What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[Cloud_Strife]

"Screw you, Got mine"

 

[abradley]

"Screw you, Got mine"

Am sure there's a conservative that agrees with that, but very few.

 

[Berzerker]

Frankly I'm tired of seemingly every Republican running for office advertising themselves as 'conservative', they're mostly just looking to cash in on big government.

 

[Estebonrober]

Frankly I'm tired of seemingly every Republican running for office advertising themselves as 'conservative', they're mostly just looking to cash in on big government.

and then turn around and inflict their idea of moral sexuality on the cities within their own states. . . this is what I find so confounding. I understand personal morals. I'm Catholic. I do not understand Conservatives anymore. They are duplicitous and moronic almost unconditionally.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I find the whole pro-choice debate so absurd. It seems so obviously morally wrong to arbitrarily decide to create another living, feeling entity, without having its compliance, just as it seems obviouslly morally wrong to arbitrarily decide to end another living, feeling entities existance.

I am not sure if it makes any sense whatsoever to extend this argument to a potential life, aka a fetus. I think that would get us into uncanny territory where we have to see other forms of potential life as important, which gets us into even more trouble. the more conscious I get of the moral implications, the more complex it becomes.

when it comes to abortion, I take a pragmatic stance. I tend to favor the woman in question, because it is her that has to deal with the real life consequences of carrying and giving birth. but, from a purely detached POV, I would say both abortion (of sentient beings) and conception are morally dubios and at best a breaching of some other consciousness' freedom.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, i was not comparing influence but the rightous sentiment and stereotyping of groups. Or are you also passing moral judgment on all Trump supporters?

A large contingent of Trump's core supporters are qualitatively no different than the contingent of Germans who brought the Nazis to power. It's not an accident.

 

[Cutlass]

Frankly I'm tired of seemingly every Republican running for office advertising themselves as 'conservative', they're mostly just looking to cash in on big government.

Which is, in and of itself, the core of conservatism.

 

[Zardnaar]

George Will was on the radio the other day, and he cited Herbert Croly's The Promise of American Life, originally published in 1909, as an important work (to him, anyway). Will is on a tour to promote his new book The Conservative Sensibility. I haven't read either one, myself, so I can't comment.

Will, of course, does not represent today's Republican Party, as so many American Conservatives don't. I read Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin from time to time, for 2 more examples - they write for The Washington Post - and they're also both exasperated.

I read Max Boot as well. He is one of the easier sources to read. WP had decent coveridge of the mid terms and Boots smart enough to know his views are obsolete.

 

[Archon_Wing]

They believe in adhering to the Constitution exactly as it was written.

Screw those pesky amendments ending slavery and letting women vote though. I believe they refer to it as degeneracy.

 

[Wastl]

They believe in adhering to the Constitution exactly as it was written.

Screw those pesky amendments ending slavery and letting women vote though. I believe they refer to it as degeneracy.

Well, only in so far as it doesn't contradict their point of view, in those cases you can interprete it to your hearts content. Anthony Scalia was a prime example of someone who only cared about the written law as long as it supported the point he was trying to make.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Kinda like people that quote the Bible.

 

[Farm Boy]

Both be narrowing that phenomenon way too strictly. It's like pulling a part of a whole out of context, but we wouldn't want to be complaining about that, eh?

 

[Traitorfish]

"Screw you, Got mine"

I don't think this is quite right. Indifference to the condition of others implies a basic acceptance of equality, but a lack of motivation to achieve it; conservatives are in practice deeply concerned with the condition of others, and ensuring that condition remains in harmony with whatever natural order they imagine to exist. The frothing outrage that middle-class conservatives feel about the prospect of somebody taking money from people richer than them to give to people poorer than them is not adequately explained by a delusion that they will somebody become rich themselves. They are distressed on behalf of the rich, distressed by the challenge to the principle of social distinction that such redistribution represents. Most conservatives are not, in fact, stupid enough to believe that they will suddenly become millionaires, anymore than they are stupid enough to believe that they are immune from becoming paupers. What is important is that there are millionaires and that there are paupers, and, true civic patriots, their own descent to pauperism may be regarded as an acceptable price for upholding that principle.

If you offered a conservative a choice between receiving ten dollars on the condition that a stranger also received ten dollars, or receiving five dollars where the stranger gets nothing, they would have to give it a moment of serious consideration. Some of them might even prefer that the strange gets five dollars and that themselves get nothing, because that at least maintains the principle that some are more deserving than others.

 

[metalhead]

My libertarian cousin applied for and got a HUD grant to rehab a house in a particular urban neighborhood. He also voluntarily quit his job and my conservative mother was happy he was able to get unemployment, even though he doesn't qualify as he voluntarily quit.

If you pointed out the political hypocrisy, neither would be moved. Conservatism isn't about any particular social hierarchy. It's much more intimate. The crux of it is, I and others in my social and familial circles are deserving of assistance, largesse, whatever you want to call it, and everyone else is not.

HUD grants are antithetical to everything a libertarian professes - it's government intervention in the housing market, but the conservative libertarian sees no hypocrisy because he himself is worthy of and entitled to the benefit and therefore even the supposed grave social cost of intervention is acceptable in his case. It's everyone else who is unworthy.

 

[Socrates99]

I don't think this is quite right. Indifference to the condition of others implies a basic acceptance of equality, but a lack of motivation to achieve it; conservatives are in practice deeply concerned with the condition of others, and ensuring that condition remains in harmony with whatever natural order they imagine to exist. The frothing outrage that middle-class conservatives feel about the prospect of somebody taking money from people richer than them to give to people poorer than them is not adequately explained by a delusion that they will somebody become rich themselves. They are distressed on behalf of the rich, distressed by the challenge to the principle of social distinction that such redistribution represents. Most conservatives are not, in fact, stupid enough to believe that they will suddenly become millionaires, anymore than they are stupid enough to believe that they are immune from becoming paupers. What is important is that there are millionaires and that there are paupers, and, true civic patriots, their own descent to pauperism may be regarded as an acceptable price for upholding that principle.

If you offered a conservative a choice between receiving ten dollars on the condition that a stranger also received ten dollars, or receiving five dollars where the stranger gets nothing, they would have to give it a moment of serious consideration. Some of them might even prefer that the strange gets five dollars and that themselves get nothing, because that at least maintains the principle that some are more deserving than others.

I agree with this on its face, I've just never met a conservative with that level of "principle." Generally that's what they say right up until they're in desperate need for that social program.

Conservatives hate the ACA but most of them like the stuff about pre-existing conditions, college kids staying on parents insurance until 26, no lifetime maximum, etc. My dad used to rail on and on about the ACA until I pointed out that without it my brother's hep C and pretty much any liver related condition would never be covered. I haven't heard him talk bad about it since.

They'll take unemployment benefits, social security, disability, college tuition aid, etc when they need them and then continue to vote in politicians that want to tank those exact programs.

I often know which side of the aisle someone leans politically within the first few sentences of a conversation. Conservatives frequently begin sentences about their political views with "I believe...." generally followed by some form stance on firearms, abortion, religion or taxes. That's the issue they use to justify electing someone with unrelated hurtful policies.

For the most part the right-wing is a coalition of single-issue voters that party leaders have gathered to support a party that would otherwise only be able to attract a small fraction of the population. Real Christians aren't a big fan of the immigration stuff or leaving people to suffer but they love the religious rhetoric on abortion and LGBTQ stuff. Gun rights advocates often couldn't care less about gay marriage and probably favor a strong environmental protection (they don't like it when wild game isn't fit to eat). I could go on but you get my point. They often warp the rest of their views to match the party line but it's easy to tell how malleable those views are when it directly affects them.

The conservative party in the U.S. and I'd imagine conservatives in other parts of the world is generally a collection of people with rigid beliefs that the leaders/donors or oligarchs have co-opted to gain enough support for ideas that would otherwise be unpalatable to the middle and low class.

 

[Lexicus]

The crux of it is, I and others in my social and familial circles are deserving of assistance, largesse, whatever you want to call it, and everyone else is not.

I don't think this is true. This is just an expression of the fallacy - I forget what it's called- where we tend to be harshly judgmental of others but forgiving of ourselves due to mitigating circumstances or whatever. He was nasty to me at work because he's a nasty person, but I was nasty to her on the subway because I'm really stressed out this week about blah blah blah.

Tfish has hit the nail right on the dot: the most important thing to conservatives is not averting starvation or poverty or suffering. It's that people get what they deserve - and some people deserve suffering! It's just much easier for them to conclude that they and theirs don't deserve suffering than it is for them to conclude that strangers might not deserve it.

 

[Hrothbern]

Question from a non-understanding foreigner.

How libertarian is the traditional US culture ?
And is conservatism as well a kind of protecting of the libertarian roots ?
the trapper, the freebooter, the farmer settler in nowhere, the golddigger, etc

 

[Estebonrober]

My libertarian cousin applied for and got a HUD grant to rehab a house in a particular urban neighborhood. He also voluntarily quit his job and my conservative mother was happy he was able to get unemployment, even though he doesn't qualify as he voluntarily quit.

If you pointed out the political hypocrisy, neither would be moved. Conservatism isn't about any particular social hierarchy. It's much more intimate. The crux of it is, I and others in my social and familial circles are deserving of assistance, largesse, whatever you want to call it, and everyone else is not.

HUD grants are antithetical to everything a libertarian professes - it's government intervention in the housing market, but the conservative libertarian sees no hypocrisy because he himself is worthy of and entitled to the benefit and therefore even the supposed grave social cost of intervention is acceptable in his case. It's everyone else who is unworthy.

I am completely surrounded by this attitude. At work among my relatives, in my county, state, and on. It’s maddening watching government financing pay for bridges and then these people turn around and vote for reduced government at every turn.

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree with this on its face, I've just never met a conservative with that level of "principle." Generally that's what they say right up until they're in desperate need for that social program.

Conservatives hate the ACA but most of them like the stuff about pre-existing conditions, college kids staying on parents insurance until 26, no lifetime maximum, etc. My dad used to rail on and on about the ACA until I pointed out that without it my brother's hep C and pretty much any liver related condition would never be covered. I haven't heard him talk bad about it since.

They'll take unemployment benefits, social security, disability, college tuition aid, etc when they need them and then continue to vote in politicians that want to tank those exact programs.

I don't think that this necessarily represents any particular dissonance in conservative thinking. When they benefit from these programs, it is so they can maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, so that their rightful place in the social order is maintained. Despite the viciousness of free market street-preachers, most conservative have maintained a sympathy for the deserving unfortunate; this is what they call "compassionate conservatism". What confuses this is their readiness to attribute misfortune to people who do not look and sound like them to moral degradation, their tendency to reserve deserving-ness to people with whom they can readily identify. Ultimately, it comes down to their unwillingness or inability to conceptualise poverty as a structural problem, which permits them to regard short-term financial distress as misfortune, but forces them to regard long-term or permanent poverty as essentially voluntary.

If you listen to conservative politicians, they rarely declare that they are going to abolish widely-used programs outright. Some do, but they are usually both insane, and occupy extremely safe constituencies. What they say they are going to do is to restrict access to those programs, with the accompanying promise that service for the deserving unfortunate will, in fact, improve without the dead weight of the undeserving indolent. I wouldn't say that they are secretly socialists so far as they and those like them are concerned, because they retain a certain terror of becoming dependent on the state and thus socially reduced, but dishing out dollars to the deserving is entirely within the acceptable and proper function of the state, as imagined by the majority of conservatives.

 

[Lexicus]

It’s maddening watching government financing pay for bridges and then these people turn around and vote for reduced government at every turn.

These people are victims of a multi-decade PR campaign designed to produce exactly this kind of outcome, to make clear thinking about government, society, and politics impossible. I mean, you saying "vote for reduced government" is a reflection of how successful this campaign has been.