Today's Republicans are not "conservatives".

[Trebuchet]

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.

What are these clowns "preserving"? Mostly they're just tearing down instutions like the US Constitution, and our whole system and institutions of government. Democracy? Pah! They hate it.
All they are for is ancient evils like racism and authoritarianism.

[The Great Zaganza]

Well, conservatism has always been a polite way of saying Reactionary.

[sackett]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Well, conservatism has always been a polite way of saying Reactionary.

except for some of us (wha, me?), who pronounce conservative

STINKING RIGHT-WING ******* MUNCHER.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Well, conservatism has always been a polite way of saying Reactionary.

Reactionary has always been a rude attempt to poison the well of a good thing.

The only thing worse in politics than a progressive who's actually progressive is a conservative who isn't actually conservative.

What's pitched as progress towards the better is often just as reactionary and ill-considered as what's pitched as conservation of what is good.

[dirtywick]

yeah progressives are the ones ******* things up. right.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Reactionary has always been a rude attempt to poison the well of a good thing.

The only thing worse in politics than a progressive who's actually progressive is a conservative who isn't actually conservative.

What's pitched as progress towards the better is often just as reactionary and ill-considered as what's pitched as conservation of what is good.

Progress is bad, no matter which side promulgates it. Got it.

Whatever conservatism is or has traditionally defined, today's American 'Conservative' ain't it. Point of the topic.

I'll concede that some fraction of Republicans have not too radically strayed too quickly from the conservative path. But unholy hell, the face put forth by the 'conservative' institution in less than a decade has been a head-spinning about-face, a precipitous descent into madness. It's now Regressivism. Stay put, or perhaps even advance *gasp* cautiously? Hell no! Go back! Waaaay back!

[sackett]

Glad to see the word "regressivism" in use. My gf used it 'tother day, and we weren't sure that she hadn't coined it. Maybe she did, and likely she's one of many.

[sackett]

Odd, the way rightie tighties think that they've turned the words progressive and progessivism into pejoratives.

If you asked one of them for definitions of those words, he'd come out spluttering and harrumphing, I think.

Wonder how we could test that?

[thaiboxerken]

They are preserving White Supremacy, which has a long history of traditional institutions, customs, and values.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by sackett

Odd, the way rightie tighties think that they've turned the words progressive and progessivism into pejoratives.

If you asked one of them for definitions of those words, he'd come out spluttering and harrumphing, I think.

Wonder how we could test that?

"Democracy" is another thing they don't like.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

From Wikipedia:
Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.

What are these clowns "preserving"? Mostly they're just tearing down instutions like the US Constitution, and our whole system and institutions of government. Democracy? Pah! They hate it.
All they are for is ancient evils like racism and authoritarianism.

Keep in mind that there are multiple definitions of "conservative".

From a google dictionary search:
1, a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values.
2.a person favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.

Decades ago there might have been more overlap between the definitions. Over time (as more and more social changes became the norm) they might have become more distinct as 'liberal' policies became the norm. But I do think the second definition (a greater emphasis on free enterprise and private ownership) can still apply.

[ahhell]

To take it seriously, the MAGA crowd is not conservative. There are a few conservatives left in the GOP but not many, Mitt Romney is fairly described as conservative. The folks at the Dispatch are still conservative but I don't think many call themselves republicans anymore.

The MAGA crowd is for an industrial policy that would make Bernie proud and foriegn policy that would make any peacnik happy.

[Venom]

From the counter-Enlightenment perspective, most so-called conservatives before Trump have been conservative liberals. They believe in the basic principles of liberalism at the end of the day.

Capital C Conservatives may not be held to the same standards. They may not even believe in democracy or human rights as principles. In the NYT article about Trump allies' 2025 Master Plan one of his ex-staffers said that the executive branch was conceived of by liberals so it needs an overhaul. People responded it's not about conservative or liberal, but I don't find anything wrong with the claim. Some people living here just want to turn this whole American experiment around and start from scratch. Some do want a strong leader, closed borders, reduced protections from prosecution (or persecution).

I am convinced a large chunk of MAGA is ready to go down that road.

[Donal]

One thing I've noticed about the "traditional ideas and values" espoused by contemporary conservatives is that they are fairy tales. This idea about how the Founders made a Christian nation and we were always strong and united in a Christian faith is a modern fabrication. While the majority of Americans identified as Christians, that also meant a lot of different things. and generally, the super right-wing groups tended to stay to themselves in their own communities. In fact, the Second great Awakening, back to which the modern evangelical movement can trace its roots, happened because its adherents believed the Founders were too secular and wanted to turn the US into a Christian nation (and even that is a simplification).

That goes for things like gun rights and "traditional families".

Most of what conservatives today believe is a "traditional American value" is really a refute of the various Civil Rights movements of the 50s and on. Even Originalism, which seems to dominate conservative political theory these days, was just a fringe idea relegated to John Birch Society meetings until the 1970s.

[TragicMonkey]

All this "conservative" and "liberal" stuff is just PR labels. What really grinds my gears is that the Republican Party today isn't even Republican because no true Republican would be okay with Russian imperialism even in theory, and certainly not after it started actually invading other countries. Forget Jesus, forget abortion, forget the economy: the ******* Russians are invading their neighbors again and it's an argument over whether we help the fight against them? Did people forget the entire 20th century already?!

[Venom]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

All this "conservative" and "liberal" stuff is just PR labels. What really grinds my gears is that the Republican Party today isn't even Republican because no true Republican would be okay with Russian imperialism even in theory, and certainly not after it started actually invading other countries. Forget Jesus, forget abortion, forget the economy: the ******* Russians are invading their neighbors again and it's an argument over whether we help the fight against them? Did people forget the entire 20th century already?!

This. Whatever they want to call themselves, they are mostly RINOs now.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

All this "conservative" and "liberal" stuff is just PR labels. What really grinds my gears is that the Republican Party today isn't even Republican because no true Republican would be okay with Russian imperialism even in theory, and certainly not after it started actually invading other countries. Forget Jesus, forget abortion, forget the economy: the ******* Russians are invading their neighbors again and it's an argument over whether we help the fight against them? Did people forget the entire 20th century already?!

This. Whatever they want to call themselves, they are mostly RINOs now.

[Fidelio]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

All this "conservative" and "liberal" stuff is just PR labels. What really grinds my gears is that the Republican Party today isn't even Republican because no true Republican would be okay with Russian imperialism even in theory, and certainly not after it started actually invading other countries. Forget Jesus, forget abortion, forget the economy: the ******* Russians are invading their neighbors again and it's an argument over whether we help the fight against them? Did people forget the entire 20th century already?!

And the monkey curses...well said sir.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

yeah progressives are the ones ******* things up. right.

There are real, ethical, philosophical progressives and conservatives in this world. They're not perfect, so sometimes they chump things up.

There's also reactionaries chumping things up in the name of "progress". And there's also reactionaries chumping things up in the name of "tradition".

Identifying as progressive doesn't make you virtuous.

[dirtywick]

let me know when these ethical conservatives start showing up to stuff

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

let me know when these ethical conservatives start showing up to stuff

Here I am.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Forget Jesus, forget abortion, forget the economy: the ******* Russians are invading their neighbors again and it's an argument over whether we help the fight against them? Did people forget the entire 20th century already?!

You're forgetting something. The only reason 'conservatives' opposed Russia was communism. They were afraid it would take hold and they would lose all their wealth. Dictators invading far away countries they had no problem with, so long as it didn't affect their investments.

And perhaps you are forgetting the 20th century. Stalin was our ally in WW2.

American Isolationism in the 1930s

Quote:

Isolationists advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics. Although the United States took measures to avoid political and military conflicts across the oceans, it continued to expand economically and protect its interests in Latin America...

The isolationists were a diverse group, including progressives and conservatives, business owners and peace activists, but because they faced no consistent, organized opposition from internationalists, their ideology triumphed time and again...

Even the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 did not suddenly diffuse popular desire to avoid international entanglements. Instead, public opinion shifted from favoring complete neutrality to supporting limited U.S. aid to the Allies short of actual intervention in the war. The surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 served to convince the majority of Americans that the United States should enter the war on the side of the Allies.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

You're forgetting something. The only reason 'conservatives' opposed Russia was communism. They were afraid it would take hold and they would lose all their wealth. Dictators invading far away countries they had no problem with, so long as it didn't affect their investments.

I disagree. Communism was just a red herring. Russia was for decades the only nation close to rivaling the US in power, that automatically and naturally set our interests against each other even if our economic systems and governmental philosophies had been identical. That they weren't just added fuel to the fire but it was always going to be there.

Quote:

And perhaps you are forgetting the 20th century. Stalin was our ally in WW2.

And the trust and love was there, right? Of course not: both countries were plotting against each other for the next conflict before they'd completed the one they were on. They knew what they were doing. Not only was each country using the other to get rid of Germany but they were also advancing their own interests along the way, and preparing for the next war. Which at the time plenty of people thought would be another hot one, not a long cold one.

Quote:

American Isolationism in the 1930s

Isolationism was never, ever going to work and it was never, ever going to happen. The US has always been tied into the global economy, from starting out as large resource-rich colonies of a globe-stretching empire to becoming an economic powerhouse in its own right. There were fortunes to be made, and resources to be got, and thus interests to further. Including stopping everybody else from building more empires on our doorstep.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

All this "conservative" and "liberal" stuff is just PR labels.

No, it isn't. Science tells us that conservative brains are fundamentally different from liberal brains. Conservatives fear change and the unknown, liberals embrace it. Everything else stems from that innate brain chemistry difference.

Of course those are the extremes. Most people are somewhere in between, both fearing and welcoming change. This tends to muddy the waters as people support different policies depending on their own fears and desires.

The other important brain chemistry difference is in empathy. Conservatives generally lack it, which explains a lot about their political and economic views. It is possible for a conservative to have empathy, but this is usually limited to the 'in' group.

You are right that many things are labeled "conservative" and "liberal" according what may appear to be arbitrary rules. But when you look closer there is always a good reason for it. For example you might think protecting the environment would be a strong conservative cause, but it generally isn't because conservatives are only interested in preserving what they cherish, which is their own wealth and happiness.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I disagree. Communism was just a red herring. Russia was for decades the only nation close to rivaling the US in power, that automatically and naturally set our interests against each other even if our economic systems and governmental philosophies had been identical. That they weren't just added fuel to the fire but it was always going to be there.

I'm afraid you are totally wrong there. Sure there will always be rivalry between superpowers, but ideology was the overwhelming reason for hating (or liking) communist countries. This is shown not just in the case of Russia but everywhere communism spread. The fear was very real and well deserved in many cases too - just ask anyone who fled a communist country as their wealth was being stripped from them.

And of course that same fear extends to anything that might be called 'socialism', the idea of making people give up some of their personal wealth for the greater good (never mind that they will also benefit from it).

I don't agree that powerful nations 'naturally set their interests against each other' either. The opportunities for increasing wealth via trade usually greatly outweigh any supposed loss of interests. This is the principle behind the theory of comparative advantage.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

I'm afraid you are totally wrong there. Sure there will always be rivalry between superpowers, but ideology was the overwhelming reason for hating (or liking) communist countries. This is shown not just in the case of Russia but everywhere communism spread. The fear was very real and well deserved in many cases too - just ask anyone who fled a communist country as their wealth was being stripped from them.

Again, I disagree. Communism only mattered because when it spread --or tried to spread-- it was being used by Russia --and later China-- as a means for them to further their own control over other nations. It's always nation against nation, no matter what the excuse du jour is. Limited resources means competition, and competition means struggle. Russia and the US --and later China-- rose out of WWII stronger and the former powers weaker. There was no other way it could play out.

If it were really about economic systems then Russia and China would have been friends for longer than I've been alive, and yet oddly enough they aren't. Despite rhetoric and the US actively supporting what China considers to be a rebel breakaway territory China and the US are still more friendly than either is with Russia!

Quote:

I don't agree that powerful nations 'naturally set their interests against each other' either. The opportunities for increasing wealth via trade usually greatly outweigh any supposed loss of interests. This is the principle behind the theory of comparative advantage.

I think that's a naive view. Friendly cooperation does happen...when groups of nations are teaming up to oppose other groups of nations. It would be nice if everybody played nicely and worked together but this particular kindergarten suffers from a dearth of crayons and there are not enough to share equally, so struggle occurs. It will stay like that until resources are no longer scarce.

[The Great Zaganza]

The Superpower Rivalry is a result of the Malthusian/Club of Rome/ Population Bomb mindset of infinite population growth in a world of finite resources.

But it's almost entirely bogus, and mostly used because people wanted careers - and you don't make much of a splash with " let's make things incrementally better".

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Here I am.

well, if you say so i'll believe you. got anything to add besides blaming the left?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Progress is bad, no matter which side promulgates it. Got it.

Whatever conservatism is or has traditionally defined, today's American 'Conservative' ain't it. Point of the topic.

I'll concede that some fraction of Republicans have not too radically strayed too quickly from the conservative path. But unholy hell, the face put forth by the 'conservative' institution in less than a decade has been a head-spinning about-face, a precipitous descent into madness. It's now Regressivism. Stay put, or perhaps even advance *gasp* cautiously? Hell no! Go back! Waaaay back!

Humans don't like change.

Quote:

"They think they want good government and justice for all, Vimes, yet what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today."

Governance is about managing change. Once change has happened i becomes the new normal.

The problem is we are living in the era of the greatest level of change, social, economic, technological et cetera, in human history. People are scared and the unscrupulous are using that fear for their own ends.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

"Democracy" is another thing they don't like.

They're fine with certain kinds of democracy, as long as the "right people" vote. Not women, coloureds, felons of 'those people'.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Here I am.

Pull the other one...it jingles

[The Great Zaganza]

Preventing or at least limiting the effects of Climate Change should be a Conservative Policy no-brainer - if there is one thing they should want to conserve, it is their own country, physically.

And yet, not even Abortion can top how much Republicans are against even admitting that Climate Change is real and needs urgent addressing.

So yeah, Conservatives are Reactionaries with no ideas of their own, just a knee-jerk "if I don't know it I don't want it."
And that's not enough as a basis for an Ideology.

[dirtywick]

see, here's the thing about it for me: conservatives were wrong about a lot. and i liked those guys back then, they talked tough and loved america. and as long as i've been alive, we've basically been running their game plan. especially in the last 20 years. we got the lower taxes, the money is in the hands of the job creators, we were tough on crime, we got the guns, we cut the programs, kept everything privatizing and privatized some more. not that any of that came without sacrificing some civil rights, which we did in the name of prosperity.

i was wrong above, they weren't wrong, now i know they just straight up lied. but regardless, things aren't better. so, if you think i'm going to listen to their warnings about anything, think again.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

see, here's the thing about it for me: conservatives were wrong about a lot. and i liked those guys back then, they talked tough and loved america. and as long as i've been alive, we've basically been running their game plan. especially in the last 20 years. we got the lower taxes, the money is in the hands of the job creators, we were tough on crime, we got the guns, we cut the programs, kept everything privatizing and privatized some more. not that any of that came without sacrificing some civil rights, which we did in the name of prosperity.

i was wrong above, they weren't wrong, now i know they just straight up lied. but regardless, things aren't better. so, if you think i'm going to listen to their warnings about anything, think again.

how do you know they are wrong until taxes for the rich are in the negative percentages?

[Mongrel]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Preventing or at least limiting the effects of Climate Change should be a Conservative Policy no-brainer - if there is one thing they should want to conserve, it is their own country, physically.

I think a lot of the problem is that what they want to conserve is a very specific image of American life, that of the 50s.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Mongrel

I think a lot of the problem is that what they want to conserve is a very specific image of American life, that of the 50s.

.. part of which is Farm Life, which is toast in many parts of the Country because of climate change.

No, the problem is that they don't care one bit if it doesn't make money&power in the very short term.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

.. part of which is Farm Life, which is toast in many parts of the Country because of climate change.

and the rampant deregulation that led to consolidation of the food production industry, allowing huge conglomerates to buy most of the farmland in the US.

Quote:

No, the problem is that they don't care one bit if it doesn't make money&power in the very short term.

Hey now, don't short change them. They are also motivated by spite.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Donal

and the rampant deregulation that led to consolidation of the food production industry, allowing huge conglomerates to buy most of the farmland in the US.



Hey now, don't short change them. They are also motivated by spite.

This to me seems to be the major change in "conservatives" over the last decade or so.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Mongrel

I think a lot of the problem is that what they want to conserve is a very specific image of American life, that of the 50s.

It's not even an accurate image of the 1950s, it's a nostalgia-infused distorted mythological version of the 1950s. Mostly promulgated by people who were children at that time and thus weren't even aware of the negative aspects. I think they confuse their TV version of that era with reality.

[JoeMorgue]

I can't remember the last Republican I encountered who wasn't a troll. And I don't mean that as an insult but in a very literal "They only care about getting an emotional reaction out of other people by acting in a way they know will upset them" sense of the term.