4 ms·

Perhaps I'm being too US-centric but I feel like you at-best mean conservatism with a lower-case 'c'. Even then the very definition of conservatism explicitly a

Perhaps I'm being too US-centric but I feel like you at-best mean conservatism with a lower-case 'c'. Even then the very definition of conservatism explicitly avoids any change: > commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation I've never known conservatism to be anything except opposition to change as that's the most conservative thing you can generally do: nothing.

BurningFrog 5y ago
I called it "the sane version of Conservatism". There are many others. Political scientists probably have a more specific name for mine. I should learn that some day. Yeah, many people with very different ideas call themselves conservatives. > I've never known conservatism to be anything except opposition to change as that's the most conservative thing you can generally do: nothing. Have you never known conservatives wanting to lower taxes, deregulate the economy, and decentralize decision making?
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  >Have you never known conservatives wanting to lower taxes, deregulate the economy, and decentralize decision making? I know its not conservative or liberal, it depends how you look at it. Deregulation of markets was seen as liberal at one time, devolution is pretty well supported except by some that support strong central government control, and lower taxes is often seen as American conservative, instead of offering services that they skim, or taxing you and giving you back more money (lol) they just won't take it in the first place. Milton Friedman's negative income tax is a beautiful way to help the poor without sudden cutoffs for when they try to become wealthier too. I would say that these labels aren't as useful as top down control (big government, tell people what to do) or bottom up control (power to the people, let them do as they want to). Both can be useful for different reasons. The ozone hole and banning freon was top down but the tragedy of the common would mean it would never get fixed. The federal government also shouldn't raid dispensaries and prevent weed smoking.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Most conservatives I know want to decentralize decision making, lower taxes, and deregulate the economy.
  - monodeldiablo 5y ago
    Except as regards gay or abortion rights, military funding, and drug policy. Right? I know that's the case for every conservative I know, at least. They stand for those values in the abstract, as an ostensibly philosophy to undergird their politics... But oppose those values in practice.
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      Under the current Roe v Wade regime, abortion law is centralized to 9 judges on the Supreme Court. Republicans want to decentralize this to democratic decisions in each state.
      - AvesMerit 5y ago
        Why not decentralize this democratic decision further - let individuals choose whether they're pro-choice or pro-life?
GhettoComputers 5y ago
If we talk about politics even the conservatives are liberal, both want society to be better with different methods. Few conservatives say do nothing, one critique of conservatives is "what exactly are they conserving?" Amish are one of the fastest groups to adopt solar panels and have done so for decades. > commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation Trump was not traditional, and Obama was very moderate, even stating he did not support gay marriage. Don't trust general labels!
akiselev 5y ago
Even in the US that's a very uncharitable interpretation of conservatism that sounds like something I'd say in the heat of a Thanksgiving dinner argument. The more charitable one is called "progressive conservatism". Progressive conservatives believe, among other things, that "instant change is not always the best and can sometimes be damaging to society, therefore cautious change that fits in with the nation's social and political traditions is necessary." [1] Progressive conservatives were the driving force behind abolition in Britain as well as natural conservation and the national park system in the United States, for example, so it's hardly a philosophy that resists all change. A few presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower have called themselves progressive conservatives but in reality, the philosophy underpins the entire US Constitution and system of government going back to the founding fathers. It's the checks and balances that keep our (ostensible) democracy functioning. It's the court systems that can delay or outright kill hasty legislation. The conservatives want to let the progressives leap into the future while they focus on conserving the good things about the present so that they don't become casualties to progress. To be clear the GOP is neither conservative, nor progressive, nor progressive conservative. They're just the elephant in the room. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_conservatism
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  Eh, I agree the GOP is reactionary rather than conservative, but I think this is an equal charitable take, especially this statement - > It's the checks and balances that keep our (ostensible) democracy functioning. I'm a fan of TR and Eisenhower to a lesser extent, so this isn't exactly a criticism. The US Constitution was definitely founded under the model you describe, but those things aren't necessarily indivisible from each other. The progressive conservatism you defined is a commitment to a hierarchical model of liberalism. Many of the achievements of both Roosevelts and Eisenhower were in the name of warding off Socialist and Communist movements in the early and mid 20th century. They were progressive in giving more rights and services to the common person (well, some of them, some of the time) and conservative in maintaining the ability of the wealthy to continue on with their necks and bank balances intact. Although some of the critiques of conservative liberalism (as opposed to the historical, royalist conservatism) can be waved off as "the Republicans aren't actually conservative any more", there is a still a valid critique to be made if you believe that 250 years is more than enough time to embrace a more egalitarian model.
playpause 5y ago
That definition does not say “avoids any change”. It says it opposes change, which can reasonably be taken as a general leaning. I mean, just think about it, do you think you could find even one single small-c conservative who argues that every possible change is bad?

BurningFrog 5y ago

I called it "the sane version of Conservatism". There are many others. Political scientists probably have a more specific name for mine. I should learn that some day. Yeah, many people with very different ideas call themselves conservatives. > I've never known conservatism to be anything except opposition to change as that's the most conservative thing you can generally do: nothing. Have you never known conservatives wanting to lower taxes, deregulate the economy, and decentralize decision making?

GhettoComputers 5y ago
>Have you never known conservatives wanting to lower taxes, deregulate the economy, and decentralize decision making? I know its not conservative or liberal, it depends how you look at it. Deregulation of markets was seen as liberal at one time, devolution is pretty well supported except by some that support strong central government control, and lower taxes is often seen as American conservative, instead of offering services that they skim, or taxing you and giving you back more money (lol) they just won't take it in the first place. Milton Friedman's negative income tax is a beautiful way to help the poor without sudden cutoffs for when they try to become wealthier too. I would say that these labels aren't as useful as top down control (big government, tell people what to do) or bottom up control (power to the people, let them do as they want to). Both can be useful for different reasons. The ozone hole and banning freon was top down but the tragedy of the common would mean it would never get fixed. The federal government also shouldn't raid dispensaries and prevent weed smoking.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Most conservatives I know want to decentralize decision making, lower taxes, and deregulate the economy.
- monodeldiablo 5y ago
  Except as regards gay or abortion rights, military funding, and drug policy. Right? I know that's the case for every conservative I know, at least. They stand for those values in the abstract, as an ostensibly philosophy to undergird their politics... But oppose those values in practice.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    Under the current Roe v Wade regime, abortion law is centralized to 9 judges on the Supreme Court. Republicans want to decentralize this to democratic decisions in each state.
    - AvesMerit 5y ago
      Why not decentralize this democratic decision further - let individuals choose whether they're pro-choice or pro-life?

GhettoComputers 5y ago

If we talk about politics even the conservatives are liberal, both want society to be better with different methods. Few conservatives say do nothing, one critique of conservatives is "what exactly are they conserving?" Amish are one of the fastest groups to adopt solar panels and have done so for decades. > commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation Trump was not traditional, and Obama was very moderate, even stating he did not support gay marriage. Don't trust general labels!

akiselev 5y ago

Even in the US that's a very uncharitable interpretation of conservatism that sounds like something I'd say in the heat of a Thanksgiving dinner argument. The more charitable one is called "progressive conservatism". Progressive conservatives believe, among other things, that "instant change is not always the best and can sometimes be damaging to society, therefore cautious change that fits in with the nation's social and political traditions is necessary." [1] Progressive conservatives were the driving force behind abolition in Britain as well as natural conservation and the national park system in the United States, for example, so it's hardly a philosophy that resists all change. A few presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower have called themselves progressive conservatives but in reality, the philosophy underpins the entire US Constitution and system of government going back to the founding fathers. It's the checks and balances that keep our (ostensible) democracy functioning. It's the court systems that can delay or outright kill hasty legislation. The conservatives want to let the progressives leap into the future while they focus on conserving the good things about the present so that they don't become casualties to progress. To be clear the GOP is neither conservative, nor progressive, nor progressive conservative. They're just the elephant in the room. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_conservatism

arrosenberg 5y ago
Eh, I agree the GOP is reactionary rather than conservative, but I think this is an equal charitable take, especially this statement - > It's the checks and balances that keep our (ostensible) democracy functioning. I'm a fan of TR and Eisenhower to a lesser extent, so this isn't exactly a criticism. The US Constitution was definitely founded under the model you describe, but those things aren't necessarily indivisible from each other. The progressive conservatism you defined is a commitment to a hierarchical model of liberalism. Many of the achievements of both Roosevelts and Eisenhower were in the name of warding off Socialist and Communist movements in the early and mid 20th century. They were progressive in giving more rights and services to the common person (well, some of them, some of the time) and conservative in maintaining the ability of the wealthy to continue on with their necks and bank balances intact. Although some of the critiques of conservative liberalism (as opposed to the historical, royalist conservatism) can be waved off as "the Republicans aren't actually conservative any more", there is a still a valid critique to be made if you believe that 250 years is more than enough time to embrace a more egalitarian model.

playpause 5y ago

That definition does not say “avoids any change”. It says it opposes change, which can reasonably be taken as a general leaning. I mean, just think about it, do you think you could find even one single small-c conservative who argues that every possible change is bad?