4 ms·

If that golden age never existed, wouldn't that technically be progress?

• pmoriarty 10y ago
  The golden age may not have existed as a reality, it reflects old ideals that did exist -- especially for those of certain privileged classes, sexes, and races, and to the detriment of the rest. That's why they're opposed and called regressive or reactionary by progressives. I'm sure conservatives would consider it "progress", but I doubt many of them would want to adopt the term "progressive" to their cause, as that term has an anti-conservative connotation. And certainly those who do label themselves "progressive" would not call that "progress" but "regress". Also, it should be pointed out that the golden age that conservatives often refer to did not exist as they describe, but aspects of it did exist in a much seedier and painful form. For instance, the golden age that some conservatives paint of the institution of slavery being a benefit to and desired by slaves -- that did not exist. But slavery and slaves did exist. Those conservatives that do favor slavery would have us go back to a slave-owning society, and would paint a rosy picture to convince those gullible or uneducated enough to think it would be a good idea, or to try to give themselves a fig leaf of respectability or deniability.
  • mantas 10y ago
    So it's just a label for leftists. Even if they are being conservative at the time. Fun story. During the collapse of USSR, a local band wrote popular song that had a line saying "conservative idiots strangled us in wires". Later on, most of independence movement formed Conservatives party. As in, the word itself is party title. Song quickly dropped the "conservatives" word :)