4 ms·

I think there’s a wide difference between “classical” conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first k

by jitl 9y ago

I think there’s a wide difference between “classical” conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first kind is fine and welcome to an extent. It’s racism that’s not.

aphextron 9y ago
>I think there’s a wide difference between “classical” conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first kind is fine and welcome to an extent. Precisely. We need conservatism. We need that part of our conscience which says "well, hold on a minute", or "hey we can't afford that" in order to function properly as a democracy. It's loss is a tragedy, and the corruption of those ideals over the past 30 years into what it has become is breaking our country.
- irhd 9y ago
  > We need conservatism I disagree at this point honestly. course all I've ever seen of american conservatism is the current republican party.
  - pwinnski 9y ago
    This seems like an instance of SV's bias toward the young biting SV in the collective butt. People who remember the 70s and 80s remember a different political environment.
    - RickJWag 9y ago
      Yes, true. When things seem overwhelming, I like to remind myself that in the 60s things seemed worse. (To me, the 80s and 90s were very good.)
deadmetheny 9y ago
The problem is that the first group is lumped into the second one. I live in the Midwest, which by all rights is a very conservative region of the country even in the urbanized areas, and conservatives are generally regarded by liberals as bumpkins that accidentally wandered into the city, even when re-iterating their disapproval of racism, sexism, and the alt-right until blue (ha) in the face. This is what's driving classical conservatives into the closet, and potentially causing them to actually embrace the more extremist ideologies.
- irhd 9y ago
  > The problem is that the first group is lumped into the second one. Why wouldn't they be? The "crazy" ones aren't being elected by no one. They rose to power because voters embraced them. If you don't want to be lumped in as crazy then quit supporting crazy. > potentially causing them to actually embrace the more extremist ideologies. I really, really hate this argument. It's just trying to absolve people of their responsibility for choosing white nationalism and other reprehensible ideas. If you joined up because some arrogant jerk offended you one day then maybe you weren't a very good person to begin with. Besides, how many liberals do you see pushing hateful ideologies and communism because they are sick of being called arrogant elites?
  - deadmetheny 9y ago
    >Why wouldn't they be? The "crazy" ones aren't being elected by no one. They rose to power because voters embraced them. If you don't want to be lumped in as crazy then quit supporting crazy I don't disagree that the Republican party has been hijacked. Personally, I am non-partisan and generally will vote for whichever candidates lean more towards a liberal-libertarian platform, be they R or D. Lately, that's been a lot more D than R. >If you joined up because some arrogant jerk offended you one day then maybe you weren't a very good person to begin with Hatred and ostracization make people go to very dark places. A lot of people are lumping people who ideologically believe in lower taxes and fewer government services with white supremacists. I'm obviously not condoning people going to those places, but acting like putting these people on blast and calling them awful because their beliefs partially overlap with those of a genuinely awful group of people is at the least not constructive.
    - RickJWag 9y ago
      +1
  - libertyEQ 9y ago
    Communism is authoritarian, and therefore, anti-liberal.
anthmcc 9y ago
The republicans have been marching towards the tea party side of things for a long time. So even if a person is reasonable themselves their is a very good chance they support unreasonable people. Personally I think who you vote for is a damn good indicator of who you are as a person.

by jitl 9y ago

aphextron 9y ago

>I think there’s a wide difference between “classical” conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first kind is fine and welcome to an extent. Precisely. We need conservatism. We need that part of our conscience which says "well, hold on a minute", or "hey we can't afford that" in order to function properly as a democracy. It's loss is a tragedy, and the corruption of those ideals over the past 30 years into what it has become is breaking our country.

irhd 9y ago
> We need conservatism I disagree at this point honestly. course all I've ever seen of american conservatism is the current republican party.
- pwinnski 9y ago
  This seems like an instance of SV's bias toward the young biting SV in the collective butt. People who remember the 70s and 80s remember a different political environment.
  - RickJWag 9y ago
    Yes, true. When things seem overwhelming, I like to remind myself that in the 60s things seemed worse. (To me, the 80s and 90s were very good.)

deadmetheny 9y ago

The problem is that the first group is lumped into the second one. I live in the Midwest, which by all rights is a very conservative region of the country even in the urbanized areas, and conservatives are generally regarded by liberals as bumpkins that accidentally wandered into the city, even when re-iterating their disapproval of racism, sexism, and the alt-right until blue (ha) in the face. This is what's driving classical conservatives into the closet, and potentially causing them to actually embrace the more extremist ideologies.

irhd 9y ago
> The problem is that the first group is lumped into the second one. Why wouldn't they be? The "crazy" ones aren't being elected by no one. They rose to power because voters embraced them. If you don't want to be lumped in as crazy then quit supporting crazy. > potentially causing them to actually embrace the more extremist ideologies. I really, really hate this argument. It's just trying to absolve people of their responsibility for choosing white nationalism and other reprehensible ideas. If you joined up because some arrogant jerk offended you one day then maybe you weren't a very good person to begin with. Besides, how many liberals do you see pushing hateful ideologies and communism because they are sick of being called arrogant elites?
- deadmetheny 9y ago
  >Why wouldn't they be? The "crazy" ones aren't being elected by no one. They rose to power because voters embraced them. If you don't want to be lumped in as crazy then quit supporting crazy I don't disagree that the Republican party has been hijacked. Personally, I am non-partisan and generally will vote for whichever candidates lean more towards a liberal-libertarian platform, be they R or D. Lately, that's been a lot more D than R. >If you joined up because some arrogant jerk offended you one day then maybe you weren't a very good person to begin with Hatred and ostracization make people go to very dark places. A lot of people are lumping people who ideologically believe in lower taxes and fewer government services with white supremacists. I'm obviously not condoning people going to those places, but acting like putting these people on blast and calling them awful because their beliefs partially overlap with those of a genuinely awful group of people is at the least not constructive.
  - RickJWag 9y ago
    +1
- libertyEQ 9y ago
  Communism is authoritarian, and therefore, anti-liberal.

anthmcc 9y ago

The republicans have been marching towards the tea party side of things for a long time. So even if a person is reasonable themselves their is a very good chance they support unreasonable people. Personally I think who you vote for is a damn good indicator of who you are as a person.