What does "good conservatism" look like?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Velocity

But recently, it seems that some liberal Dopers object to conservatism’s substance itself, period - as alluded to in TubaDiva’s thread, there is this attitude by some of late, that if you disagree with them on topics like LGBT, feminism, or other social issues, or support Trump, you are a bad person, period, regardless of how civilly or calmly you may go about it. In other words, in their eyes, there can be no such thing as civil disagreement.

When the disagreement is about my rights, it is not civil. Full stop. If you oppose LGBT rights, you’re a bad person. There is no amount of “civility” that will make demands for gay people to go back into the closet or trans people to live as their birth gender not a horribly bigoted, offensive statement.

If you support Trump… I mean, what do you expect? To me, this reads a lot like saying, “Those darn libs, they think that if you support Augusto Pinochet, you must be a bad person!” Yes! If you support a president who lies the way most of us breathe, takes immigration advice from neo-nazis, runs concentration camps with the explicit goal of cruelty as deterrent for migrants and asylum-seekers, constantly uses the government to enrich himself… You are a bad person. This isn’t hard. If I told you I enjoy shoving children in cages and torturing them with hot pokers, you’d be right to call me a goddamn fucking monster even if that was the favorite pastime of a significant portion of the country. :mad:

But that’s not even necessarily the problem.

To the degree that there are reasonable debates to be had on issues, they are, more often than not, had. We’ve had spirited debates about tax policy, the effects of various issues, and to the degree that it is debatable, those usually aren’t huge wastes of time. I may think your ideology is noxious and dangerous, but I’ll put that aside if there’s a real argument on the table, and debate it on its merit.

Y’know what the problem is?

This. This is the problem.

@HurricaneDitka

I’m aware of some of the reports of conditions in the “camps”. I don’t generally find those sources terribly credible. I think they, like you, have an agenda they’re propagandizing for and pushing, and they’ll pick a couple of anecdotes and try to pretend / imply that those exceptions represent conditions generally.

This is the problem.

@octopus

@running_coach

Was Heather Heyer wearing a mask?

Mob violence can result in serious injuries or death. I don’t advocate for political violence. Unlike many of you. I believe in the rule of law and democratic engagement following orderly and established procedures not mob rule. Unlike many of you.

This is the problem.

@HurricaneDitka

Probably not. Dr. Blasey Ford and her allies exposed Justice Kavanaugh’s family to death threats because they thought it might help their side in a political squabble. I don’t recall many Democrats saying that was “a pretty shitty thing to do”, so the complaint now rings hollow to me. Sorry.

This is the problem.

@Little_Nemo

Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) was being interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News.

Wallace: “Senator Kennedy, who do you believe was responsible for hacking the DNC and Clinton campaign computers - their emails? Was it Russia or Ukraine?”

Kennedy: “I don’t know. Nor do you. Nor do any of us.”

Wallace: “Let me just interrupt to say that the entire intelligence community says it was Russia.”

Kennedy: “Right, but it could also be Ukraine. I’m not saying that I know one way or the other.”

Here you have a top Republican seemingly proud of his ignorance. Sure, you can - with enough effort - put facts into his head. But you will never be able to force him to learn anything from those facts.

This is the problem.

@Vox

Tribal epistemology happens when tribal interests subsume transpartisan epistemological principles, like standards of evidence, internal coherence, and defeasibility. “Good for our tribe” becomes the primary determinant of what is true; “part of our tribe” becomes the primary determinant of who to trust.

A circular logic, which has become quite familiar in the impeachment affair, emerges: Anyone who says anything contrary to the tribe marks themselves as an enemy of the tribe (cough deep state cough); enemies of the tribe cannot be trusted, so their testimony or evidence can be ignored. Thus, by definition, nothing that questions the tribal narrative can be trusted.

A decades-long effort on the right has resulted in a parallel set of institutions meant to encourage tribal epistemology. They mimic the form of mainstream media, think tanks, and the academy, but without the restraint of transpartisan principles. They are designed to advance the interests of the right, to tell stories and produce facts that support the tribe. That is the ultimate goal; the rhetoric and formalisms of critical thinking are retrofit around it.

As the republican position becomes increasingly unhinged and disjointed from reality, the things republicans need to say become more and more insane, and you end up with posts like the above. Conservatives who feel the need to play stupid games around an activist murdered by neo-nazis. Conservatives who respond to well-documented abuse by saying “fake news”. Conservatives who, to bring up the latest kerfluffle in ATMB, accuse someone who came forward about rape allegations of doing it for political points.

Apart from all of these things being viscerally disgusting and incredibly immoral (seriously, blaming an activist protesting neo-nazis for being in a “politically charged environment” when she gets murdered, that’s pretty fucked up!), they make discussion virtually impossible. How should we have discourse, then, if one side gets to basically make up the facts as they see fit? If they have as much dedication to being honest in debate as their president does, but we also cannot call them liars? If their views are not worthy of debate, but rather of mockery, scorn, and shunning? That’s kind of where we’re at with quite a few people - and the only reason we’re not there with more is because this is the kind of person who bans the guy who posts nothing but racist Trump memes.

What does “intelligent conservatism” look like, as **wolfpup **mentioned above? What do you want us to change or do? Again, I’m completely serious. I want to hear what people have to say about this. Any feedback is welcome.

Let’s try a slightly different question. What does an intelligent Trump supporter look like? I don’t have an answer for that, to be perfectly honest.