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.
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.