3 ms·

> Conservatism has always been opposed to democracy Conservatism distilled to its essence can probably be summarized as Chesterton's fence: to not make rash mo

> Conservatism has always been opposed to democracy Conservatism distilled to its essence can probably be summarized as Chesterton's fence: to not make rash moves changing the status quo without fully understanding both the reason the status quo is the way it is, and the nth-degree aftereffects of the change. So I grant you, in the beginning of democracy, almost by definition conservatism was against it, when the status quo was a feudal monarchy or whatever; but there's been a few hundred intervening years, and I don't think it's fair to make the argument that "conservatism" is still, and will always be, opposed to "democracy".

danans 3y ago
> I don't think it's fair to make the argument that "conservatism" is still, and will always be, opposed to "democracy". I think they are talking about Conservatism in the US specifically, not in general. In the US, Conservatism has been quite active in limiting the voting power of several demographics [1][2], a distinctly anti democratic pattern of behavior. It's a unique situation reflecting our own troubled racial history and the large ideological gulf between the older and younger generations. I wouldn't call that anti-democratic conduct small-c conservative at all, but it's very big-C Conservative in the US. 1. https://apnews.com/article/alabama-redistricting-voting-rights-act-7e7d8ca2fac4063f91311bd363515304 https://apnews.com/article/alabama-redistricting-voting-righ... 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/20/cleta-mitchell-voting-college-students/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/20/cleta-mitch...
- gottorf 3y ago
  I wish I had the time to delve a bit deeper into those case of voting restrictions, because they're both more interesting than the surface level reported by the media (which is approximately that "GOP only wants landowning white males to vote"); but I have a busy week, so I'll have to settle for a few short counter-points, even though I appreciate your reasoned discourse and would like to continue in more depth. I really do! First, on the Allen v. Milligan case, it's illustrative to imagine instead what would be the appropriate number of majority-black districts? The state is 68.9% white and 26.8% black[0] and has seven congressional districts. 26.8% of seven is 1.876, so one (which is what it is currently) is too few and two is actually too many. If all districts reflected the state's demographics as a whole equally, none would be majority-black. Besides, I think it imprudent to assume that people vote on racial lines; as the majority opinion notes, "The Court’s opinion does not diminish or disregard the concern that [section 2 of the Voting Rights Act] may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States", and that "racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters". Both the majority and the dissents are worth reading, as usual. On the second point of campus voting, I think there is reasonable room to argue on what the voting age should be. Prior to the 26th Amendment in 1971, the voting age was 21; which meant that for most of the country's history, young first-time voters already had many years of work experience under their belts and were further on their way to "adulthood". Nowadays, someone at the first-time voting age of 18 is less likely than ever to have worked[1]. Besides, if limiting suffrage is anti-democratic, then is expanding suffrage necessarily pro-democratic? There have been attempts at lowering the voting age to 16[2]; would it be considered anti-democratic to oppose such an action? And even states that are perennially unfriendly to big-C Conservatism based on voting record[3], like New York and New Jersey, were among states that made voting more difficult[4] recently. All this to say: we should continue to have rational debates on the best way to ensure the ongoing health of the nation (that is, politics), and we would all be served better if one side was not depicted as acting against ("anti democratic pattern of behavior") that health, at least not without critical examination. [0]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AL https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AL [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300012 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300012 [2]: https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-reintroduces-legislation-to-lower-the-voting-age-in-america-to-16-0 https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-rein... [3]: https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ranking-the-states-demographically-from-most-republican-friendly-to-most-democratic-friendly/ https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ranking-t... [4]: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/VOTING-RESTRICTIONS/znvnbdjbkvl/index.html https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/VOTING-RESTRIC...
  - danans 3y ago
    > The state is 68.9% white and 26.8% black[0] and has seven congressional districts. 26.8% of seven is 1.876, so one (which is what it is currently) is too few and two is actually too many Since we are talking about an imperfect system with any solution, disenfranchising black voters by 88% of a seat is significantly worse than disenfranchising white voters by 12% of a seat. This is especially so considering that the Voting Rights Act was enacted to counteract the history of black voter suppression in states like Alabama. Even in majority white districts, suppression of black voting happens through enacting laws that make it harder to vote [1]. > Besides, I think it imprudent to assume that people vote on racial lines At the individual level, it's true race is no strict predictor of voting preferences, but at the coarse/aggregate resolution of a congressional seat, that's a very reasonable assumption, especially in manifestly racially balkanized places like Alabama. > Nowadays, someone at the first-time voting age of 18 is less likely than ever to have worked. Plenty of people have a few years of work experience by 18. There are also many people 30+ who haven't worked a day in their lives (think trust fund kids) that vote. Same for lifelong stay at home parents . I don't think we should disenfranchise any of them either. But that's all still irrelevant. 18 year olds have the right to vote according to the law, and changing the law to make it harder for them to vote is at the very least wrong. > Besides, if limiting suffrage is anti-democratic, then is expanding suffrage necessarily pro-democratic? That's not really what we are discussing, and is an appeal to the theoretical. The subject is preventing the disenfranchisement of people who have the full constitutional right to vote today. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/politics/voting-rights-alabama.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/politics/voting-rights...
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Conservatism distilled to its essence can probably be summarized as Chesterton's fence: to not make rash moves changing the status quo without fully understanding both the reason the status quo is the way it is, and the nth-degree aftereffects of the change. That's not the political ideology called conservatism, though its how “conservatism” is used in other contexts (and it would be a fair use in a political context when discussing praxis [how you acheive the goals of your ideology] rather than ideology [the ends at which your praxis is directed], though “incrementalism” is more common there to avoid collision with the ideological label.) Conservative ideology is often advocating for change, and often (when the status quo is farther from the goals of conservative ideology) more rapid and radical breaks from the established status quo than opposing ideologies, whereas the incrementalist praxis you describe can be found in ideologies that are very far from conservatism.
- gottorf 3y ago
  > Conservative ideology is often advocating for change > the incrementalist praxis you describe can be found in ideologies that are very far from conservatism If your argument is that conservative politics in practice aren't very conservative (in the incrementalist fashion, as you describe), then I'm not sure if any political ideology is really self-consistent in that way. As an example, some majority-progressive (perhaps "radicalist", as an opposite of "incrementalist"?) municipalities around the country behave in a frustratingly incrementalist manner when it comes to land use changes, such that high rents and increasing homelessness result due to the supply of housing not being able to keep up with demand. This country being dominated by two parties -- which is a mathematical inevitability given a first-past-the-post voting system -- we necessarily end up with one big-tent "conservative" party and one big-tent "progressive" party, for many senses of those words. And because those tents are so big, there are people with many conflicting ideas under them. So it stands to reason that the conservative party does some non-conservative things, or things in a non-conservative manner, and vice versa for the progressive party.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > f your argument is that conservative politics in practice aren't very conservative (in the incrementalist fashion, as you describe), then I'm not sure if any political ideology is really self-consistent in that way. No, it has nothing to do with self-consistency. “Conservative” as an ideological label refers to something other than than incrementalism, though in contexts other than ideology, it can refer to that. It is simply words having different meanings in different contexts. Conservative ideology and incrementalist praxis have nothing to do with each other, though they can be mistaken for each other when the status quo is near the goals of ideological conservatism. (In the US, that apparent overlap with incrementalist praxis is currently more common with neoliberal ideology today than conservative ideology—it can be hard to tell an incrementalist who doesn't seek neoliberal ends from a neoliberal of any praxis, because the status quo is mostly neoliberal.)

danans 3y ago

> I don't think it's fair to make the argument that "conservatism" is still, and will always be, opposed to "democracy". I think they are talking about Conservatism in the US specifically, not in general. In the US, Conservatism has been quite active in limiting the voting power of several demographics [1][2], a distinctly anti democratic pattern of behavior. It's a unique situation reflecting our own troubled racial history and the large ideological gulf between the older and younger generations. I wouldn't call that anti-democratic conduct small-c conservative at all, but it's very big-C Conservative in the US. 1. https://apnews.com/article/alabama-redistricting-voting-rights-act-7e7d8ca2fac4063f91311bd363515304 https://apnews.com/article/alabama-redistricting-voting-righ... 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/20/cleta-mitchell-voting-college-students/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/20/cleta-mitch...

gottorf 3y ago
I wish I had the time to delve a bit deeper into those case of voting restrictions, because they're both more interesting than the surface level reported by the media (which is approximately that "GOP only wants landowning white males to vote"); but I have a busy week, so I'll have to settle for a few short counter-points, even though I appreciate your reasoned discourse and would like to continue in more depth. I really do! First, on the Allen v. Milligan case, it's illustrative to imagine instead what would be the appropriate number of majority-black districts? The state is 68.9% white and 26.8% black[0] and has seven congressional districts. 26.8% of seven is 1.876, so one (which is what it is currently) is too few and two is actually too many. If all districts reflected the state's demographics as a whole equally, none would be majority-black. Besides, I think it imprudent to assume that people vote on racial lines; as the majority opinion notes, "The Court’s opinion does not diminish or disregard the concern that [section 2 of the Voting Rights Act] may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States", and that "racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters". Both the majority and the dissents are worth reading, as usual. On the second point of campus voting, I think there is reasonable room to argue on what the voting age should be. Prior to the 26th Amendment in 1971, the voting age was 21; which meant that for most of the country's history, young first-time voters already had many years of work experience under their belts and were further on their way to "adulthood". Nowadays, someone at the first-time voting age of 18 is less likely than ever to have worked[1]. Besides, if limiting suffrage is anti-democratic, then is expanding suffrage necessarily pro-democratic? There have been attempts at lowering the voting age to 16[2]; would it be considered anti-democratic to oppose such an action? And even states that are perennially unfriendly to big-C Conservatism based on voting record[3], like New York and New Jersey, were among states that made voting more difficult[4] recently. All this to say: we should continue to have rational debates on the best way to ensure the ongoing health of the nation (that is, politics), and we would all be served better if one side was not depicted as acting against ("anti democratic pattern of behavior") that health, at least not without critical examination. [0]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AL https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AL [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300012 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300012 [2]: https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-reintroduces-legislation-to-lower-the-voting-age-in-america-to-16-0 https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-rein... [3]: https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ranking-the-states-demographically-from-most-republican-friendly-to-most-democratic-friendly/ https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ranking-t... [4]: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/VOTING-RESTRICTIONS/znvnbdjbkvl/index.html https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/VOTING-RESTRIC...
- danans 3y ago
  > The state is 68.9% white and 26.8% black[0] and has seven congressional districts. 26.8% of seven is 1.876, so one (which is what it is currently) is too few and two is actually too many Since we are talking about an imperfect system with any solution, disenfranchising black voters by 88% of a seat is significantly worse than disenfranchising white voters by 12% of a seat. This is especially so considering that the Voting Rights Act was enacted to counteract the history of black voter suppression in states like Alabama. Even in majority white districts, suppression of black voting happens through enacting laws that make it harder to vote [1]. > Besides, I think it imprudent to assume that people vote on racial lines At the individual level, it's true race is no strict predictor of voting preferences, but at the coarse/aggregate resolution of a congressional seat, that's a very reasonable assumption, especially in manifestly racially balkanized places like Alabama. > Nowadays, someone at the first-time voting age of 18 is less likely than ever to have worked. Plenty of people have a few years of work experience by 18. There are also many people 30+ who haven't worked a day in their lives (think trust fund kids) that vote. Same for lifelong stay at home parents . I don't think we should disenfranchise any of them either. But that's all still irrelevant. 18 year olds have the right to vote according to the law, and changing the law to make it harder for them to vote is at the very least wrong. > Besides, if limiting suffrage is anti-democratic, then is expanding suffrage necessarily pro-democratic? That's not really what we are discussing, and is an appeal to the theoretical. The subject is preventing the disenfranchisement of people who have the full constitutional right to vote today. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/politics/voting-rights-alabama.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/politics/voting-rights...

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Conservatism distilled to its essence can probably be summarized as Chesterton's fence: to not make rash moves changing the status quo without fully understanding both the reason the status quo is the way it is, and the nth-degree aftereffects of the change. That's not the political ideology called conservatism, though its how “conservatism” is used in other contexts (and it would be a fair use in a political context when discussing praxis [how you acheive the goals of your ideology] rather than ideology [the ends at which your praxis is directed], though “incrementalism” is more common there to avoid collision with the ideological label.) Conservative ideology is often advocating for change, and often (when the status quo is farther from the goals of conservative ideology) more rapid and radical breaks from the established status quo than opposing ideologies, whereas the incrementalist praxis you describe can be found in ideologies that are very far from conservatism.

gottorf 3y ago
> Conservative ideology is often advocating for change > the incrementalist praxis you describe can be found in ideologies that are very far from conservatism If your argument is that conservative politics in practice aren't very conservative (in the incrementalist fashion, as you describe), then I'm not sure if any political ideology is really self-consistent in that way. As an example, some majority-progressive (perhaps "radicalist", as an opposite of "incrementalist"?) municipalities around the country behave in a frustratingly incrementalist manner when it comes to land use changes, such that high rents and increasing homelessness result due to the supply of housing not being able to keep up with demand. This country being dominated by two parties -- which is a mathematical inevitability given a first-past-the-post voting system -- we necessarily end up with one big-tent "conservative" party and one big-tent "progressive" party, for many senses of those words. And because those tents are so big, there are people with many conflicting ideas under them. So it stands to reason that the conservative party does some non-conservative things, or things in a non-conservative manner, and vice versa for the progressive party.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > f your argument is that conservative politics in practice aren't very conservative (in the incrementalist fashion, as you describe), then I'm not sure if any political ideology is really self-consistent in that way. No, it has nothing to do with self-consistency. “Conservative” as an ideological label refers to something other than than incrementalism, though in contexts other than ideology, it can refer to that. It is simply words having different meanings in different contexts. Conservative ideology and incrementalist praxis have nothing to do with each other, though they can be mistaken for each other when the status quo is near the goals of ideological conservatism. (In the US, that apparent overlap with incrementalist praxis is currently more common with neoliberal ideology today than conservative ideology—it can be hard to tell an incrementalist who doesn't seek neoliberal ends from a neoliberal of any praxis, because the status quo is mostly neoliberal.)