Is conservatism usually on the wrong side of social justice?

[epan]

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions, and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

Consider, franchise rights, women’s rights, employment rights, healthcare rights, gay rights, racial equality, marriage rights, property rights… it is a long list. Conservatives have opposed them. Liberals have pushed them, until society accepted them.

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo. Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice. If gains in social justice bring us closer to a moral world, then how can conservatism in the context of social justice be considered to be morally good?

 

[triumphguy]

“Conservative” governments often are.

To be “Conservative” implies that you maintain the status quo, and the status quo is often historically built on the poor and powerless.

Now if the status quo was built on justice and mercy then a “Conservative” would be on the side of social justice.

Where is all gets woolly on an international forum is that what an American thinks is a “liberal” is completely different from what classical “Liberalism” actually was.

Originally the Conservatives were landowning aristocracy and the “liberals” were the first capitalists, and capitalism thrived on free labour, free markets and free trade.

 

[epan]

“Conservative” governments often are.

To be “Conservative” implies that you maintain the status quo, and the status quo is often historically built on the poor and powerless.

Now if the status quo was built on justice and mercy then a “Conservative” would be on the side of social justice.

Yes, I agree. But those in power are usually those with the money. They have an obvious vested interested in maintaining the status quo. But this can get carried too far, when we consider issues like women’s rights.

 

[triumphguy]

Yes, I agree. But those in power are usually those with the money. They have an obvious vested interested in maintaining the status quo. But this can get carried too far, when we consider issues like women’s rights.

Yep - those who have wealth inevitably want to keep it: and the best way to keep the poor happy being poor is to tell them they they have a chance to get rich too, which dissuades them from trying to improve their lot now.

 

[MidnightSun12]

I agree that “conservative” Catholics (I prefer to say traditional Catholics since I don’t wish to comment on the economic side of the debate) are fighting a tide which just about always succeeds in advancing despite their efforts, but that does not mean that they are wrong, nor does it mean that traditional values will not return some day in the future.

For example, ancient Greece and Rome also legalized homosexuality and guess what happened to those societies? What replaced Rome? “Traditional” western christendome.

Liberalism ultimately burns itself to the ground because it is a corruption of that which is good. Once all the good is gone from a society, liberalism runs out of steam and brings the whole house down. This is what is happening in America with its gravely low fertility rate and crippling national debt (even Pope Benedict said that the sun was setting on the entire western civilization).

The good news is that, what rises from the ashes of a destroyed liberal culture are traditional values. This is what we are seeing in formerly “godless” Russia today, and I suspect if you come back to the west in 100 years from now, a lot of things will be different.

 

[Theophorus]

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions, and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

Consider, franchise rights, women’s rights, employment rights, healthcare rights, gay rights, racial equality, marriage rights, property rights… it is a long list. Conservatives have opposed them. Liberals have pushed them, until society accepted them.

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo. Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice. If gains in social justice bring us closer to a moral world, then how can conservatism in the context of social justice be considered to be morally good?

Sometimes of course, in the name of social justice liberal governments push social agendas which undermine the common good and the dignity of human persons. One only has to look at liberal abortion legislation and so called ‘reproductive rights’ which come at the expense of the most vulnerable. In general terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ political and social philosophies are neither morally good nor bad per se its the acting moral agents behind these systems and particular ideologies within the systems which are morally good or evil.

 

[_Abyssinia]

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions, and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

Consider, franchise rights, women’s rights, employment rights, healthcare rights, gay rights, racial equality, marriage rights, property rights… it is a long list. Conservatives have opposed them. Liberals have pushed them, until society accepted them.

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo. Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice. If gains in social justice bring us closer to a moral world, then how can conservatism in the context of social justice be considered to be morally good?

If liberalism is about equality and liberty why were so many democrats opposed to giving women the right to vote, majority voting against rights for the Blacks in the 19th and 20th century and why do the majority of elected democrats now not want to give liberty and equality to the unborn?

I will look at these issues politically

Womens rights

It was conservatives that instigated the right for women to vote. California Senator A A Sargent introduced suffrage amendment in Congress in 1878 but it was voted down by a democrat majority congress four times. Democrats did not pass any legislation for the next forty years for womens right to vote before republicans gained a majority in the Senate and House in 1919 and passed the 19th amendment which gave women the right vote but President Woodrow Wilson and most other democrats who were elected opposed the amendment. 12 all majority republican majority states gave women suffrage in full before the amendment was federally ratified and 26 of 36 states that ratified the amendment had majority Republican legislatures. 8 out of the 9 states that voted against the amendment’s ratification had a democrat majority

Racial equality

Majority of people that freed the slaves, defeated the Confederate, opposed Jim Crow laws, voted in favor of laws that gave rights to Blacks have been conservatives. Look at the list of bills democrats opposed compared to republicans support and nobody can say that the majority of republicans stood in the way of racial equality and democrats in favor of racial equality:

black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie

If conservatives opposed change they wouldn’t of been at the forefront of womens rights and racial equality

Redefining marriage is not an issue of social justice

 

[ManOnFire]

Yep - those who have wealth inevitably want to keep it: and the best way to keep the poor happy being poor is to tell them they they have a chance to get rich too, which dissuades them from trying to improve their lot now.

Your statement is quite a sweeping generalization. I challenge you to find a person who does NOT want to keep their income, regardless of income. Try getting those who both cheat on sales or income taxes and vote for raising taxes to stop being such hypocrites, regardless of income. They cheat to keep more of their own, while voting to raise taxes on others. Where’s the justice? I wonder if they go to confession for stealing.

Ideally, every family owns their own small business. Then, the ignorance will end, regarding foolish assumptions about the business world.

 

[ndeparis88]

I agree that “conservative” Catholics (I prefer to say traditional Catholics since I don’t wish to comment on the economic side of the debate) are fighting a tide which just about always succeeds in advancing despite their efforts, but that does not mean that they are wrong, nor does it mean that traditional values will not return some day in the future.

For example, ancient Greece and Rome also legalized homosexuality and guess what happened to those societies? What replaced Rome? “Traditional” western christendome.

Liberalism ultimately burns itself to the ground because it is a corruption of that which is good. Once all the good is gone from a society, liberalism runs out of steam and brings the whole house down. This is what is happening in America with its gravely low fertility rate and crippling national debt (even Pope Benedict said that the sun was setting on the entire western civilization).

The good news is that, what rises from the ashes of a destroyed liberal culture are traditional values. This is what we are seeing in formerly “godless” Russia today, and I suspect if you come back to the west in 100 years from now, a lot of things will be different.

I read a neat article about the “usefulness” of Lust. Which talks about when we put a use on humans, they cease to be humans. humans are useless, and when we make a use for them like they did in the times of slavery, we lower them, and they become less than they are. It’s only when we stop using them in a way that makes them expendable that we can come to fully appreciate and move towards a just society. I think the shoe has swung because the people who were for slavery back in the day were Democrats, but after during maybe the prohibition years that had to change, so here in America Democrats become the party of the common man. Not to say that I agree with it I am just making a more historical point.

I agree with Midnight Sun that Liberalism will burn itself in the ground, That is not to say that :conservatism will come out unscathed, but it won’t be that in order to push equality and social justice, does there have to be a liberal status quo. Considering they advocate for the non person hood of persons. I don’t get that if you can feel and hear a heart beat that some how what is in a Womans womb is not another person. It’s a depravity of our time.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions, and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

Consider, franchise rights, women’s rights, employment rights, healthcare rights, gay rights, racial equality, marriage rights, property rights… it is a long list. Conservatives have opposed them. Liberals have pushed them, until society accepted them.

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo. Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice. If gains in social justice bring us closer to a moral world, then how can conservatism in the context of social justice be considered to be morally good?

No. Or at least, not in the U.S. Or at least, not if you don’t play historical editor and pretend that people were wrong about what they called themselves. (Which is almost built into your definition, but since your definition may well have the same person be considered a liberal or a conservative for believing the same thing in the space of 20 years, I think I’ll stick with the standard left/right distinction.)

For example, it was our good old Democrat party that resisted the civil rights movement the most. So our liberals were wrong about

Now that liberal Democrat party has realized that that was stupid, but they didn’t learn why - they’ve decided that if anyone ever mentions the word “equality,” they must be right. And so now they don’t realize that gay marriage and abortion aren’t equality issues at all, but rather (resp) trying to create a separate thing that doesn’t and can’t exist and murdering children.

In all ages there will be things that need to change and things that don’t. Claiming that conservatism only tries to maintain the status quo is simply wrong - it’s more complicated than that. If you use that definition, the words become pretty useless. Left and right leaning seems to be relatively fixed, regardless of which one wants to change the way things are.

In fact, in the U.S. at least, I’d tend to say that it’s almost always the other way around: it’s the right leaning people that tend to want to help the poor without unjustly taking from others against their will and who want to make sure that the help is in fact help and not enabling. It is the right side that wants to make sure there is no discrimination based on being of a minority race, but doesn’t want to change this into discrimination against those of the majority race. It is the right side that doesn’t want want the government to force people into religious practices, but doesn’t want to try to shut religion out of the public square entirely. It is the right side that realizes that “gay marriage” is not the same as real marriage and that we shouldn’t pretend that it is, and it is only the right side that realizes that it’s a bad thing to kill children.

Of course, our right side isn’t perfect. But it’s certainly not the opposite.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I agree that “conservative” Catholics (I prefer to say traditional Catholics since I don’t wish to comment on the economic side of the debate) are fighting a tide which just about always succeeds in advancing despite their efforts, but that does not mean that they are wrong, nor does it mean that traditional values will not return some day in the future.

For example, ancient Greece and Rome also legalized homosexuality and guess what happened to those societies? What replaced Rome? “Traditional” western christendome.

Liberalism ultimately burns itself to the ground because it is a corruption of that which is good. Once all the good is gone from a society, liberalism runs out of steam and brings the whole house down. This is what is happening in America with its gravely low fertility rate and crippling national debt (even Pope Benedict said that the sun was setting on the entire western civilization).

The good news is that, what rises from the ashes of a destroyed liberal culture are traditional values. This is what we are seeing in formerly “godless” Russia today, and I suspect if you come back to the west in 100 years from now, a lot of things will be different.

Everything made by man eventually crumbles to dust no matter how good or bad it is.

If liberalism is about equality and liberty why were so many democrats opposed to giving women the right to vote, majority voting against rights for the Blacks in the 19th and 20th century and why do the majority of elected democrats now not want to give liberty and equality to the unborn?

I will look at these issues politically

Womens rights

It was conservatives that instigated the right for women to vote. California Senator A A Sargent introduced suffrage amendment in Congress in 1878 but it was voted down by a democrat majority congress four times. Democrats did not pass any legislation for the next forty years for womens right to vote before republicans gained a majority in the Senate and House in 1919 and passed the 19th amendment which gave women the right vote but President Woodrow Wilson and most other democrats who were elected opposed the amendment. 12 all majority republican majority states gave women suffrage in full before the amendment was federally ratified and 26 of 36 states that ratified the amendment had majority Republican legislatures. 8 out of the 9 states that voted against the amendment’s ratification had a democrat majority

Racial equality

Majority of people that freed the slaves, defeated the Confederate, opposed Jim Crow laws, voted in favor of laws that gave rights to Blacks have been conservatives. Look at the list of bills democrats opposed compared to republicans support and nobody can say that the majority of republicans stood in the way of racial equality and democrats in favor of racial equality:

black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie

If conservatives opposed change they wouldn’t of been at the forefront of womens rights and racial equality

Redefining marriage is not an issue of social justice

Republicans haven’t always been “conservative” and Democrats haven’t always been “liberal”

 

[MidnightSun12]

Everything made by man eventually crumbles to dust no matter how good or bad it is.

Christ’s divinely established Church has not, nor has Her infallible teachings.

 

[RKO]

Everything made by man eventually crumbles to dust no matter how good or bad it is.

Republicans haven’t always been “conservative” and Democrats haven’t always been “liberal”

Yep, most of the things the poster mentioned that were championed by the republicans and fought by the dems were when the labels were switched.

And another poster was right when he or she said that the words conservative and liberal have meant different things.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I’m not an economist, so, taking a few 100 level and 200 level economic courses does not make me a scholar or intellectual on economic matters.

A number of things I think conservatives are neither smart about nor morally right about regarding government spending. Possibly the prime example for me being public institutes of learning. I think it benefits a nation–a nationality–as a whole to reinvest part of its national income into the development and future of its own people.

One area of the U.S. economy specifically I think the conservative may be smarter and more morally correct on is the current tax rate system.

While the super rich may get taxed a lot per the tax rate (which I think is roughly 40% of taxable earnings for anyone in the bracket of $400,000 or greater), assuming they’re not using tax loopholes or other ways to beat paying taxes (e.g., CEO’s only earning $1 per year as a salary and collecting income in other forms), they the super rich are not as financially impacted as the middle-class and the rich earning less than $2 million a year.

I think there’s a certain injustice that rich people like medical doctors and surgeons get as much of their income taxed as they do. And I think it can work to undermine ambition and time and money spent to develop one’s human capital. They have after all, made a lot of sacrifices and usually taken on a lot of debt to get where they are.

 

[chevalier]

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions, and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

Consider, franchise rights, women’s rights, employment rights, healthcare rights, gay rights, racial equality, marriage rights, property rights… it is a long list. Conservatives have opposed them. Liberals have pushed them, until society accepted them.

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo. Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice. If gains in social justice bring us closer to a moral world, then how can conservatism in the context of social justice be considered to be morally good?

The problem with conservatism and liberalism involves two things:

1. What you hypothetically conserve, and:
2. What you hypothetically liberalise.

Both are kinda dumb when done for their own sake. It’s the substantive content that matters.

 

[andrewstx]

If liberalism is about equality and liberty why were so many democrats opposed to giving women the right to vote, majority voting against rights for the Blacks in the 19th and 20th century and why do the majority of elected democrats now not want to give liberty and equality to the unborn?

I will look at these issues politically

Womens rights

It was conservatives that instigated the right for women to vote. California Senator A A Sargent introduced suffrage amendment in Congress in 1878 but it was voted down by a democrat majority congress four times. Democrats did not pass any legislation for the next forty years for womens right to vote before republicans gained a majority in the Senate and House in 1919 and passed the 19th amendment which gave women the right vote but President Woodrow Wilson and most other democrats who were elected opposed the amendment. 12 all majority republican majority states gave women suffrage in full before the amendment was federally ratified and 26 of 36 states that ratified the amendment had majority Republican legislatures. 8 out of the 9 states that voted against the amendment’s ratification had a democrat majority

Racial equality

Majority of people that freed the slaves, defeated the Confederate, opposed Jim Crow laws, voted in favor of laws that gave rights to Blacks have been conservatives. Look at the list of bills democrats opposed compared to republicans support and nobody can say that the majority of republicans stood in the way of racial equality and democrats in favor of racial equality:

black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie

If conservatives opposed change they wouldn’t of been at the forefront of womens rights and racial equality

Redefining marriage is not an issue of social justice

Perhaps it could be that the opposers of freedom and those who wanted to keep the African/americans enslaved were Southern Conservatives in the Democratic party?

Caucasions in the south have always tended to be conservative, no matter which political party they affiliate with.

 

[andrewstx]

No. Or at least, not in the U.S. Or at least, not if you don’t play historical editor and pretend that people were wrong about what they called themselves. (Which is almost built into your definition, but since your definition may well have the same person be considered a liberal or a conservative for believing the same thing in the space of 20 years, I think I’ll stick with the standard left/right distinction.)

For example, it was our good old Democrat party that resisted the civil rights movement the most. So our liberals were wrong about

Now that liberal Democrat party has realized that that was stupid, but they didn’t learn why - they’ve decided that if anyone ever mentions the word “equality,” they must be right. And so now they don’t realize that gay marriage and abortion aren’t equality issues at all, but rather (resp) trying to create a separate thing that doesn’t and can’t exist and murdering children.

In all ages there will be things that need to change and things that don’t. Claiming that conservatism only tries to maintain the status quo is simply wrong - it’s more complicated than that. If you use that definition, the words become pretty useless. Left and right leaning seems to be relatively fixed, regardless of which one wants to change the way things are.

In fact, in the U.S. at least, I’d tend to say that it’s almost always the other way around: it’s the right leaning people that tend to want to help the poor without unjustly taking from others against their will and who want to make sure that the help is in fact help and not enabling. It is the right side that wants to make sure there is no discrimination based on being of a minority race, but doesn’t want to change this into discrimination against those of the majority race. It is the right side that doesn’t want want the government to force people into religious practices, but doesn’t want to try to shut religion out of the public square entirely. It is the right side that realizes that “gay marriage” is not the same as real marriage and that we shouldn’t pretend that it is, and it is only the right side that realizes that it’s a bad thing to kill children.

Of course, our right side isn’t perfect. But it’s certainly not the opposite.

And it needs to be stated once more that the majority of the Democrats who opposed Civil Rights were Southern where old habits die hard.

But now it seems the situation has reversed it’self and the new opposers are
Republics the solid south has become the solid republic south.

I only stand with the Republic party when it comes to life issues. I oppose the right’s philosophy that money and power makes right. I do not think that “sink or swim. you’re on your own” is a very Catholic or Christian philosophy.

BTW it is the Democratic party just as it’s the Republican party.

 

[pnewton]

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo. Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice.

I think my answer to your question would be a resounding, “No.” for several reasons.

First, I think your take on history is inaccurate.

Second, I think you discount many of the changes that have been thwarted because they are simply terrible ideas.

Third, not all issues are equal. Being on the right side of abortion is more important than being on the right side or whether the school library carries Catcher in the Rye.

That being said, most of the really terrible ideas that have been accepted have also come from liberals. For example, freedom of speech means the proliferation of pornography. Social programs can be funded by borrowing the money and sending the bill to the children and grandchildren. And of course, women should have they right to kill another person if he or she infringes on her bodily integrity.

I think neither liberals or conservatives are always right. I also think that both sides will consistently fail to acknowledge how important it is both to have an agent for change* and* an agent for stability, in the government or any other process. I will grant that conservatives are much harsher to liberals for their contribution than the other way around. One seldom hears “conservative” used as an insult, but “liberal” has become such a common insult as to leave it devoid of substance (like nazi).

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Christ’s divinely established Church has not, nor has Her infallible teachings.

So we agree.

 

[markomalley]

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions, and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

Pope Leo XIII on liberalism (From his encyclical “Libertas”):

…

But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.

…

Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license.

…

Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs.

And so on…
Also see Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism)

The trouble is, though, that most people today who style themselves “liberals” are more closely related to a form of fascism or even socialism. They don’t believe in freedom of thought. In fact, most practice a form a rigid orthodoxy (if you don’t believe exactly as they do, you are a hater. If you oppose abortion on demand, you are a misogynist. If you oppose the simulation of marriage by two men or two women, you are a homophobe). And most have very little respect for private property (except for their own, of course).,in direct violation of the teachings of the Church.

See Leo XIII Quod Apostolici Muneris for a very forceful rejection of Socialism.

Bottom line is that I don’t really accept your premise.