It didnt create a right for plutocrats to buy the government, no matter how you twist things.
Yes, labels often become a substitute for thought. A recent thread asked “Who was the conservative: Jefferson or Hamilton?” The question might have been thought to be some big Gotcha but my reaction was “Who cares? Issues and context were different then.” Another example is “Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?” My reaction to that is “Don’t be stupid! If Social Security is a fraud, prove it; don’t waste time attempting some trite syllogism (Fruits are sweet, Lemons are fruit, blah blah blah).”
I’d not be surprised if many Americans vote “conservative” just because the word has connotations they like.
Happened to be my thread, although within I tried to clarify (and apparently failed, as almost nobody seemed to me to understand the OP) that in understanding Jefferson as the founding father of American conservatism, I was referring to a specific tradition of how to view the size of government in the US, a tradition that Richard Norton Smith has talked about in several places. I’d agree that there are different strands of conservatism, but I also think there’s such a thing as an overarching identifiable conservative weltanschauung; it makes sense to me to say that some people, therefore, are just conservative people IMHO (this being the point on which me and Rand Rover differ).
I disagree with you when you write, “Who cares? Issues and context were different then”. I think we sometimes dismiss the lessons of those who came before by pretending that certain overarching ideas weren’t the same, by saying that everything was so totally different. I can imagine some hypothetical totalitarian violent philosophy coming along one day blaming Chinese people for everything, and when a Doper tries to compare it to Naziism, I’ll read about how lacking in nuance the Doper is, how Naziism was completely different because the context was totally different, and what do the Jews have to do with the Chinese anyhow?
Because they are? At least the conservatives admit they and the libertarians are the same, at least in their minds. It’s a pretty big part of the USA right-wing identity that that they are the defenders of freedom against the Kremlin’s totalitarianism (no, it doesn’t make sense, but there it is).
It’s like how Southern Baptists pretty much admit that they’re the same as Roman Catholics now. Both Christian, both anti-abortion, and not trying to be teetotal anymore. In another generation, enough of them’ll accept the Pope, and boom! back in the fold.
Better yet, why do many conservatives pretend to be left-wing liberals? They think they’re liberal just because they have a tie-dye shirt that they wear a few times a year or because they vote democrat or because they donate to a charity for starving children.
Or because they’re professional women, or gay.
In case it’s not clear: If you’re anti-regulation, anti-tax, dismissive of environmental concerns, despise New Deal progressivism, love Reaganomics, and possibly also a big ol’ hawk, guess what? It doesn’t matter how freaky or how feminist you are. You might be a baby Jeane Kirkpatrick or Florence King. Please stop trying to hijack progressivism just because you’re a liberated woman or whatever.
:dubious: My point was that all women of reproductive age are directly impacted by reproductive rights, not only the women who actually get an abortion (a woman may absolutely plan to terminate a pregnancy if it should happen, and end up never getting pregnant. Abortion rights are still highly fucking relevant to her).
It’s a lot easier to believe reproductive rights are “unimportant” social issues when you don’t need to ever worry about getting pregnant in the first place. :rolleyes:
If you’re going to go that route, you’d might as well just say it affects 100% of the population. I would think the decision as to whether or not the man who created the baby actually becomes a father is relevant to him as well.
I’m not going to get into a debate about abortion/abortion rights, but I’ll just say that sure, that is a concern to the potential father and it definitely is a life-changer. But the abortion is performed on the woman, not the man, and does not require consent/agreement from both parties to proceed. The woman is the only one who faces the medical dangers/risks of pregnancy and childbirth (and for many women, that is a very real concern instead of a rare, remote possibility). Pain, disability (temporary or long term) and death are much larger and immediately “relevant” than the potential to be a father in the near future.