Talk:Roots of American conservatism

Wording of introductory section

The following wording of mine was added a few days back to the article American conservatism:

"The history of conservatism in America must take into account the fact that the term conservative (and its counterpart term liberal) did not enter the political lexicon in full force prior to a period beginning in the mid 20th century (both the terms conservative and liberal were, of course, in use prior to about 1950, but they were not generally used by Americans as the primary identifiers of an individual's political leanings). In consequence, the antecedents of modern American conservatism must be sought in conjunction with a process examining the political and social context of the times."

This wording was removed and replaced with the following:

"The term "conservative" did not enter American political discourse until well into the 19th century, but the principles were present long before."

Of course I am aware of the fact that the term existed in American politics prior to the mid-20th century and indicated as much in the original wording. What I said was that it did not enter the political lexicon "in full force" until then. This agrees with the position as explicated in The Oxford Guide to United States History which states:

"The term 'conservatism' did not gain parlance until the middle of the twentieth century. . . . When Peter Viereck published Conservatism Revisited in 1949 and Russell Kirk The Conservative Mind in 1953, they invoked an understanding of that term that had clear European antecedents . . . "

I would like my wording restored (but to the head of this article). Also, in keeping with this insight, I believe that it would be more appropriate to title this article Roots of American conservatism or Antecedents of American conservatism.

James F. Perry 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind an alternative name, but I don't consider the Oxford Guide a definitive source on the subject, as opposed to works dealing specifically with conservatism. If you don't mind a factual (I was there for some of it) but funny presentation, see Jerry Tucille's It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand.

My greater concern is that the main American conservatism article have a clear definition of current usage. That article also was growing to an unwieldy size. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Blandishments of communist propaganda

As a general comment, I dislike having lengthy text in footnotes. If it's substantial, it belongs in the main article where it can be discussed.

Please look at thought reform, and, indeed, if you'd like primary sources, the Biderman report. I agree that it is a conservative mantra that POWs collaborated because they didn't have knowledge of their system, but the data from SERE and other experience do not support such knowledge helps defend against coerced confessions. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no intent to imply that American POWs were disloyal or otherwise disgraced themselves. I was only trying to point out that many conservatives at the time felt that, or something very like that, to be the case. In the body of the article, I stated: ". . . it appeared to these same conservatives that the American educational system was dangerously flawed in that it did not provide sufficient intellectual armament to American students to resist the blandishments of communist propaganda". Note: it appeared. The footnote was meant to substantiate that assertion by citing an individual who felt that way. There I used the words perceived shortcoming. If it is not clear that I am only reporting what some Americans felt to be the case, then something needs to be (will be) changed.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. James F. Perry 23:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)