Worldwide Conservative Political Parties

I think to consider the Libertarian Party 'conservative' is just as accurate as considering it 'liberal'. Many consider the LP as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I think it is easy to think of the LP as conservative in this political environment, due to the largest debates being primarily fiscal. Keep in mind that the LP is adamantly against the Iraq War and wishes to pull out immediately.

Also in their Platform under personal liberty

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

LINK TO PLATOFORM

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
I think to consider the Libertarian Party 'conservative' is just as accurate as considering it 'liberal'. Many consider the LP as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I think it is easy to think of the LP as conservative in this political environment, due to the largest debates being primarily fiscal. Keep in mind that the LP is adamantly against the Iraq War and wishes to pull out immediately.

Also in their Platform under personal liberty

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

LINK TO PLATOFORM

It is unclear why you believe U.S. Libertarians to be "socially liberal", however if your quote of the party platform demonstrating a strong support for individual rights and disgust for victimless "crimes" as being liberal, you have misunderstood what it means to be liberal in the U.S. I have no idea what conservatives in other countries are conserving but in the U.S. the only thing to conserve is the The Constitution for the United States as their are too many people who take a far too liberal view of that Constitution.

When a Congress person insists they have a Constitutional right to regulate or ban guns they are taking a liberal view of the Constitution. When those Congress people or even Supreme Court or lower court judges insist that it is wholly Constitutional to mandate health insurance to everybody, they are taking a liberal view of the Constitution and when politicians, lawyers or judges argue that restricting the rights of individuals to purchase or sell sex, drugs or gamble for pleasure and profit, they are taking a liberal view of the Constitution. Liberal because the Constitution does not grant a direct authority to deny such rights, at least, from a strict conservative view of that very same Constitution.

If you are suggesting that the Libertarian's anti-Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation is a liberal stance you would again be mistaken. If there are self avowed liberals against this war that is fine and liberals have the freedom to be more flexible in their political views than conservatives do, but this invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation is exactly why a new label has been placed on Republican politicians, that new term being "neo-conservative" which is an oxymoron, because any true conservative knows full well that Congress has not declared war and it is incorrect to refer to either the invasions and subsequent occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan, just as it is to refer to the "police actions" of Vietnam and Korea as wars. The last time Congress officially declared war was World War II.

The President does not have the Constitutional authority to declare war, that power has been granted to Congress. While Congress has sanctioned all the mentioned "police actions" they have consistently shied away from actually declaring war. This muddled action and seeming collusion of Congress with the Executive branch is dubious and arguably unconstitutional, and any real conservative would have problems with these so called "police actions" or unofficial wars. An earlier poster made the comment that "Maybe some day the GOP will come back around but I suspect that those days are long gone..." suggesting that at some point the "Grand Old Party" was more conservative at some point. However, history tells a different story.

The Republican party was founded in 1854 and is much younger than its leading contender in politics the Democratic party. It was Abraham Lincoln as a Republican President who suspended the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus. This was hardly an act of conservatism...

reply to post by DINSTAAR


While the Civil War is primarily taught today as being a war fought over the issue of slavery, and indeed the Republican party was founded by anti-slavery expansionists, for the Southern States of that time the issue was more about states rights rather than slavery. That assertion might have more weight today had the South freed the slaves first and then succeeded from the federal government, but because they didn't today we perceive the Civil War being about slavery and perhaps rightfully so. However, Lincolns reckless disregard for states rights, (not being their right to enslave people but to succeed from the Union), and his horrible decision to suspend Habeas Corpus made him a distinctly liberal President.

It was William Howard Taft, another Republican, who was President at the time that the Federal Reserve was created and the 16th Amendment was passed. Taft was elected President following Teddy Roosevelt's decision not to run for a third term, (at that time there was not a limit on the terms a person could run for President), and Roosevelt had endorsed Taft and declared him to be "a genuine progressive". The Progressive party was just another name for the liberal party. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was quite the "progressive" himself and was the first President to run on a platform of "health care" issues, yet another liberal political stance, as arguably government intruding into the health care profession is unconstitutional.

While Taft was presiding as President it was Republican Senators such as Aldrich Nelson who was head of the committee that created the Federal Reserve and the principal author of the 16th Amendment, that also took extremely liberal views of the Constitution. The reason that the federal government has grown exponentially in the way it has is that the only two parties that have had any political success are the Democratic and Republican parties and both parties are fundamentally liberal in their political views. Even Ronald Regan who talked a good game that made him appear to be conservative, presided over a huge expansion of government and every President since, Republican or Democratic has continued that expansion. Before Regan and after, the Republican party has been no less conservative less liberal than the Democrats.

It has been smoke and mirrors by the Republicans, rallying around issues such as "no new taxes", however the so called Personal Income Tax is as liberal a view on Constitutional taxation as one can take and not one Republican, including Regan, has done a damn thing to reign in or effectively question the issue of income taxation in the U.S. This language of "fiscal conservatives" and "social liberals" is nothing more than empty rhetoric. If one is being fiscally conservative what exactly does that mean if not conserving the Constitution? And if one is being "socially liberal" what exactly does that mean if not taking a liberal view of the Constitution. If one means by "socially liberal" that they endorse social programs created by government that help the poor or underprivileged, for example, the only way they can fund those "social programs" is through taxation. By creating new "social programs" they are necessarily being just as liberal "fiscally" as they are being "socially".

While this thread is asking for examples of conservative parties world wide, in order to better understand those conservative parties it is best to understand just what the heck they are conserving. To suggest that the conservative party in the U.S. is nothing more than what it is at the time, would be a fairly liberal view of what conservatism is. Indeed, a liberal does not necessarily need to know they are taking a liberal view of the Constitution, but the conservative party must necessarily know it is conserving the Constitution, or then it is something else.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is unclear why you believe U.S. Libertarians to be "socially liberal",

Did I say I believe this? "Many consider the LP as fiscally conservative and socially liberal" was exactly what I said.

U.S. I have no idea what conservatives in other countries are conserving but in the U.S. the only thing to conserve is the The Constitution for the United States

'Conservative' in American politics is a misnomer. As is 'Liberal'. I choose to use the improper language just to avoid confusion and get strait to the point. Whatever designation you have given to 'Conservative' is not in accordance with the standard 'Conservative' identification.

This language of "fiscal conservatives" and "social liberals" is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Again, I just used it as an example of how most Americans can view a libertarian in easier terms. I don't know why you are so hung up on this.

While this thread is asking for examples of conservative parties world wide, in order to better understand those conservative parties it is best to understand just what the heck they are conserving.

Liberalism is where that beloved document, The Constitution, came from. Classical Liberalism gives us the idea of personal freedom with emphasis on a free market. Social Liberalism is what yourself, and the modern world considers as just 'liberal'.

Being Conservative is nothing like you say. To say one is trying to 'conserve' the Constitution is a conservative is misusing the word. Also, saying 'conserve' is insinuating that that which is being conserved is in current form. To say "we must conserve the Constitution" is the equivalent of saying "we must conserve the 1980s and not let the 90s take over". There is nothing left of the constitution to conserve.

And.....

Liberal does not necessarily mean progressive or change and The Constitution itself is a liberal point of view.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


The Constitution for the United States was a liberal point of view towards monarchies and oligarchies and rejected those political doctrines in favor of natural rights. While the Constitution was indeed a liberal view point at that time, once written and establishing its own form of republic it was neither liberal nor conservative but instead stands as the Supreme Law of that Land. It is now the viewpoints of those who interpret it that become either liberal or conservative.

While there is an ironic truth to your assertion that "conservative in America" is a misnomer that is only because far too often do people mistake the politics of the United States of America for America. Canada and Mexico both reside within "America" and hold different political views than do people of the U.S. There are Central Americans and South Americans who also have vastly different political ideals than those of people in the U.S., however, within the U.S. there are indeed many people who take a conservative view of the Constitution and the quote you offered in your original post is one such conservative view of the Constitution.

Whatever the "standard" view of conservatism may be, the people of the U.S. are not beholden to other countries in terms of political doctrines and are not required to align their own views on freedom with the rest of the world. The Constitution for the United States is a document that acknowledges that the rights of the people preexist the government the people created and this idea differs greatly from other countries where rights have instead been granted by governments. The problem with government granted rights is that they can be taken away, here in the U.S., technically and conservatively speaking, the rights of the people can not be taken away by any local, state or federal government...at least not legally.

If your attempt to offer some form of libertarianism that can be viewed in simple terms was intended for the entirety of people of across both North, Central and South America I doubt you've accomplished anything other than muddle the issue further. If your attempt was to make it simpler for the people of the U.S. they don't need you to dumb down politics for them. Either they get it or they don't and if they don't get it your attempt at simplifying it won't help.

In the U.S. being conservative is everything like I say and if you will notice the O.P. listed three political parties under the label of conservative. Two of those were both the Libertarian party and Constitutional party. Your quote offered in your original post only underscores my own assertion that Libertarians are conservative and do not take a liberal view of that Constitution. The next party, The Constitutional party by virtue of its name implies an adherence to Constitutional principles and is indeed conservative just as I claim. While there are many members of the Republican party who are conservative and many more who believe themselves to be conservative, if they were as conservative as I say the word means in the U.S., then there would be no need for a Libertarian and Constitutional party. This is why I am so "hung up" on this.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The Constitution for the United States was a liberal point of view towards monarchies and oligarchies and rejected those political doctrines in favor of natural rights._javascript:external()

The definition of liberal is not progressive.

Liberal does not mean wanting change. This is a false definition given by the current political climate. It is interesting that you reject the popular definition of conservative but maintain the equally false definition of liberal. Liberalism is the commitment to individual liberty.

Conservatism is a commitment to tradition and institutions.

Libertarianism is not pure conservatism, rather, it is a form of classical liberalism.

Canada and Mexico both reside within "America" and hold different political views than do people of the U.S. There are Central Americans and South Americans who also have vastly different political ideals than those of people in the U.S., however, within the U.S. there are indeed many people who take a conservative view of the Constitution...

Semantics, you know what I meant. Do a google search on 'America' and your first link is to the U.S. wiki page.

If your attempt was to make it simpler for the people of the U.S. they don't need you to dumb down politics for them. Either they get it or they don't and if they don't get it your attempt at simplifying it won't help.

Politics itself is dumbed-down philosophy. Also, you know what I meant. Don't read too far into my statement. Obviously, it wasn't meant for you. I had no intention of delving into a discussion of the definition of conservative and liberal with that statement.

and the quote you offered in your original post is one such conservative view of the Constitution.

What you are saying is that the institution you want to conserve is the Constitution. That is a fair statement. But, the Constitution itself being a liberal idea, it is also a very liberal view of the world.

Saying a Libertarian is conservative is just as correct as saying they are liberal. What is more accurate is just to call a Libertarian a libertarian.

Here's a very libertarian point of view

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

-Lysander Spooner

What is interesting is that libertarians adhere to natural rights with no need to write them down on paper. These rights exist without constitutions or institutions. They, specifically defined, do not follow or rely on institutions and legal rights granted by states and/or contractual agreement.

Natural right- freedom to do as ones sees fit in accordance with natural law (non-aggression).

Legal right- a right granted by the state that is in direct opposition with natural rights and natural law. ex: smoking bans

The interesting part about the Constitution is that it actually imposes authority over people. This is why it has failed to do as intended.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


I am enjoying this discussion immensely and appreciate very much the time you have taken to clearly state your views. For the most part I think you have done an admirable and fair job of describing my views, with few exceptions. Those exceptions are; I have not defined liberalism as progressive, however given that I along with many others in The United States who have taken a conservative view of the Constitution, find that when dealing with progressives they are, more times than not, taking a far too liberal view of that Constitution. I understand what classical liberalism is, and I don't question that it has championed individual liberty, however here in the U.S. those who often refer to themselves as liberals, passionately believing they champion individual rights have for far too long framed those individual rights in terms of "civil rights" and "civil liberties". Both those terms have a tendency to become equated to how you defined, correctly so I believe, legal rights.

Just as true as liberalism is a commitment to individual liberty, liberal is also defined as expansive or generous. One can butter their toast liberally or conservatively. In the U.S. progressives have a proclivity towards "buttering" the Constitution with notions of expanded government very liberally, while conservatives will either resist the temptation to "butter" the Constitution at all or if they do so, will show great restraint and spread very little "butter" on that Constitution. There are a vast amount of people in the U.S. who insist that A.) the U.S. government is a democracy rather than acknowledge that the word democracy is never used in the Constitution and worse refuse to acknowledge that the word republic is and is what has been guaranteed to the states, and B.) that rights are granted by the Constitution rather than being acknowledged by the Constitution.

The reason the word democracy is never used in the Constitution and republic is, has to do with the fact that a democracy can too easily trample over the rights of the individual and the republic was founded to prevent this from happening. That the Constitution makes clear from the get go that it is a document that acknowledges that the inherent political power belongs to the people and that it is the people, who preexist the government they founded, is evident in the preamble. The people did not come together to form a more perfect union and did not ordain the Constitution in order to grant themselves legal rights, they ordained that government to protect their natural rights.

The Constitution was created to form a limited government and the creation of a federal government was hotly debated in the attempt to draft that Constitution. It is telling today that the Anti-federalist Papers is less known than the Federalist Papers are, and the notion of federalism was viewed with great skepticism by many people in the early stages of the U.S. government. That the Constitution was established to create a limited government with limited amounts of power for a limited amount of time is evident all through that document, and most evident in the Bill of Rights that make clear what the government can't do.

While the Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution prohibiting government from abrogating or derogating certain unalienable rights of individuals, today there are many people who will argue that government does indeed have the authority to regulate these rights and will even argue that under certain circumstances the government has the authority to suspend those rights in the name of security. But this view is not at all a view of one conserving the Constitution as written and requires a very liberal amount of "butter" to disguise the Constitution as written in order to make such arguments.

"Free speech zones" and "permits to peaceably assemble" are not conservative views taken of the First Amendment but are extremely liberal views taken of that Amendment. And just as too much butter can disguise the toast it is placed upon so can too much government disguise the Constitution. A liberal amount of butter spread all over the First Amendment seems to disguise the fact that the First Amendment begins with language that states; "Congress shall make no laws..."

Of course, it is not Congress that passes legislation or ordinances that demand people comply with "free speech zones" and obtain "permits to peaceably assemble", but rather local cities and towns that do, but just as sure as the federal Constitution has made clear that individuals have these inalienable rights, State constitutions have done so as well. The point is that the only prohibition that the federal Constitution places upon the people is that they may not abrogate or derogate the rights of others. All other prohibitions, the 18th Amendment notwithstanding, made by the federal government are aimed at the government itself.

I appreciate very much what you say about the Constitution being a very liberal view of the world as I do agree with that, in that the Constitution does not limit its view of natural and inalienable rights to just citizens of the United States but rather extends quite liberally those rights to every person across the world and while that document may have no legal bearing in other countries, when people from other countries are in The U.S., they are entitled to the same protection of those rights as any citizen is. But that view is not a liberal view of that document but a strictly conservative view of that document.

Lysander Spooner is an interesting fellow and I am no expert on this man, but in all honestly I have never heard him referred to as a libertarian until today. I have always heard him referred to as an anarchist. I have never read any biography about the man so my understanding of Spooner is rather limited and perhaps what I have read about him has been written by people who also had a limited understanding of the man, but in truth, libertarian is not how he was described when I read about him and the term anarchist was. Perhaps classical libertarianism and anarchy are the same, I am not clear on that.

While I emphatically agree that libertarians do adhere to natural rights and see no need for enumeration of them in any document, that some of those rights have been clearly enumerated with in the Constitution is not at all ignored by libertarians in the U.S., and the reason it has importance is not in that those enumerated rights are accepted as "legal rights" but that those enumerated rights make clear what the government can not legally do. Any rights the government have are "legal rights" and not natural rights because a government is not natural but is an artifice created by the people. Here is where I emphatically disagree with you as the only imposition the Constitution has placed upon the people is that they may not trample over the rights of others, all other impositions made by that document are imposed upon the government.

It was never my intention to argue about definitions of liberalism and libertarianism and indeed, my genuine confusion comes from the notions of one being "fiscally conservative" but "socially liberal" as I can see no way of being "socially liberal" without empowering government to implement these "socially liberal" programs and if they have been empowered to do so, then they will require money to do it, undermining any notion of "fiscal conservatism". I also have strong views of what it means to be a Libertarian in the U.S. because I was actively recruited by the Libertarian party after rejecting the Republican party, and joined the Libertarians because that party claimed to be "truly conservative of the Constitution."

Re the UK example- the leadership/establishment of the "CONSERVATIVE" party is now, on the major social/moral/cultural issues basically left/liberal leaning.

I think you'll find most of this list - saving non-institutional parties - already constructed on the website of International Democrat Union, the global umbrella organization for parties of the center-right/right:

www.idu.org...

There is no worldwide definition of 'Conservatism' other than 'preserving that which is already there' or 'maintaining the status quo'.

The BNP are certainly not a conservative-leaning party. Not only are they much further to the left economically than Labour ( www.politicalcompass.org... ) but they are in favour of a wide range of radical reforms to various aspects of the nation.

Always interesting to watch the heavies duke it out although I confess to skimming.

But im confused. Can someone please explain to me how these definitions and classifacations are relevant to my day to day life? Does it matter what political persuation T jefferson was when he attempted to circumnaviagte the very congress he(seemingly) lovingly helped craft in order to forment a war over shipping lanes in the mid east without the sanction of congress? How about Washington putting down a tax revolt within the first years of independance with a force larger than the revolutionary army?

Does it matter what stripe the limited governenment champion Regan was termed when he expanded the size of government by 2/3rds? How about Bush II, the isolationist, who wasnt into 'nation building'? What about Obama, the consitutional lawyer?

What Im wondering is how it matters what faction controls the reins of ultimate violence? Does government ever shrink? Do taxes ever decrease? Does power ever limit itself? Has the Constitution forfilled its purpose of limiting government?

Why is my currency worth pennies of its original value? Why am I forced to give up over half of what I produce to a system I never signed up for? What party forces me to pay for wars of aggression? Liberals? Democrats? Whats the word that best desribes the endless parade of clowns and beaurecrats that convince us all that slavery aint so bad and we could never survive without their banal speaches and lobbiest funded dinners?

Who should i blame?

Ive noticed a similarity between all these people. They all initate force and call it virtue. They use overwhelming violence against anyone who opposes them and they use my money to do it. Conservative, demorat, liberal, republican, green...they all have one thing in common. They want the gun.

So some want to use less violence than others. Id take one beating a week over five. But id regard anyone administers beatings as evil and as my enemy, heck, even if it was just once. I dont see how it matters what political faction anyone declares allegience to, because once they get their hands on the gun they basically all act the same.

Do the Libertarians count as Conservatives ?

The Universal Conservative Mantra:

Take all your worldly possessions and place them under your bed, draw the blinds, light a candle, huddle fretfully in the corner and pray for the Rapture.

Amen.

a reply to: LeftWingLarry

There is no worldwide definition of 'Conservatism' other than 'preserving that which is already there' or 'maintaining the status quo'.

Exactly, actually its more like finance and corporations can change as much as they like but the peons are forbidden to change at all or attempt to redistribute wealth for the common good. The right wingers always make point of claiming they are for individual rights etc .. precisely for this reason they despise the common good and think only the elite should be allowed the luxury of that word CHANGE!.

a reply to: djohnsto77

But within our countries, there exists a cancer known as the far-left that want to basically overturn the rule of law, let prisoners guilty of violent crimes go with little or no prison time, and countless other initiatives.

Ah no, well with specific regards these parties since the thread poster added them;

Commonwealth of Australia Liberal Party National Party

right wingers of the neo liberal variety constantly say that if we had a far left government any western nation would be a nanny state with too many laws and too many police or other civil servants.
Actually neo liberals (I am in Australia) are big police state advocates & always bang the law & order drum loudest to win votes plus they care little for a bill rights even though in theory this should be the core of their goals to have a Bill of Rights for ordinary folks in commonwealth nations if they were true liberals for all. The truth is they only believe in liberty for the financial class & corporations the rights of all peons mean didley squat to them!

The Republican party in the United States is not a conservative party. They are a corporate party, they only support issues that effect corporate profits. The "conservative values" they espouse are lip service.

a reply to: Jean Paul Zodeaux

While there is an ironic truth to your assertion that "conservative in America" is a misnomer

In all parts of the world it is now misnomer. Because neo liberalism(Austrianism) is fundamentally a "change" based ideology especially in regards to fiscal/finance issues. So its a misnomer because movements cant conserve & change.
They are opposing dialectics.Its either conserve or change not both to claim both is absurd but that's exactly what neo liberal parties do. They look foolish they are foolish!

a reply to: zenser
International Democratic Union

Hmm reads like the minutes of the the Mont Pelerin Society typical of what i would expect all Austrianism or pseudo Austrianism also mostly rhetorical since most these goals are never this way in reality;

Declaration of Principles agreed by IDU founders, London 1983.

HAVING REGARD to their common convictions that democratic societies provide individuals throughout the world with the best conditions for political liberty, personal freedom, equality of opportunity and economic development under the rule of law; and therefore;

BEING COMMITTED to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in particular, the right of free speech, organisation, assembly and non-violent dissent; the right to free elections and the freedom to organise effective parliamentary opposition to government; the right to a free and independent media; the right to religious belief; equality before the law; and individual opportunity and prosperity;

HAVING REGARD to their common beliefs in an open society, where power is dispersed widely amongst free institutions, dedicated to creating conditions that will enable each individual to reach his full potential and to carry out his responsibilities to his fellow man; and where the central task of government is to serve the individual and to safeguard and promote individual freedom; and equally

STRESSING the moral commitments of a free and open society, supporting the institution of the family as its fundamental social and cohesive force, as well as social responsibility towards the weak and less fortunate, particularly by encouraging self-help and individual enterprise and choice in the provision of services;

BEING DEDICATED to a society of individuals working together in partnership for the common good;

HAVING REGARD to their common views that political democracy and private property are inseparable components of individual liberty and that the socially-oriented market economy provides the best means of creating the wealth and material prosperity to meet the legitimate aspirations of individuals, and of tackling social evils such as unemployment and inflation;

BELIEVING that this is the most effective and beneficial way of providing individual initiative and enterprise, responsible economic development, employment opportunities, low taxation and consumer choice;

HAVING REGARD to the threats posed by the extreme Left and the extreme Right;

REJECTING any form of totalitarianism, which brings so much suffering and restricts so many freedoms today;

HAVING REGARD to the important global tasks which render necessary and desirable a closer and efficient collaboration of their parties, inspired by their common conviction;