Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Muhafazakârlık" in Turkish language version.
National conservatism -inpublisher:icon.
militant atheism was incompatible with conservatism
In addition, conservative Christians often endorsed far-right regimes as the lesser of two evils, especially when confronted with militant atheism in the USSR.
If anything the reverse is true: moral conservatives continue to oppose secular liberals on a wide range of issues.
Little of that, though fascinating, would have won Chateaubriand a place in the story of conservatism had he not he passed down to it a repertoire of disavowal for the "empty world" of liberal modernity and a counterpart trust in the "full heart" of faith and loyalty. Chateaubriand was a Romantic among conservatism's anti-rationalist forerunners.
Less well-known thinkers who influenced later German conservatives were against revolution from the outset . . . Müller's hopes for preserving Germany's legally privileged classes, its old "estates," and restoring an imagined premodern unity struck Gentz as out of touch . . . The Revolution took a wrong turn, left history's "rational" march for freedom, and slipped into violent unreason. The Terror, on that understanding, was a contingent horror, as a little part of intelligible human history, Hegel wrote, as "chopping the head off a cabbage." . . . After his death, Hegel's heritage divided like the French assembly into right and left.
Gentz did not mock the Declaration of the Rights of Man in the satirical manner of Justus Möser (1720–94), the north-Saxon critic of market society and Enlightenment princely reform. Nor did Gentz fault the declaration, as Burke had done, for misunderstanding the character of rights. Gentz instead subjected the declaration to an article-by-article critique (1793) for errors of drafting and logic
regard, Burke was more open. In politics, he allowed for faction, argument, and disagreement. He spoke loudly against disrupters who sought to leap out of the frame of common assumptions that made argument possible. . . Maistre, by contrast, wanted from political authority and obedience. His anti-rationalist legacy passed to authoritarian, illiberal conservatism.
Whether the rules of society came from a divine source, as Maistre insisted, or from custom, as Burke held
It was plain to Burke that, once freed from custom and good sense, people were capable of the worst follies and crimes. Maistre thought the same once people were freed from God and his earthly ministers..
Maistre's and Burke's ideas ran side by side into the tradition of conservative thought that was later labelled anti-rationalist. They did not merge.
For both, mistaken liberty led morally to bewilderment, politically to revolution, breakdown, and counterrevolution.
Neither Burke nor Maistre believed that people in general were capable of self-government, though for different reasons.
Maistre took a bleak view of unregenerate humanity. It could never be relied on to keep the rules and it needed harsh discipline and submissive faith together with the threat of swift punishment. . . .The trouble with trusting people to govern themselves lay for Burke not in their inability to keep rules but in their incapacity to make rules.
