Political Ideology Thread: Conservatism

[ztejas 44114]

58 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Because the alignment of conservative to the contemporary right is an illusion/misrepresentation? 

 

51 minutes ago, G650 said:

Sometimes it is a misrepresentation, sometimes it isn't. Which is why I said before it would take and entire text book to dissect. For example Milton Friedman and Keynes both espoused extremely liberal economic viewpoints, yet listen to anyone talk today and they are ideological opposites.

 

The contemporary right isn't conservative at all fwiw. If you question this, then ask yourself a simple question. Is the right trying to maintain the generally accepted form of American political discourse and mechanics of the past century? Bipartisanship, civility, public welfare, global leadership? No? You say they are actively tearing all that down at a rapid pace? Surely you have them confused with the noted leftists the Bolsheviks.

 

As you can see they aren't being conservative about anything, they are actually radicals.

If I can chime in with an anecdotal example - there are probably more things policy-wise where I agree with Trump's stance over Biden's. But I didn't vote for Trump because I assign those things different weight and there is more that goes into being president than stances on policy - just like there is more to being a good conservative than blindly voting Republican all the time. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

8 hours ago, immamac said:

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, hierarchy, and authority, as established in respective cultures, as well as property rights.

Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump are apparently Conservatives

Donald Trump is a reactionary populist. He is not a conservative.

[Foosters 18225]

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.

[Michael Knight 13187]

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.

[quigley 1565]

5 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I think the discussion is supposed to be about ideology. Not party alignment. Libertarians are more extreme in pushing for a market completely free of regulation and absolute personal freedom - and I'm not sure I would consider either of those platforms part of traditional conservative rhetoric. You're kind of bastardizing what I wrote but I appreciate the response.

I agree about this being ideological. The values you're espousing are Libertarian. Conservatism is different.

Conservatism is about maintaining the status quo with incremental change.

It supports gun rights because they're part of the American tradition (at least the spaghetti Western version). Conservatism supports free market philosophy for the same reason (ignoring history also). It doesn't support accountability/responsibility for marijuana use because it isn't part of White American history.

Libertarianism focuses on rights/responsibilities and free markets for the sake of these individual principles.

In practice, the Republican Party has housed both strains of American political thought. Now, it's focused on preventing any meaningful change and reverting to a nostalgic past.

[cactusflinthead 27626]

Let's get one thing straight. William Buckley was an asshole.

That process of racial purgation was captured in the pages of conservatism’s foremost intellectual outlet: National Review. In April 1965, William F. Buckley Jr., who founded National Review as a journal of “respectable conservatism,” spoke to a police breakfast in New York. Buckley reportedly praised the Alabama police for their restraint at Selma. The episode sparked fierce press condemnation.

---

During the 1950s and 1960s, the editors at National Review steadfastly opposed the “ludicrously named” civil rights movement. Trained in political philosophy, the National Review editors adhered to an ancient distinction between civil and political rights while the “Negro revolt” blurred these rights together. Throughout, the editors maintained a self-deceptive innocence about racism that remains essential to conservatives’ self-image.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/05/conservatives-self-delusion-race/

 

 

[cactusflinthead 27626]

Incremental change my ass.

They don't want change ever. Unless it's to regress.

[quigley 1565]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Donald Trump is a reactionary populist. He is not a conservative.

He's a populist in the European tradition with his severe xenophobia. American populism has been more economic generally (Wallace would be an exception to this).

Populists in America want class rebellion, not race war.

He's definitely reactionary.

[hobbes2702 13351]

17 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Then conservatism exists only in texts that are unread by those that purport to believe it.

I don't give a damn about their words. The deeds are loud enough.

You’re not wrong at least in regards to anyone calling themselves a Republican and a conservative. I didn’t take this thread to be about party though. I took it to be about ideology. Just because the current “right” doesn’t practice true conservatism doesn’t change what conservatism is and is supposed to be.

[quigley 1565]

2 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Incremental change my ass.

They don't want change ever. Unless it's to regress.

1. Agree with Buckley being an ass.

2. Agree with incremental change as a fallacy.

I'm commenting on their propositions, not their practice. We agree that they don't live up to their word (see above).

[immamac 44199]

Yeah so what I'm learning quickly is that Conservatism is what is fundamentally wrong with America. People refusing to change and wanting to hold everyone to a moral standard that is completely fabricated by a ruling class.

So is the ultimate form of conservatism an Oligarchy?

[hobbes2702 13351]

4 minutes ago, quigley said:

1. Agree with Buckley being an ass.

2. Agree with incremental change as a fallacy.

I'm commenting on their propositions, not their practice. We agree that they don't live up to their word (see above).

Yup. Everyone seems to be missing the point of the discussion 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I love that phrase ‘self-deceptive innocence’ with respect to racism. On point. 

[cactusflinthead 27626]

Theory don't mean shit until it's put into practice. 

“If we want to try to understand where we are now, with the rise of Donald Trump and this sort of resurgent white nationalist authoritarianism, we have to understand stories like this one,” the author tells Scheer. :Because this is a story about, intellectually and politically, how the right came to make this deal with the devil of white supremacy. And that's very much where we are today. 

“Trump’s got a different style from Buckley, and Buckley didn't like Trump personally,” Buccola continues. “But it's hard to really differentiate that sort of populist politics that Buckley was promoting on questions of race, from what Donald Trump has done so successfully today.”

 

Trump didn't form in a laboratory vacuum. He is the fruit of years of feeding the resentment, fear, anger, and hate. Would we be here without Buckley giving cover to Atwater? Would Rove have attacked McCain's child in SC? 

Here's the thing. They don't give a damn about conservative principles. They never did. It's been about holding on to power. 

That's not new. Patricians despise plebians. It has not changed. 

Kill a mule,  buy another. 

Kill a n...r, hire another. 

But, the levee will be built.

THAT is conservative thought. 

[cactusflinthead 27626]

Just in case y'all forgot about Baldwin and Buckley debating, it's here at the link, source of the previous citation. 

https://www.kcrw.com/culture/shows/scheer-intelligence/There-is-no-Donald-Trump-without-William-Buckley

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

Yeah so what I'm learning quickly is that Conservatism is what is fundamentally wrong with America. People refusing to change and wanting to hold everyone to a moral standard that is completely fabricated by a ruling class.

So is the ultimate form of conservatism an Oligarchy?

Refusal to change and slow to change aren’t necessarily coming from the same place/viewpoint  though, are they? 

If you are talking in reality (perhaps like @cactusflinthead’s example) then I would say it’s the former. But in a general discussion sense, if the definition of conservative is a slow approach to change does (doesn’t) it still indicate that there is a willingness to accept change? I would say that is a positive. 

 

[cactusflinthead 27626]

Because it's relevant 

If you say you are a staunch defender of the rule of law, that you are devoted to ending systematic racism, that you are an advocate of legal immigration, that you believe in objective reality (including climate change science) and that you think illiberal regimes such as Russia are our greatest foreign threat, the party of Trump will lash out at you. They will accuse you of Trump derangement syndrome and dub you a “fake” conservative. Well, they have a point. Because conservatives no longer seem to champion any of those positions (or free trade or American international leadership or NATO), it is hard to say I fit in any longer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/17/why-i-dropped-conservative-my-twitter-profile/

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

15 minutes ago, immamac said:

So is the ultimate form of conservatism an Oligarchy?

I would say the ultimate consequence of conservatism is oligarchy.  The founding fathers set up an aristocracy and enshrined slavery in constitution, we were kind of an oligarchy from the jump. 

[immamac 44199]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Refusal to change and slow to change aren’t necessarily coming from the same place/viewpoint  though, are they? 

If you are talking in reality (perhaps like @cactusflinthead’s example) then I would say it’s the former. But in a general discussion sense, if the definition of conservative is a slow approach to change does (doesn’t) it still indicate that there is a willingness to accept change? I would say that is a positive. 

 

you should go read the Progressive Conservatism thread, I think you are sadly mistaken on what conservatism is.

 

[cactusflinthead 27626]

Incremental changes?

Not so fast my friend. Nobody has posted it yet. The man in his own words.

 

A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

William F. Buckley

 

 

Stop those queers from marrying.

Stop those brown people at the border.

Stop sending money to schools. 

Stop taxing the richest. 

 

Yeah, tell me some more about conservative principles.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

12 minutes ago, immamac said:

you should go read the Progressive Conservatism thread, I think you are sadly mistaken on what conservatism is.

 

I had read some in that thread when you started it. Perhaps  I am misunderstanding the point? What I see in reality IMO are people calling themselves conservative behaving as what Rubin described in her essay but little in the current political landscape of what you had described in your other thread relating to IIRC government having a role (but not an ever expanding one) and where policy was lined up with needs, assessed, and then implemented in a pragmatic way. 
Am I off base here? It isn’t change for change’s sake but because sometimes change is necessary? That can be conservative can it not?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Conservatives sometimes like to frame their worldview as the preservation of “western values” which can be interpreted in few different ways...

This is funny b/c if you look at the history of “Western Civilization” it tells the story of a culture in an almost constant state of revolution and progress.  

[cactusflinthead 27626]

The best I can figure is that Lady Brisket has his attention because this is like goddamn clickbait for him.

If he's showing some restraint the gaskets might hold. Otherwise all bets are off. Pieces of pistons and shards of steel flying all over the place. 

I wonder if he can resist it. I'm going to refrain from a direct notification. I wanna see how he reacts.

You buncha aholes let him find it on his own. 

[workswithseed 2201]

9 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

The problem is most of the actual policy of conservatives and conservatism has been shown to be outright lies and power grabs. Trickle down economics and the “free” market being obvious examples.

What is trickle down? No one that created Supply Side economics called it trickle down.

[hobbes2702 13351]

47 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

What is trickle down? No one that created Supply Side economics called it trickle down.

Cool

[ztejas 44114]

2 hours ago, quigley said:

The values you're espousing are Libertarian. Conservatism is different.

They can be values of both schools of political thought - and they are. Unless you think personal accountability falls equally in line with liberalism than it does conservatism - i.e. the traditional left vs. right - then I think we are done here. I'm not interested in getting into a pedantic argument about where the lines are drawn on a venn diagram that has a huge section of overlap.

[cactusflinthead 27626]

This seems pertinent. I want y'all to tell us who represents the conservative ideology today that is in office and makes decisions about policy that doesn't ascribe to these things. 

I'll wait. 

Libertarians don't do shit. That's a non-starter. 

Despite fetishizing “law and order,” Republicans have shrugged as Mr. Trump has maligned and politicized federal law enforcement, occasionally lending a hand. Impeachment offered the most searing example. Parroting the White House line that the entire process was illegitimate, the president’s enablers made clear they had his back no matter what. As Pete Wehner, who served as a speechwriter to the three previous Republican presidents, observed in The Atlantic: “Republicans, from beginning to end, sought not to ensure that justice be done or truth be revealed. Instead, they sought to ensure that Trump not be removed from office under any circumstances, defending him at all costs.”

---

Most horrifically, Republican leaders have stood by as the president has lied to the public about a pandemic that has already killed more than 220,000 Americans. They have watched him politicize masks, testing, the distribution of emergency equipment and pretty much everything else. Some echo his incendiary talk, fueling violence in their own communities. In the campaign’s closing weeks, as case numbers and hospitalizations climb and health officials warn of a rough winter, Mr. Trump is stepping up the attacks on his scientific advisers, deriding them as “idiots” and declaring Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top expert in infectious diseases, a “disaster.” Only a smattering of Republican officials has managed even a tepid defense of Dr. Fauci. Whether out of fear, fealty or willful ignorance, these so-called leaders are complicit in this national tragedy.

 

 

[workswithseed 2201]

32 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Cool

Then use the correct term. You're just showing your ass otherwise.

[elfenix 34658]

14 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Those aren’t conservative things though. Those are republican things. Just because we conflate the two in this country does not mean they are the same.

i guess that depends on whether you see terminology as prescriptive as opposed to descriptive.  there's a reason we've conflated the terms. i think my post in the other thread that imma no-true-scotsmanned reagan not being a conservative prompted this thread, and there seems to be a lot of no-true-scotsman going on in this thread.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by elfenix

[washparkhorn 9967]

3 hours ago, immamac said:

So is the ultimate form of conservatism an Oligarchy?

Full Monarchy - with lords and ladies (and then the rest of us). 

 

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

What is trickle down? No one that created Supply Side economics called it trickle down.

Incorrect.

It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory. ~David Stockman 1981 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/305760/?single_page=true

Spoiler

Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy. “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’” he explained, “so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.”

 

[washparkhorn 9967]

Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy is solid on these subjects. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/

[elfenix 34658]

What is trickle down? No one that created Supply Side economics called it trickle down.

maybe, maybe not. HW called it voodoo economics

 

[elfenix 34658]

Yeah so what I'm learning quickly is that Conservatism is what is fundamentally wrong with America. People refusing to change and wanting to hold everyone to a moral standard that is completely fabricated by a ruling class.
So is the ultimate form of conservatism an Oligarchy?

Ultimately it's restoration of the monarchy. We'd probably never call it that, of course, but there's plenty of self-described conservatives who seem to be in favor of a trump dynasty ensconced into power through fraudulent elections and a rubber stamp congress.

[G650 14421]

9 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Donald Trump is a reactionary populist. He is not a conservative.

100%

[G650 14421]

10 hours ago, immamac said:

Yeah so what I'm learning quickly is that Conservatism is what is fundamentally wrong with America. People refusing to change and wanting to hold everyone to a moral standard that is completely fabricated by a ruling class.

So is the ultimate form of conservatism an Oligarchy?

 

No, that's not it. And when you have a bunch of people shouting over each other with their notion of "conservatism", you aren't going to get much closer to understanding. There are a couple posters here who understand conservative political theory, listening to then dispassionately would be helpful.

 

It's actually much, much simpler than most would have you believe. All these tortured "conservatism is x,y, and z" are describing the downstream effects of conservatism, not conservatism itself. Small government, incremental social change and basically anything else held up a conservative are not conservative, they are the result of conservative thought given a certain point in time. In economics, there hasn't been actual conservatism in the Anglo-sphere since Britain repealed the Corn Laws.

 

The easiest way I've seen for a modern American to conceptualize it how you would approach investment or gambling. Are you risky (ie. liberal) or conservative? It's the same thing. This doesn't mean people haven't used the label for all manner of heinous acts, because lord knows they have and then some. But this doesn't obviate the actual meaning of the word.

Edited October 26, 2020 by G650

[bernorange 8385]

When I was young, conservatism simply meant championing limited government and fiscal responsibility.

During the Reagan years, an attempt to bankrupt Russia saw unprecedented deficit (military) spending and Reagan sold it to the Republican party.  Fiscal responsibility took a hit, but most people were still high on the 80s magic, so they didn't really care.

During W's campaign for POTUS, "compassionate conservatism" became a marketing strategy.  It has had a long term corrupting effect on what the GOP and popular use of "conservative" means IMO.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_conservatism

During W's terms, former liberal hawks were elevated to power within the GOP and neoconservative (ie. neocon) foreign policy took rootL  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

The word is losing it's original meaning much like "liberal" has lost it's original meaning.  This thread appears to be attempting to define the term as an epithet for the GOP, but it will always just mean limited government and fiscal responsibility to me.

[G650 14421]

8 minutes ago, bernorange said:

but it will always just mean limited government and fiscal responsibility to me.

Overall very solid post, but this, again, is just a snap shot of what conservatives espoused at a certain point in time. Fiscal responsibility is basically always there, but limited government may or may not be a part of conservative though at a given time.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

One of the underpinnings of some modern day self described conservatives (that goes back to the monarchy) is this idea of “divine right” or that our leaders are instruments of God.  It’s basically American exceptionalism wrapped in religious mythology. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bevo14 8468]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

One of the underpinnings of some modern day self described conservatives that goes back to the monarchy is this idea of “divine right” or that our leaders are instruments of God.  It’s basically American exceptionalism wrapped in religious mythology. 

I'd be more into that if they were Jedi masters instead.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

33 minutes ago, bernorange said:

This thread appears to be attempting to define the term as an epithet for the GOP

Troof.

I am trying to formulate what a post-GOP conservative party might look like.

"Limited government" is such a loaded term, though.  

Edited October 26, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[G650 14421]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am trying to formulate what a post-GOP conservative party might look like.

Well, Joe Biden would be a good start.

[hobbes2702 13351]

9 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Then use the correct term. You're just showing your ass otherwise.

Cool

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

10 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Then use the correct term. You're just showing your ass otherwise.

Like you do in 90% of your posts?

[workswithseed 2201]

8 hours ago, elfenix said:

maybe, maybe not. HW called it voodoo economics

 

He also said he regretted that.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Noteworthy in this thread is how conservatives like to think of themselves vs how conservatives behave when they acquire power.

The playbook is really simple:

1. Espouse noble principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and accountability to acquire power. 

2. Betray espoused principles to retain power. 

[workswithseed 2201]

33 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Like you do in 90% of your posts?

No, like every post that is, or isn't a question. Also every accusation is an admission.

Edited October 26, 2020 by workswithseed

[ndawg 1242]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Noteworthy in this thread is how conservatives like to think of themselves vs how conservatives behave when they acquire power.

The playbook is really simple:

1. Espouse noble principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and accountability to acquire power. 

2. Betray espoused principles to retain power. 

There’s another component I’d throw in there: they make the very wrong assumption that inaction can sustain the status quo. They don’t realize that inaction is just failing to govern, which brings about regression as a consequence.

I see people in the corporate world make this same simple-minded mistake all the time. They fail to strategize entirely, because they want to “stay the course.” They don’t get that staying on course requires constant action.

[elfenix 34658]

27 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

He also said he regretted that.

 

odd what being picked vice president will do for one's views. 

[elfenix 34658]

2 hours ago, G650 said:

Overall very solid post, but this, again, is just a snap shot of what conservatives espoused at a certain point in time. Fiscal responsibility is basically always there, but limited government may or may not be a part of conservative though at a given time.

fiscal responsibility is such a shitty term.  it'd be close to responsible if it manifested as "we could get more bang for the buck if we did ___" or "the societal benefit of this isn't commensurate with its cost" but it doesn't. 

[bernorange 8385]

Just now, elfenix said:

fiscal responsibility is such a shitty term.

It used to primarily mean keeping a balanced budget.  It was more important before monetary policy gave govco free reign to blow the fiat bubble until the world decides we're not worthy of our monetary privilege.