5 ms·

> Right/conservative political philosophy is fundamentally not. > Conservatives believe that even if we are all human, we do not all have enough in common to b

> Right/conservative political philosophy is fundamentally not. > Conservatives believe that even if we are all human, we do not all have enough in common to be able to form a cohesive, coherent society. Conservatives believe that there are good and bad people and that they can identify and assign people to each group. You're assigning beliefs and motives to other people's actions. Looking beyond the internet groups (which are a whole other issue on both sides) I know plenty of conservatives, including some people who voted for Trump. Not a single one of them has the beliefs you're assigning. They all fundamentally believe that people should be treated equally regardless of their race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, viewpoint, etc. They believe that the differences among people makes our society great and that everyone should be welcome/included. They often disagree about the best way to achieve an open, inclusive, successful society but the end goal is the same. Assigning a belief or morality to other people and then ostracizing them for it is part of the problem, not a solution.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
Now you're confusing people with a philosophy in the reverse direction. Yes, there are conservatives who lean towards an inclusive, tolerant society. But in this they are at odds with the political philosophy generally called "conservatism". The fundamental concepts of conservatism are generally at odds (to some extent) with everything you've said above. Can there be people who believe everything you've said above and call themselves conservative? Absolutely. They have a definite political philosophy, and it may overlap with conservatism in various ways, but in some critical senses, it is anti-conservative. Conservatism as a political philosophy is not easy to characterize, but core components are generally held to include: * a preference for the status quo (whatever that happens to be) in culture, politics, social order, religion and more. * a belief that heirarchical societies reflect a natural heirarchy of the human condition * a belief that shared culture is required for social cohesion * a belief that moral relativism (or the idea that all cultures are equal in standing) is wrong * a belief that faith-based morality (whatever faith or morality that might be) should play a role in politics * a belief that there are good people and bad people, and that the differences are not (all) circumstantial These things have been at the core of "modern" western conservatism since Edmund Burke, and continue to underpin the positions of media conservatives today. They were the core of "intellectual conservatism" in the 60s and 70s (Buckley et. al). They are the key beliefs that differentiate conservatism from both libertarianism and progessive ideology. So sure, I also know people who would call themselves conservatives who don't buy into every one of these, or do so only to varying degrees. They're perfectly entitled to do that, just as I don't consider myself to be someone who agrees with every tenet of progressivism (for example). And who knows, perhaps some of their views do in fact represent a viable and sensible path forwards for society. But to whatever extent they refute or disavow any of these ideas, they are refuting and disavowing conservative political philosophy and instead creating their own smorgasborg. This is a very American thing to do (c.f. US Catholics and their take-it-or-leave-it approach to papal edicts) and it's a fine way to live your life. But it doesn't change what conservative political philosophy is, in the same way that progressives who feel that perhaps black people should get their own country or something do not define progressive political philosopy.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

Now you're confusing people with a philosophy in the reverse direction. Yes, there are conservatives who lean towards an inclusive, tolerant society. But in this they are at odds with the political philosophy generally called "conservatism". The fundamental concepts of conservatism are generally at odds (to some extent) with everything you've said above. Can there be people who believe everything you've said above and call themselves conservative? Absolutely. They have a definite political philosophy, and it may overlap with conservatism in various ways, but in some critical senses, it is anti-conservative. Conservatism as a political philosophy is not easy to characterize, but core components are generally held to include: * a preference for the status quo (whatever that happens to be) in culture, politics, social order, religion and more. * a belief that heirarchical societies reflect a natural heirarchy of the human condition * a belief that shared culture is required for social cohesion * a belief that moral relativism (or the idea that all cultures are equal in standing) is wrong * a belief that faith-based morality (whatever faith or morality that might be) should play a role in politics * a belief that there are good people and bad people, and that the differences are not (all) circumstantial These things have been at the core of "modern" western conservatism since Edmund Burke, and continue to underpin the positions of media conservatives today. They were the core of "intellectual conservatism" in the 60s and 70s (Buckley et. al). They are the key beliefs that differentiate conservatism from both libertarianism and progessive ideology. So sure, I also know people who would call themselves conservatives who don't buy into every one of these, or do so only to varying degrees. They're perfectly entitled to do that, just as I don't consider myself to be someone who agrees with every tenet of progressivism (for example). And who knows, perhaps some of their views do in fact represent a viable and sensible path forwards for society. But to whatever extent they refute or disavow any of these ideas, they are refuting and disavowing conservative political philosophy and instead creating their own smorgasborg. This is a very American thing to do (c.f. US Catholics and their take-it-or-leave-it approach to papal edicts) and it's a fine way to live your life. But it doesn't change what conservative political philosophy is, in the same way that progressives who feel that perhaps black people should get their own country or something do not define progressive political philosopy.