Talk:National conservatism

Does this category exist?

Is there really an umbrella big enough for both the Likud and the Kuomintang? Yakuman 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1) I've never heard this term 'National Conservatism used before, and the only evidence of such usage within the article is an unsupported claim that it is widely used 'in Europe'. This need a reference. Is the claim that the term is widely used in Britain or Ireland, ie in the English language? If so, I'm surprised never to have come across it. Or is the claim that an equivelant of the term is used in some other European language? If so, a reference would be useful for that. I'm slightly suspicious that this is a made-up term that doesn't deserve a Wikipedia entry at all, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

2) In any case, the definition provided doesn't fit the UK Independence Party. Eurosceptic, certainly, but the party isn't socially onservative (it is in many respects libertarian), and it isn't 'strongly' against immigration (it doesn't call for a ban on new immigration, only that control over immigration policy should be returned to Westminster from Brussels, and that numbers allowed in per year should roughly match the numbers emigrating from Britain each year.) As UKIP doesn't fit the description provided, I have deleted it from the list of parties in this article. Twilde 25/11/06

I partly agree with you, that may-be there shouldn't be such an article. Though I'm not sure if the "don't deserve" part is right. What I see more prolematic is the fact that connecting "nationalism" and "conservatism" produces so many different results, that it might not be worth trying to write a good article about it. There is at least one party in Estonia that defines itself through "national conservatism" and "christian democracy". This might just justify the existence of an article about "national conservatism" - even though it does not mean that it is a widely used term. I was just thinking whether or not an article of Estonian equivalent to "national conservatism" should be created and so I ended up here. But I have not come across the term in English a lot. May-be we could agree, that the article deserves to exist, but should be more accurate about actual usage of the term and where does the concept as a political idea exist? Another thing about the party in Estonia is that it is absolutely not "eurosceptic", and probably not "VERY" opposed to immigration. Nevertheless, leaving out the "national" part when describing the party would be a loss. So defining is definitely not as simple as it is in the current article.

I'm pretty suspicious of the category. It seemed to have arisen as a term out of the alt-right with a whole bunch of other "national-<existing ideology>" , "national anarchism" (An absolutely barking mad and largely dead "movement" that tried to import anarchist language into neo-nazi praxis) , "national bolshevism" ("Nazbols" tried to emulate, national bolshevism is an equally whacky creed that came out of russia with the likes of Aleksander Dugin and the chaotic Eduard Liminov" An attempt at dressing neo-naziism in communist clothing. These had some traction in Russia early 2000s but you dont hear much of it no more). At some point fascist groups kinda got the message that they where not going to succeed in entryism against their traditional foes, and switched attention to slightly more plausible right wing entryism (Where arguably the nativist bent in paleoconservatism is already half way to fashy), first with the the "Alt Right", and later with other attempts at coopting the conservative movement. This whole "national conservative" thing seems to me like a ploy to try and adopt a bunch of existing conservative groups and say "Hey look at us, we're not cryptofascists we're mainstream mom and pop conservatives). To be blunt, I'm not convinced at all .Duckmonster (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge with Social conservatism?

• I strongly oppose the merge of this article with Social conservatism. They're two completely different concepts. Some national conservatives may be also social conservatives (and viceversa), but this doesn't mean that they are synonims. --Checco 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. National conservatism is a far-right current, present for instance in the French National Front, while social conservatism is a characteristic of right-wing movement in general. As an aside, in the French context at least, "national conservatism" is opposed to "revolutionary nationalism" (see fr:nationalisme révolutionnaire), another far-right tendency closer to Third Position and national bolshevism ideologies. Tazmaniacs 03:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, but I don't think that national conservatism is necessarily far-right. --Checco 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The entry should probably be redefined precisely, and explain varieties of national conservatism. On the cited parties, the League of Polish Families, the National Alliance, the Movement for France and the National Front, and the Swiss People's Party are all usually considered as far-right. The Likud is not, and I gather that the Democratic Unionist Party is not either. Tazmaniacs 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, yes. —Nightstallion 16:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Swiss People's Party is not far-right, as National Alliance undoubtely is not: it is a moderate-conservative parties, with both social-conservative and liberal stances. It is definitely part of the Italian political mainstream, exactly as Forza Italia. --Checco 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Third positionist fascism strikes again with more bullshit. Heres how it works. Pick a political position, any position, and tack the word "national" in front of it. Mush in white supremacist nonsense and you have a new fake political movement to recruit people into the neo-nazi actual movement. Witness the abominations! National Bolshevism (This actually exists). National Anarchism (This philosophical absurdity also exists. Aparently the anarchists like the beat the hell out of the 'national anarchists'). I'm sure some dim-wit has invented "National Capitalism", "National liberalism" "National Nationalism" , "National Zionism" (Why not , lets get really absurd) , and so on. Suggest: Delete 124.178.179.115 (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the National Football League, and National Parks are all a part of the vast third position conspiracy. Thanks for your contribution, you're a integral part of our organization. --Anthonysenn (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your arguing in bad faith and you know full well what he means. Why even reply if your not going to take it seriously? Duckmonster (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Fianna Fail

Neither nationalist nor conservative by any metric, do not belong here. Socially and economically left wing. Arguably we only have very minor parties(with no elected candidates) that are national conservative. see https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2020/01/02/the-post-national-fianna-fail-politician on Brexit and nationalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akkPu-FJyiA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.104.131 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

UKIP

Shouldn't UKIP be on the list here? -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, shouldn't One Nation Conservatism also be mentioned? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"As such, national conservatives can be distinguished from economic conservatives, for whom free market economic policies, deregulation and fiscal conservatism are the main priorities."

UKIP are strongly supportive of free market economic policies, deregulation and fiscal conservatism, should they really be listed here? In the UK the largest party of this type would be the British National Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.111.11 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Aren't BNP an ultranationalist party rather than national conservative?

Parties and Elections in Europe

I have taken this source to RSN.[1] TFD (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As I mentioned at the AfD, I was unable to find any sources for "national conservatism" and no useful secondary sources have been provided. However since it is a European term, I searched for National Konservatismus and it appears that it is used in a consistent way in German to describe authoritarian conservatism from Bismarck to the right-wing of the CDU/CSU. Does anyone have any other foreign language sources? TFD (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A list of US national conservatives

Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt come to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.100.86 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 22 June 2011

You could even extend that to Charles Lindenburgh and Henry Ford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 March 2012‎

The PVV

Shouldn't the Party for Freedom (Netherlands) be listed?

Under their Wikipida article it even stands that they're national conservative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.254.106 (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not support that description. TFD (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be. 109.243.69.71 (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-valid source

This article takes the definition of "national conservatism" from the "Dictionary of Public Administration".

However, the article about "national conservative" in that book, published in 2007, is almost exactly identical to... this wikipedia article in 2006, meaning that the book (at least, in the "national consevative" entry) is a copy of wikipedia.

Then, I think that these book should not be accepted as a "source" - if we use as a source a book that is a copy of the wikipedia article, these mean that, in the end, the article is the "source" of itself.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I think that the 2007 book validates what Wikipedia contained before. Moreover, the content you removed from the article is correct in any case: even without a source, it can stay there with a "citation needed" tag. This is no more the case, anyway. --Checco (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Forum voor Democratie

In the Netherlands we have a new party, forum for democracy, since the last elections. They're also national conservative, should we add them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.237.74 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Some suggestions

I propose some changes to the list of parties. First, Austria has 3 parties listed. This is too much. I don't think Austrian People's Party should be there. The FPÖ has already appropriated the national conservative niche and the ÖVP is more liberal conservative (and also christian democratic). Second, Jobbik in Hungary does not seem to suit. Again, Fidesz has appropriated the national conservative niche and Jobbik is more of an openly far-right, ultranationalist party.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree on Austria, especially as ÖVP's Wikipedia page does not list this. Jobbik is described as a national conservative party on its Wikipedia page. It has shifted its political position in recent years to the point where many reports describe Fidesz as to the right of it.--Jay942942 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's only there in the infobox because sympathetic editors prevent its removal. There's no essential difference between Rodina and Jobbik.Miacek (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This conversation is futile unless we can find a reliably sourced definition for the topic. TFD (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Needs to be updated to include American national conservatism

Last month, there was a large conference on "National Conservatism" in Washington DC, attended by a number of politicians and intellectuals broadly aligned with this idea, many aligned with the Trump administration.

https://nationalconservatism.org/

It has gotten quite a bit of coverage and reaction, this being a sampling:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-national-conservatism/2019/08/15/45f0628a-bec4-11e9-a8b0-7ed8a0d5dc5d_story.html
• https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/08/15/national-conservatism-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
• https://quillette.com/2019/07/31/national-conservatism-and-the-preference-for-state-control/
• https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/a-big-government-nationalism-or-a-burkean-one/
• https://www.vox.com/2019/7/17/20696543/national-conservatism-conference-2019-trump
• https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/23/20679172/amy-wax-white-national-conservatism-yoram-hazony-racism

Considering the attention this has gotten as an emerging political ideology in the US, and the fact that this article mainly covers European and Asian national conservatism, it seems that this article is in need of updating to include proper coverage of American national conservatism. It might also be appropriate to list the Republican Party (United States) as a political party with a national conservative faction. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on this, though it will not be an easy task to do so that it doesn’t end up as an “editing war” between different fractions. J. P. Fagerback (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Fascism

Hello,

It seems this page is promoting an euphemism fascists use to disguise themselves. This page should redirect to Fascism, or at least have a clear link established in the introduction. 159.134.255.230 (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I did corrected the introduction. If this is cancelled I would consider adding a POV dispute to this article. 159.134.255.230 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that spells this out? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

National conservatism per se has nothing to do with fascism and it is not necessarily a far-right ideology. --Checco (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this; National Conservatism isn't a fascistic ideology. No redirect or such language should be added. Jcgaylor (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Unsupported classification

I don't really do politics, but I jumped on this because I believe this article has gone wildly wrong on classifications, which are my thing. (I don't support or oppose the subject; I came this way because of the tussles in Brussels this week.) The concept 'National conservatism' is a newly minted one, self-defined by the Edmund Burke Foundation for a specified set of political parties joining a movement since 2019. Attributing the name retrospectively to political parties from the past is like describing Boudica as a 'Eurosceptic'. All those should be deleted. Furthermore, those chosen for that list of past 'national conservative' parties is bizarre: the Edmund Burke Foundation concept is of tradition and individualism in liberal democracy, but the list includes past parties which were the polar opposite; opposing tradition, individualism, liberalism and democracy. It is ludicrous. Hogweard (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I would not confuse "national conservatism" — the ideology — with "National Conservatisnm" — the conference. Also, Edmund Burke would not agree with the tenets of the "National Conservatism" conference, as he was more of a liberal-conservative and surely neither a nationalist nor a national-conservative. --Checco (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that Edmund Burke was a liberal for his time. He gained a reputation as a champion of Tory ideas though he was a Whig. The philosophy of modern British Conservative and Unionist Party actually comes from the Liberal Unionists rather than the old Conservative Party: individualism and free enterprise - or maybe from American tradition. Eastern European conservatives were heavily influenced by Roger Scruton - socially conservative, with free trade and a small state. That makes it all the more bizarre that editors have tried to link a Burkean/Scrutonian movement with its exact opposite. Hogweard (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Definition

First sentences of this article:

• "National-Conservative is a political term used primarily in Europe to describe a type of right-wing political philosophy." -- article created, 1 August 2005.
• "National conservatism is a political term used primarily in Europe to describe a type of conservatism which is mainly concerned with promoting nationalist feelings, upholding cultural and ethnic identity, and opposing the European Union." -- since 25 March 2006
• "National conservatism is a political term used primarily in Europe to describe a variant of conservatism which concentrates more on national interests than standard conservatism, while not being nationalism or a far-right approach." -- since 5 October 2007, with slight variants
• "National conservatism is a variant of conservatism common in Europe that concentrates on upholding national and cultural identity." -- since 15 May 2019, with slight variants (e.g. "while mixing conservative elements with purely nationalist ones")
• "National conservatism is a nationalist variant of conservatism that concentrates on upholding national and cultural identity." -- since 26 November 2021, with slight variants

Then, on 12 September 2024, User:A Socialist Trans Girl made a bold edit, despite writing that she was "reverting to previous version as per BRD", and the first sentence was thus changed into "National conservatism is a far-right ideology and an ultranationalist variant of conservatism that concentrates on upholding national, cultural identity, communitarianism, and the public role of religion [...]". As I have shown, previous versions are quite different from the bold edit. I agree with any of those versions, while I oppose describing national conservatism as intrinsically far-right (which is not) or ultranationalist (quite a non-sense: how can a moderate form of nationalism or, better, a national-identity-focused form of conservatism, but still conservatism!, be ultranationalist?). More important, it is me who have challenged a bold edit and restored the established version. Per Wikipedia:Consensus, "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".

Given that the status quo ante ("National conservatism is a nationalist variant of conservatism variant of conservatism that concentrates on upholding national, cultural identity, communitarianism, and the public role of religion [...])" has been restored by me, let's discuss. I am always open to debate. -- Checco (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with A Socialist Trans Girl. It reflects the sources and describes the National Conservatism Conference and its objectives.

As I understand it, the term national conservative was used in Europe as a euphemism for far right nationalism, which pretty much describes the parties listed in the article. TFD (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood the topic of this discussion. It is not about the National Conservatism Conference, but "national conservatism" the ideology. --Checco (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about the ideology national conservatism. The NatCon Conference absolutely did not invent national conservatism as an ideology, TFD – the term existed for decades before the conference was established circa 2019, and I can assure you that I personally heard of the term long before that (note that this en.wiki article dates back to August 2005, 14 years before the NatCon Conference organisation existed). I also reject the idea that national conservatism is ultranationalism – national-conservative parties are not automatically far-right. The political spectrum is after all a spectrum, and there will exist ideologies that lie between "vanilla" centre-right conservatism and far-right ultranationalism.-- Autospark (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not the term was used before, the only sources for the term were published after the NatCon conference was established. No reliable sources had been used for the definition before.

If you do not like the definition provided by the sources, could you please present one you do. And what are these national-conservative parties that are not far right? TFD (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Autospark Even if some NatCon parties aren't far-right, that doesn't mean that national conservatism broadly isn't. Just as how liberalism is a broadly centrist ideology, there are liberals that are centre-left (like socdems and soclibs), as well as liberals that are centre-right (liberal conservatives). A Socialist Trans Girl 04:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Or... even if some national-conservative parties are far-right, national conservatism is not broadly far-right. Also centrists can be national-conservative. --Checco (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Autospark There are such parties and ideologies, such some branches of right-libertarianism, some agrarian conservative parties, etc. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Checco That's not true! You are the one who changed it in this edit here and I reverted it. I reverted it to be the previous one.

For that question, conservatism can very much be ultranationalist and far-right! For example, the nazis were extremely conservative, and while much more extreme than most modern conservatives, they were still conservatives! A Socialist Trans Girl 02:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not the Nazis were conservative is a distraction. Most far right groups call themselves conservatives because it is more respectable than calling themselves Nazis or fascists. TFD (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"Conservative" is respectable? I have been hearing it used as a slur word for the last 30 years or so. In Greece, the term typically equates to reactionary, and includes people who are nostalgic about the 4th of August Regime and the Greek junta. You know the type who preaches persecution of religious minorities. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The term remained respectable in the UK because of its association with William PItt the Younger, Robert Peel, Disraeli, Churchill and other respected conservative leaders. While once a pejorative in the U.S., the U.S. Right adopted the term in the 1950s. Canada also has a Conservative Party. TFD (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces hm, i added the footnote to try and clarify that, but it seems the footnote didnt work. i'll fix that. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Autospark. Let me also point out that: a) the article's history shows I have just reinstated the long-established lead sentence (previous ones were also OK for me), b) this article had sources also before 2019, c) conservatism can be very moderate and very radical, same for national conservatism, and, finally, d) conservatism can be a slur in some countries or contexts, but it is a recognised mainstream ideology (of course, "national" makes it more national-identity oriented, "liberal" makes it more moderate and liberal and so on). --Checco (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Checco c) not for national conservatism, as it's specifically a radical form of conservatism. a non-radical national conservative isn't a national conservative, just a regular conservative or liberal conservative.

No, it is not a radical form of conservatism. It is simply a variant of conservatism that incorporates nationalist elements. --Checco (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Your first source says it is conservative in the sense that it "seeks to preserve national interests." It is contrasted with " traditional conservatism [that] emphasizes ancestral institutions and social conservatism." So while traditional conservatism can be progressive, national conservatism cannot.

Also, there is a distinction between civic nationalism (like the Scotish National Party) which can be progressive and ethnic nationalism (like the Nazis) which cannot.

While this source does not use the term right-wing, the sources they present for further reading do. TFD (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

d) i dont understand this point in relation to the discussion A Socialist Trans Girl 04:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I was answering to a specific user. --Checco (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

oki A Socialist Trans Girl 01:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that supports your definition of national conservatism? TFD (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There are many of them. Take these two: 1 and 2. --Checco (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The second source is a website run that collates electoral results. The author has no education or experience in political science or professional journalism and therefore the site is not rs. Nonetheless, it groups the National Rally, Fidesz, True Finns, Sweden Democrats and the other parties listed all meet A Socialist Trans Girl's definition.

While the first source distinguishes national conservatism from right-wing populism, it's one of the few sources that does. Obviously right-wing extremism has always presented taxonomic problems. The article should explain these problems rather than presenting the category as universally accepted.

The article should also present the description of the type of conservatism supported ("preserve national interests") to avoid confusion with historical conservatism.

There is no difference between the definition in the first source and A Socialist Trans Girl's definition. TFD (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The second source is also self-published. It's completely worthless for our purposes and we give it zero credence. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that the far-right descriptor is representative of RS as a whole. For example, I did a google scholar search and the first two relevant results were this one, which distinguishes NatCons from the far right, and this one, which doesn't seem to describe it as far right. The distinguishing factors of NatCons according to these sources are that they are nationalist, anti-liberalism, pro-"Western civilization", and favor "social nativism", which is more economically interventionist than liberal conservatives. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  A better way might be to consult a textbook that provides weight to various views. There's an article in France 24 about where Angelos Chryssogelos (one of your sources) refers to these parties as far right parties.[2]

  I think the point they are making is that we should recognize national conservatism as a distinct ideology rather than just group it with the rest of the far right. They aren't arguing it isn't part of it. TFD (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm confused—the France24 link you provide doesn't mention national conservatism, so how do you know he is referring to national conservatism as far right?

  Regardless, I think an impartial look at a wide variety of sources would shed light on how national conservatism is typically described, and thus whether Wikipedia should define it as far right. (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  The France24 article mentions UKIP, France's NR, AfD, and Orban's party in Hungary. Obviously, the it doesn't call them national-conservative since the National Conservative Conference hadn't been founded.

  The argument was that because Chryssogelos didn't refer to these parties as far right in an article about the Conference, that he did not consider them far right. However, he has called them far right, not just in that article.

  If you want to show that Chryssogelos rejects the description of far right, you need a source where he says that. TFD (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still confused here. The article isn't about the National Conservatism Conference, it's about the generic concept. It's WP:OR to assume that he thinks these parties are both national conservative and far right unless you have a source that says so, which that article doesn't. I still think that if you did a real source survey you would find that many sources are not calling all national conservatives far right. (t · c) buidhe 12:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Let's go back to the beginning. When this article was created there were examples of the term used in reliable sources but no literature establishing that it was a coherent topic or any reliable sources for what it meant.

  The establishment of the National Conservative Conference in 2019 led to some sources, such as the European Center for Populism Studies identifying national conservatism as being distinct from right-wing populism, which is how these parties are normally described, along with neo-fascist.

  Some sources call national conservatism far or extreme right, while others do not mention its position in the political spectrum. Not every article on every ideology mentions its position. However, there seems to be an argument that because not all of the sources mention its political position, they are denying it is far right.

  There is academic consensus that every party called national conservative is far right. While that is not a reason this article should call them far right, it means it is not a REDFLAG claim. Sources that say a group of far right parties is itself far right are not saying anything exceptional. TFD (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is academic consensus that every party called national conservative is far right If this is true, I'd be interested to see the sources to back this up. For example, I don't think there is academic consensus that Poland's PiS party is far right, although some describe them that way. However, this article is not about national conservative parties but (slight distinction) national conservatism as an ideology, including those who are not organized in political parties that espouse national conservatism. Thus, we should be looking for sources about national conservatism, not about specific parties which have their own articles.

  Incidentally, I don't think your timeline is accurate, for example there have been "sweeping statements about the rise of national conservatism on a global scale" by 2017[3] and the term has long been used, for example, to describe the strand of the German right that succeeded from the DNVP[4][5] (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I never said that no one put together the words national and conservative before, just that no discrete concept emerged. Most of the Google book seaches I first found were about Daniel Webster.

  This reminds me of discussions about national socialism. Eugene Debs was described as the leader of America's national socialist movement. That doesn't mean we put him in an article about Nazism.

  Also, do you have any sources that the PiS is not a far right party. Even the Wikipedia article refers to it as right-wing populist.

  Articles are supposed to be about topics, not everything that two words put together can mean. Do you have any sources for what the concept is? TFD (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  For the last time, the self-styled NatCon Conference did not coin or define the term "national conservative". WP:RECENTism ad absurdum. Using a single organisation to define an ideology with an overlapping title which predates it, that seems as absurd as using, I don't know, the Social Democratic Party (Portugal) to define social democracy.-- Autospark (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Autospark Not as absurd as that, because the Social Democratic Party (Portugal) isn't actually social democratic, whereas the national conservative conference undeniably is national conservative. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Can you provide any reliable sources that define the term before the Conference adopted it?

  The Portuguese party adopted its name at a time when the Left was popular in order to distance themselves from their fascist roots. I imagine national conservatives are doing something similar.ali

  However experts do look at social democratic parties in order to understand what the term means. They don't define it by what it meant before social democratic parties were established. (It meant a society where there was not only legal and political equality, but also economic equality.) TFD (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose the description of national conservatism as "far right" or "ultranationalist". There are no sources to back it up, for one thing.

This user is a persistent problem on this page as they continually wage a political campaign to push their own ideology.

I would support this being taken to arbitration for a ban on this topic for the user in question. KronosAlight (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@KronosAlight Which user are you referring to? Me or Checco or someone else? A Socialist Trans Girl 09:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:Buidhe (especially: "the article isn't about the National Conservatism Conference, it's about the generic concept"!), User:Autospark (the PSD is a good example!) and User:KronosAlight. I would also add that "national conservatism" cannot be far-right by definition, as "conservatism" is not necessarily far-right. Clearly, "national conservatism" is a variant of "conservatism" and should not be confused with "nationalism". This said, also "nationalism" is a broad term and has not necessarily a far-right or right-wing connotation as there are left-wing nationalists too in all continents, let alone separatists in Spain, the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe. --Checco (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Checco Sorry but thats incorrect. Conservatism is not neccesarily far-right, however your argument implicitly makes the claim that it cannot be far-right, which is untrue; conservatism can be far-right, some varieties can, such as National Conservatism. Your argument acknowledges this through its wording (i.e, the phrasing being that its not NECCESARILY far-right neccessitates that it CAN be far-right).

Your argument seems to be based on your own personal view to shift national conservatisms, or conservatism as a whole, leftward (away from the far-right, and even away from right-wing inbetween centre-right and far-right (in the case of the french republicans), which is not based in the sources. If this interpretation is inaccurate please tell me so (and tell me the actual basis of it).

National Conservatism is a Nationalist or Ultranationalist form of Conservatism, as the article says.

You claim that there are left-wing nationalists too in all continents, however I found ZERO evidence of the presence of left-wing nationalism in antarctica.i've now realized this wasn't meant literally. apologies. A Socialist Trans Girl 09:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, borderline trolling. You should be ashamed to post such nonsense.— Autospark (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Autospark Please don't be WP:UNCIVIL. I ask you to please remember to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, if you have an issue with that paragraph then I welcome you to say what that is, however your statement doesn't specify what part of my previous message you have an issue with, making it difficult to actually hear your criticism and accept it and grow from it, or rebut it.

Cheers! ^-^ A Socialist Trans Girl 22:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

However, your comment was completely nonsense. By the way, some national conservatives can be far-right, but the vast majority of them are not, as it has been correctly pointed out by several users here. National conservatism is conservatism infused by nationalism and national-identity politics, but it is different both from nationalism and ultranationalism, otherwise there would not be an article on the issue and "national conservatism" would be a redirect to another article. --Checco (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, yes I may have appeared uncivil, but it is incredibly frustrating trying to argue precisely with people who do not seem to have a grounding in the field of knowledge being discussed. That all too often comes across as lacking good faith. Again, national conservatism is separate from both neofascism and right-wing populism, even if it overlaps in part with the latter (as most ideologies overlap with others while being distinct ideologies).-- Autospark (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Autospark How exactly does my comment in question demonstrate a lack of grounding in the field of knowledge being discussed? the only claim about natcon in it i made was your argument implicitly makes the claim that it cannot be far-right, which is untrue; conservatism can be far-right, some varieties can, such as National Conservatism. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Checco Please provide a source for the vast majority of them being not far-right.

Well yeah, but it's different from conservatism too, as it'd also be a redirect to that if it wasnt. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You're calling someone out for not being civil while writing stuff like this "You claim that there are left-wing nationalists too in all continents, however I found ZERO evidence of the presence of left-wing nationalism in antarctica". Zlad! (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zlad! I read the initial claim as being literal, however upon re-inspection it appears it was meant as hyperbole. Apologies. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

See etymological fallacy: "that a word is defined by its etymology, and that its customary usage is therefore incorrect." The political parties listed have their origins in successor parties of European fascism and racist groups. Does anyone disagree that is far right?

It doesn't matter that conservatism can be progressive or nationalism can reject ethnic/racial bases of citizenship. None of these parties fit that description. And it doesn't even matter what conservatism or nationalism means, since no term is defined by the two words that make it up. Are social democrats people who are social and democratic and their opponents anti-social and undemocratic?

It would be helpful if someone could provide a reliably sourced and generally accepted definition. Assuming this is a topic worthy of inclusion that should not be a problem. TFD (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Not all the parties listed have roots in fascism or racism. --Checco (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Checco Which? A Socialist Trans Girl 07:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nationalism is not per se "far-right" ideology and neither is conservatism. Why would national conservatism be necessarily "far-right"? The extent to which the definition of the term "far-right" is being expanded is absurd. "Far-right" means political currents which totally reject parliamentary democracy, originally "far-right" meant only fascism, national socialism and other related currents. Now term "far-right" is being expanded to the very broad extent. National conservatism is not necessarily rejecting parliamentary democracy and is not necessarily far-right. It is just right-wing. If national conservatism is far-right, liberal conservatism is center-right, than what is ordinary right? In reality, liberal conservatism is center-right, national conservatism is right-wing, fascism is far-right. Saying "national conservatism is far-right" is same as saying "social democracy is far-left". Nivzaq (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Nivzaq The far-right doesn't neccesarily oppose democracy. For example, there is an almost unanimous agreement that France's National Rally is far-right, however it doesn't oppose democracy.

  To answer your question; Neoconservatism is positioned as right-wing, between centre-right and far-right. There is PLENTY of parties which are right wing, between centre-right and far-right; you can find many here.

  And no, thats completely false; Saying national conservatism is far-right is NOT the same as saying social democracy is far left, saying that liberal conservatism is far-right is the same as saying social-democracy is far-left, both of which are positions nobody here holds; that is a strawman argument. The actual equivalent would be "saying that national conservatism is far-right is like saying that radically anti-nationalist libertarian socialism is far-left", to which the answer is; yep, it is. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think National Rally should be classified as "far right" but anyway.

If the rejection of parliamentary democracy would not be taken as a marker for the definition of what far-right means, what the far-right means can still be vaguely described based on the degree of divergence from center and the rejection of center (within the unilinear political classification to which all these terms like "far-right" or "far-left" apply rather to two-dimensional political compass). In this case, national conservatism is not the most shifted-to-right political current - fascism is much further right. National conservatism can be and is element of fascism, but fascism still has many more elements which shift it further right. The fact that there is quite a gap between fascism and national conservatism would suggest for national conservatism not to be classified in same way as fascism.

Neoconservatism just means a hawkish pro-liberal democracy interventionist stance, which is primarily present within America. It is center-right like liberal conservatism at best rather than right-wing. Even if we consider it as right-wing, it is still not a typical representative of what "right-wing" means. National conservatism fits this description more compared to neoconservatism.

What exactly makes national conservatism "far-right"? The "national-" part? Well, nationalism itself is not per se "far-right" ideology. In case of liberal conservatism for example, the "liberal-" part makes it decisively center-right, because liberalism is centrist ideology.

Is not social-democracy ordinary left? Well, if not and if it is center-left, it is still false equivalence to compare national conservatism to libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialism, by totally rejecting capitalism and state, is far more detached from the center compared to national conservatism. Some ideologies which reject capitalism and state - like national anarchism - can incorporate national conservatism, but that's just different ideology incorporating national conservatism and does not speaks of what national conservatism means by its broadest and most general definition. However, I have not seen libertarian socialism necessarily been classified as far-left as it is not on its wiki page. Nivzaq (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nivzaq Your claim that National Rally isn't right-wing demonstrates that your position on whether or not something is right-wing is not based in the sources, but rather your own personal beliefs. Sources overwhelmingly support it being far right [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106], and I could only find 8 sources saying it was merely right-wing, and all 8 were unreliable.

If the political spectrum doesn't function if you don't allow for overlap in different positions. If you accept the argument that national conservatism isn't far-right because far-right is only fascism, and it's merely right-wing, then it follows that neo-conservatism isn't right wing because national conservatism is way more right-wing than it, making it centre-right. And then it follows that right-wing agrarian conservatism isn't centre-right because neo-conservatism is way more right-wing than it, so then it's centre. And then it follows that liberal conservatism isn't centre because neo-conservatism is way to the right of that, making it centre-left. And then it follows that moderate centrist liberalism isn't centre-left because liberal conservatism is way to the right of it, making it left-wing. And then it follows that social liberalism isn't left-wing because moderate centrist liberalism is way to the right of it, making it far-left. And then it follows that social democracy isn't far-left because social liberalism is way to the right of it, making it far-far-left. So while claiming that saying national conservatism is like saying social democracy is far-left, you use logic for which the logical conclusion of such logic is that social democracy is far-left. You even perpetrate this logic by accepting that neo-conservatism is centre-right (neo-conservatives such as reagan and thatcher were AT LEAST right-wing), but even if we accept your claim that neo-conservatism is no more right-wing than liberal conservatism, the logical conclusion is still that social democracy is far-left (which is obviously not the case), basically making the political spectrum useless.

On articles on some national conservative parties labelled far-right, many contain a footnote that goes along the lines of "[party] is part of the radical right, a subset of the far-right that does not oppose democracy."

It doesn't matter what makes it far-right, what matters is what sources describe it as. Deducing what makes it far-right or not qualifies as WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.

The article for literally every 'social democratic party describes it as centre-left, from PSOE to SP to ALP to SPD to SAP to Aotearoa Labour Party, etc, etc, etc. So no, it's not just regular left, it's centre-left.

I meant specific types of libertarian socialism as being far-left, not all, which is why I specified 'radically anti-nationalist'. I should've specified in my wording, apologies for the confusion.

You yourself are doing a false equivalence by claiming that libertarian socialism is much more detatched from the centre than national conservatism 'because it rejects the state and capitalism', which of course it does; leftism is definitionally opposed to hierarchy, including the state and capitalism. Rightism on the otherhand, supports the opposite; conserving or promoting hierarchy, including the state and capitalism, and additionally, even the most extreme forms of rightism, like Nazïsm, don't oppose the state and capitalism. Libertarian socialism is to the left of forms of socialism which are merely left-wing, such as democratic socialism, and is very closely associated with anarchism, which is the most far-left ideology. The status of Libertarian socialism doesn't really matter, the point is that the actual equivalent of saying socdem is far-left, is saying that libertarian conservatism is far-right, and that your argument of saying that it's like saying socdem is far-left is a strawman argument. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Well anyway, the point of this discussion is whether national conservatism as a whole can be classified or not as "far-right", the classification of National Rally. The fact that some national conservative parties are classified as "far-right" can not be used to classify national conservatism as a whole as "far-right", because that would be WP:SYNTH.

Sure there can be overlaps within the political spectrum, for example, some positions within the center-right can be more skewed towards right-wing or center, making distinction between "center-shifted center-right" and "right-shifted center-right". I don't think my logic is based on not recognizing the possibility of overlap between political positions. Sure, the national conservatism is within more right-wing side of the right-wing itself, while for example, cultural conservatism is more centrist side of the right-wing proper compared to national conservatism. But in order to move national conservatism from right-wing proper to far-right, there needs to be clearly demonstrated the more close affinity between national conservatism and other political currents classified as far-right (for example, fascism) rather than right-wing (for example, cultural conservatism). I am not saying that only fascism is far-right, other political currents can also be considered as far-right, but if we move national conservatism in that bracket, there needs to be clear affinity demonstrated between national conservatism and other far-right currents, like fascism and national socialsm for example. In my opinion, national conservatism is element of both fascism and national socialism, but both of these add many new elements which makes a clear gap between tham and national conservatism proper (fascism adds "total state", national socialism - führerprinzip, for example). National conservatism is much closer to cultural conservatism than to fascism. And only "national-" part can not make national conservatism "far-right" because nationalism is not per se far-right.

On sources, only those sources can be considered as valid for this discussion which clearly say that national-conservatism is far-right or right-wing, not the sources that classify some national conservatism parties as far-right, because that would be WP:SYNTH. Some national conservative parties like Law and Justice are classified as right-wing on Wiki pages (which is based on RS), while others like you mentioned National Rally is classified as "far-right" in Wiki, while Fidesz is classified as "right-wign to far-right". Deducing anything from this to classify national conservatism as a whole would be WP:SYNTH.

No, not all kinds of leftism reject capitalism and state. Social democracy, which as you said is center-left (and center-left is still part of broad left-wing, just like center-right is part of broad right), does not rejects neither capitalism nor state. Moreover, for example Marxism-Leninism does not rejects state, while it argues for an ultimate "withering away of the state" as other currents of Marxism, it also argues that state must be used as an instrument in class struggle, both Lenin and Stalin (both part of broad left-wing) argued that "intensification of the class struggle under socialism" would require a strong state to challenge the "class enemies". Another example can be China, which implemented capitalist market reforms, but justified this purely through a Marxist perspective of developing produciting capabilites of China through capitalism before transitioning to socialism and later communism. While some call this "revisionism", it is still true that even Lenin implemented New Economic Policy in 1920s within Marxist-Leninist ideological framework. Therefore, saying that leftism is definitionally opposed to capitalism and state would not be correct.

While leftism can be said to be broadly critical of capitalism and state, the more intense the rejection of capitalism and state is, the more left-wing the position can be classified (although the left is not always critical of state as social democracy and many other left-wing currents are not critical of the state but on the other hand support a robust welfare state, but more rejection of state would still make the position to be more detached from center and skewed further from it, further to the left, as even Marxism-Leninism ultimately argues for "withering away of state").

Rightism is not always supportive of capitalism and state. The further one goes to right the more rejection of "bourgeois values" can be found in favor of aristocratic virtues, for example, Julius Evola, who even criticised fascism on this account. Moreover, right-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism reject state and are often considered as right-wing. Nivzaq (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nivzaq No, to move national conservatism to far-right requires reliable soruces saying such, nothing else, no original research just sources.

You claim to accept that there are non-fascist far-right, so I ask: which ideologies? The two you provided of fascism and naziism are both fascist.

The parts of the word "national conservatism" dont make it far-right, the values of the ideology itself does.

Centre-left is not fully left wing, it's left leaning centrism. Leftism is defined as "The range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, in opposition to social hierachy.", fyi.

That argument is just a critique of marxism-leninism as not being truely leftist, which, sure? I dont see the relevance though.

China can hardly be classified as leftist in the modern era, it's a free market capitalist system where businesses are subservient to the state.

Support for the "withering away of the state" is the belief that the state is bad and should be abolished, but that a sudden abolition of it would be infeasible or harmful, and so it should be abolishe₫ gradually.

Rejection of "bourgeois values" is evidence of it opposing capitalism, as from wikipedia page on bourgeoisie: Bourgeois values are dependent on rationalism, which began with the economic sphere and moves into every sphere of life which is formulated by Max Weber. The beginning of rationalism is commonly called the Age of Reason. Much like the Marxist critics of that period, Weber was concerned with the growing ability of large corporations and nations to increase their power and reach throughout the world.

Those only nominally rejects the state, if at all. A Socialist Trans Girl 23:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

To be charitable, those are not common conclusions, and I see more factual accuracy in the analysis made by Nivzaq.-- Autospark (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Autospark Sorry I don't understand. What are you saying is not a common conclusion? A Socialist Trans Girl 06:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it helps but Franz von Papen is referred to as such in the lede of his article.Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have seen some sources about Von Paper use the term, but none of them explained what it meant. TFD (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Another historical politician I found to be commonly referred to as national(-)conservative, would be Alfredo Covelli alongside his party. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Definitely don't support the bold change by A Socialist Trans Girl. I came to this article from Richard Seddon (which has a citation for the term from 1988) and would probably remove the wikilink if it had the removed definition. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am relieved by the fact that more users are explaining how national conservatism is not nationalism per se, neither national conservatism nor nationalism are necessarily far-right, that national conservatism is not necessarily grounded in neo-fascism or racism and so on. I was particularly convinced by some of User:Nivzaq's comments. I was asked to give an example of a national-conservative that is not far-right and that has no neo-fascist roots. Well, the two most notable and successful national-conservative parties in Europe, Poland's PiS and Hungary's Fidesz, while being strongly conservative and at times nationalist, are not far-right, are are quite diverse lot, have nothing to do with racism per se and have no fascist roots. Just to begin with! --Checco (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has claimed that all national conservatives have their roots in nazism and fascism. The reason the term far right came to replace the term neo-fascist in the 1980s was the emergence of extremist parties that had no ties to historical fascism.

The parties you say are not far right are in fact far right. See for example an article in Politico: "Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán and his far-right Fidesz party are forming a new political alliance with Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ) and the Czech Action of Dissatisfied Citizens (ANO) Movement, with hopes of becoming a new group in the European Parliament."[6]

Of course one of the reasons that far right parties in Eastern Europe mostly have no connection with historical fascism is that most political parties were outlawed until 1989. TFD (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, national conservatism is not necessarily grounded in fascism, because national conservatism is much older than fascism (or "neo-fascism") and can not be so, it can only work in opposite way but not vice versa. Nivzaq (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It isn't older than fascism and I could only find one party listed in the article that pre-dates fascism. Who were these pre-fascist national conservatives? TFD (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We have a source in the body about how NatCon wants to disassociate itself from fascism. The fact that some far-right parties describe themselves as NatCon doesn't necessarily mean that NatCon is far-right. The majority of RS does not state that NatCon is a fascist or far-right ideology. If we have a RS that specifically states that many NatCon parties are also far-right, I wouldn't be opposed to add this mention in the article. It may be that far-right parties use NatCon as a euphemism, but we would need a source that specifically states this to make that claim. However, to state this without a source would be original research and synthesis. BootsED (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED Well does the majority of RS describe NatCon as right-wing as opposed to far-right? A Socialist Trans Girl 07:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been a while since I edited this page but yes, it is definitely a right-wing ideology. I don't think that's in doubt. BootsED (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC) BootsED (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED, of course, but I mean right wing as opposed to far-right, i.e, situared between centre-right and far-right. A Socialist Trans Girl 11:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Being asked for national conservative parties that pre-date fascism: Both the German Conservative Party and the Free Conservative Party in the German Empire (around 1900, long before the emergence of fascism) would be categorised as national conservative parties by modern standards. At the time, the label was not used as it was then normal and self-evident, at least in Germany, that conservatives would also be (sometimes very) nationalistic. It was needless to stress that they were national conservatives. Parts of the German resistance against Nazism, the likes of Claus von Stauffenberg and Goerdeler, are also labeled as national-conservative by historians (cf. Hans Mommsen, 1991, The Political Legacy of the German Resistance: A Historiographical Critique, pp. 152–160).

In describing political parties in Europe, the label "national-conservative" has become more prevalent after World War II and during the process of European integration, as mainstream conservative parties in many (Western) European countries have become less nationalist and more pro-European, pro-globalisation as well as culturally more liberal, prompting conservatives who opposed the delegation of national sovereignty to EU institutions, immigration and multiculturalism to leave the main centre-right parties in some cases. Thus it became necessary to label national conservatives in order to distinguish them from the mainstream of pro-European, liberal conservatives.

An exemplary case is the Movement for France, created in 1994 by former members of the mainstream centre-right parties who opposed the Maastricht Treaty, as well as the similar Rally for France, founded in 1999 after the Treaty of Amsterdam. Neither had anything to do with fascism. On the other hand there were also former (neo-)fascists and right-wing extremists who toned down their ideology in order to overcome their isolation and appeal to mainstream voter groups, redefining themselves as national-conservatives, as in the case of the Italian National Alliance.

National conservatism was also prevalent in the post-communist countries of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, typically represented by parties emerging from the anti-communist opposition and civil rights groups, that were—after the experience of Soviet domination—often more nationally-minded and less culturally liberal than the centre-right parties in Western Europe, e.g. Polish Law and Justice, Hungarian Democratic Forum, Union of Democratic Forces (Bulgaria), Latvian National Independence Movement etc. These also had no connection with fascism at all.

Parties of these different lines of origin gathered in the late-1990s and 2000s in the Union for Europe of the Nations/Alliance for Europe of the Nations. This outlines the meaning of national conservatism in European politics and political science literature in the last decades. Therefore I support keeping the intro of the article as it is. I do not know about the more recent use of "national conservatism" in North American media, it may be different from the European use. But in that case we would need a disambiguation between different concepts using the same name and not replace or change the content of this article which has since its creation in 2005 focused on a certain political field in Europe. --RJFF (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@User:RJFF: Completely agree! I hope you can add the content of your comment or most of it to the article. --Checco (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@RJFF I'm sorry but I don't see the relation to the discussion. I don't think anyone is (im not at least) saying national conservatism is fascism or inherently fascist. Could you please explain the relation to the discussion? Maybe I'm not getting something.

I'm very sorry for the late reply. A Socialist Trans Girl 23:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It' original research because you are grouping ideologies that meet your definition rather than using a reliable source that does that.

My reading of Mommsen's reference to "Hitler's national-conservative allies" is to the right-wing coalition that was made up of conservatives AND nationalists. Before it was merged into the Nazi Party, they would have belonged to the German National People's Party, which was itself a merger of the German Conservative Party, the Free Conservative Party, the German Fatherland Party, the German People's Party, the Christian Social Party, and the National Liberal Party.

Bismarck's ideology could be called "national conservatism" because he was a conservative and believed that Germans should be united in one state that should foster German identity. That contrasted with the traditional conservative view of the state where citizenship was based on allegiance, rather than ethnicity.

But what source says that Bismarck, the officers who tried to overthrow Hitler, fascists and today's far right have the same ideology?

I accept by the way that since this article was created, a group of people have begun to call themselves national conservatives and have formed organizations. That should be the topic of this article. TFD (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

"and believed that Germans should be united in one state that should foster German identity." Isn't that Pan-Germanism, one of the attempts to unify Germany?Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It is, although it's important to distinguish the 19th century version from the 20th century one. (See Merriam-Webster[7]) TFD (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick mhm! and pan-germanism is nationalist :3 "Pan-Germanism is a pan-nationalist political idea." A Socialist Trans Girl 06:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@RJFF – fully and wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion.-- Autospark (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Definition (cont.)

Since the above discussion began, a note has been added to the article to say that the definition is under discussion.

Could anyone provide a reliable source that provides definitions?

Note that while all ideologies have multiple definitions, reliable sources are able to summarize the key features of agreement. TFD (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There are already four good sources. Indeed, that note could be removed, in my view. --Checco (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Checco Could you please link said soures? A Socialist Trans Girl 08:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

They are here:

1. ANDREW., HEYWOOD (2018). ESSENTIALS OF POLITICAL IDEAS : for a level. [S.l.]: PALGRAVE. ISBN 978-1137611673. OCLC 1005867754.

2. Berkowitz, Peter, ed. (2004). Varieties of conservatism in America. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0817945725. OCLC 839305105.

3. Dahms, Harry F., ed. (7 November 2014). Mediations of social life in the 21st century. Bingle, UK. ISBN 9781784412227. OCLC 896728569.

4, https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/national-conservatism

I was hoping for something new and better, but lets examine each of them. inidentally, sources are supposed to have page nos.

TFD (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Where for example in the second source does it mention national conservatism? And why are we using a book about the varieties of American conservatism? It acknowledge's U.S. conservatism is distinct. TFD (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)