/lit/ - Literature

forget the philosophy, if you want to stroke your conservative boner read some Willa Cather, you'll like it

There's no such thing. There's right-libertarian philosophy, which US conservatism appropriates sometimes to support a small state and free market capitalism (while ignoring the more liberal end of the philosophy and its critiques of conservatism), but US conservatism does not really have an articulated philosophical basis.

in contemporary discourse, "conservative" means a lot of things, for better or worse. so the best thing to do at the outset is to ask yourself what your core principles are, what things you value, even if they are contradictory or you're not sure how to systematically go about them. then you can decide what kinds of conservatism you want to look into, based on that.

at the outset you should also be aware that the entanglement of american conservatism with economic libertarianism is an historical accident and not necessary whatsoever. many conservatives are statists, many conservatives are protectionists, many conservatives are socialists, many conservatives have no stance on economics whatsoever because they think it's a badly-posed question that misses the truth of conservative thought (e.g., that society is about culture, not economics).

contemporary conservatism in america basically means reaganite neoconservatism, which is (arguably) straussian protectionist and schizophrenic. by no means do you have to read or like or care about them. that picture is a good example: d'souza is a neocon, and buckley was a paleocon with neocon tendencies, sitting together and very similar in some ways but very different in others.

tldr: don't confuse conservatism with an economic policy or stance. in fact, start from the assumption that 20th century economics is mostly a cult of prognosticators cum policy-makers

>>9819235
This post is an excellent summation of the state of play in conservatism. You may have to choose wisely.

I might add that there's also reactionary thought, which is so conservative it longs for a time before conservatism.

>>9819228
Are we in the 1950s or something?

OP, if you want to know about conservative philosophy read

>Kirk
>Weaver
>Chambers
>Burke
>Buckley
>Goldwater

There's a lot more, but that's a decent start. Read this first if you want a taste (http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/ten-conservative-principles))
but the fact that nobody recommended pic related, which is THE book that founded the modern conservative movement, shows that /lit/ is a pretty liberal board (or that the "conservatives" here don't read)

>>9819176
"Conservatism" is only that which fits within the current Overton window. If the Overton window moves further to the left (as it tends to do over time), "conservatism" goes left with it. It has no actual principles and never "conserves" a damn thing. It's a trap for dumb people.

>>9819324
That's hardly philosophy.

>>9819324
>Implying more than 10% of American conservatives ANYwhere read anything at all

>>9819369
Then how come Ronald Reagan was more liberal than modern conservatives? Everybody is always saying we're the most liberal we've ever benn. That's quite a paradox.

>>9819505
>Ronald Reagan was more liberal than modern conservatives?

Elucidate.

>>9819505
Economic policy shifts to the right, social values shift to the left. Best way to put it is we've become more liberal.

>>9819515
His policies were more liberal the the policies of the modern Republican party.

Listened to the audio book of Economics in One Lesson and it was godawful.