Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Reverted edits by JHill (Talk) to last version by Aschlafly
Line 23: Line 23:  
:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline.  However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea.  Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 
:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline.  However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea.  Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)
   −
:::::I'm not sure how radar is a conservative concept either, or what idea it conveys when it's used. It's merely a technology. Should we add aeroplanes, TNT and computers to the list? --[[User:JHill|JHill]] 18:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)
+
::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
::::: Frankly, I'm confused.  I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)
    
Here's two:  
 
Here's two:  
Line 31: Line 36:     
: Fantastic suggestions, both of them.  Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 
: Fantastic suggestions, both of them.  Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it.  "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term.  I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much.  It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong.  I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term.  Majority rules?  That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best.  It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63].  I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''.  In political contexts, these are four completely different words.  --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result.  I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes?  For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas.  --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive.  RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb.  None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
==Pro-life==
 +
 +
Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
==Atheism==
 +
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
== Use of the Adjective "New" ==
 +
 +
Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's?  `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement.  Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
==Origins==
 +
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
: You made a mess of the entry.  For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here.  Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
==Spiritualism==
 +
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 +
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions.  Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism.  A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
== Reversion ==
 +
 +
I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion.  Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism").  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794

edits

Navigation menu