I am happy to apologize for initially mistaking you for an American, but none of your other criticisms of what I posted are valid. It is simply not feasible to discuss modern conservatism, especially in a US-centric forum, without having Donald Trump and his politics as a central issue. Insisting that people who bring up Trump in that context are unfairly “polluting” the debate or “tainting” others by association is almost literally ignoring the elephant in the room.
Arguably so. They weren’t however used to do so at the time.
I think it’s quite possible to view the entire history of the USA as a long argument over what it actually means to say ‘all men are created equal’. The fact that many people in 1865 and some before that considered that living up to that ideal requires forbidding slavery, or that many people by 1920 and some before that considered that living up to that ideal requires allowing women to vote, or that many people by 2015 and some before that considered that living up to that ideal requires allowing same-sex marriage, most certainly doesn’t mean that Jefferson meant any of those things.
To suggest that all of the founders were anti slavery or that the Constitution did not allow the institution is a bad misreading not supported by the facts nor by the contemporaneous writings and statements of its authors.
Again, if all the founders were opposed to slavery, it would have been banned in the Constitution from the start. The reason that it wasn’t is that some of them supported it, to the point at which some states wouldn’t have joined if it were forbidden; therefore those in opposition allowed it.
I’m not going to claim I know the motivation of everyone on the right; or even claim that everyone on the right is trying to ignore historical fact in the matter. But I see three possible motivations for some on the right to do so: a desire to insist that the Constitution needs to be fulfilled according to the original intent of the founders and therefore to try to claim that such intent was in all ways wise; and/or a desire to be able to keep up the kind of uncritical hero-worship of the founders that I was taught in grade school in the 1950’s; and/or a fear that if Our Side isn’t seen as perfect, then Our Side as a whole must be instead seen as essentially evil and worthy of wholesale destruction.
Many people are however capable of saying that the intents of the founders were variable, mixed, and sometimes but not always wise; that children can be taught patriotism without being taught that George Washington was perfect; and that the USA while massively imperfect does have a number of good basic ideals and we should, and can, try harder to live up to them.
Some of those people are even conservatives. I really wish they’d show up for the primaries; including to run in them.
<Reviews document… conducts word search… does mathy things…>
None!
Certainly Trumpism is a legitimate subject to bring up when discussing modern conservatism (though his ‘‘principles’’ tend to be on the order of me-me-me-me-me).
Insisting that Trump has his politics are “central” to any such discussion is similar to right-wingers proclaiming that Ocasio Cortez and her pronouncements are “central” to discussing modern progressive politics
:dubious: Really? Because Trump has a way more powerful position, and way higher support levels among members of his own party, than Ocasio-Cortez. I don’t really see how you can have an honest conversation about any aspect of current US conservatism without addressing how it’s reconciled with the central reality of Trump and Trumpism.
Similar in the way a bicycle is similar to an Abrams Tank, because they can both be used on the road.
62,000,000 (mostly) republicans/conservatives voted for Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have supported him for multiple years, regardless of the dysfunction coming from his office.
110,000 people voted for AOC, and she was in office for about 2 weeks before Republicans decided to crown her the most important Democrat to quote.
Just stop with this stupid bullshit. Conservatives put Trump into power, they gave him the most powerful position in our government. They don’t get to wash that fucking stink off by playing semantic games, and acting like referencing him is the same as referencing a freshman representative.
Trump is central to any discussion on conservatism in the present moment. He’s extremely popular – probably the most popular politician in the country, IIRC from polling – with self-described conservatives in America.
**Scylla **: That’s a bit disingenuous of you. The military was already, actively persecuting gays and lesbians. DADT, while far from ideal, did not expand or allow the discrimination in any way - quite the opposite, it was one (tiny) step towards including them.
As a moderate liberal in what’s left of the New Deal Democrat camp, let me defend reasonable conservative views those held by my centrist conservative Republican sister.
“Family values” - intact families with a husband and wife are good. The more time at home the wife can spend with her preschool children is better. Same-sex couples aren’t so bad per se, but conservatives believe same sex marriages fall apart even more than heterosexual couples.
“Self-reliance” - conservative beliefs overlap with the Protestant work ethic. Work for the sake of work is good. How much you earn should depend on a) how hard you work and b) how much wealth you create. Tax laws should benefit wealth creators. Self-reliance also means that things like unions, minimum wage laws, etc. do nothing but artificially inflate the salaries of those who don’t work hard or produce wealth. Capitalism rewards those who are self-reliant.
Universal Health Care - Universal anything is the first step toward the government interfering in the relationship between the individual and the provider. This doesn’t extend to allowing practitioners to go without oversight (that’s for libertarians) but in general, the societal costs outweigh the benefits.
Charity and the private sector - an unqualified good. People can work for or donate to whatever they feel is worthy. And imagine all those stay-at-home moms whose kids are now in school and are bursting with creative energy and ready to spend their time solving problems on a local level.
Welfare, food stamps, etc. - only a conservative who also has no compassion wants poor people to starve, but they do want people to work as hard as they are able before the government steps in with welfare. Even the disabled should work as much as able, if only at a sheltered workshop.
Big government - it’s bad because it’s bloated with bureaucrats enforcing useless rules that force businesses and schools to waste time and money on compliance. Federal government is especially bad because taxpayers should be able to look over a legislator’s shoulder to make sure they’re spending our money wisely. Also, the bigger the government, the more dependent citizen-politicians become on staffs and lobbyists to explain things to them. Staffs are too damn big, it costs to much to campaign for office (but you chsould also be free to contribute as much or little as you want) and lobbyists end up owning politicians. That;s why term limits are good and voters constantly need to drain the swamp.
Diversity - the law has ended legal discrimination, and you can’t change people’s hearts, so government shouldn’t get involved in that. And the American dram is based on hard-working immigrants from all over the world coming to this country legally and then assimilating into a single American culture.
Religion - everyone should be free to practice it or not practice it, as long as they keep their mouths shut in front of everyone else. That said, most Judeo-Christian beliefs are so universally true that no one could possibly object to a brief, non-sectarian prayer in school or posting the Ten Commandments in a court room.
I realize a lot of those beliefs were at their finest in 1957 or so, but a lot of my New Deal beliefs hit their peak in 1947 or so. We all have our ideal fantasy world.
Count me in as part of “some of the others.” The difference between Clinton and Obama on the one hand and Trump on the other is that the Democrats in Congress from 1992-2000 and 2008-2016 were not in lock step with Clinton and Obama. If they had been, we would have had universal healthcare by now, among other things. Other than Justin Amash there isn’t a single Republican in Congress who is standing up for some mythical “conservative but not right wing” values. They’ve all decided that whatever Trump believes in, that’s what it means to be a conservative.
I notice a lot of posters are using “conservative” and “Republican” interchangeably. One’s philosophical, the other’s political. Remember, the Nazis called themselves socialists.
That’s because the Republican Party hijacked the term conservative and made it their own. Guys like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity started this trend back in the early 90s, seemingly in response to Clinton’s victory in 1992. Newt Gingrich’s contract with America and the 1994 Republican wave election and the Tea Party election of 2010 kept things going on this path, where basically all Republicans had to be conservative, or otherwise they were just a RINO. Trump’s victory and the way he has approached the presidency has completed the process.
ETA. It’s not up to either Democrats or liberals to try to reclaim the term conservative and take it away from the Republican Party. They have to do that themselves, and so for only one congressman has started on that path.
Obviously you’ve never heard of Von Neumann Morgenstern utility which just demonstrates how ignorant conservatives are about economics.
Basically, a 10% tax on Bill Gates’ income is much less painful than a 10% tax on the income of a minimum wage worker. Anyone who has made any decent amount of money knows this is true.
That would be like saying that DUI laws are not equal or are not fair as the impact on an alcoholic is worse than it is on a teetotaler.
If you treat people differently based upon their needs or their circumstances then that goes starkly against the idea that liberals “treat people equally.”
However, as currently used by conservatives/Republicans, they largely overlap. Republicans describe themselves as conservative and repudiate the term “liberal”. There used to be self-described “liberal Republicans”, but not anymore.
And pretty much all self-identified American conservatives align with the Republican Party. Even the rare Congressional representatives who were elected under the banner of the “Conservative Party” caucused with the Republicans.
If we can’t find significant practical ways in which conservatives and Republicans differ, then we have to accept that for all practical purposes the terms are interchangeable, at least in US politics.
Cite that DUI laws impact alcoholic drunk drivers differently than teetotaler drunk drivers? Or how that analogy fits literally anything being discussed?
You’ve never seen that cartoon with the father, mother and kid all trying to watch the ballgame over a fence ? Give them each one box to stand on and it’s an “equal” or what conservatives would call a “fair” handout, but the result isn’t as only the dad is tall enough to see - which he already was. Give the husband no box, the wife one box and the kid two boxes and they can all watch the game together. That’s the kind of equality progressives are after, even though each individual has not been treated equally.
Or, to put it another way, reactionaries will cry foul over “why does he get a Thing and I don’t ?!” whereas progressive tend to think more along the lines of “what’s it matter what *you *get if society as a whole is better off that way ?”
That’s all fine, but it is not “treating people equally”
Cool story but it has nothing to do with my claims. Taxing people equally- either by amount or by percentage- is what conservatives would call equal treatment. Do you dispute that conservatives think in this way?
Even if the conservative principle is neutral in theory, in the U.S. the application, promotion, or interpretation is almost always bigoted.
Gun Rights: Saint Reagan, supported by the NRA, pushed for gun control in the 60s to defang the Black Panthers. Conservatives cry oppression when a white man gets questioned by the police for walking down the street with a military style rifle, but are silent when a black man is shot after declaring he has a gun permit.
Self Reliance Farm and business subsidies have broad conservative support. Poverty assistance was attacked by conservatives with the “Welfare Queen” narrative.
There is almost no part of American government, culture, or law that is untouched by the racists legacy of slavery.
[Side Note]It seems to me that the worst effects we see today are not due to the slavery itself, but to the moral warping required to reconcile Christian and Enlightenment values with owning of human beings. The twisted illogic required to make slavery not just legal, but a moral necessity so that slave owners could be the good guys and those opposed not just wrong, but evil.[/SN]