What makes a consevative a conservative?

[The Minsky Moment]

What people are missing in this discourse is the third leg of the tripod - Rousseau with his collectivism (and its "godly" version in the form of the Catholic Social Science), which informs much of continental European thought (from communism to socialism to social democracy to fascism to nazism) but is largely alien to Anglo-Saxon mindset which leads them to fail to understand Hitler or German Christian democracy, for example.

At least we agree Rousseau was a scumbag, that he was the fountainhead for both nazism and communism and that nothing good ever came out of geneva.

Absurd misreading of Rousseau and theorization of the origins of nazism.
Rousseau's political thought is firmly in the Enlightenment tradition and has nothing to do with fascism. 

Try something like this:

We children of  the future, how could we be at home in the present ? . . .we  are not at all " liberal," we do not labour for " pro-  gress," we do not need first to stop our ears to the song of the market-place and the sirens of the future— their song of "equal rights," "free society," "no longer either lords or slaves," does  not allure us ! We do not by any means think it desirable that the kingdom of righteousness and peace should be established on earth (because under any circumstances it would be the kingdom of the profoundest mediocrity and Chinaism); we rejoice in all men, who like our- selves love danger, war and adventure, who do not make compromises, nor let themselves be captured, conciliated and stunted; we count ourselves among the conquerors ; we ponder over  the need of a new order of things, even of a new  slavery — for every strengthening and elevation of the  type " man " also involves a new form of slavery.  Is it not obvious that with all this we must feel ill  at ease in an age which claims the honour of being  the most humane, gentle and just that the sun has  ever seen ?"

That is a current of thought fundamentally at odds with Rousseau.

[Razgovory]

Well the definition I found in Wikipedia that I alluded to earlier is that conservatism and right wing politics is the importance and acceptance of social hierarchies and inequalities.

T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. Pp 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."

From one of the sources.

This is an interesting idea, and it does transcend many political movements across time and space.  The hierarchy could be racial like in Germany or the US in the past, or religious "America is a Christian nation", or social like aristocracies of old Europe, or Linguistic "English as the National language", or simply by skill and wealth like with the modern American "aristocracy of talent".

[The Brain]

Or Soviet style Party hierarchy.

[Barrister]

It would depend on the circumstances for most people I would suggest. I'm fairly conservative living as I do in the UK, if I was a Greek citizen I would be far more tempted by radical potential solutions.

Contrary to what many here argue, conservatism does not require cautious change in all circumstances.  When a situation is unjust, and at odds with those traditional values and morals, sometimes radical change is required.

Burke himself wrote quite favourably on the American Revolution, stating that colonists were being their rights as Englishmen.  He was also initially in favour of the French Revolution.  Both of these were quite radical changes of course.

[Viking]

Viking, did you receive any university degree formal education in history of ideologies and political ideas? If so, how was Burke presented? In my class he was considered the father of conservatism, on the same footing as the other three I mentioned for liberalism and collectivism, respectively.

I wasn't taught Burke I found him myself. First I just want to remind you that earlier in this thread I said that I don't see a conflict between liberalism and conservatism. I also implied that burkian conservatism wasn't a position rather it was a methodology for change, not an alternative to liberalism, but rather an alternative to revolution. His actual political positions were in his time very liberal. His pamphlets are (fortunately) reasonably short, he didn't have a ghost writer and he was a politician so he knew how to communicate.

Modern self-styled conservatives advocate a position which is liberal, free trade, free markets, freedom of religion and conscience and free disposal of ones property, though with some social traditionalist bents here and there. He is indeed the father of modern self-declared conservatism, but that is because they too are ultimately liberal.

[Viking]

Absurd misreading of Rousseau and theorization of the origins of nazism.
Rousseau's political thought is firmly in the Enlightenment tradition and has nothing to do with fascism. 

Bertrand Russel, The History of Western Philosophy.

Ever since his [Rousseau's] time, those who considered themselves reformers have been divided into two groups, those who followed him and those who followed Locke.  Sometimes they cooperated, and many individuals saw no incompatibility.  But gradually the incompatibility has become increasingly evident.  At the present time, Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau; Roosevelt and Churchill, of Locke.

I'd make a snarky comment on how he gets everything wrong... There is a red line from Rousseau, through Herder and Hegel to Heidegger and Nazism. The primacy of the group or nation or people vis a vis the individual. The very idea of the General Will implies not only that there is a best way of ruling and that if only the leader can discover it and implement it then all will be good. Those who do not agree must be made to agree to it since it is to benefit of all even if they are tricked into opposing it by the minority which seeks to oppress the rest of society.

Rousseau may not have wanted dictatorship and terror, but that is what happened every time his ideas were tried.

I'm in good company here with not only his contemporaries like Burke and Constant savaging him but also the thinkers that experienced nazism like Russel, Popper and Berlin.

Not an absurd misreading but rather a commonly held objection to his horrific ideas.

[CountDeMoney]

Absurd misreading of Rousseau and theorization of the origins of nazism.
Rousseau's political thought is firmly in the Enlightenment tradition and has nothing to do with fascism. 

At least somebody around here gets it.

[Admiral Yi]

Well the definition I found in Wikipedia that I alluded to earlier is that conservatism and right wing politics is the importance and acceptance of social hierarchies and inequalities.

T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. Pp 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."

From one of the sources.

This is an interesting idea, and it does transcend many political movements across time and space.  The hierarchy could be racial like in Germany or the US in the past, or religious "America is a Christian nation", or social like aristocracies of old Europe, or Linguistic "English as the National language", or simply by skill and wealth like with the modern American "aristocracy of talent".

It is an interesting idea, and fits quite well with some of your examples.  With others, like the Christian nation, less so.  With the aristocracy of talent, not at all.

It's also interesting that the modern progressive/civil rights movement, in the name of combating privilege and oppression, typically demands the granting of group privileges.

[The Minsky Moment]

Bertrand Russel, The History of Western Philosophy.

Oh please.

Ever since his [Rousseau's] time, those who considered themselves reformers have been divided into two groups, those who followed him and those who followed Locke.  Sometimes they cooperated, and many individuals saw no incompatibility.  But gradually the incompatibility has become increasingly evident.  At the present time, Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau; Roosevelt and Churchill, of Locke.

Ditto.  This is a grotesquely crude analysis.  And a terrible misreading of the history of western thought.  The route to Marx is through Plato and Hegel.
The route to Hitler is through Nietzsche, crude Social Darwinism, racialist pseudo-science, and mid-to-late 19th century chauvinistic nationalism.  None of those currents are compatible with Rousseau.

The primacy of the group or nation or people vis a vis the individual.

A principle Rousseau rejects.

The very idea of the General Will implies not only that there is a best way of ruling and that if only the leader can discover it and implement it then all will be good. Those who do not agree must be made to agree to it since it is to benefit of all even if they are tricked into opposing it by the minority which seeks to oppress the rest of society.

But that is not the idea of the General Will as expressed in Rousseau's work; it is both a gross misreading and an anachronistic one - that is, the reading of Rousseau that views him as a proto-totalitarian relies on reading his work in light of our own historical experience and understanding of totalitarianism, including the latter's propangadistic manipulation of language.

Russel, Popper and Berlin.

All pragmatists whose opposition to Rousseau is fundamental - they oppose the continental Enlightenment tradition generally in favor of Hume.  Which is fine and justifiable - Rousseau's political philosophy can be fairly criticized as naive, muddled or incoherent.  But to brand him with responsibility for totalitarianism - a charge with great rhetorical power at that time and since - is neither justifiable or fair.  They would not have dared to similarly accuse Kant (that step was left to likes of Ayn Rand) and yet logically they should since there are considerable similarities between Kant and Rousseau on this central issue of constraining "natural" freedom to universal laws.  Rousseau is the softer target because his expression was less precise and thus more vulnerable to misconstrual.

[Razgovory]

Well the definition I found in Wikipedia that I alluded to earlier is that conservatism and right wing politics is the importance and acceptance of social hierarchies and inequalities.

T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. Pp 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."

From one of the sources.

This is an interesting idea, and it does transcend many political movements across time and space.  The hierarchy could be racial like in Germany or the US in the past, or religious "America is a Christian nation", or social like aristocracies of old Europe, or Linguistic "English as the National language", or simply by skill and wealth like with the modern American "aristocracy of talent".

It is an interesting idea, and fits quite well with some of your examples.  With others, like the Christian nation, less so.  With the aristocracy of talent, not at all.

It's also interesting that the modern progressive/civil rights movement, in the name of combating privilege and oppression, typically demands the granting of group privileges.

What is wrong with the aristocracy of talent?  It seems like a natural fit.  Not all men are created equal, some men are brighter and more diligent then others.  Those ones should be allowed to rise to the top of the social ladder and government shouldn't stop them.

[Admiral Yi]

What is wrong with the aristocracy of talent?  It seems like a natural fit.  Not all men are created equal, some men are brighter and more diligent then others.  Those ones should be allowed to rise to the top of the social ladder and government shouldn't stop them.

Right.  How is that a privilege?

[Razgovory]

It's not necessarily, though it can be.  It certainly does fall under hierarchy.  The first sentece from the Wiki article was

In politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social hierarchy or social inequality.[1][2][3][4] Social hierarchy and social inequality is viewed by those affiliated with the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[2] whether it arises through traditional social differences[5] or from competition in market economies.[6][7] It typically accepts or justifies this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

[derspiess]

Sounds like a weird way to describe right wing.

[Admiral Yi]

It's not necessarily, though it can be.  It certainly does fall under hierarchy.  The first sentece from the Wiki article was

In politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social hierarchy or social inequality.[1][2][3][4] Social hierarchy and social inequality is viewed by those affiliated with the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[2] whether it arises through traditional social differences[5] or from competition in market economies.[6][7] It typically accepts or justifies this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

It can be, but it mostly is not.  It does not at all fall under hierarchy.  Donald Trump can't tell me what to do.

Your article writer is conflating economic inequality and social inequality.  That's moranic.

[Razgovory]

It's not necessarily, though it can be.  It certainly does fall under hierarchy.  The first sentece from the Wiki article was

In politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social hierarchy or social inequality.[1][2][3][4] Social hierarchy and social inequality is viewed by those affiliated with the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[2] whether it arises through traditional social differences[5] or from competition in market economies.[6][7] It typically accepts or justifies this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

It can be, but it mostly is not.  It does not at all fall under hierarchy.  Donald Trump can't tell me what to do.

Your article writer is conflating economic inequality and social inequality.  That's moranic.

  It's not a command Hierarchy, it's one of social class.  Donald trump can't tell you what to do, but he does live better then you and with money comes more power and status.