What has conservatism given America?

[zorq]

So, I guess what we are saying is that some paths of progress are bad, and conservatism occasionally prevents those bad paths. On the political-economic side of things, we might guess that the popular communism movements in the 20th century could be considered progressive movements. This is true even though every country to adopt that "progress" became an authoritarian shithole riddled with internal genocide and rampant corruption. Even the the rise of fascism could be considered "progressive" if we pick our definitions carefully. Conservatives were very important actors in preventing many world powers from falling to these toxic political philosophies in the previous century.

So conservatives are occasionally useful for slowing progress enough for us to witness the consequences of new political paradigms and filter out the ones that prove themselves to be pernicious. We should thank conservatives for helping to prevent western powers from falling to communism and fascism. However, at least in the US, conservatives have been standing in the way of fruitful paths of progress for several decades now. European powers and other world leaders have proven that expanded social safety nets offer tremendous benefit to their populations, but for some reason, US conservatives remain intransigent.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is conservatism the bad guy in an action movie or more like the comic relief? I mean, in this action movie analogy, presumably progressivism is the good guy. In the real world or the movie world such person is trying to solve a problem. Conservativism comes in with false premises, wacky conspiracy theories, hypocritical applications of "values," promotion of false ideas to ignorant followers, all in order to do anything to maintain legacy institutions of power. If conservatism is the bad guy, then it's a comedic maniacal bad guy, like the Riddler or Doctor Evil. On the other hand, when conservatives are very desperate, cornered and as a last resort, they can even come up with a decent point packaged in a way that sounds somewhat rational to progressives. Any opposition at all, then, can be good, like a stopped clock being right twice a day.

 

[bilby]

Even the the rise of fascism could be considered "progressive" if we pick our definitions carefully.

On the contrary, fascism is deeply conservative, at every level.

To declare it "progressive" requires an abuse of definitions that goes way past merely picking carefully.

 

[Politesse]

This is true even though every country to adopt that "progress" became an authoritarian shithole riddled with internal genocide and rampant corruption.

What now? No, countries that embrace progress usually make bank and have happy citizens. That's why we call it progress.

Is conservatism the bad guy in an action movie or more like the comic relief? I mean, in this action movie analogy, presumably progressivism is the good guy. In the real world or the movie world such person is trying to solve a problem. Conservativism comes in with false premises, wacky conspiracy theories, hypocritical applications of "values," promotion of false ideas to ignorant followers, all in order to do anything to maintain legacy institutions of power. If conservatism is the bad guy, then it's a comedic maniacal bad guy, like the Riddler or Doctor Evil. On the other hand, when conservatives are very desperate, cornered and as a last resort, they can even come up with a decent point packaged in a way that sounds somewhat rational to progressives. Any opposition at all, then, can be good, like a stopped clock being right twice a day.

It's like that moment in the movie where the villain pulls the hero in almost homoerotically close and murmurs "you pretend to be good, but deep down Dr Jones you're really just like me."

I mean. Exactly like that, because they say stupid shit like that constantly.

 

[zorq]

progress
Definitions
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

1 noun Forward or onward movement, as toward a destination.
2 noun Development, advancement, or improvement, as toward a goal.
3 noun A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.
4 intransitive verb To move forward or onward.
5 intransitive verb To develop, advance, or improve.
6 intransitive verb To increase in scope or severity, as a disease taking an unfavorable course.
7 idiom (in progress) Going on; under way.

I was using "progressive" the same way that TomC uses "conservative." He likes to play a game where "conservative" takes the meaning of its root word "to conserve" and ignores the context of a political discussion where conservatives are a distinct group of people with a specific list of values and political positions. I think it is weasaly, but he isn't actually wrong when he does this. Conservatives are supposed to conserve. But modern conservatives, at least the ones we typically talk about on this board, rarely do.

That said, a progressive isn't necessarily bound to advance or improve society even if that is their declared or intended goal. A progressive advocating for a significant and novel change to society can't actually know if their proposal will help, retard, or even collapse the society. The only thing that all progressives have in common is the 1st/4th definition above, even though they all may allegedly aspire to the 2nd/5th. You can argue that progressives are supposed to advance society, but really, all we can guarantee is that when progressives have the chance they will move forward or onward.

Eh. If others insist that NAZIs weren't progressives, I agree. But I am using the word differently in that context.

Spoiler: Progressive definition

progressive
Definitions
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
1 adjective Moving forward; advancing.
2 adjective Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments.
3 adjective Open to or favoring new ideas, policies, or methods.
4 adjective Of or relating to a Progressive Party.
5 adjective Of or relating to progressive education.
6 adjective Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases.
7 adjective Tending to become more severe or wider in scope.
8 adjective Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.
9 adjective Music Of or being a style that emphasizes virtuoso technique, rhythmic and melodic complexity, and unconventional forms and instrumentation.
10 noun A person who is open to or favors new ideas, policies, or methods, especially in politics.
11 noun A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
12 noun Grammar A progressive verb form.

 

[Politesse]

He likes to play a game where "conservative" takes the meaning of its root word "to conserve" and ignores the context of a political discussion where conservatives are a distinct group of people with a specific list of values and political positions. I think it is weasaly, but he isn't actually wrong when he does this. Conservatives are supposed to conserve. But modern conservatives, at least the ones we typically talk about on this board, rarely do.

Then I myself am a Republican (I favor a republic), and also an Englishman (I speak it), a fascist (I support unity at times), a country singer (I sing in a country), a socialist (I live in a society), a capitalist (I have some capital), and a committed Maoist (I firmly believe that Mao Zedong existed).

 

[zorq]

He likes to play a game where "conservative" takes the meaning of its root word "to conserve" and ignores the context of a political discussion where conservatives are a distinct group of people with a specific list of values and political positions. I think it is weasaly, but he isn't actually wrong when he does this. Conservatives are supposed to conserve. But modern conservatives, at least the ones we typically talk about on this board, rarely do.

Then I myself am a Republican (I favor a republic), and also an Englishman (I speak it), a fascist (I support unity at times), a country singer (I sing in a country), a socialist (I live in a society), a capitalist (I have some capital), and a committed Maoist (I firmly believe that Mao Zedong existed). You can't just ignore what words mean and make up your own definitions based on their etymology...

The definitions are right there in the dictionary. I'm not making anything up. I'm using words that exist. I just proved they exist. And I explained exactly which definitions I am using while simultaneously acknowledging the other definition that you are now seemingly insisting should be the only one allowed.

Frankly, the definition I'm using is kind of the better one in the context of the vast time span suggested in the title question of this thread. In your context of the word, exactly what it meant to be a conservative or a progressive in 1776 (or earlier) is wildly different from what it means to be one in 2023. A loyalist Tory in colonial Massachusetts wanted some very different things compared to a Republican in Montana today.

We can't compare those apples easily.

 

[Politesse]

A loyalist Tory in colonial Massachusetts wanted some very different things compared to a Republican in Montana today.

We are not in 1776.

 

[Swammerdami]

Wow.

I started reading this thread yesterday, and planned a post with my own definitions, and outlining my own transition circa 1992 from slightly right-of-center to slightly left-of-center. Of course I planned to quote some of the most egregious posts along the way and provide corrections and rebuttals. (Needless to say, that latter task became onerously time-consuming and I've abandoned it.)

A news story today reminds me of a good example of the evolution of my political thinking circa 1992.

I was a libertarian. (Please note the lower-case L and the 20th-century context. My views are and have always been 180-degree divergent from 21st-century upper-case Libertarianism.) The topic was school vouchers. Thinking of such vouchers abstractly in the 1980's they seemed like a good free-market approach to education. But I came to understand that the practical real-world differs from the abstract, and I came to realize that school vouchers are usually (not always) a scam to take money from the under-privileged and use it to subsidize schools for the affluent, often schools that indoctrinate Christianity and/or right-wing morality.

I was reminded of this issue today when I read that DeSantis' state of Florida gives cash vouchers to parents who "home-school" -- cash they can spend on expensive TV screens, game consoles, and tickets to theme parks. (I don't know if tickets to Disney World are still allowed with this voucher money. )

 

[zorq]

A loyalist Tory in colonial Massachusetts wanted some very different things compared to a Republican in Montana today.

We are not in 1776.

And yet conservatives and progressives can be identified in America in 1776. And we can talk about what each of them did for America respectively. And this helps us to answer the question in the OP.

 

[Ford]

Wow.

I started reading this thread yesterday, and planned a post with my own definitions, and outlining my own transition circa 1992 from slightly right-of-center to slightly left-of-center. Of course I planned to quote some of the most egregious posts along the way and provide corrections and rebuttals. (Needless to say, that latter task became onerously time-consuming and I've abandoned it.)

A news story today reminds me of a good example of the evolution of my political thinking circa 1992.

I was a libertarian. (Please note the lower-case L and the 20th-century context. My views are and have always been 180-degree divergent from 21st-century upper-case Libertarianism.) The topic was school vouchers. Thinking of such vouchers abstractly in the 1980's they seemed like a good free-market approach to education. But I came to understand that the practical real-world differs from the abstract, and I came to realize that school vouchers are usually (not always) a scam to take money from the under-privileged and use it to subsidize schools for the affluent, often schools that indoctrinate Christianity and/or right-wing morality.

I was reminded of this issue today when I read that DeSantis' state of Florida gives cash vouchers to parents who "home-school" -- cash they can spend on expensive TV screens, game consoles, and tickets to theme parks. (I don't know if tickets to Disney World are still allowed with this voucher money. )

I also underwent a transition politically starting about the same time. I considered myself a conservative, cast my first ever vote for Reagan in '84, and then for Bush I four years later. Disillusioned as I learned more about what they were (not Eisenhower conservatives like my father) and watched the party become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Godco, Inc., I voted for Clinton and even went a bit into that same libertarian rabbit hole by the mid 90s. Moving to a less affluent and more diverse part of the country informed my political evolution, and while I didn't identify as any one thing (been registered independent since '96) I did and still do wish there were actual conservatism as I see it...government stays out of your personal business, is fiscally responsible, with policies based in reason and data rather than emotion. Arnold Schwarzenegger gave a succinct description of his views (though I'm not sure he followed it himself): Fiscally conservative, socially moderate, environmentally progressive.

I agree with that. It would be great if we had some actual self-identified conservatives who shared those views. But you're correct...today's conservatives are the party of wealth transfer upwards. Fuck the poor, my donors are more important. Or if you're a voter, fuck the poor, I'll be rich one day too when Republican policies are fully implemented, and I don't want none of those poor people in my gated community.

In addition, today's GOP is (and has long been) the party of "burn it all down." They're far worse today, but remember Reagan's famous line: "Government is not the solution to your problems, government IS the problem." He said this on the first day of his government job. From that day on, the GOP became the party of publicly complaining about government while simultaneously using the government to enrich themselves, their donors, and friends. Rules for thee, not for me. The party of "I got mine" and "starve the beast." And for most of my life, they haven't been the fiscally responsible party. There was a brief tack towards responsibility when Bush Sr. realized there was something wrong and raised taxes, and he was the last Republican to ever do that. With the fiscal responsibility horse having long since left the barn, they are now working on dismantling that whole "democratic republic" they claim to support...with gerrymandering and now outright blatant attempts to simply install themselves in power, because if the voters don't support them, then fuck the voters.

In fact, I'm at somewhat of a loss...what about today's GOP is actually conservative?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I was a libertarian. (Please note the lower-case L and the 20th-century context. My views are and have always been 180-degree divergent from 21st-century upper-case Libertarianism.) The topic was school vouchers. Thinking of such vouchers abstractly in the 1980's they seemed like a good free-market approach to education. But I came to understand that the practical real-world differs from the abstract, and I came to realize that school vouchers are usually (not always) a scam to take money from the under-privileged and use it to subsidize schools for the affluent, often schools that indoctrinate Christianity and/or right-wing morality.

This is instructive and a microcosm of conservatism. Dictionaries and abstract ideas are okay and utilizing them can be well-intentioned. In the practical world of politicians or religious leaders saying one thing yet doing another, it is more important to examine actions and historical context.

America existed unofficially for centuries and then for quite a while before some groups within various states took on the moniker "Conservatives." When and where? Initially, a couple of southern states in post-civil war as reactionary to Reconstruction politics. It's like announcing, "hey everyone, we never decided to form state parties and organize ideological positions before now. But we just support the status quo. We're just 'conservative.' Look it up in the dictionary." And no doubt, it gained traction with both well-meaning and racist persons. Those state-level movements did get swallowed up by southern Democratic Party which largely initially continued the use of the term. We know many years later the parties flipped due to southern strategy.

Along the way, one might examine the historical policies of "conservatives" in more detail. At some point in time, they supported pensions for Confederate veterans, but opposed social safety nets for the poor. We've heard the slogans like "we're against handouts," but there it is. Handouts to businesses, sure. We've also heard "we want a balanced budget " but we observe out of control military spending. Against labor unions because "violence," but for corporations with privatized armies.

Examining how this works, one must notice the underlying current of support for inequality that most often persists in (legacy) hierarchical structures. Hypocrisy doesn't comprehensively capture the historical ideological positions. They actively promote inequality.

 

[Politesse]

In fact, I'm at somewhat of a loss...what about today's GOP is actually conservative?

Theocracy and hatred of non-whites?

 

[Elixir]

If @TomC were to be entirely honest with his idiosyncratic use of “conservative” and “progressive”, he would label Democrats “progressive” and Republicans “regressive”.
Republicans are trying to reinstate the racism and white supremacy of the pre civil war south. That’s regressive. Democrats are trying to move toward unprecedented equality and equity. That’s progressive.
Tom’s use of “conservative” as applied to Democrats as a distinction from Republicans, is a dishonest application of literalism since he KNOWS that most readers will associate “conservatism” with the most regressive attributes and ideals of the Republican Party.

 

[southernhybrid]

Has anyone mentioned guns? I haven't read all of the comments, but the conservatives have certainly conserved gun rights, so now we have 103 guns per 100 American Citizens. Wow! What an accomplishment! Conservatives have given us guns, lots and lots of guns. And, despite that the majority of Americans, including most gun owners, want stricter gun laws, conservatives aren't going to give us that because they are owned by the NRA. Way to go cons!

If @TomC were to be entirely honest with his idiosyncratic use of “conservative” and “progressive”, he would label Democrats “progressive” and Republicans “regressive”.
Republicans are trying to reinstate the racism and white supremacy of the pre civil war south. That’s regressive. Democrats are trying to move toward unprecedented equality and equity. That’s progressive.
Tom’s use of “conservative” as applied to Democrats as a distinction from Republicans, is a dishonest application of literalism since he KNOWS that most readers will associate “conservatism” with the most regressive attributes and ideals of the Republican Party.

Don't be absurd, they only want to take us back to the Jim Crow era, not the pre Civil War era. And btw, the poor white people who love their Trump cult don't realize that he doesn't give a shit about them. He probably refers to them the same way the Brits did back in the 16th and 17th Centuries, as "White Trash". Sadly, they think it's the libs who look down on them and while some do, it's the libs that want to conserve the very programs that help them survive, like for example, SNAP, SS, M'caid and M'care.

Note to Rvonse: I respectfully suggest that you get your news from an actual news source instead of a far right propaganda source. No. Jan 6 wasn't just a protest with a little violence. It was an attempted insurrection, an attempt to overturn an election. The ballots were counted at least 2 times in Georgia and we have paper ballots that we each review before they are put in a machine where they can be used for recounts. Our election workers received death threats in some cases for simply doing their job. I've never heard Dems give death threats to election workers when they've lost. WTF!

Did you even watch what when on at the capital on 1/6/21? It was a horror show. Congress members from both parties were scared shitless and your so called protesters were screaming "Hang Mike Pence". They brutalized some police too. That's not a protest. That's something much worse, unlike anything I've seen in my rather long lifetime. Please for your sake, learn what's really going on and don't be a member of Trump's poorly educated cult. It serves you no purpose.

 

[Elixir]

don't be a member of Trump's poorly educated cult.

Like … there’s a well educated or well informed Trump cult?

 

[TomC]

don't be a member of Trump's poorly educated cult.

Like … there’s a well educated or well informed Trump cult?

Oh yes.
Trump is a result of some billionaires taking over the GOP, creating the TeaParty wing of the GOP, and funding the crap out of it.

People like the Kochs and Murdochs and Crows, there're lots. That's the real Trump cult. The billionaires who own the Government.

The little people are merely useful idiots.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I think it is weasaly, but he isn't actually wrong when he does this.

How liberal and progressive!
It is weasely to use words as though they have meaning.
Like the OP, @ZiprHead.

Apparently here in the modern world, if the meaning of a word doesn't suit your ideology then you just flip it to mean what you prefer that it means. It's quite Orwellian, turning Trump's Wall into Conservativism. The USA has been "This Nation of Immigrants" since before there was an official USA. The Wall is a newfangled attempt to end our old tradition. That's not conservative by any standard except modern Orwellian "Words mean what I want them to mean, for my own ideological purposes."

That sounds really progressive to me.
Tom

 

[southernhybrid]

don't be a member of Trump's poorly educated cult.

Like … there’s a well educated or well informed Trump cult?

Technically yes, as my brother in law, who has a doctorate degree voted for him twice and I know of a nurse who has a college degree who had a Trump sign in her yard, but then, she's also a conservative Christian. I'm sure there's more. So, yes, there are some highly educated members of the cult or at least supporters of the leader of the cult. Maybe that says a lot about our educational system, then we care to admit. My wealthy bro in law said, "Well he put more money in my pocket". I guess that's how the more educated Trump supporters see it. It's all about their Benjamin's.

And, sadly, he's reeling in some new young cult members. Let me quote one: "We didn't have to pay so much for groceries when Trump was president".That's an example of the poorly educated. One of them is Black and one is White and they are both under 30, so people need to stop blaming the boomers for Trump. Not all zoomers are Democrats. Plus, a lot of them don't even bother to vote.

We boomers are just as politically split as we were when I was 18 and protesting the Viet Nam War, while my conservative peers were yelling "love it or leave it" at us. I've never voted for a Republican. We are the generation that said, "Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern." So, just like every other generation, we are a mix of many different views. Plus people always seem to forget that there are a lot of Black boomers and about 95% of them didn't vote for Trump. They are smarter than the White voters, statistically speaking. We boomers may have moved to the right. Some of us went from socialist, to center left. In other words, we became realists. But, I'm in the wrong place for a rant, or am I?

 

[Elixir]

If @TomC were to be entirely honest with his idiosyncratic use of “conservative” and “progressive”, he would label Democrats “progressive” and Republicans “regressive”.
Republicans are trying to reinstate the racism and white supremacy of the pre civil war south. That’s regressive. Democrats are trying to move toward unprecedented equality and equity. That’s progressive.
Tom’s use of “conservative” as applied to Democrats as a distinction from Republicans, is a dishonest application of literalism since he KNOWS that most readers will associate “conservatism” with the most regressive attributes and ideals of the Republican Party.

Don't be absurd, they only want to take us back to the Jim Crow era, not the pre Civil War era.

Lol! I think most words used in informal conversation are defined by their common usage. In this case, I think the common usage is consistent with literal interpretation. TomC seems to disagree, that's all. No big deal, since he plainly knows what is meant by others who are using the terms conservative and progressive.

there are some highly educated members of the cult or at least supporters of the leader of the cult.

Yeah, I should have said "well educated and well informed " rather than "or". If they're intelligent trumpsuckers, they're still suckers for sucking up misinformation. We may well be doomed because the misinformation campaign is way bigger than American politics. It is a coordinated effort of the American fascist party and the monied dictatorships to whom they are beholden.
If you're Putin, MBS, Xi, Duterte, or even Kim - who are you going to support and what form is that support going to take?
Our media, and very culture are awash in the RW propaganda that has been gobbled up by the gullible masses, to the point where the truth is becoming a niche market. If the propaganda succeeds, the truth will be a black market. It's already getting that way, with the hounding of prosecutors and witnesses holding Trump to account. The House of Representatives is going start 'Impeachment proceedings" against Joe Biden ... for shit THEY SAY was made up by some criminal fugitive "witness"