It’s not a new term, it has been around for a few centuries now. People who want to revert change, go back to the perceived good old times. Fascist is overused these days, and I’d argue reactionary hits a nice descriptive middle ground between conservative (which they are not, any more) and fascist (which many of them aren’t yet). Hit them where they are, not where they move to
I do agree with and appreciate the nuance, it’s clear from your careful wording you understand conservatism by definition doesn’t have a cause to stand for, hence reactionary. It’s apt in a good faith discussion.
My problem is supplying ammunition for bad faith discussion. Like what “libertarians” are to conservatives. They’ll claim they’re not conservatives, they’re just libertarians. All the while supporting the same goals with a different name.
It’s not a new term, it has been around for a few centuries now. People who want to revert change, go back to the perceived good old times. Fascist is overused these days, and I’d argue reactionary hits a nice descriptive middle ground between conservative (which they are not, any more) and fascist (which many of them aren’t yet). Hit them where they are, not where they move to
I do agree with and appreciate the nuance, it’s clear from your careful wording you understand conservatism by definition doesn’t have a cause to stand for, hence reactionary. It’s apt in a good faith discussion.
My problem is supplying ammunition for bad faith discussion. Like what “libertarians” are to conservatives. They’ll claim they’re not conservatives, they’re just libertarians. All the while supporting the same goals with a different name.