I agree. I feel that conservatism is best defined as the words and actions espoused by people who identify themselves as conservatives.
Good conservatism, in my opinion, would be a set of values aimed at achieving worthwhile goals that conservatives can articulate and provide evidence in support of. And that they demonstrate in practice as well as theory.
Everything I just wrote about conservatives is equally true if you substitute liberals.
I’m trying to be kinder and gentler. But, I have to say, differences about tax policy, or guns, or abortion, are fine with me. It’s a big beautiful world and we don’t all have to agree. But if a “conservative” can’t see what’s wrong with Trump (and the Republicans who enable him) and how they are hurting our country, then I cannot respect those views. I can’t say that person is a “good conservative.”
Thanks for the responses thus far everyone. But a lot of these read more like Great Debates or Elections political analysis than ATMB. What are the practical tips or suggestions?
Certainly there are some views whose substance makes them unacceptable no matter how they’re dressed up. I made a list of them elsewhere. Some of them are more associated with conservatives, some with leftists, some just with wackaloons.
I’d suggest two that are more prevalent on the alt-right than on the left, as evidenced by recent political events: Holocaust denial, and a belief that black people are genetically inferior to white people. There’s no style that’s going to make those two beliefs better. Can we all agree on that? An alt-right poster who came along advancing these beliefs isn’t going to be one of the “good conservatives” no matter how politely they flutter their fins.
In reality, I think the list is much longer than that. If the question is, “How can I support separating children en masse from their families at the southern US border, and be treated as a good conservative?” I don’t think that question has an answer. A similar question–“How can I support leading millionaires en masse to the guillotine, and be treated as a good leftist?”–would have a similar answer.
Being a decent human being kinda requires having views that are not obnoxious, AND requires not expressing those views obnoxiously. You can’t just do one of those things and be treated as good.
I’ll just be very brief, and re-iterate what I’ve said before. Traditional conservatism meant a respect for traditional values, a reluctance to change just for the sake of change or what was regarded as perhaps just a passing fad. Sometimes they were wrong – equal rights for women and minorities turned out to be a fundamental part of human rights for all. They were wrong about unnecessary wars, too, though they were not unanimous on that front. They were certainly right about the anti-hippie movement and the idea that dropping drugs and “dropping out” was the solution to society’s ills, and those that suited up and went into businesses and bought suburban homes and raised families were generally the ones who found satisfaction and, dare I say it, generally a good degree of happiness. I may be a liberal in many respects, but those are the “conservatives” that I support without reservation, the bedrock of our communities.
The problem is that today’s conservative are no longer typified by the Father Knows Best grey-suited insurance salesman with the perfect family surrounded by a white picket fence. Today’s conservatives are the Jim Jordan types, Mike Meadows, Loiue Gohmert, Mitch McConnell, Devin Nunes, Lindsey Graham, and all the others. They are not advocates of either genuine family values nor of conservative fiscal policy. They’re not conservatives, they’re lunatics. They are extremist radicals with single-minded social agendas favoring the plutocracy and opportunistically favoring evangelical zealots and and having absolutely zero respect for the truth and the facts. One of their de facto proxy leader has even invented a term for it – “alternate facts” – to indicate that they’re no longer bound at all to any sort of reality. The idea of “conservative” as “restrained” is hilarious in this context. The nutbars are about as restrained and with the same level of decorum as a rabid monkey in a pack of hyenas.
Yes, we we still have a few sane conservatives on this board, but the departure of most conservatives isn’t due to a board problem. Unless the board feels it its duty to acknowldedge that the Washington Post’s list of 13,435 Trump lies since inauguration is false and the man has never told a lie in his life, as some of his acolytes claim.
The problem with conservatives in a fact-based board dedicated to to fighting ignorane is that the current Republican mindset is on the wrong side of facts and history. But that’s fine. Let conservatives speak, and I might even learn from then, as usual. But don’t let either conservatives or liberals exploit the so-called post-truth reality where facts don’t matter.
What makes a good conservative is the same thing as what makes a good liberal: Both what what is best for the people. They will undoubtedly disagree on just what is best, but that’s politics.
Two things that do not make a good conservative (or liberal) are either wanting just what’s best for yourself, without regard to what’s good for others, or (even worse) wanting bad for others. And there are all too many “conservatives” nowadays who are motivated by “liberal tears”. That’s not politics. That’s what gives politics a bad name.
I’id say it is practical advice. People are explaining what beliefs are not what they mean by good conservatism, so don’t argue those things. Don’t be pro-bigotry. Don’t post with the intent of causing “liberal tears” or enjoying that you’ve made the libs angry. Stop defending the people who do those things as “fellow conservatives.”
I would add one more: remember the general “rules” for debating an audience hostile to your ideas. You can’t come in and say things the other side finds offensive and expect them not to get offended and dismiss everything you’re saying. That style of arguing in and of itself suggests to me a lack of desire to actually put forth arguments.
It’s not a liberal thing–I have to do the same thing when I argue with all the conservatives who live around me. I can’t pop in and treat those against abortion as being misogynists. I have to show I understand their concerns. Or, outside of politics, there’s a reason the way I bring up Christianity is never that in-your-face “you’re going to hell” bullshit.
You actually do a good job with that last part, BTW. I hadn’t even really thought of you as a conservative, but someone who tries to see both sides.
I miss Bricker and Adaher. True conservatives. I never understood that hate toward Bricker.
Check out the massive voter ID megathread. His main contribution was “well, it’s not technically illegal, and it hurts who I want it to hurt, so who cares if it’s deeply undemocratic?” over and over again.
And that’s my answer to the OP’s question. I want the “good conservatives” to be about fighting ignorance, not increasing it.
We need to be speaking the truth, and so far as I can tell, conservatives aren’t doing that right now.
Take voter ID as a canonical example: the voter ID laws are all about preventing non-existent fraud. They don’t do that, they aren’t written to do that, and the people who are writing them know they’re not doing that. They’re designed to prevent the other side from being able to vote. They are absolutely and completely based on the idea of selling a massive lie to the American population – that there’s this threat of our voting system being compromised that requires draconian actions, in which the “side effect” of removing the vote from potentially millions of voters is necessary to prevent even a single fraudulent vote from being cast.
But the lie works – even many Democrats falsely believe that there’s a lot of fraudulent voting going on. And the conservatives line up behind that lie, because it benefits them. It elected Donald Trump. I hope there have been conservative voices saying “these laws are wrong, everybody should get a vote,” but if there is, it’s a voice in the wilderness.
So that’s my answer: truth. A good conservative doesn’t repeat lies that they know are lies. I’m still waiting.
Velocity, great OP.
Many good responses. I must have “posts defending the republican party” on ignore as I’m not seeing those.
Process and content.
Most of what I find “good” in the board’s good conservatives over the years is a matter of process – how they engage with the rest of us. I’ve always been onboard with that attributed-to-Voltaire thing about disagreeing with someone vehemently but being ready to fight to the death for their right to say it. I learn a lot from conservatives who post and explain, who lay out their thinking and make it as accessible to the reader as possible, and who engage thoughtfully with people who reply in such a way as to show they understood the original post but disagree with it for stated reasons.
Bad process – which is by no means limited to our conservatives, as they’ll readily attest – is that baiting, “gotcha” posting, deliberate misconstruing or distorting of dissenters’ replies, etc. Why this is even relevant to bring up here is that the board as a whole is not very conservative, and hence attracts some people who take pleasure in poking the libtards, trying to make the board collectively angry and frustrated. We’ve had other bad-process members and guests over the years, though, and it’s no better coming from them. It’s unpleasant in and of itself.
Content: The conservative viewpoints I most enjoy reading elaborations on, or new viewpoints stemming from them, are the ones rooted in:
Individual autonomy, the right of the individual person to not be dictated to by the plurality. This notion exists within both leftist and rightist philosophy, as does a wide range of contradictory attitude. I like hearing the conservative vantage point, especially when it isn’t being used as a stalking horse for economic behavior exclusively, the right of the businessman or corporation to conduct business without regulatory interference. I don’t mind if it includes that but it’s more interesting when it projects that general principle and examines the behavior of the state or the community or the family, etc.
Morality and ethics, principles, the notion that there is a genuine good and not just a cultural historical and social set of notions about something constituting the good. And on a related note, the notion of free will, personal responsibility, doing what is right, etc.
Critiques of economic redistribution as a salve for the ills of the competitive free market. The conservative examination of the problems with socialism in theory or in practice, examinations of the process of taxation or forfeiture and redistribution of those assets to ameliorate inequality and poverty at the material level.
A general “let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater” caution about social change, one that gives recognition to what currently works and takes a thoughtful examination of proposed social changes to consider unintended side effects or worrisome outcomes. These can often be nothing but rhetorical sabots flung into the discussion to fight against social change, but not always, and it is important to be responsible when changing society.
My concern with this quote is that I’ve seen it used before as an advancing shield of sorts (for lack of a better term) whereby one can increasingly claim that more and more things fall under the scope of “oppression and denial of my humanity” so as to prohibit opposition.
I don’t deny for one moment that a Jewish person and a Neo-Nazi who wants Jews to die are going to be fundamentally at odds, for instance, due to the latter wanting the former’s death. But I am concerned about people who use the Baldwin quote as a tool for winning arguments.
Since I used to enjoy the Dope so much, I’ll delurk for now.
Absent. The Left simply aren’t interested in talking to the non-Left. One recent cite. Or even those who question the Left. And the moderators permit all sorts of abuse by the Left. Hell, one of the moderators, Colibri, is a prime mover. (It’s very telling that no other moderator stepped in except to close it.)
But kudos for asking the question.
And back to lurking.
Joe Biden.
I don’t participate a lot in debates - but when I do, what I want to hear from the other side is one (or more) of the following:
1 - X isn’t a problem
2 - X is a problem, but due to ______ that isn’t the problem I think we should focus on now.
3 - X is a problem, but your solution is worse than the status quo
4 - X is a problem, and I have a better solution.
And I’d prefer those all backed by facts or at the least opinions that aren’t anti-factual.
I’m not interested in pettiness, sniping, invective, slurs, and general nastiness. I personally also find it disingenuous when someone derails the conversation by pushing focus on a tiny detail rather than meat of the discussion (usually by “just asking questions”) or deliberately misunderstands a small misstatement. I also appreciate people who discuss things in good faith.
A lot of the conservatives I no longer engage with do the opposite of that. It’s all insults and nastiness. They might have a real point, but the only thing that I see is spite.
Questioning an OP’s premise constitutes abuse, now? If so, a significant number of political threads, from the right or the left, are subject to “abuse.” And per the mod who closed it, the thread was eventually closed because a poorly framed OP resulted in a unfocused discussion.
I dunno, he’s pretty sketch when it comes to women.
The fact that he is only *pretty *sketch is what makes him a good conservative.
OK, this is kind of derailing the thread.
Back to topic: I get the impression from (some) liberal Dopers here that conservative views are only welcome on topics that aren’t particularly emotionally charged, such as tax policy, tariffs, infrastructure, etc. but that on highly sensitive/personal or emotionally charged topics like LGBT, race, etc. conservatives should shut up or convert.