Conservatism

Keef

Premium
22,580
United States
Dayton, OH
GTP_KeefRacer
GTP Keef
This link doesn't work, you may need to correct the destination. Also I think you mean "subreddit".
Good call, fixed. But I'm leaving rubreddit. That's what I like to do in my free time.

As I see it, conservatives are people who are, serially, on the wrong side of history about everything. The Earth revolving around the sun, the Earth being round, the divine right of kings, the viability of democracy, Evolution, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, trickle down economics, supporting fascism etc. etc.

Reproductive rights.

Conservatism is a purely reactionary ideology. It stands against change. It's insane.

I will also add that the majority of sociologists, historians, anthropologists, and psychologists tend to be left leaning, and this is not arbitrary. Of course today’s conservatives will tell you that this is purely a result of “far-left indoctrination” at universities rather than the people in these fields making up their own minds. It turns out the more you know and can understand about history and human behavior, the more likely you are to be opposed to reactionary beliefs. Like I said, history never looks favorably upon reactionary ideologies/movements. That’s why conservatives have been engaging in lots of historical revisionism lately, such as “The Civil War wasn’t about slavery” or “The Nazis we’re socialists” or “Fascism is actually a left ideology” or “The US was the first place to abolish slavery” or that every war the US entered was solely to “spread democracy and protect people from tyranny”, among many others. PragerU is a goldmine for this.
For whatever reason this all kind of blew my mind. I've never thought about it like this. The core principle of conservatism, the logical basis for the entire concept, works against improving the future. Wow.
 
Last edited:
5,785
Simcoeace
I have yet to hear anyone successfully convince me that the Nazis were socialists as it's well known they hated Russia/USSR.

Yet ... they allied with Stalin to invade & pick apart Poland & Finland.

In the end, you have to be capable of appreciating that there is a distinction between totalitarian socialism/communism & democratic socialism. There is now enough evidence for the viability of a "mixed economy" to make that distinction.
 
Last edited:

Liquid

Fission Mailed
Premium
25,164
Slovakia
Bratvegas
GTP_Liquid
In the end, you have to be capable of appreciating that there is a distinction between totalitarian socialism/communism & democratic socialism. There is now enough evidence for the viability of a "mixed economy" to make that distinction.

A 🤬 by any other name.
 
5,785
Simcoeace
For whatever reason this all kind of blew my mind. I've never thought about it like this. The core principle of conservatism, the logical basis for the entire concept, works against improving the future. Wow.

There you go.

I will say that in Canada, for decades, the name of the conservative party was Progressive Conservative ... so there is that. Sort of underscores the difference between Canada & the US. At root the difference is related to the difference in the influence of religious fundamentalism in US politics. A belief system based on the literal truth of the Old Testament is going to have a hard time with the idea of progression. In fact, when the Canadian Progressive Conservative party was decimated in the election of 1993. it was largely because the "social conservative" wing of the party, with a significant religious fundamentalist component - sort of the Canadian Tea Party - split away to form a separate party. Sort of what I could envisage happening in the US now ... except Trump himself has no apparent religious conviction at all, while the GOP without religion would be a rump party. It's the American paradox ... or American Exceptionalism, if you prefer. :sly:
 
8,911
United States
Marin County
To be fair, I think a conservative would argue that they aren't against "improving the future" but rather that they are fundamentally cautious about drastic change. So to a progressive it feels like they are holding everyone back, but to them, they are trying to guard against unknown dangers.

That being said, it's pretty clear to me that conservatives in the USA have gone off the rails partisan and are now merely the "not-democrat" party and pretty much the entire governing principle of the GOP can be summed up with the words "bad faith". See Ken Paxton for further info.
 

GranTurNismo

Resident Car Nerd
Premium
2,904
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
To be fair, I think a conservative would argue that they aren't against "improving the future" but rather that they are fundamentally cautious about drastic change.
That would be pragmatism, not conservatism. Even as a staunch leftist I do understand the importance of pragmatism in politics and activism. Lenin emphasized this on multiple occasions throughout his writings. Being progressive is not a race to see who can propose the farthest left agenda and do it as fast as possible. There's quite a big difference between supporting change but doing so cautiously and opposing it altogether. American conservatives do the latter, because like I said, it's a reactionary movement.
 
Last edited:

Scaff

Moderator
26,604
United Kingdom
He/Him
ScaffUK
ScaffGTP
A study that looks at 18 countries over 50 years from LSE and King's College, finds a direct causal link between tax cut's for the rich and an increase in wealth inequality, with no measurable benefits to economic growth or employment levels.

Another study that shows trickle-down is a fantasy that just makes rich people richer, but goes past correlation, into a direct causal link.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf

6. Conclusion This paper uses a two-stage process to estimate the causal effects of major tax cuts for the rich on economic outcomes. First, we identify instances of major reductions in tax progressivity by looking at substantial falls (greater than 2 standard deviations) in a new, comprehensive indicator of taxes on the rich that covers 18 OECD countries from 1965 to 2015. Second, we apply a nonparametric generalization of the difference-in-differences indicator that implements Mahalanobis matching in panel data analysis to estimate the causal effect of major tax cuts for the rich on income inequality, economic growth, and unemployment. We find that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The size of the effect is substantial: on average, each major tax cut results in a rise of 0.8 percentage points in top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect holds in both the short and medium term. Turning our attention to economic performance, we find no significant effects of major tax cuts for the rich. More specifically, the trajectories of real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate are unaffected by significant reductions in taxes on the rich in both the short and medium term. Our results have important implications for current debates around the economic consequences of taxing the rich, as they provide causal evidence that supports the growing pool of evidence from correlational studies that cutting taxes on the rich increases top income shares, but has little effect on economic performance (Lee and Gordon, 2005; Piketty et al., 2014; Roine et al., 2009). They also align with the causal findings in Rubulino and Waldenstrom (2020), but provide stronger and more generalizable conclusions, as our approach allows us to move beyond looking at tax changes in only handful of selected countries.
 
Last edited:
1,381
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
To be fair, I think a conservative would argue that they aren't against "improving the future" but rather that they are fundamentally cautious about drastic change. So to a progressive it feels like they are holding everyone back, but to them, they are trying to guard against unknown dangers.

That being said, it's pretty clear to me that conservatives in the USA have gone off the rails partisan and are now merely the "not-democrat" party and pretty much the entire governing principle of the GOP can be summed up with the words "bad faith". See Ken Paxton for further info.
Makes sense, but I wonder why so much of the pushback against masks is from conservatives. I guess the rationale is it infringes on personal liberties, but that is an extremely small sacrifice to pay for a potentially lifesaving intervention.
 
Last edited:

Dotini

Premium
15,130
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
Makes sense, but I wonder why so much of the pushback against masks is from conservatives. I guess the rationale is it infringes on personal liberties, but that is an extremely small sacrifice to pay for a potentially lifesaving intervention.
To be clear, I don't know. I myself am conservative only to the extent of wearing both belt and suspenders. However, I suspect that many conservatives have a deep intuitive mistrust of government authority. I'm a good boy, take all my shots and follow the laws. When it is announced that state police will stop all highway travelers, seek to know their plans, and turn them back if the state does not deem it essential - that will arouse the umbrage of any true conservative IMHO. I know a conservative who will wear a mask in a paint booth or other clear industry safety situations, but needs to decide for himself in other less obvious situations, like this pandemic. Naturally, he consults mostly the data that supports his view, which is very frustrating for me.
 

Keef

Premium
22,580
United States
Dayton, OH
GTP_KeefRacer
GTP Keef
To me, this sums up the problem with modern American conservatism:

It’s the complete lack of self-awareness.

It's late and I honestly can't think up a response. It's exhausting trying to wrap my head around that. I'll admit to being a terrible student, my grades were average, I was late to class half the time, literally never went to the college library for a book, and didn't even finish the degree. But at least I'm not stupid.
 

UKMikey

This is where the casuals hang out, right?
Premium
9,799
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
To me, this sums up the problem with modern American conservatism:

It’s the complete lack of self-awareness.
It's okay. The facts totally care about conservatives' feelings and will definitely change if enough people disagree with them, as sure as the earth is a 4000 year old flat disc.
 
22,415
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
Y'know, the opposition to and fight against British rule in the colonies was very...progressive. S'pose that's why the conservative snowflakes at The Heritage Foundation are so pissy that people are critical of the royals.
 
Last edited:

Populuxe

Premium
8,325
United States
Seattle WA
Y'know, the opposition to and fight against British rule in the colonies was very...progressive. S'pose that's why the conservative snowflakes at The Heritage Foundation are so pissy that people are critical of the royals.
Especially since conservatives think our laws should apply to the British:
 

UKMikey

This is where the casuals hang out, right?
Premium
9,799
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
Smooth brain energy.
Screenshot_20210406-200743_Chrome.jpg


cTAcSO.gif
 

GranTurNismo

Resident Car Nerd
Premium
2,904
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
Came across this quote, and it's as relevant as ever.

"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” - David Frum
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,438
United States
Mile High City
Came across this quote, and it's as relevant as ever.

"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” - David Frum

Apparently that comes from the book Trumpocracy, published in 2018.
 
22,415
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
I can appreciate conservatism to a degree, but the sort of toxic conservatism that the current Republican Party fosters is ridiculous. I don't think it's illustrated any more perfectly than with the "cuckservative" and "RINO" pejoratives crafted by the based base to describe those moderates who may hold conservative views regarding economic and foreign policy (which I can appreciate) but tend somewhat more liberal when it comes to social issues such as equal treatment under law and holding law enforcement accountable.

...

So, people have been calling it a cult and I've thus far dithered somewhat, but when I think of cults, this is exactly the sort of thing I imagine.



I had to make sure, so I went to the NRCC website myself...

https://www.nrcc.org/

...and started scrolling. There's not much to the front page, and certainly not what's pictured above, so I began clicking through. "Get Involved" allows you to sign up for a recurring text message program. "Donate" seemed pretty obvious, and sure enough, it led to a secure (well, the word is in the URL, anyway) donation page...

https://secure.winred.com/nrcc/reta...62.621334365.1617826538-1568230042.1617826538

...and here's a screenshot:

Insane.

By the way, $36,5000 is the maximum amount established by the FEC for individual contributions to national party committees.
 
Last edited:
22,415
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
I'm picturing slow-motion footage of Trump dancing, doing his ISL from a podium and staring at an eclipse, with Sarah McLachlan narrating, "For the cost of a cup of coffee, you can ensure a scared, loveless, aspiring dictator wedges his way back into government."
 
Last edited:

NotThePrez

Wa-psh-wa-psh-pssh!
Premium
2,801
United States
St.Pete, FL
NotThePrez
NotThePrez
Cult45, baby.

Trump will grift his followers up until 2024 for money and then declare he’s not going to actually run.

And I'm willing to bet a significant portion of those that are ripped off will still refuse to accept that Trump/Trump-lite portions of the GOP see them as nothing more than expendable assets.
 

Keef

Premium
22,580
United States
Dayton, OH
GTP_KeefRacer
GTP Keef

I don't think that's ever going to fly in court. Dude is about to get screwed. I doubt any reasonable person would read those and think they were approving recurring donations - the checkmark isn't lined up with the donation text, the rambling paragraph is larger bolded font, the donation sentence doesn't seem to have any context it is referring to, and it's not even a complete sentence with punctuation for cripe's sake. There's no way this passes the "reasonable person" test.
 

UKMikey

This is where the casuals hang out, right?
Premium
9,799
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
And I'm willing to bet a significant portion of those that are ripped off will still refuse to accept that Trump/Trump-lite portions of the GOP see them as nothing more than expendable assets.
I suspect they'll find a way to blame Obama somehow.
 
Last edited:

McLaren

Premium
41,757
United States
Texas
I suspect they'll find a way to blame Obama somehow.
Judging by the Conservative subreddit, they're surprisingly consistent at blaming their fellow voter base for being "too stupid" to read the disclaimers.