-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[Serious] what’s the appeal of conservativism?
- Thread starter ToddBonzalez
- Start date
Coming from Focus on the Family Colorado Springs...this is what I have heard from people I grew up with (pick one or two)
- Keep more of what you make
-Government isn't good at running things so why should we give them more power to run things inefficiently
- Anything should be legal as long as you aren't directly hurting someone else...therefore many regulations are wrong
- Government debt is out of control and could cause rampant inflation or worse.
- States rights
-Unborn babies
- Guns
- Religion under attack (Christian)
- Free market and private business can do things better than the government can...
Now...of course there are holes in all of these but this is the arguments many people I know make...
- Keep more of what you make
-Government isn't good at running things so why should we give them more power to run things inefficiently
- Anything should be legal as long as you aren't directly hurting someone else...therefore many regulations are wrong
- Government debt is out of control and could cause rampant inflation or worse.
- States rights
-Unborn babies
- Guns
- Religion under attack (Christian)
- Free market and private business can do things better than the government can...
Now...of course there are holes in all of these but this is the arguments many people I know make...
My kid tried to grab my red bull earlier, and I was like "No buddy, that's a grown-up drink... though I guess they might be illegal by the time you're a grown-up." And I had an epiphany - is this conservatism? Scared of regulations in the future that might suppress things we consider freedoms, no matter the benefit? I don't care if energy drinks are made illegal in the future, or fucking hamburgers, or gasoline powered vehicles, etc. But conservatives are so terrified of change, and they try to maximize their ability to have a festering pile of freedoms under the pretext that they are owed that freedom. They'll call for deregulating businesses and social constructs that we've progressively moved into under the illusion of doing it for the economy, but in reality it's because they're whiny little babies who just can't deal with their environment changing. Because the truth is conservatives love regulations, just not those that impact them. That's why they want to regulate women's bodies, LBGTQ+ civil rights, the impact of scientific teaching without religious supplication, etc. Because regulation is power, but that power shouldn't be used to benefit as many people as possible to make society as well as possible for as many people as possible, it should only benefit them and their world view.
- status quo, money hoarding, fuck you got mine
- don't want to pay taxes that benefit society, which goes back to FU got mine
- don't want to pay taxes that benefit society, which goes back to FU got mine
Out of everyone I've ever spoken to who has any conservative leanings or views, it always comes down to one of two things:
A) I saw in the newspaper/news/tabloid it said X.
Or... And much more common, usually in addition to the above:
B) FUCK EVERYONE ON THE OFF CHANCE ILL BE RICH ONE DAY.
A) I saw in the newspaper/news/tabloid it said X.
Or... And much more common, usually in addition to the above:
B) FUCK EVERYONE ON THE OFF CHANCE ILL BE RICH ONE DAY.
Obviously american conservatism is a very warped version of itself as many here could probably attest but normally conservatism promises safety and stability, which is a very powerful proposal for many people compared to the left which promotes change but at the same time that change means an uncertain or unknown future.
I don't know if you can fix conservatism in its modern form. The type of people who pick it up are either too selfish or too stupid to make it function "well" for society in the long run.
You might be able to replace it with a form or "pragmatism" instead, which is generally what I am if I am not justnoutright being progressive. I am open to change if the change is seen as generally favourable (or interesting), and I will consider different people's wants and needs as I do think that is an important variable for maintaining a sustainable society.
You might be able to replace it with a form or "pragmatism" instead, which is generally what I am if I am not justnoutright being progressive. I am open to change if the change is seen as generally favourable (or interesting), and I will consider different people's wants and needs as I do think that is an important variable for maintaining a sustainable society.
i'm not convinced that conservatives are really afraid of change. Plenty of them liked Donald Trump above the other republicans precisely for the fact that he would shake things up. And if we look at libertarians specifically, there's a ton of them that don't want any government at all - that's a pretty big change for an ideology that supposedly doesn't want change. Some of it is a persistent failure to identify who the real enemies are and i think a touch of social darwinism.
People didn't vote Trump because they wanted change from him. They voted him specifically to revert the changes of the previous administration and lead them back to the "good old days".
It's pretty simple. "My life is good. If things change, it's possible my life will no longer be good. Change is scary."
Conservatism is, in some measure, expected and natural.
The problem is that American "Conservatism"... isn't. It's straight-up regressive, not conservative, and that's what makes it so utterly and completely repugnant.
That's also why the political situation in America is getting so confused. The "conservatives" are, really, centrist Democrats and a very, very small (like vanishingly small) number of Republicans. That's causing schisms on both ends: the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is rebelling against the fact the party base has become the roost for Conservatism, and the Republican Party is in shambles over the fact the nutcase Regressive members of the party have dragged the whole lot down into a stinking mire of blind stupidity.
Conservatism is, in some measure, expected and natural.
The problem is that American "Conservatism"... isn't. It's straight-up regressive, not conservative, and that's what makes it so utterly and completely repugnant.
That's also why the political situation in America is getting so confused. The "conservatives" are, really, centrist Democrats and a very, very small (like vanishingly small) number of Republicans. That's causing schisms on both ends: the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is rebelling against the fact the party base has become the roost for Conservatism, and the Republican Party is in shambles over the fact the nutcase Regressive members of the party have dragged the whole lot down into a stinking mire of blind stupidity.
i mean it's pretty hard to get a handle on what the good old days means to conservatives. if we're talking about social issues - republicans more or less have a definitive stance against gay people, black people, trans, etc and see themselves as morally superior basically and don't see a need to protect marginalized groups. This is what i meany by social darwinism. But i think there's more to conservatism than just these civil rights issues and i was just trying to see how broad i could make it.
My thinking was: how can we explain something like conservatives wanting to privatize government agencies? This isn't something we can explain by just pointing to the good old days - we had a usps in the good old days... we had much higher taxes and a higher minimum wage.... conservatives consistently want very substantial changes (for the worse) at least on these economic policies/ social services issues.
User Banned (Permanent): Dismissive commentary around civil rights across multiple posts, inflammatory support
As some people have pointed out already, OP didn't specify what he meant by "conservatism," and a lot of posters are just saying that the GOP is racist (which it obviously is). But there are a lot of different meanings to conservatism in different eras and different contexts. In the US right now, it basically means a new "Know Nothing" party: anti-evolution, anti-vaccine, LGBT+-phobic, racist, pro-war. But it can mean a lot of different things.
I'm pretty conservative on the two things I know very well, education and fitness/exercise. And I'm conservative in those two areas because I've seen what works, and what doesn't, and by and large it's the old stuff that works and the new stuff that doesn't. I think that schools should focus on teaching fundamental skills and information in literature, history, math, science, and foreign language, so that makes me 'conservative' among teachers. The liberal view in education (liberal meaning, the new way) is that schools should focus on students' consuming things and feeling good. (And no, I'm not being hyperbolic at all. I've had many arguments with teachers and administrators over the years about whether students should learn things at school, and most of the administrators end up saying 'no.')
I'm also a conservative on civil rights (relative to the large majority of ERA) because I support free speech and I believe that civil liberties (basically, how you live your life in private) should be grounded in the individual and not identity groups. But Americans who vote Republican right now would think that I'm a crazy leftist on those issues, when (ironically) I'm just taking the GOP's old stated positions and taking them seriously.
It all depends on context.
I'm pretty conservative on the two things I know very well, education and fitness/exercise. And I'm conservative in those two areas because I've seen what works, and what doesn't, and by and large it's the old stuff that works and the new stuff that doesn't. I think that schools should focus on teaching fundamental skills and information in literature, history, math, science, and foreign language, so that makes me 'conservative' among teachers. The liberal view in education (liberal meaning, the new way) is that schools should focus on students' consuming things and feeling good. (And no, I'm not being hyperbolic at all. I've had many arguments with teachers and administrators over the years about whether students should learn things at school, and most of the administrators end up saying 'no.')
I'm also a conservative on civil rights (relative to the large majority of ERA) because I support free speech and I believe that civil liberties (basically, how you live your life in private) should be grounded in the individual and not identity groups. But Americans who vote Republican right now would think that I'm a crazy leftist on those issues, when (ironically) I'm just taking the GOP's old stated positions and taking them seriously.
It all depends on context.
alt take:
I was a hardcore conservative before I started anxiety medication a decade ago.
If something inside you is broken and scared virtually all the time for no discernible reason, you really don't mind if someone offers to make the world feel like a militarized security blanket.
I've since come to the strong bias that conservatism is chiefly the domain of bigots, the mentally ill, and the broadly antisocial.
I was a hardcore conservative before I started anxiety medication a decade ago.
If something inside you is broken and scared virtually all the time for no discernible reason, you really don't mind if someone offers to make the world feel like a militarized security blanket.
I've since come to the strong bias that conservatism is chiefly the domain of bigots, the mentally ill, and the broadly antisocial.
It literally means the days before political correctness became more prevalent. That's all it is. Trump will allow you to tell racist/sexist/homophobic jokes again without getting in trouble. I honestly believe that is his largest selling point.
I have a friend that's a die-hard Romney advocate and a Never-Trumper. He broke it down to two things:
- He wants the federal government to be smaller in size and power. He thinks there are lots of inefficiencies and unintended consequences when you try to solve everything at the federal level.
- Fiscal responsibility on the part of the government. He rambles about the national debt a lot.
I've never understood the small government argument from conservatives and to be blunt I think it's bullshit. State government can be just as inefficient, so why not push it down further and let local governments handle things.
Additionally, conservatives as a whole have always supported large government for the projects and ideas that they support.
ultimately, to keep more shit for yourself. money/resources/land/etc. survival of the fittest type of shit. i want all of it to keep me safe and secure.
they're not the types that want everyone to prosper. especially if it comes at their expense in anyway.
they have zero empathy beyond themselves and maybe their family, as long as they're straight, christian, and do whatever they say. if they're lgbtq, marry the wrong color, or question the orthodoxy, you're out the door too.
it's kinda right in the name. they want the status quo, at least a 1700's version of it.
that's why they champion tax cuts above all else and whine about 'entitlements'. and this extends past american conservatives, this is all conservatives.
they're not the types that want everyone to prosper. especially if it comes at their expense in anyway.
they have zero empathy beyond themselves and maybe their family, as long as they're straight, christian, and do whatever they say. if they're lgbtq, marry the wrong color, or question the orthodoxy, you're out the door too.
it's kinda right in the name. they want the status quo, at least a 1700's version of it.
that's why they champion tax cuts above all else and whine about 'entitlements'. and this extends past american conservatives, this is all conservatives.
Last edited:
It's the lie that all of your successes are earned and you deserve all your money. It's very comforting.
It also allows people space to justify their racism by looking at the marginalized and saying "they had every opportunity to not be there, and they're still there! That's their fault."
Again, comforting.
It also allows people space to justify their racism by looking at the marginalized and saying "they had every opportunity to not be there, and they're still there! That's their fault."
Again, comforting.
I mean this genuinely: who does he consider the last good Republican president? Because all of the recent ones oversaw massive increases in the defecit
It's never gonna happen but an appealing rebuilt conservatism should work for the the preservation of those things enacted during progressive governmental phases. To have no worry about the preservation of things like human rights, nature conservatism, agreements and defense. No racism, no sexism, no social conservatism, no anti-environmental, no religious agenda, no anti-science, no anti-public ownership. There should be no conservative agenda to reverse or undermine progress. Rather their greatest appeal would be as a reliable, skilled, up to date status quo option while the progressive mandate and representatives are changed.
First, wtf. Second:
I don't quite understand what you mean by this when talking about peoples' private lives.
It distills down to "Got Mine, Fuck You." Even racism is a form of this (i.e., it's a type of brutal, dehumanizing caste system pegged to skin color + ethnic origin).
Conservatism as a general thing always contains an element of racism, mysogyny, and/or some other bigotry. When talking about society in general, Conservatism always contains a central element of racism, mysogyny, and/or some other form of bigotry, and fighting to preserve that status quo.
On the freedom of speech argument, the vast majority of liberals, progressives, and people on era, fully believe in it. I don't think "freedom of speech" has ever been absolute though, as in you can whatever you want regardless of what your speech may lead to. The yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre test. There are also numerous situations where lying has always been illegal.
Conservatives who likely to complain about liberals, progressives, "cancel culture", platform moderation, "dog piles" etc. as free speech issues, think of it from a very one sided and hypocritical manner.
Fake edit: I need to continue on desktop. Phone doesn't like this forum apparently lol.
Conservatives who likely to complain about liberals, progressives, "cancel culture", platform moderation, "dog piles" etc. as free speech issues, think of it from a very one sided and hypocritical manner.
Fake edit: I need to continue on desktop. Phone doesn't like this forum apparently lol.
Growing up pretty conservative (particularly socially) it's really scary to embrace that the ideas you've had might be wrong and that others (which are often appealing and you've been told are sinful) are okay, if not you're true path to happiness/joy (or put in whatever religious/spiritual terms you want). Especially if you're one who's been taught the whole heaven/hell thing.
It takes some bravery to come out of these worldviews. Admittedly not as hard as others' struggles, but deserving of recognition (and perhaps empathy for those stuck in it)
You have to realize these things aren't always a choice for the person (as in you were raised that way and only knew that way as truth). Thank goodness there's now the internet to get outside perspectives so easily and freely. I don't know if you used a library before the internet but it would take you hours to find the answer to one question in what now you can do in a Google search for each thought that flies through your head while you take a shit.
It takes some bravery to come out of these worldviews. Admittedly not as hard as others' struggles, but deserving of recognition (and perhaps empathy for those stuck in it)
You have to realize these things aren't always a choice for the person (as in you were raised that way and only knew that way as truth). Thank goodness there's now the internet to get outside perspectives so easily and freely. I don't know if you used a library before the internet but it would take you hours to find the answer to one question in what now you can do in a Google search for each thought that flies through your head while you take a shit.
They have also massively approved of 'big government', again, it is just big government on the issues I approve of.
The basic idea behind conservatism is "hey, things could be worse." The problem is that opposing progressivism necessitates defending an obviously unfair socioeconomic heirarchy. A lot of people are OK with that since they perceive themselves to have some status (ex. "at least I'm white") that could be lost in a a better society. Others just play semantics and say that since laws don't specifically codify racism or other discrimination anymore, there are no systemic problems left to solve.
It's all bullshit, but they believe it.
It's all bullshit, but they believe it.
The appeal of conservatism, as I knew it, was about personal responsibility, religious moral values (in the case of America, Judeo-Christian), patriotism, fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, and small federal government.
I used the past tense because conservatism lifted it's mask of decency and civility (obviously), but some still cling to and identify with its supposed values, even if those values have been corrupted, because it's human nature to want belonging.
I used the past tense because conservatism lifted it's mask of decency and civility (obviously), but some still cling to and identify with its supposed values, even if those values have been corrupted, because it's human nature to want belonging.
Another point is that the philosophical origins of conservatism came in the 17th/18th/19th centuries as a response to the growing anti-monarchical tide (the English Civil War, French Revolution, various revolutions of the 19th century). They were designed in their beginning to provide a rationale for maintaining the privileges of the aristocracy in the face of the Enlightenment invalidating the old rationale (heritable divine right).
In this way you could look at Conservatism about promoting "the negative peace that is the absence of conflict" for the caution that you may not achieve "the positive peace that is the presence of justice" without incurring a cost that is greater than what you're seeking.
The fallacy behind this is that this "negative peace" only exists for the beneficiaries of an unjust society. Black Americans hardly live a "peaceful injustice," there is an active human cost to not acting.
Conservatism as a philosophy can be refuted by Utilitarianism. There is a cost to acting to make a better world, but there is also a cost to not acting, and if the cost of the status quo is greater than the cost of disrupting it, then it is imperative to act.
In this way you could look at Conservatism about promoting "the negative peace that is the absence of conflict" for the caution that you may not achieve "the positive peace that is the presence of justice" without incurring a cost that is greater than what you're seeking.
The fallacy behind this is that this "negative peace" only exists for the beneficiaries of an unjust society. Black Americans hardly live a "peaceful injustice," there is an active human cost to not acting.
Conservatism as a philosophy can be refuted by Utilitarianism. There is a cost to acting to make a better world, but there is also a cost to not acting, and if the cost of the status quo is greater than the cost of disrupting it, then it is imperative to act.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is reasonable until you get to the part where to them America wasn't broke when we were still deciding about slaves.
"Liberals" are anarchists. "Fundamentalists" are religious zealots. America was never not broken and the founders clearly knew that.
"Liberals" are anarchists. "Fundamentalists" are religious zealots. America was never not broken and the founders clearly knew that.
I think the modern American conservativism is a combination of fear and a small, neutered bubble of empathy.
By empathy bubble I mean that a sheltered typical conservative person only cares about themselves, immediate family, and maybe some friends. Everyone else is outside of their range of caring. A liberal-minded person on the other hand tends to have interacted more with strangers and people outside their social bubbles, so their range of empathy and concern extends past their social circles to society at large, or to the world as a whole.
All of the conservative foundations, like racism, small government, guns, taxes, abortion; I believe all of it comes from some mix of fear of something, and inability to relate to people outside their bubbles.
By empathy bubble I mean that a sheltered typical conservative person only cares about themselves, immediate family, and maybe some friends. Everyone else is outside of their range of caring. A liberal-minded person on the other hand tends to have interacted more with strangers and people outside their social bubbles, so their range of empathy and concern extends past their social circles to society at large, or to the world as a whole.
All of the conservative foundations, like racism, small government, guns, taxes, abortion; I believe all of it comes from some mix of fear of something, and inability to relate to people outside their bubbles.