What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[Farm Boy]

They stand for our National Anthem, dammit!

Less confusion in this post between the question asked and "party" than it seems most of the thread.

 

[Patine]

Less confusion in this post between the question asked and "party" than it seems most of the thread.

This is true. The Democratic Party and Republican Party of the United States are not true functional political parties as other nations' political would see them. They're awkwardly forced coalitions, each of separate camps who could easily be their own political parties, and would probably be far better off and more functional as such, but are forced together by the dinosaur and relic of a paternalistic age of Constitutionalists who had the utmost contempt for the competence of the common voter in governance and wanted to make sure the Slave States wouldn't leave the Union right after independence - the Electoral College, of course, which practically demands a two-party system. So these two "parties" (read, unstable coalitions of convenience) have political UFC-style brawls to get each contested nomination, and the unrealistic expectation to unite behind the winner of this "Primary" election cycle, shows how both are viciously internally divided like a nest of vipers and bursting at the seams to fall apart at their natural fault lines - but the Electoral College makes that impractical (as impractical as it, itself, is, in modern governance). Thus, yes, I agree, we should focus on the ideology, because the "party" lacks enough true ideological unity and cohesion to be addressed as such.

 

[Farm Boy]

My assessment is an overrating through implication of contrast the nebulously defined other nations' political climates/entities.

 

[Patine]

My assessment is an overrating through implication of contrast the nebulously defined other nations' political climates/entities.

Are you preparing for a career writing bureaucratic or diplomatic letters or missives there?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Well it used to be:

If it is broken, fix it - don't throw it away.

If it is not broken, don't fix it.

 

[Patine]

Well it used to be:

If it is broken, fix it - don't throw it away.

If it is not broken, don't fix it.

Have you tried fixing an Apple IIe that's been on the fritz for over 25 years?

 

[civvver]

Ideologically it's probably different, but for practical purposes it's basically deregulation and trickle down economic policies. It used to also be austerity and balancing the budget but they don't pretend to do that anymore. So no gun control cus that's regulation, less environmental and consumer protections, less labor laws, allow monopolies cus to break them up would be regulating. Less social program spending cus those are regulating the populace. Less taxes for rich guys cus that's trickle down.

The thing is, trump is not really that conservative by this definition even. He is cutting regulations and rolling back stuff, but he's also implementing tariffs which fly in the face of this. He cut taxes but he's also spending more.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

There have always been lots of types. I like the conservationists generally. I like the guys that tolerate but generally personally detest the fine people with inflatable rats. I usually like a lot of the non evangelicals. There are types I think suck. Sort of like "liberals." Some of them are awesome. Some of them are likewise selfish monsters.

The conservationist conservativers are imho the truest to what the word actually means. They are also the furthest apart from actual, real life conservatism. Almost all environmentalists are not self-described (or any kind of) conservatives.

Conservative comes from "conservare" (lat) meaning to preserve.

 

[Hrothbern]

The conservationist conservativers are imho the truest to what the word actually means. They are also the furthest apart from actual, real life conservatism. Almost all environmentalists are not self-described (or any kind of) conservatives.

Conservative comes from "conservare" (lat) meaning to preserve.

yes
Conservative is yet another word completely overwhelmed, taken over, by politics in a meaning that makes using the word "conservative" in its original meaning impossible in English language.
But so is the word "progressive" fully overwhelmed.

 

[Patine]

The conservationist conservativers are imho the truest to what the word actually means. They are also the furthest apart from actual, real life conservatism. Almost all environmentalists are not self-described (or any kind of) conservatives.

Conservative comes from "conservare" (lat) meaning to preserve.

I believe, from what I've read in school (ages ago, in seems!) that political social conservativism is to preserve - or revive, in many cases - an "ideal, halcyon, golden age time period" of the nation or civilization in question, through a distorted, glamourized, romanticized, mythologized, nostalgic, and unrealistic lens - leading to wanting recreate a time period and epoch that effectively has never existed, but suits a current socio-political narrative.

 

[Hrothbern]

I believe, from what I've read in school (ages ago, in seems!) that political social conservativism is to preserve - or revive, in many cases - an "ideal, halcyon, golden age time period" of the nation or civilization in question, through a distorted, glamourized, romanticized, mythologized, nostalgic, and unrealistic lens - leading to wanting recreate a time period and epoch that effectively has never existed, but suits a current socio-political narrative.

I think that ordinary people have quite another opinion on the word "conservative" because they apply that word in the context of their own life.
And if they are fairly happy with where they are and their perspectives for their own future (and their kids) they will in general prefer that a government does not change their basic setting, unless it is clearly plus-compatible at low risk.
=> I think it is for the ordinary people, living their lifes, more about conserving a future setting like the status quo setting, and less about some "past" stretching back further than their own childhood.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Have you tried fixing an Apple IIe that's been on the fritz for over 25 years?

When I was young, an apple was something you ate.

 

[Peuri]

I believe, from what I've read in school (ages ago, in seems!) that political social conservativism is to preserve - or revive, in many cases - an "ideal, halcyon, golden age time period" of the nation or civilization in question, through a distorted, glamourized, romanticized, mythologized, nostalgic, and unrealistic lens - leading to wanting recreate a time period and epoch that effectively has never existed, but suits a current socio-political narrative.

I don't know how much influence Edmund Burke has on modern conservatives, but I think that the most sensible definition of a conservative would be the one put forward by Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France.

There Burke argues that the abstract rights that the revolutionaries in the France of 1789 put forward were dangerous, because they sought to create the body politic by human reason alone. For Burke humans were always susceptible to grave error, and thus it was immensely dangerous to subject the whole state to the caprices of human reason. In contrast to the revolution of 1789, the American revolution, and the Glorious revolution, in Burke's view were conservative revolutions [not Burke's own terms], because they sought to reinstate the rights that the Americans and 1688 protestants as true Englishmen already held by virtue of their ancient constitution, but which they were not able to use because of the tyranny of the monarch.* The French, according to Burke had no such constitution, and trying to institute an "improvement" of the English constitution in France was incredibly dangerous because the French were not born and raised under such a state of affairs. Thus the danger was that the French could not hold their new constitution, and would eventually descend into chaos and then military dictatorship as it was not a part of Frenchness. One of the most powerful tirades Burke unleashes on the enlightenment liberals of France was when he said that "even if it is a panacea [the new French constitution with it's abstract rights] we do not want it". This was because the constitution did not grow organically out of Englishness, and thus was alien to English sensibilities. Burkean conservatism was by no means totally resistant to political changes, but all such changes should be slow and gradual in order for the organism of society to adapt to those changes.

So I'd say that the term "consvative" should be used in the Burkean sense [I don't think Burke used the term himself] of a person who doesn't want swift changes in society or politics.

*There was all this tradition and mythology in England (and in other places too, but not to the same extent) that stated that the English had an ancient constitution that was just suppressed by the Norman invasion, and was just gradually being reinstated by Magna Carta & the Glorious revolution etc. In that sense this notion of a conservative even in the Burkean sense is one who wishes to reinstate a past "golden era", because a revolution reinstating rights was a revolution that brought back rights that were suppressed by conquests and absolute monarchs. In fact all revolutions (there might have been some that didn't but it's along time since I studied this, so I don't remember so well anymore) prior to the enlightenment had this sort of conservative rhetoric surrounding them. The French revolution was the first modern revolution precisely because it didn't justify itself by claims to tradition.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I believe, from what I've read in school (ages ago, in seems!) that political social conservativism is to preserve - or revive, in many cases - an "ideal, halcyon, golden age time period" of the nation or civilization in question, through a distorted, glamourized, romanticized, mythologized, nostalgic, and unrealistic lens - leading to wanting recreate a time period and epoch that effectively has never existed, but suits a current socio-political narrative.

yes I agree. what you describe can be summed up as "keeping the status quo", which for the last 100 years has mostly meant "keeping the powerful people in power and keeping everyone else down". the whole mantra is to be passive, sedated, to only reveal yourself in opposition to actually meaningful change (good or bad doesn't matter).

 

[bernie14]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/

This article is hilarious, the righteousness ....change a couple of references and it sounds straight out of Mein Kampf

 

[Patine]

This article is hilarious, the righteousness ....change a couple of references and it sounds straight out of Mein Kampf

Mein Kampf is a semi-coherent, vitriolic screed - I read a translation that happened to be in my junior high school library (it almost certainly isn't there anymore). I don't see the resemblance in literary style or content, really.

 

[bernie14]

Mein Kampf is a semi-coherent, vitriolic screed - I read a translation that happened to be in my junior high school library (it almost certainly isn't there anymore). I don't see the resemblance in literary style or content, really.

its the sentiment.... an opinion piece to sway the reader, creating a black and white narrative of "good vs evil" and victims and oppressors. You might as well just draw a big jew nose on trump, his minions and followers as he eats and spits out the downtrodden.

 

[Lexicus]

its the sentiment.... an opinion piece to sway the reader, creating a black and white narrative of "good vs evil" and victims and oppressors. You might as well just draw a big jew nose on trump, his minions and followers as he eats and spits out the downtrodden.

Well bernie, are you reacting this way because you fit the description? Do you exult in the images of immigrant children in prison cages? Did you get a little...excited when Trump said that he would kill the terrorists' families in the Republican primary debates? Do all these things secretly thrill you even more because they are so bitterly hated by the self-righteous liberals who are, in your eyes, the real Nazis?

 

[bernie14]

Well bernie, are you reacting this way because you fit the description? Do you exult in the images of immigrant children in prison cages? Did you get a little...excited when Trump said that he would kill the terrorists' families in the Republican primary debates? Do all these things secretly thrill you even more because they are so bitterly hated by the self-righteous liberals who are, in your eyes, the real Nazis?

I was so excited, i shot my load

Moderator Action: There is no need to be crude, thank you. ~ Arakhor

 

[inthesomeday]

This article is hilarious, the righteousness ....change a couple of references and it sounds straight out of Mein Kampf

its the sentiment.... an opinion piece to sway the reader, creating a black and white narrative of "good vs evil" and victims and oppressors. You might as well just draw a big jew nose on trump, his minions and followers as he eats and spits out the downtrodden.

I imagine if you “draw a big Jew nose on” just about any bad guy the literature will become anti Semitic. What an absurd critique.

“This movie is just like Nazi propaganda. Just imagine all the characters were horrible anti Semitic caricatures and you’ll see what I mean.”