4 ms·

The problem with using the liberal and conservative labels and assuming a continuum between the two is that conservative isn't a fixed ideology anymore and many

by curun1r 11y ago

The problem with using the liberal and conservative labels and assuming a continuum between the two is that conservative isn't a fixed ideology anymore and many people conflate what conservatism used to mean with what it currently means. Neo-conservatism changed all that. Today's conservatives don't believe in small government or reduced spending, they just want the government to be bigger and spend more in different ways than the liberals do. Note: that this isn't unique to conservatives...modern-day liberals have sold out their core constituency to an equal degree, but I focused on conservatives because I believe the conservatives that you find yourself agreeing with are the kind that don't really play a part in the Republican party anymore. They've been marginalized by Fox News and talk radio (Rush et al).

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Today's conservatives don't believe in small government or reduced spending Conservatism never meant small government and reduced spending, it has been(since both classical conservatism and classical liberalism were defined), protection of the interest of the status quo elites, typically by appeals to tradition, religion, and national identity. Modern American political conservatism includes a lot of small government rhetoric because the status quo elites it protects are outside of government, and because it has sought to harness support for libertarian ideals and work it in favor of conservative politics. But there's nothing essentially small government about conservatism, and the idea that the two are related is a fairly recent phenomenon. > Neo-conservatism changed all that. Neo-conservatism is a bit weird, in its history (largely being founded by disillusioned ex-Trotskyites, and centering on global revolution vary similar to that supported by Stalinists, but with neoliberal economic systems and the US taking the role of Communist economic systems and the USSR) and other ways, but only had a brief moment (roughly corresponding with the George W. Bush presidency) as a dominant force in the broader scope of US conservatism; religious/social conservatives supporting big government enforcing their particular social views have been a dominant force in American conservatism as long as there has been American conservatism, contrary to your idea of small government orientation as an essential feature of conservatism that has recently been lost in America due to "neo-conservatives".
- pjc50 11y ago
  Neo-conservatism is a bit weird, in its history (largely being founded by disillusioned ex-Trotskyites) I've not heard that before; who do you mean? I saw the "PNAC" manifesto years ago.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I saw the "PNAC" manifesto years ago. PNAC was the resurgence of the neoconservative movement (and preceded it rising to its greatest heights of power), but not its origin; some info on the movements origin that discusses its first rise to influence and the period after -- written a couple years before PNAC was formed: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/1995-07-01/trotskyism-anachronism-neoconservative-revolution https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/1995-07-...

by curun1r 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Today's conservatives don't believe in small government or reduced spending Conservatism never meant small government and reduced spending, it has been(since both classical conservatism and classical liberalism were defined), protection of the interest of the status quo elites, typically by appeals to tradition, religion, and national identity. Modern American political conservatism includes a lot of small government rhetoric because the status quo elites it protects are outside of government, and because it has sought to harness support for libertarian ideals and work it in favor of conservative politics. But there's nothing essentially small government about conservatism, and the idea that the two are related is a fairly recent phenomenon. > Neo-conservatism changed all that. Neo-conservatism is a bit weird, in its history (largely being founded by disillusioned ex-Trotskyites, and centering on global revolution vary similar to that supported by Stalinists, but with neoliberal economic systems and the US taking the role of Communist economic systems and the USSR) and other ways, but only had a brief moment (roughly corresponding with the George W. Bush presidency) as a dominant force in the broader scope of US conservatism; religious/social conservatives supporting big government enforcing their particular social views have been a dominant force in American conservatism as long as there has been American conservatism, contrary to your idea of small government orientation as an essential feature of conservatism that has recently been lost in America due to "neo-conservatives".

pjc50 11y ago
Neo-conservatism is a bit weird, in its history (largely being founded by disillusioned ex-Trotskyites) I've not heard that before; who do you mean? I saw the "PNAC" manifesto years ago.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I saw the "PNAC" manifesto years ago. PNAC was the resurgence of the neoconservative movement (and preceded it rising to its greatest heights of power), but not its origin; some info on the movements origin that discusses its first rise to influence and the period after -- written a couple years before PNAC was formed: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/1995-07-01/trotskyism-anachronism-neoconservative-revolution https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/1995-07-...