The Meaning and Nature of Conservatism: Part I

'Conservative' and 'conservatism' are two related words often used, these days, to describe those people who do not identify as liberal, progressive, or even moderate or independent, and the related political and economic ideology to which those people adhere. Some Americans erroneously confuse the term 'conservative' with 'Republican', which is not necessarily the case. If conservatism is defined as a movement to maintain the status quo, then Republicans from 1856 until around 1968 cannot be considered to be conservatives. It was the Republican Party that erupted onto the political scene in 1856 and radically disrupted things, as they were, completely changing not only the southern United States and the lives of African-Americans and their descendants, but the entire direction of the United States as a nation, and the meaning and interpretation of its Constitution, as well. In that sense, the Republican Party consisted of the liberal and progressive thinkers, whereas the Democrat Party was the far more conservative of the two parties.

If conservatism is about maintaining a nation's political and social life as it is, then, is it basically based upon the same premises worldwide? We can look outside of the United States and find that conservative political parties, in name and not, are to be found all over the Western world. Canada has two primary parties: Labour and Conservative, the former being the more liberal or progressive of the two. England has their Conservative Party, and France has its 'Republicans', which is their most conservative party. It is funny, though, in a way, that Mexico's long-active Institutional Revolutionary Party, a name which not only implies liberalism and progressivism, but institutionalized dictatorial communism, could be considered conservative, if we go by the definition of conservatism mainly focusing on maintaining the status quo. The Communist Party in China could be considered conservative in many ways, since they are strictly focused on controlling the change in the country's economic status and maintaining it's powerful grip on regulating morality, as well as its citizens' social lives. Even the Worker's Party of Korea, the only legal party in North Korea, could be considered conservative in the sense that it's primary focus is to maintain the rule of the family of Kim Il Sung over the North Korean people, but liberal, in the sense, that its true aim is to reunite all of the Korean peninsula under communist rule. All of these things considered, it could be said, then, that what one country considers conservative, others may consider liberal or progressive.

Does all of this mean, then, that conservatism is merely about preventing change, or perhaps, fear of change? No, it does not. Change, as any sane, rational person would understand, is inevitable. What really matters is how the want for change comes about, how that change is implemented, and how rapidly a society changes. True conservatism is not about preventing social and economic change, but about regulating the pace and scope of change. Simply put, conservatives believe that change has to occur naturally. True, rational, reasonable conservatives realize that change will eventually occur, but it has to happen slowly, over a period of time, so as not to be disruptive to the political and economic system in which people live. Conservatives believe that rapid change causes environmental upheaval in an economic system. If change occurs too quickly, people do not have time to react and adapt to the change, which causes them economic harm. When the people of a society cannot adequately adapt to the rapid changes, political and economic disruption and upheaval occur. It is this political and economic disruption that conservatives seek to prevent.