4 ms·

At this point its hard to understand the premise of conservatism. It seems to just be outrage and pretty much anything and everything. I'll avoid suggesting t

At this point its hard to understand the premise of conservatism. It seems to just be outrage and pretty much anything and everything. I'll avoid suggesting the root is racism, but more and more its becoming harder to do that. Between the pretty blatant racist rants of the leader, to the embrace of far-right fundamentalists, it seems like a common thread. As for public intrusion of private lives, even that seems hazy. Where does public intrusion end and private life start? For example are private medical choices a matter of public policy? Are the choices about which books to read at the library public or private? In a two party system many voters can be left without a home when their preferred party swings off in a different direction. And while no voter is going to always be happy with their chosen group, the risk of homelessness goes up as the preferred choice swings away from traditional premises. For many conservatives (small c) the current direction of Conservative Leaders (big C) is not ok. But changing allegiance is mentally traumatic. I think your premise can be both accurate, and currently invalid. It sure doesn't seem like "minimal public intrusion" right now. If you had to decide which party represents "live and let live", which party wants personal freedoms, which party prioritizes individual choices, well, I'd argue it's not the nominally "conservative" one.

voisin 3y ago
I concur with everything you said, and to be clear, I wasn’t specifically referring to big C Conservatives, GOP or otherwise, which I agree are straying from small c conservative values. I was referring specifically to political conservatism which I understood to be about minimal intrusion in private affairs. It would appear no mainstream political parties still stand for this.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Im thinking Libitarianism is perhaps more into "individual freedoms" than conservatism, but there's certainly overlap. If I had to put a fence around it, I'd suggest the root of conservatism is more "govt working in the interests of the rich/aristocracy/establishment." The "people in power before there was a vote". Charitably described as "keep things the way they are", or less charitably as "return to when our group had riches and power". So "labor" is getting govt to work for the masses, "conservative" us getting govt to work for those already established, and libitarianism is scaling govt back, and letting people do whatever they like. Political parties try and be all things to all men. In some countries (where there are more than two parties) there's more likely to be different parties to cover these bases.

voisin 3y ago

I concur with everything you said, and to be clear, I wasn’t specifically referring to big C Conservatives, GOP or otherwise, which I agree are straying from small c conservative values. I was referring specifically to political conservatism which I understood to be about minimal intrusion in private affairs. It would appear no mainstream political parties still stand for this.

bruce511 3y ago
Im thinking Libitarianism is perhaps more into "individual freedoms" than conservatism, but there's certainly overlap. If I had to put a fence around it, I'd suggest the root of conservatism is more "govt working in the interests of the rich/aristocracy/establishment." The "people in power before there was a vote". Charitably described as "keep things the way they are", or less charitably as "return to when our group had riches and power". So "labor" is getting govt to work for the masses, "conservative" us getting govt to work for those already established, and libitarianism is scaling govt back, and letting people do whatever they like. Political parties try and be all things to all men. In some countries (where there are more than two parties) there's more likely to be different parties to cover these bases.