> All you've done here is show me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Well, apparently you aren't familiar with the fact that progressives

> All you've done here is show me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Well, apparently you aren't familiar with the fact that progressives used to be very much in favor of eugenics (in the early 20th-c.), that progressive/leftist intellectuals and academics did support the Soviet system, that Maoist China was a huge influence on radical youth movements of the 1970s and 1980s that largely define what we think of as "progressive" today, that Pol Pot literally was introduced to extreme leftist politics by those same radical movements in the Paris of his day, etc. etc. "Conservatives and traditionalists fight against social change and have to suck it up eventually" - is that supposed to be a problem? It's literally the definition of what conservatism is all about! Sure, some of them might have opposed abolitionism and universal suffrage, for a time (Though many didn't, least of all in a practical sense. Even Carlyle, as rabid as he was from a "modern" POV, understood that slavery was very much on its way out). But so what - conservatives also fought Mao and Pol Pot, and in this latter sense they were far more important!