The vast majority of people in the Republican party would say that they are conservatives. Only a very small minority of the people in the Democratic party would say that they are socialists.
Your comparison fails.
I would say that the Democratic party represents the desires of American Liberals, not socialists. Just as the Republican party represents the desires of American Conservatives, not whatever scotsman that you think that it should.
Talk about bad faith ad hominem attacks… Persecution complex? Come again??
Newsflash bucko, I’ve never voted for anyone who wasn’t a Democrat, was a staunch supporter of Bernie Sanders (who remains the only candidate I have ever funded), and was disappointed when Warren declined to run against Hillary. If you’re going to try an ad hominem, at least try to aim properly.
I can advocate for definitions without personally being invested in whatever crackpot beliefs may go along with people who aspire to meet those definitions. I am passionate about truth, intellectual honesty, and logical discourse. So when I see those things getting trampled on, I take great pleasure in vociferously defending them.
I will say this, though: while they’re almost always wrong in some way about just about everything, seeing how a circle-jerk will form the instant someone even thinks you’re a conservative and the way people try to force every nuanced position into some radical umbrella with zero disregard for history, definitions, honesty, or seemingly anything, goes a long way towards instilling a genuine sense of persecution. They’re in fact not persecuted, but I can definitely understand why they feel like they are!
If you don’t read whats in front of you, you can’t have an honest discussion:
The name of something is simply branding. How something is “commonly known” is branding.
That’s not what the site you quoted even says. You. Quoted. The. Text. And then you edited what the quote said in the very next line. Opposition to utopian ideas is not opposition to progress. I actually agree that Conservatives have stifled progress for over a century in ways that have caused untold suffering for millions. I don’t agree with blatantly perverting a statement like that. It’s a shameful thing that poisons discourse and should never be tolerated.
So what? Most of those people’s grandparents weren’t born yet when American Conservatism was going strong. This line of argumentation is asinine.
Furthermore, for your logic to work, then the Democrats of the 1850’s would have to be defined as American Liberals, since they opposed the Republicans, who are “the party of conservatives.” Parties are one thing. Ideologies are another. They change over time.
I think we’re derailing the thread away from Russia.
It’s not useless at all. Consider these different aspects of discussion:
Given how the Republicans have cozied up to Russia, it’s fair to ask - why is that? Are there ideologically similar to… well, what do we call those people anyways? If we’re comparing the two polities, which do we compare? 1981 Russia or 2021 Russia? 1986 America or 2016 America?
At this point, my working definition of “conservatism” is unrestrained defense of corporate interests and elite wealth accumulation, unconstrained by the rule of law. By this definition, Russia is quite conservative, as is the Republican party. The only question to debate is how much of this is change vs. continuity.
If the question is whether the Russian people are “socially conservative” bigots like half of America, I would say you find those people everywhere. You only see them coming out of the woodwork when a fascist movement gains steam. Fascists lack any compelling ideology and go for the low-hanging fruit like racists, bigots, homophobes, bullies, and dipshits. In that regard I’d say it’s an ongoing contest, but Russia is currently outrunning America by a few hairs.
You were claiming to be offended because someone disagrees with you. I suppose that persecution complex isn’t limited to just American Conservatives, then.
You’ve yet to really give a definition. “individual rights, rule of law, small government, and personal freedom.” is not a definition. They are opinions on how you feel they should act.
Your defense is pretty feckless here. You seem to enjoy arguing semantics, but nothing that has any relation to the topic at hand.
You are starting to get the definition of ad hominem.
I can see how you would empathize with feeling persecuted if someone disagrees with you offends you.
I did read it, you misread the post that you were responding to.
I take it that CPAC has nothing to do with American Conservatism either.
Are there any true scotsmen in your world?
That wasn’t an edit. An edit would be if I changed the words that I quoted. Come on, you are the one that is arguing that words have meaning here.
For instance, only using the first two words of my post, instead of the entirety of the context of it, as you have done, would be an edit.
And it doesn’t say “opposition to utopian ideas”, it says “opposition to utopian ideas of progress”. Once again, what you have done here is an edit. Leaving off those last two words does in fact pervert the statement.
Words matter, and so does context.
My disagreement with your assessment offends you here as well?
Well, that’s irrelevant to the point that you were trying to make. That you claimed that there being a small minority of socialists in the Democratic party making it the Socialist party, while ignoring that the vast majority of Republicans consider themselves to be conservatives.
And since you admit that most of our grandparents weren’t born yet when American Conservatism was going strong, then I suppose that you admit that American Conservatism means absolutely nothing relevant to a modern context? It’s just a historical footnote?
Would the Democrats of the 1850’s have considered themselves to be liberals? If not, then your comparison fails, and your logic is flawed.
I never brought up parties until you did. I spoke entirely about American Conservatism, as practiced by those who consider themselves to be Conservatives. You throwing in parties is simply you attempting to beat up a strawman, and sadly, failing even at that.
I will agree with this. The ideology of American Conservatism has changed over time. It no longer reflects whatever values and definitions that you claim it to have, if it ever did.
I’ll definitely agree that it’s a useful term to use to make the claim that one is holier than thou, that they uphold noble principles. Conservatives use their feigned nobility to proclaim that they are the rightful heirs and rulers of our country, and that liberal ideals have no place getting in the way of their desires.
I’d agree, except that I’d add in the social side of working with bigots, giving them leeway to oppress “others”, in order to achieve the goals of those elites.
The only real difference is the PR campaigns between the two. Russia’s claim to power in the Soviet era was that it was for the people, and it still maintains at least a fig leaf of working towards the needs and goals of the people. In America, Conservatives came to power based on the idea of individual freedom, and gives as a fig leaf the freedom to oppress and restrict others.
In the end, the way that the operate, and the actual party goals are pretty much the same. Power to the oligarchs, poverty and totalitarianism towards everyone else.
Conservatism has consistently catered towards the bigots. It opposes change, and we started off as a very racist and bigoted country. It is exactly those utopian ideals of progress towards equality and egalitarianism that the conservatives have consistently and violently opposed.
IMHO Russia is conservative in the sense that they are highly authoritarian. It just so happens that in the current climate most authoritarians are also conservative. This isn’t the conservatism of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, or even Ronald Reagan. It’s more like authoritarian movements around the world seem to have mostly ended up taking over the conservative side of the political spectrum in their respective nations. I would lump Putin in with the following world leaders, who while they may play for different teams, are all in a certain sense members of the same conference or league, to use a sports analogy. Putin fits in with Trump, but also with Erdogan of Turkey, Orban of Hungary, Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran, and military commander-in-chief Min Aung Hlaing of Myanmar, and Kim Jong-un of North Korea.
Moderating
While it is a valuable discussion to determine what is American conservatism in order to compare to Russia, per the OP, there has been a rather long sidetrack into the history of American politics. Let’s keep at least one eye on the topic of the discussion.
I wouldn’t call Russia conservative. I’m convinced Putin wants to rebuild the USSR and will use any means necessary to do it. Now their elections are frauds, hardly a conservative trait. It’s a kleptocracy and not like the Gilded Age- rather than let the free market determine winners and losers, all that counts there is giving Putin his slice of the pie or to “wet his beak” as Don Fanucci would say.
So for Russia I would say it’s not conservative, it’s fascist.
In the US GOP (or GQP if you prefer), it WAS a conservative party. But there was a hostile fascist takeover.
IMHO this is the crux of the debate. Given the current worldwide climate, are conservatism and fascism now so intertwined that it has become impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to determine where one starts and the other one ends?
In this thread the term “American Conservatism” has been mentioned repeatedly. I am of the opinion that this term specifically refers to the philosophy embraced by the party which represents the bulk of conservatives in America - which is to say the Republicans.
Which means that American Conservatism is now Trumpism, which is, among other things, fascist. This is true regardless of what the vanilla term “conservative” still means. In my opinion.
Right, but it’s not just the United States. I mentioned several other countries, where the local flavor of conservative and authoritarianism seem to be intertwined and it’s hard to see where one starts and the other stops. Supposed democracies like Hungary and Turkey. Monarchies like the Arab states. Theocracies like Iran. Old school dictatorships like in North Korea. Military dictatorships, with the newest member Myanmar just joining the club, and so on. The main thing they all have in common is that the people who prop up those governments all come from the conservative end of the political spectrum, whatever that may be in each particular country.
The definitive answer to what American Conservatism means will be on display this weekend at CPAC.
Are there any true conservative governments anywhere? The UK conservative party rules, but they’re well to the left of the US GOP. Who would be the closest to the old US GOP of Bob Dole and Gerry Ford? Certainly not the current Republicans.
Add me to thosw who would say Putinism is not so much “conservative” as reactionary. Basically, from where he was sitting, democratization and liberalization resulted in Russia going to crap both domestically and internationally and what is needed to restore things is to put people in their place and show them who’s boss.
But that then leads into an argument as to why should the US GOP be the benchmark of conservatism, and not the UK Tories or the German CDU or the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party. All of which being used as benchmark would cast the current American Republicans as the radical aberration.
Not as much as they used to be, sadly.