4 ms·

If being nakedly reactionary is liberal now, sure, why not?

• dragonwriter 2y ago
  Yeah, if you think the difference between "liberal" on "conservative" is about "change" vs "status quo" rather about outward distribution of power vs. preserving narrow concentration of power, you would tend to view a genuinely reactionary party as "liberal" and a liberal/progressive party that has drawn conservative support against the reactionaries as just "conservative".
  • cholantesh 2y ago
    If you are arguing that the reactionary ethos is about broader distribution of power, this makes even less sense.
    • dragonwriter 2y ago
      > If you are arguing that the reactionary ethos is about broader distribution of power No, I literally exactly said the opposite, that you have to misconceptualize "liberal" vs. "conservative" as about change v. stasis rather than distribution of power to mistake "reactionary" for "liberal" and "anti-reactionary coalition" for "conservative".
      • cholantesh 2y ago
        Sorry for misreading!