Ronna McDaniel might take issue with that statement.
You might not consider Trump conservative, but when it came time to vote most voters who consider themselves conservatives voted for Trump.
Why would the chair of the RNC have a problem with the president being the head of the party?
Are you under the very mistaken impression that the chair of the national committee is the head of the party for some reason? I guarantee you that she would not make that mistake, and if you made that assertion to her, she would be correcting you.
I was under that mistaken impression. Donald Trump as “dear party leader”, scary thought.
What is “natural progress,” exactly?
Beyond impeding their beliefs, conservatives seem to be all for progress which doesn’t cost them social, financial, or political status.
Keep in mind that “social progress” to a conservative is not necessarily what liberals would view as progress–re-criminalizing abortion, for instance, would be seen by most conservatives as progress. If we’re talking about “social progress” as liberals see it, then I’d say most conservatives are all for it…as long as it happened so long ago that it’s become a social norm and is no longer seen as a threat, such as women’s suffrage.
Interesting. Another way of saying that is that in your opinion the “rights” of a zygote or embryo – which in the opinion of medical ethicists who inform the ethics and standards of clinical practice is neither human nor sentient – are far more important than the rights of a woman to self-determination and control over her own body. You’re certainly entitled to your beliefs, but I think it’s safe to conclude that the answer to the key OP question, “Do you believe in social progress?”, in your case is a very definite “no”.
And I’m not sure what you’re on about with respect to “government-sponsored discrimination against Asians”. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was abolished in 1943, perhaps while you weren’t looking. The new boogeymen today are Mexicans, Central Americans, Muslims, and well-tanned types from “shithole countries”. This particular demographic is benefiting from so much “social progress” from the conservatives currently in power that their kids are dying in detention camps.
WOW, you just hand waved away the KKK and 100 years of brutal oppression that occured after the Civil war. A war started by Democrats to preserve slavery. You then try to pawn your dirty laundry off on Republicans as if George Wallace and segregation never existed in the 60’s.
When the Democratic party couldn’t sustain segregation they created indentured voter servitude using long term welfare as a hook. The damage it caused to the fabric of society will continue for generations to come.
The Democrats were the party of white supremacists until about the 60s. Then they embraced Civil Rights and millions of white supremacists were suddenly without a party to support. The Republican party filled that vacuum and made efforts to rhetorically appeal to those millions of white supremacists, which is why white Southern voters switched from majority Democratic support to majority Republican support over the subsequent decades.
It’s no coincidence that the switch of white Southerners to supporting Republicans happened at the same time as black Americans heavily shifted to supporting the Democratic party.
You are wrong, but this post is a good example of a point made earlier in this thread that liberals and conservatives disagree about what changes represent “social progress”.
A related question to the OP is the following – why did American conservatives resist so strongly expanding rights and improved treatment (i.e. voting rights, desegregation, fighting housing and financial discrimination like redlining, fighting employment discrimination, etc.) for women, black people, LGBT people, and other minority groups in America? For conservatives, do you accept that the positions of most American conservatives at the time those issues were strongly disputed (including LGBT rights today) was morally wrong, and if so, how do you ensure that you don’t continue those and related prejudices of your conservative forebears?
I view social progress as the building of voluntary social institutions and decreased initiation of force upon individuals.
In some ways, a liberal’s social progress is actually a regression. In some ways it is not. The state is no longer enforcing segregation, progress. The state is undermining property rights, regress.
Maybe we just need some definition of what “progress” really means. If you believe that mycoplasma, zygotes, and blastomeres are sentient humans – against all scientific evidence and against all concepts of sanity – and are deserving of more “rights” than actual human beings who have a life history, family, and children on this earth – then yes, you are a true “conservative” in the full meaning of the word. Although not exactly an advocate of progress in the practical meaning of the word, which implies improved conditions for ourselves and our fellow sentient life forms on the planet.
But on the bright side of all this, you appear to have an awesome respect for life – for humanity – so awesome that your baseline of reverance, basically, extends to any cluster of cells that may or may not develop into something animate. And that’s just great, because this will surely give you even more awesome respect for the human rights of actual Central American and Mexican humans desperately trying to apply for asylum in the US, over there on the Mexican border. I believe that they can be shown to be actually and incontrovertibly sentient. You can actually go over and talk to them (except for the ones the died in detention) – no weird ultrasounds and extrapolatory fantasies necessary. Good to know that you’re totally pro-human!
Rather cute when liberals play pro-human. Elsewhere they are telling us it’s so important to sacrifice for the health of hilarious anthropomorphic “planet” sometimes complete with arms and legs
Cite for this exact claim in a peer-reviewed journal?
No sane person anthropomorphizes the planet. But previous mass extinctions tell us that while the planet can survive almost anything, its fragile ecosystems cannot. The planet will live on, no matter what. We may not. Mass extinctions sometimes result in the eventual emergence of a plethora of new life forms. We may not be among them. Is that clear enough?
Science has no liberal-conservative divide, although to the extent that science is evidence-based, more scientists tend to have a liberal bias than otherwise on the contentious topics of the day. Climate change, evolution, creationism – conservatives have embarrassed themselves.
On the OP topic of social progress, both parties and ideological extremes have held abhorrent positions, and so has society as a whole. The sad thing is that as societies have progressed, conservatives have generally defined themselves by staying about a century behind, which is pretty much where Republicans are – if you add about another extra century backwards in time – in America today.
Were you being intentionally ironic with these two sentences?
Most (almost all) of the things that live on are not anthropos. And the planet can be considered alive.
mc
Yes scientists are “liberal” in that they support vast sums of taxpayer funding to universities and research for their pet causes. Beyond that, you will find that they are some of the most conservative individuals in American society.
I don’t consider the current Republican party to be conservative. I think it’s a radical & regressive party right now, not conservative. It’s a crazy party that is itself in favor of big government, without admitting so.
I suppose there are “real” conservatives. But they’re not in power in the Republican party right now, nor have they been for a while.
I’ll ask again. If the Republican Party isn’t conservative, why do most voting conservatives vote Republican?
Voluntary? I think the vast majority of progress in the US has been involuntary. Was the Emancipation Proclamation and the South being forced to repudiate slavery not progress? What about when Eisenhower sent in the National Guard and 101st airborne to forcibly integrate the public schools in Little Rock? The forces of bigotry are almost always dragged forward kicking and screaming. Sure, there are a few that change on their own, like the aforementioned Robert Byrd who conservatives seem to have a special hate for, but most never personally change.