Conservative means retaining..... the establishment
It's stupid to claim being anti-establishment while also being Conservative
View all comments
That makes no sense. Conservatism doesn’t mean establishment.
The definition of the word conservative is someone who seeks to uphold, or conserve, the status quo. The establishment is part of the status quo.
It depends what a conservative is most likely trying to conserve.
If it's nuclear family values, then one might consider themselves a social conservative.
If it's individual, financial responsibility with a capitalistic leaning, then one might be a fiscal conservative
Neither of these necessarily blindly commit one to an establishment that does not support these points of view
If you're a political conservative, that means supporting the political status quo, which is the establishment.
Political conservatives would technically be trying to conserve their politics, not their politicians
If their politics were based upon returning the country to social conservative values, they would be social conservatives
If their politics were based upon encouraging individual, fiscal, responsibility, they would be fiscal conservatives
It's very common for conservatives to be all three and call themselves conservative.
I'd say that it's possible for conservatives to ally themselves with all three, but it doesn't logically follow that they are defacto trying to conserve the current administration regardless of what it is
Just like it would be nonsensical to presume that progressives are *always* trying to march away from whoever is currently in power
Just like it would be nonsensical to presume that progressives are *always* trying to march away from whoever is currently in power
I mean that's not even the definition of progressive. A progressive is anyone who advocates for social progress towards equality, and they would 100% ally themselves with the government of the time if that government was progressive.
I'd say that it's possible for conservatives to ally themselves with all three, but it doesn't logically follow that they are defacto trying to conserve the current administration regardless of what it is
Not the current administration, the current established social and political institutions. That's why conservatives don't worship democrats when they're in power. They have beliefs that are favorable to things like organized religion, silicon valley, the military-industrial complex, etc., as well as structures of government like original interpretations of the constitution, not necessarily the current elected officials.
I mean that's not even the definition of progressive.
Which is why I used that example to suggest how silly that would be
Not the current administration, the current established social and political institutions. That's why conservatives don't worship democrats when they're in power. They have beliefs that are favorable to things like organized religion, silicon valley, the military-industrial complex, etc., as well as structures of government like original interpretations of the constitution, not necessarily the current elected officials.
I think there's a perception that conservatives are block-headed and blindly believe things without questioning them, whereas progressives are enlightened individuals who test out new ideas, explore things without previous preconceptions, and push the boundaries of social convention. Naturally with this sort of prejudice. it is understandable why it can be difficult to see where a lot of the above reasoning originates. I mean, not all of it is wrong, but certain perceptions of it are
For example, a conservative doesn't 'conserve' an institution simply because it is an established institution. That's wrong. First it has to satisfy certain criteria. Does that institution uphold family values? Then a social conservative would support it. But if not, then they would fight to have it reformed. Just like some recent, long-standing court decisions have been rescinded to the approval of social conservatives
Even structures of government can be challenged. Or was it not a conservative gathering that marched against that very thing during the twilight of Trump's presidency?
And organized religion isn't immune to a conservative's reformational undertakings. Else why would there be thousands of denominations instead of one single church?
Silicon Valley is a reference I'm not getting. My instinctive response is that it's a liberal hotbed so I'm missing something here
The military may appeal more to a conservative than a liberal, but it depends on what it is defending. And it depends upon its current advertising campaign. Both conservatives and liberals often have a strong sense of civic responsibility, but it can manifest in different ways. A liberal may wish to put more attention into social programs, whereas a conservative might be more inclined to offer their lives to defend against outside threats. I would argue that we need both mindsets always.
To understand what makes a conservative, one has to understand the motivations rather than make a caricature of them. They have valid reasons that are logically consistent for behaving as they do. Blind conservation of just about anything simply to forestall change is not one of them.
Ok so reddit for some reason won't let me comment when my comment is too long so I'm going to go through one at a time.
Which is why I used that example to suggest how silly that would be
Why didn't you use any other entirely wrong comparisons instead lol? Why not "soft as rocks" or something?
it is understandable why it can be difficult to see where a lot of the above reasoning originates. I mean, not all of it is wrong, but certain perceptions of it are
That's not a stereotype though. Conservatives often run in elections on a platform of being pro-business, pro-christianity, pro-military, pro-original interpretation of the constitution on a lot of issues.
a conservative doesn't 'conserve' an institution simply because it is an established institution. That's wrong.
Well of course there's levels. Conservatives see the political concept of abortion rights as a threat to the social institution of the nuclear family. Conservatives also see the legal institution of family courts as a threat to the social institution of the nuclear family as well, because the institutions they see most intrinsic to society are the ones they uphold above all else.
Even structures of government can be challenged. Or was it not a conservative gathering that marched against that very thing during the twilight of Trump's presidency?
Wait, you mean the MAGA crowd shit where they just said that Trump won the election and Biden didn't based on absolutely zero evidence? So the shit where they challenged the structure of government of elective democracy? nah man. Those aren't conservatives, those are on the same political level as Oswald Mosley's crowd.
And organized religion isn't immune to a conservative's reformational undertakings. Else why would there be thousands of denominations instead of one single church?
That wasn't conservatives' doing. It was the conservatives in the early 1500's who tried to maintain Roman Catholic and Papal dominance over the churches and religion of Europe. It was Protestant (as in anti-Papal) philosophical beliefs which developed into modern liberalism (see Machiavelli's The Prince which followed Protestant views on faith vs. works and formed the basis for practically all, especially liberal and enlightened, political science that followed).
Silicon Valley is a reference I'm not getting. My instinctive response is that it's a liberal hotbed so I'm missing something here
It's an entrepreneur and capitalistic hotbed. I would cite Elon Musk as an example of conservatives loving that shit, or at least until around a year or so ago. Conservative politicians are pro-business and love attracting tech giants to their jurisdictions. There's also all the innovation stuff that they love, like using the creation of google and the iPhone as evidence that you can just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, which is in turn used as an attack on welfare programs.
The military may appeal more to a conservative than a liberal, but it depends on what it is defending. And it depends upon its current advertising campaign. Both conservatives and liberals often have a strong sense of civic responsibility, but it can manifest in different ways. A liberal may wish to put more attention into social programs, whereas a conservative might be more inclined to offer their lives to defend against outside threats. I would argue that we need both mindsets always.
Liberals attack the military FAR more than conservatives do, and consistently. Conservatives often complain about any attempt to take money from the military budget. This isn't an attack on conservatives btw, I'm just repeating what I've heard conservatives say.
To understand what makes a conservative, one has to understand the motivations rather than make a caricature of them. They have valid reasons that are logically consistent for behaving as they do. Blind conservation of just about anything simply to forestall change is not one of them.
This entire debate is completely semantic. You're attempting to explain and justify to me the beliefs of a middle-right wing conservative in the US in 2024. I'm attempting to explain to you what the consistent meaning of the word conservative. In 2024 in the US a conservative has the beliefs you described. In 2024 in Russia a conservative is often someone who wants a return of the Soviet Union, and communism is entirely different from US 2024 conservatism. In 1864 in the US a conservative wants slavery, because slavery was seen as a part of the traditional way of life of many people. It has to do with tradition and old ways.