Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAlexander, J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-08T09:35:23Z
dc.date.available2016-02-08T09:35:23Z
dc.date.issued2013en_US
dc.identifier.issn0017-257X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/20795
dc.description.abstractThis article is a study of the contradictions of conservatism. It shows that most modern writers since Oakeshott have defined conservatism in an abstract manner. Here I argue that their definition, although not wrong, is an incomplete definition which is only coherent because it is incomplete. It is only the first stage in understanding conservatism, which has to be understood also as a negation of rival ideologies and, further, as a political position which points to a tradition or truth outside itself and which can, in service of this tradition or truth, be radical. Since it is part of the standard definition of conservatism that it cannot be radical, this means conservatism, taken as a whole, contradicts itself. © The Author 2013.en_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.source.titleGovernment and Oppositionen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/gov.2013.4en_US
dc.titleThe contradictions of conservatismen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of Political Science and Public Administration
dc.citation.spage594en_US
dc.citation.epage615en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber48en_US
dc.citation.issueNumber4en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/gov.2013.4en_US
dc.publisherCambridge University Press


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record