I’m curious how you came to your conclusions, too, because the point of conservatism, to me, is to prevent destruction.
I’ve been a environmental conservationist my whole life. As I became an adult and aware of politics, I came to realize that just as the natural environment requires protection against the selfishness, greed, and short-sightedness of humanity, so too do all the social and political systems that take decades or centuries to build but only years or months to destroy (as we’ve seen under the current administration).
It’s been said many times that at the heart of all conservatism is fear. That’s not a very generous way to put it, but neither is it inaccurate. Fear of loss, fear of risk, fear of change. Conservatism holds that if things are pretty good, most changes are likely to make things worse and not better, and so change is to be treated with suspicion, and people pushing for it doubly so, since altruism is rare.
A bicycle needs both pedals and brakes. We need to move forward, but not recklessly. Before a change is made, the case needs to be argued as to why it is necessary, what it will cost (and there’s always a cost), how to ensure it actually achieves what it sets out to achieve, and how it might be misused in the future. In other words, before a change can be made in the name of Progress, it needs to be demonstrated that the change actually is Progress. To progressives, this feels like standing in the way of Progress. To a conservative, this is safeguarding Progress, the Progress previous generations achieved, from changes that, again, are more likely to be bad than good.
In other words, before a change can be made in the name of Progress, it needs to be demonstrated that the change actually is Progress. To progressives, this feels like standing in the way of Progress. To a conservative, this is safeguarding Progress, the Progress previous generations achieved, from changes that, again, are more likely to be bad than good.
That’s not what we see with Conservatism with, and is much more in line with 20th century Progressivism (i.e. leveraging empirical knowledge to moderate political change).
Conservativism in practice, as I’ve seen it almost invariably, says new is always bad, traditional is always good. It’s a bicycle that’s all brakes and no pedals.
Sometimes a system that took centuries to build, like chattel slavery, should be destroyed in months or years, and inaction does more bad than good. Progressivism took off after the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution because empirical data showed that traditional structures were ill-suited for the quickly evolving world.
Conservativism in the modern era is akin to trying to fill your gas tank with oats and hay. Cars aren’t horses, and the longer you drag your feet in updating your policies, the more damage you’re going to do to your engine.
Conservatism holds that if things are pretty good, most changes are likely to make things worse and not better
The problem is that things aren’t pretty good for most people. The system is in shambles and most suggested changes probably would make things better for everyone who isn’t a millionaire.
I think that, perhaps, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the generally accepted (speaking for the US here) definition of what the conservative political ideology actually is. I say that with all due respect.
Modern conservatives do not care about conserving the environment. Literally the opposite.
I know what the generally accepted definition is, I just don’t accept it. Regressives don’t have a right to call themselves conservative and I won’t stop calling them out on it.
You’re not wrong, though. But even thirty years would be enough to make a change, perhaps… or maybe it seems that way to me because that’s when I started paying attention.
Friggen Tea Party bullshit was when it really started sliding downhill fast, IMO.
Just a weird hill to die on… Doesn’t seem worth it, even if it was possible to accomplish (which I do not believe it is). Seems like you’d not want to label yourself with such a universally tainted title. I’m certain that there are people out there with similar positions as you who understand they’re not conseratives, and have another word for it. You should find those people.
Otherwise everyone will just assume you’re a piece of shit when you tell them you’re a conservative. And rightfully so.
The fact that you’re even here having an honest discussion about politics means you’re not a conservative.
But conservatives have always been regressive in the US.
The things they were trying to conserve were slavery, segregation, women having no rights, companies being able to destroy the environment and abuse workers, etc.
Conservatives have always been regressive, period. Their entire philosophy emerged as a reaction to the “excesses” of the French Revolution. The forward “movement” (if you want to call it that) was from the “divine right of kings” to the “divine right of lords” (chosen by the market).
To quote the infinitely quotable (Wilhout, from the top rope…with a fucking blog comment):
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
The whole “left vs right” divide itself originates from this:
I understand the desire to take the positive aspects of a word, apply them to your political stance, and pretend that you’re part of a movement. But it isn’t true. It reminds me of when lefties (often in a USA centric thread) describe themselves as “left libertarians”. All this crap does is confuse people and make you sound like a pedant.
If you think this is what conservative means and that’s what your politics are, you’re basically just politically homeless…and have been since you started calling yourself that.
I’m there. I vote Democratic but there’s basically no representation for my views to be found.
EDIT: Have you really thought through your political philosophy beyond pleasant sounding notions though? While “conserving the present” sounds nice, taken a bit further you’re basically talking about fighting the Buddhist notion that “no man steps into the same river twice”. Things change and if the government doesn’t change along with them it gets eaten alive. That’s partially, I would argue, what happened with technology in the last thirty years.
The problem with that is it limits the government’s ability to change in ways that have no correlate in industry or culture. This inevitably leads to the government being unable to respond to changes that have already occurred or are currently occurring, and in the case of change driven by industry (i.e., most societal change in the US) that invariably leads to regulatory capture.
You built up your very own definition of the word while ignoring what any political conservative movement in the world actually does. You listened to someone’s argument on the concept of a definition, an idea that was stapled to a word in your head, without actually looking at factual reality. What you describe is simply not what any conservative party anywhere does.
Starting with the idea that you are conserving something that runs well and not spending resource on frivolous nonsense that doesn’t work - just look at everything a conservative party actually funds while blocking money for anything remotely humanitarian because they claim it doesn’t work, or based on the slightest disagreement about a boundary, while being themselves the very reason it doesn’t work.
Look at what is actually protected. And at who isn’t, based on not giving too much to someone you don’t think deserves it. Do those who already have all that deserve it?
Starting with your environmental conservationist sensibility and deducing (edit: typo) that you want to be a conservative is already super wild, it’s antinomic. You think you protect something from greed and selfishness, but those who who block progress are the selfish ones who hoard everything out of greed, using “this doesn’t deserve it” or “you can’t prove this works” as an excuse to keep everything. You are not safeguarding anything, and there’s zero place for environmental protection in any conservative party anywhere.
What would you call someone with the beliefs that they’ve mentioned then? I agree, I don’t know of a current “conservative” political group/party that follows that idea anymore but what word better explains how they actually want things?
In the US? … Obama? (In a very big nutshell) as long as you don’t oppose stuff like the Dreamers and Obamacare (which you shouldn’t under this definition)
By the way, I think this bit
Conservatism holds that if things are pretty good, most changes are likely to make things worse and not better
Is the biggest discrepancy in each person’s understanding. If things are good…for who? What if they’re not? If they are for 51% of people, what about the other 49%?
If you understand some stuff is good for you and some stuff is very bad for everyone else, do you block everything?
If only your situation changes and nothing else, do you switch parties?
I’m curious how you came to your conclusions, too, because the point of conservatism, to me, is to prevent destruction.
I’ve been a environmental conservationist my whole life. As I became an adult and aware of politics, I came to realize that just as the natural environment requires protection against the selfishness, greed, and short-sightedness of humanity, so too do all the social and political systems that take decades or centuries to build but only years or months to destroy (as we’ve seen under the current administration).
It’s been said many times that at the heart of all conservatism is fear. That’s not a very generous way to put it, but neither is it inaccurate. Fear of loss, fear of risk, fear of change. Conservatism holds that if things are pretty good, most changes are likely to make things worse and not better, and so change is to be treated with suspicion, and people pushing for it doubly so, since altruism is rare.
A bicycle needs both pedals and brakes. We need to move forward, but not recklessly. Before a change is made, the case needs to be argued as to why it is necessary, what it will cost (and there’s always a cost), how to ensure it actually achieves what it sets out to achieve, and how it might be misused in the future. In other words, before a change can be made in the name of Progress, it needs to be demonstrated that the change actually is Progress. To progressives, this feels like standing in the way of Progress. To a conservative, this is safeguarding Progress, the Progress previous generations achieved, from changes that, again, are more likely to be bad than good.
That’s not what we see with Conservatism with, and is much more in line with 20th century Progressivism (i.e. leveraging empirical knowledge to moderate political change).
Conservativism in practice, as I’ve seen it almost invariably, says new is always bad, traditional is always good. It’s a bicycle that’s all brakes and no pedals.
Sometimes a system that took centuries to build, like chattel slavery, should be destroyed in months or years, and inaction does more bad than good. Progressivism took off after the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution because empirical data showed that traditional structures were ill-suited for the quickly evolving world.
Conservativism in the modern era is akin to trying to fill your gas tank with oats and hay. Cars aren’t horses, and the longer you drag your feet in updating your policies, the more damage you’re going to do to your engine.
The problem is that things aren’t pretty good for most people. The system is in shambles and most suggested changes probably would make things better for everyone who isn’t a millionaire.
I think that, perhaps, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the generally accepted (speaking for the US here) definition of what the conservative political ideology actually is. I say that with all due respect.
Modern conservatives do not care about conserving the environment. Literally the opposite.
I know what the generally accepted definition is, I just don’t accept it. Regressives don’t have a right to call themselves conservative and I won’t stop calling them out on it.
You really don’t have to accept it in order for it to be our current reality.
What is the point of labels like this if they don’t signal what it is you believe, relatively accurately?
This is exactly why it’s necessary to push back on those who would twist it to mean something else.
I think you’re about 80 years too late for that. At least.
All battles are hopeless when no one fights them.
You’re not wrong, though. But even thirty years would be enough to make a change, perhaps… or maybe it seems that way to me because that’s when I started paying attention.
Friggen Tea Party bullshit was when it really started sliding downhill fast, IMO.
Just a weird hill to die on… Doesn’t seem worth it, even if it was possible to accomplish (which I do not believe it is). Seems like you’d not want to label yourself with such a universally tainted title. I’m certain that there are people out there with similar positions as you who understand they’re not conseratives, and have another word for it. You should find those people.
Otherwise everyone will just assume you’re a piece of shit when you tell them you’re a conservative. And rightfully so.
The fact that you’re even here having an honest discussion about politics means you’re not a conservative.
But conservatives have always been regressive in the US.
The things they were trying to conserve were slavery, segregation, women having no rights, companies being able to destroy the environment and abuse workers, etc.
Conservatives have always been regressive, period. Their entire philosophy emerged as a reaction to the “excesses” of the French Revolution. The forward “movement” (if you want to call it that) was from the “divine right of kings” to the “divine right of lords” (chosen by the market).
To quote the infinitely quotable (Wilhout, from the top rope…with a fucking blog comment):
The whole “left vs right” divide itself originates from this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum
I understand the desire to take the positive aspects of a word, apply them to your political stance, and pretend that you’re part of a movement. But it isn’t true. It reminds me of when lefties (often in a USA centric thread) describe themselves as “left libertarians”. All this crap does is confuse people and make you sound like a pedant.
If you think this is what conservative means and that’s what your politics are, you’re basically just politically homeless…and have been since you started calling yourself that.
This, at least, is correct.
Welcome to the club!
I’m there. I vote Democratic but there’s basically no representation for my views to be found.
EDIT: Have you really thought through your political philosophy beyond pleasant sounding notions though? While “conserving the present” sounds nice, taken a bit further you’re basically talking about fighting the Buddhist notion that “no man steps into the same river twice”. Things change and if the government doesn’t change along with them it gets eaten alive. That’s partially, I would argue, what happened with technology in the last thirty years.
The government needs to adapt, yes, but carefully. You can’t just run with the first or second option, that’s a recipe for regulatory capture.
It’s not “no change is good” but rather “most change isn’t good, so we need to test them until we find the best change”.
The problem with that is it limits the government’s ability to change in ways that have no correlate in industry or culture. This inevitably leads to the government being unable to respond to changes that have already occurred or are currently occurring, and in the case of change driven by industry (i.e., most societal change in the US) that invariably leads to regulatory capture.
You built up your very own definition of the word while ignoring what any political conservative movement in the world actually does. You listened to someone’s argument on the concept of a definition, an idea that was stapled to a word in your head, without actually looking at factual reality. What you describe is simply not what any conservative party anywhere does.
Starting with the idea that you are conserving something that runs well and not spending resource on frivolous nonsense that doesn’t work - just look at everything a conservative party actually funds while blocking money for anything remotely humanitarian because they claim it doesn’t work, or based on the slightest disagreement about a boundary, while being themselves the very reason it doesn’t work.
Look at what is actually protected. And at who isn’t, based on not giving too much to someone you don’t think deserves it. Do those who already have all that deserve it?
Starting with your environmental conservationist sensibility and deducing (edit: typo) that you want to be a conservative is already super wild, it’s antinomic. You think you protect something from greed and selfishness, but those who who block progress are the selfish ones who hoard everything out of greed, using “this doesn’t deserve it” or “you can’t prove this works” as an excuse to keep everything. You are not safeguarding anything, and there’s zero place for environmental protection in any conservative party anywhere.
What would you call someone with the beliefs that they’ve mentioned then? I agree, I don’t know of a current “conservative” political group/party that follows that idea anymore but what word better explains how they actually want things?
In the US? … Obama? (In a very big nutshell) as long as you don’t oppose stuff like the Dreamers and Obamacare (which you shouldn’t under this definition)
By the way, I think this bit
Is the biggest discrepancy in each person’s understanding. If things are good…for who? What if they’re not? If they are for 51% of people, what about the other 49%?
If you understand some stuff is good for you and some stuff is very bad for everyone else, do you block everything?
If only your situation changes and nothing else, do you switch parties?
I agree. This person is a conservative. The other “conservatives” are just fascists who inherited the label and it no longer fits.
The conservative party has never stood for what this person is ascribing to them.