Conservatism is a necessary and important part of politics, helping to preserve culture (all culture, but that’s a different topic), helping keep and modernize tradition, and forcing progressive elements to carefully and fully bake new policies that benefit everyone. They’re the moderator to the progressive catalyst.
Sorry to break it to you, by you’ve fallen for the lie. Conservatism isn’t about preserving “tradition,” and never has been. Conservativism has always been about maintaining hierarchy, and only happens to correlate with tradition to the extent that hierarchy has been the status-quo.
Make no mistake: whenever the status-quo is egalitarian, conservatives work to change it as rapidly and radically as possible.
You don’t think it’s possible for people to not have progressive ideologies, want to preserve tradition and culture, want to keep progress careful, and not just “preserve hierarchy”?
You don’t think it’s possible for people to not have progressive ideologies, want to preserve tradition and culture, want to keep progress careful, and not just “preserve hierarchy”?
I mean, what do you mean by “liberals”? Centrist Democrats?
Liberalism in political theory just means someone who values personal liberties. Its been co-opted by the same people who have conflated leftism with liberalism and rightism with authoritarianism, ignoring the fact you can have authoritarian leftists (Stalinist Communism) and liberal conservatives (Libertarianism in the American political stage).
Politics isn’t left vs right, and it isn’t leftist vs liberals. That kind of classification was literally designed to isolate and fracture political factions of progressives.
The political quadrants/compass, which while it has become a bit of a meme online encapsulates the spectrum of political beliefs much more accurately.
Not trying to argue, but do you have another model that works better? I refer to it because it’s commonly known and the quick for people to understand and it captures more nuance than “left vs right”.
For instance the Khmer Rouge’s communism is vastly different from say Mao Zedongs, yet on the political compass they would be placed in roughly the same spot. This causes massive issues with understanding of these things for the general masses and creates a social influence that is massively idiotic.
Sorry to break it to you, by you’ve fallen for the lie. Conservatism isn’t about preserving “tradition,” and never has been. Conservativism has always been about maintaining hierarchy, and only happens to correlate with tradition to the extent that hierarchy has been the status-quo.
Make no mistake: whenever the status-quo is egalitarian, conservatives work to change it as rapidly and radically as possible.
You don’t think it’s possible for people to not have progressive ideologies, want to preserve tradition and culture, want to keep progress careful, and not just “preserve hierarchy”?
I’m so fucking tired.
Thank you for proving my point I guess?
Those people are called “liberals.”
I mean, what do you mean by “liberals”? Centrist Democrats?
Liberalism in political theory just means someone who values personal liberties. Its been co-opted by the same people who have conflated leftism with liberalism and rightism with authoritarianism, ignoring the fact you can have authoritarian leftists (Stalinist Communism) and liberal conservatives (Libertarianism in the American political stage).
Politics isn’t left vs right, and it isn’t leftist vs liberals. That kind of classification was literally designed to isolate and fracture political factions of progressives.
The political quadrants/compass, which while it has become a bit of a meme online encapsulates the spectrum of political beliefs much more accurately.
The political compass is annoying as fuck. Disinformation to make people think they understand politics but they don’t.
Not trying to argue, but do you have another model that works better? I refer to it because it’s commonly known and the quick for people to understand and it captures more nuance than “left vs right”.
For instance the Khmer Rouge’s communism is vastly different from say Mao Zedongs, yet on the political compass they would be placed in roughly the same spot. This causes massive issues with understanding of these things for the general masses and creates a social influence that is massively idiotic.
That makes sense, thank you for clarifying.
No problem man. You see where I’m coming from here though right?