No, the OP is talking about American conservatism, as in, how it is practiced here in America at this time. About the people who make a claim to represent conservative values, here in America, at this time.
“Conservatism” has changed from believing the laws and principles of the US should be based on the Constitution into a belief that those should be based on the Bible. Since the New Deal SCOTUS effectively castrated Federalism in this country, maybe the first form of conservatism is modern day Libertarianism but not the just-this-side-of-anarchy of the Libertarian Party.
If that were the case then you would be listening to the people saying those things and not simply pointing out the obvious fact that the Republican party isn’t implementing those conservative values
For that very reason, Trump will likely not get elected. The conservatives that hold those values will find themselves (and have for a few election cycles) in quite the quandary. Do they hold their nose and vote for the Republican who will likely nominate conservative judges (and at least give lip service to conservative values) or with they vote for the party that doesn’t hold many of the same valuation, or will they toss their vote in the trash can by voting third party, or abstain altogether?
Either way, it ain’t helping Trump.
I also claim to hold conservative values, here in America, at this time.
But my point is only that, assuming that you agree with the list that @wrenching_spanners gave, is that those who call themselves conservatives are not the only ones who hold those values.
Essentially, it’s just saying, “Here are some things that I think are good, and I’m going to call them conservative values.”
To me, conservatism comes down to one idea. You look at where we are, where we are going, and find that to be acceptable, and so you demand that those who want to change it justify the changes they want to implement.
Progressive values go anywhere from, “This is pretty good, but we could do better.” to “This is horrible, and we need to change it as soon as possible.”
That’s the telling point of all this- the GOP has been notoriously malleable in terms of ideology this century- it started with classic conservative ideology, and then took a wacko turn with the Tea Party, and then they seem to have given a lot of that up for whatever Trump’s whims are at the moment.
What makes it so godawful is that they have somehow retained Gingrich’s party discipline, and all vote in lockstep for whatever idiocy comes down the party line, even though I’d guess that half of them actually think it’s idiocy.
Understood but listen to what he is arguing for/against. He is arguing against a caricature of what a liberal person holds as conservative values.
If the OP is meaning to say that conservatism as practiced by current Republicans is dead, I would love to agree with him.
And that interpretation would be wrong, IMO.
Conservatism to me can be summed up as , after careful consideration (proof, research, data) some change(s) can be made, until then it can stay like it is.
How does this differ from what k9bfriender said?
Because too often it results in “we just have to do something”
I will go further, there are more striking differences (between the two parties) in things that are subjective in nature
Gun control, abortion, etc
I’m honestly not seeing any daylight between what I said and what you said.
Other than “look at” vs “careful consideration” but that’s just vanity, not substance.
But what if there is careful consideration (proof, research, data)? Often, the conservative position comes down to, “We don’t have to do anything.”
Sounds like what you see is the difference between conservatives is that they are thoughtful, while progressives are careless.
I disagree with this assessment.
Yes, but that is a difference between positions that the parties have adopted, not between conservative and progressive values.
There is nothing inherently conservative about wanting to ensure that anyone who wants a gun can get one, not about preventing women from exercising reproductive choices.
Usually when data comes into play, that data is used. But as is the case for most things, you need overwhelming proof (research and data), or the other side also has data (that likely differs from your own)
I could be wrong but I do believe that progressive and conservative values differ greatly about them both.
It is evidenced by the different ends of the argumentative spectrum regarding both. No guns/abortions at all vs Guns/abortions for ALL no matter what! Then it gets boiled down to the different shades of grey. (No guns for felons, no “assault rifles” or when life begins
This is why to me, unless they are able to bring back pork barrel politics, we are forever doomed with hyperbolic reporting based on the us vs they, since there is little middle ground. (Even though I see a ton of middle ground)
I think the socialism vs capitalism is a good example of this trend.
It’s ridiculous on the face of it.
No mainstream politician is seriously suggesting anything resembling socialism, much less radical socialism. None of them want to nationalize industry and business. None of them want to abolish private property rights. No one them want to make the US government the country’s sole employer.
No mainstream politician is seriously suggesting anything resembling pure capitalism. No one wants to replace law enforcement with private subscription security services. No one is suggesting that if you want roads in your neighborhood, that you need to team up with your neighbors and build them. Most conservative pols wouldn’t even dare to suggest the elimination of Social Security and Medicare ( although they may hate the programs philosophically they understand that we, as a society, need to NOT have our sidewalks clogged up with homeless dying old people).
We have a hybrid socialist / capitalist system and we are all in agreement with most of it. All we are doing is hashing out the details around the margins for a handful of sectors …healthcare and education mostly.
It’s hard to make some people see this. I was trying to discuss this with someone on another forum several months ago, but they would not waver from their conviction that Mike Bloomberg was a Radical Socialist.
Classical conservatism will always have a place, because no society can survive indefinitely without some form of it. Old-fashioned values such as work hard, study hard, saving instead of spending, be disciplined, run a tight ship, avoid debt whenever possible.
Today’s “conservatism” resembles almost nothing of that. But no matter what, there will always be a remnant of old-school conservatism as long as a nation lives, because when it’s gone, the nation is soon collapsed.
I really don’t think that they do.
Agreed, but maybe if we come up with a name that is better than pork barrel, people will get on board with it.
Those values are not old-fashioned, nor exclusive to those who subscribe to conservatism.
IOW, the ideal government would be a dialogue between RW and LW policy wonks, arguing about probable results of this or that policy without reference to cultural flashpoints. Well, I’m inclined to agree.
BTW, I recall seeing a study showing that people actually tend to grow more liberal, not conservative, as they age. Any apparent conservatism among the old is probably based on their having been shaped by an older world.
Conservatism has a place, and that place (in my mind anyway) is to be the safeguard against the excesses of progress, which ultimately result in permanent revolution. If we have permanent revolution, that is not progress; that is tumult and it is destined to fail. What we need is constant evolution, and conservatism is the yoke that we use to pull up against the inherent tendency to keep racing ahead before we figure out what “progress” really means.
But conservatism for the sake of preservation, for the sake of keeping order in its state without change, is as destructive as permanent revolution.
I would say I am both more liberal and more conservative than I was when I was younger, if that makes any sense.
This is my experience as well. I’ve adopted liberal positions I would have thought unthinkable years ago, such as single-payer healthcare, drastic criminal-justice reform, strict gun control, and high taxes on the wealthy.
But I’ve become even more militant in favor of free speech, freedom of religion, a hawkish military stance, opposition to PC, etc.
The reason I ignored the rest of your post was that it was both mundane and inane. I would have ignored its predictability as well, but the “gotcha” was such an easy open goal that it was worth spending a minute for a bit of entertainment.
But since this is a debate, let’s focus on the main statement you disagree with me about until you start discussing the “current administration”.
[quote=“k9bfriender, post:69, topic:920373”]
The few, the .1% or less who do not are those who earn more than the combined earnings of thousands, and are usually “earning” that money based on the skills, efforts, and labor of those thousands. It is not a disincentive to make billions because of high taxes. That is not something that will change.[/quote]
Those “thousands” have their jobs because someone with foresight and capital saw an opportunity to create a new industry. There’s some kind of liberal myth that new industries are destroying high paying jobs in the industries they’re replacing. I don’t believe that’s true. Amazon warehouse workers are taking the place of retail big-box workers who were taking the place of regional discount price stores who were taking the price of local retailers. The creation of new billion dollar industries has not created any overall job loss or any decline in average wages, any more than when Henry Ford was opening his car factories.
Or do you believe that someone with hundreds of millions or billions in wealth is sitting on a wealth management account and shamelessly accumulating wealth through dividends which isn’t an option available to a typical working class labourer? The fact is that most rich people tend to stay in the area where they earned their riches. Some will, and have, diversifed their holdings, but when they do so they pay tax on the realised gains they’ve earned from their investments.
My perception is that there is a sincere leftist perception that wealth is evil, and left-wing US politicians are buying in, or at least waving favourably, at that perceived position. In the context of the OP, I’m not sure how many voters are accepting that position. Specific to Amazon, I think that the number of customers far outnumbers the number of detractors. I think you’ll find that’s true with most modern corporations, whether internet based or not. And in terms of the “death” of American conservatism, I’d expect most Americans to be in favour of increased industry and new opportunities for economic growth.