I don't understand how "I love cars" has become the "conservative" position in the US, and "walkable cities" has become the "liberal" one. Like, consider Stron

I don't understand how "I love cars" has become the "conservative" position in the US, and "walkable cities" has become the "liberal" one. Like, consider StrongTowns. It's lowkey conservative, but it's all about walkability. And, y'know, fiscal responsibility. Or just think about all the examples of nice walkable cities. They're old. They were built before WW2. Where is the ideal? Europe. Or, colonial towns in the Americas. Colonial. You think this is far-left? It'd fit comfortably into my "imaginary" if I were a monarchist! Suppose I wanted to pepper the countryside with quaint English villages, each with a pub and a railway station. I could do that as a neo-Victorian. What is so "conservative" about cars? They're wasteful. They do nothing to cultivate personal virtue. They're big fat degenerate things, which have led to a degeneration of the built environment. They cultivate disability, like Rascal goddamn scooters. The most reactionary thing we could do would be to rip up all the highways that had been built in the name of "progress". The whole point of conservatism is to take inspiration from the past, and the past didn't have a bunch of debauched and fattening living-rooms-on-wheels. That's just Boomer-tier Republican nonsense, which is degenerate, not conservative. Conservatives don't need Big Gulp cupholders. The Sprawl fits into no traditional way of life, anywhere. Build a Shinto shrine to your ancestors. Don't insult them with parking lots and Walmarts. It's unworthy of you, and it's no inheritance for your descendants. It's just a heap of garbage.