mean upholding traditional religious values, rather than progressive socially liberal ones. It depends on the context. That's just what makes sense to me when I think of the media using the word conservative.

[sharkman]

Interesting find, August. the Left's movers and shakers are always trying to win the vocabulary battle. You know, PRO-choice vs ANTI-abortionists, freedom fighters vs terrorists and the like. This appears to be yet another word tweak by them, trying to slide the conservative term into extremist territory. It is a very powerful thing to be able to do that, and only by having like minded liberals filing the MSM's ranks can such notions gain momentum.

[jdobbin]

In short, Leftists (whether in Iran or in the west) want a monopoly State to intervene more in daily life. Conservatives (whether in Iran or in the west) want the State to leave us all alone.

I think you are tilting at windmills again.

Looking at what the definition of conservative is might help you figure out why it is used.

I never thought I'd see the day when right wingers would be monopolizing the word conservative. Isn't the right against monopolies?

[Bonam]

The probem is people are mixing up two definitions of conservative. Here's a link to all the definitions of conservative:

http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&...mp;aq=f&oq=

Note these two in particular:

1) resistant to change

2) Any shade of political opinion from moderately right-of-center to firmly right-of-center. Of the two major parties in the United States, the Republican Party is generally considered to be the more conservative.

You (OP) mean conservative in the second way, whereas those examples from the media mean conservative in the first way.

[sharkman]

But consider where the typical republican supporter was 60 years ago, or democrat for that matter. Both were against gay rights, abortions, feminism, working on sundays, easy access to divorce, etc.

Can it not be said that both were much more conservative than they are now? Both have slid to the left over the years with the changing views of government, expecting it to take charge of increasing ways in their lives, not a conservative viewpoint. So whatever your typical liberal like dobbin thinks, the fact is that today's modern conservative is much more liberal than he ever was.

BTW, that phrase, resistant to change makes me lol.

[August1991]

The probem is people are mixing up two definitions of conservative. Here's a link to all the definitions of conservative:

http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&...mp;aq=f&oq=

Note these two in particular:

1) resistant to change

2) Any shade of political opinion from moderately right-of-center to firmly right-of-center. Of the two major parties in the United States, the Republican Party is generally considered to be the more conservative.

You (OP) mean conservative in the second way, whereas those examples from the media mean conservative in the first way.

Bonam, your distinction is quaint and entirely unhelpful. By your definition, anyone who defends any status quo (however brief) is "conservative".

The Iranian revolution is all of 30 years old. How can anyone defending such a young revolution be considered "conservative" or "resistant to change"? Heck, they call themseves the Revolutionary Guard. Iranian conservatives would defend the Shah and the monarchy.

In fact Bonam, your definition is so open-ended that it means anyone in power is "conservative" and anyone in opposition is "progressive". Such a definition is useless. That was my point above referring to the failed socialist experiments of the 20th century and how the MSM describes the defenders of these experiments as "conservative".

Looking at what the definition of conservative is might help you figure out why it is used.

So by your definition, anyone in power with authority is resistant to change and is a "conservative".

----

It gets crazier. Here is how Patrick Martin describes the authoritarian theocrats of Iran:

It's a battle within the clerical community, pitting some moderate conservatives against other more radical conservatives. The radical conservatives support Mr. Ahmadinejad and they have the Revolutionary Guard and the army on their side.

G&M

Martin is into the whacky world of "moderate conservatives" and "radical conservatives" (WTF?) to try and understand Iran's theocracy.

Interesting find, August. the Left's movers and shakers are always trying to win the vocabulary battle. You know, PRO-choice vs ANTI-abortionists, freedom fighters vs terrorists and the like. This appears to be yet another word tweak by them, trying to slide the conservative term into extremist territory. It is a very powerful thing to be able to do that, and only by having like minded liberals filing the MSM's ranks can such notions gain momentum.

I agree Sharkman but I think there is something more insidious and even sad going on.

The modern left (meaning North American MSM journalists for example) use the term "conservative" to mean "authoritarian". For them, the two words are synonyms. In their mind, Bush, Harper, the Ayatollahs are all authoritarian/conservatives. This is a very adolescent and naive way of viewing politics.

Edited June 17, 2009 by August1991

[msj]

I agree Sharkman but I think there is something more insidious and even sad going on.

The modern left (meaning North American MSM journalists for example) use the term "conservative" to mean "authoritarian". For them, the two words are synonyms. In their mind, Bush, Harper, the Ayatollahs are all authoritarian/conservatives. This is a very adolescent and naive way of viewing politics.

Wow, you speak with such authority about an entire group of people. You must be a conservative!

[jdobbin]

So by your definition, anyone in power with authority is resistant to change and is a "conservative".

I think I told you to go look at what the dictionary says. If you want to rail against that, by all means.

[Bonam]

Look August, I agree with you that the media uses the word conservative when talking about regimes generally viewed in a negative light in the west, and opposition to change in such regimes. It is also very possible that they sometimes purposely use the word conservative in this way (as opposed to other words they could use instead) to give it a negative connotation when used in regards to western conservatism, i.e, "right wing" ideas. However, whether the media is using the word with this intent or not, it is still a valid word to use, as it's dictionary definition is being correctly applied.

Perhaps if parties didn't name themselves and their ideologies after commonly used words in the language there would be less confusion?

[Oleg Bach]

Of course here comes Mr. Simplistic - aka Oleg Bach. I always go for the very core of the language to see what it really means - to conserve - or be a conservator ---or a conservative --- should and does mean - that you conserve cultural wealth - finacial wealth - natural wealth - wealth that is contained in our human resourses ....It should be the conservation of things that have proven themselves to be of value - and values that have proven to generate prosperity - stablity and happiness --- It would mean in my mind - if it is not broken don't fix it - When people called Bush a conservative - I had to laugh - he did not conserve anything - he squandered and raided the world like a privateer --- or a common pirate - a pirate is a pundering barbarian - not a conservative - and attatching neo- to conservative - or creating the neo-con idea nonsense - How could what needs to be conserved be called neo - or new - conservatism is by it's very nature something that is tried and true by time --- old...and good!

[sharkman]

I think I told you to go look at what the dictionary says. If you want to rail against that, by all means.

This simplistic response adds little to the discussion. Try a little harder, as has been pointed out, the left and the right have and continue to evolve. What does a dictionary meaning have to do with that?

[RhexLuther]

I agree Oleg Bach. We should seek the very "core of the language to see what it really means." At the heart of the English word is the root word conserve. Late Middle English: from Old French conserver (verb), conserve (noun), from Latin conservare 'to preserve', from con- 'together' + servare 'to keep'. According to the Oxford dictionary conserve means to preserve, or protect and prevent the wasteful misuse. With that given, other than traditionalist, freedom fighters, anarchist, egalitarian, pluralist, secessionist, etc., preservationist can be extreme in their lofty goals. Preservationist attempts to conserve and maintain the status quo. They essentially are oriented toward maintaining the status quo because of the relative political, economic and social privileges they derive from it. They are also known to have carried out violent acts and acts of terrorism against non ruling groups and authorities that attempt to effect change. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in the US is one such example. Regardless of the political title, each group possesses some true ideal social benefit as well as elements that often hinder human progress. I guess the real question is what do conservatives want to conserve and who benefits? On the the other side of the coin, who or what is truly liberalized under the modern (American) liberal (aka a North American progressive) policy ideals. Now, I presume we must define or redefine liberty.

Rhex

[dre]

The modern left (meaning North American MSM journalists for example) use the term "conservative" to mean "authoritarian".

Ummmm... no they dont. Normally theres a distinction made between libertarian and authoritarian thought on both sides of the left/right political spectrum. Religious conservatives, family values conservatives, and law and order conservatives that advocate the power of the state being used to bring about the things they want are rightly labeled "authoritarian". But conservative libertarians are not.. neither are fiscal conservatives.

[SpankyMcFarland]

In Iran, conservative refers to cultural conservatism as well and that certainly pre-dates the revolution. There's no point getting hung up on how people use words; it's a Sisyphean task.

[GostHacked]

Conservatives today, around the world, are people who want a less intrusive, less authoritarian State.

By that, Harper cannot be classified as conservative. Bill C-51.