Template talk:Conservatism in Germany

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Conservatism Top‑importance This template is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Top This template has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This template has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany Low‑importance This template is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This template has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somone deleted Hegel and Mann from the list, although these intellectuals have exerted a powerful influence over Conservatism. The user told me to "take it to the Talk page". Very well. I will provide sources that qualify their representation.

In The History of European Conservative Thought (2019), an entire section of 5 pages are dedicated to Mann the conservative. He is noted as one of the most prominent conservative thinkers in Germany. It is true that he changed philosophy later in life, but that is also why I put a "early" in parenthesis. This should not be controversial; it is a standard convention on Wikipedia.

As for Hegel, his influence on conservative thinkers and politicians is powerful. The most prominent conservative philosopher of modern times, Roger Scruton, named Hegel his primarily influence. And one of the most prominent conservative politicians, Benjamin Disraeli, was influenced by Hegel when creating his one-nation-conservatism movement.

Especially Hegel's work Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1820), in which he presents his concept about Sittlichkeit, is thoroughly conservative in its belief in family values, civil society, constitutional monarchy, and authoritarian state.

The most prominent political scientists in my country Sweden all agree in giving Hegel a firm place in the conservative tradition: liberal Herbert Tingsten called him the greatest counter-revolutionary next to Burke,^[1] and marxist Sven-Eric Liedman said that Hegel only can be characterized as a political conservative and calls him the greatest conservative thinker.^[2] In Modern konservatism (2020), a large work on conservatism, Hegel is presented as the second most important thinker next to Burke and is dedicated an entire chapter on 40 pages. Hegel also influenced all the major conservative thinkers in Sweden: Christopher Jacob Boström, Erik Gustaf Geijer, Harald Hjärne, Rudolf Kjellén, etc.^[3] Trakking (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trakking I'm currently working on expanding the Constantin Fehrenbach article, mostly with translation from the German wiki. All of the quite liberal actions I noted will be included in the update, with no conservative stances to be found there or any other sources I'm aware of. I don't see that one statement in the current article, which is not supported by any detail in the source quoted, overrides the specifics I noted. There's also the point that with the possible exception of Stresemann, Fehrenbach was decidedly not in the same camp as the other Weimar era politicians in the conservatism template (Hugenberg, Papen, Schleicher).

I'd like you to reconsider your revert. GHStPaulMN (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There are other strands of conservatism that seem to fit Fehrenbach's profile—for example liberal conservatism, anti-extremist moderate conservatism, and anti-leftist versions of Christian democracy. Fehrenbach seems to be a classical conservative in the same vein of people like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Trakking (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This is outside my knowledge base, so I'll bow out at this point. Thanks. GHStPaulMN (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Biohistorian15: Hello, I readded the jurists among the intellectuals. There's a "Jurists" section on the US template, but that's because of the prominent status of the Supreme Court in the US. Indeed, some conservative scholars such as Peter Viereck have argued that the Supreme Court is the US substitute of a monarchy—a venerated institution beyond party politics. Constitutionalism has also played a more central role in the US than in Europe.

(Law is a right-wing dominated subject though, and one in which I myself had considered getting an education, so your rationale for adding it is valid.)

The "Commentator" section is a nice addition. Whereas the jurists also qualify as intellectuals, the same thing cannot necessarily be said about commentators, who should have a separate section. Trakking (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trakking. Interesting take. I'm not sure if this is entirely correct though. The "Grundgesetz" actually has about the same moral weight in Germany as does the US constitution. It is commonly invoked in political discourse of all varities.

This is not well-known to foreigners for some reason. I actually dislike how extreme this constitutionalism is, since e.g. new biotechnologies are now reflexively barred as violations of our first amendment; this one being some kind of Kantian/Christian axiom. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the elucidation. We may ought to keep it after all. I am just wondering what you think of these possible problems:

• Schmitt and Jünger are included in two lists at once.
• Some scholars such as von Savigny are not only jurists but also historians etc. and deserve representation among the intellectuals as well, which leads back to problem 1.

Trakking (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought them to be sufficiently notable... but then I also removed duplicate mentions from the politicians section, haha. Maybe we should just remove them here as well.

Your point about the historians is actually a very valid point I didn't consider. At the same time, I would only add such cases to intellectuals as well/instead if their scholarship had a firmly conservative grasp (consider e.g. Edward Gibbon). If it is mostly unrelated, this aspect might not be notable enough. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]