I’m curious what it is about conservative ideology that appeals to you. Because I have come to the conclusion after several decades on this planet, that deep down it is a destructive, and morally bankrupt philosophy.
I’m curious what it is about conservative ideology that appeals to you. Because I have come to the conclusion after several decades on this planet, that deep down it is a destructive, and morally bankrupt philosophy.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 20 hours ago
I’m curious how you came to your conclusions, too, because the point of conservatism, to me, is to prevent destruction.
I’ve been a environmental conservationist my whole life. As I became an adult and aware of politics, I came to realize that just as the natural environment requires protection against the selfishness, greed, and short-sightedness of humanity, so too do all the social and political systems that take decades or centuries to build but only years or months to destroy (as we’ve seen under the current administration).
It’s been said many times that at the heart of all conservatism is fear. That’s not a very generous way to put it, but neither is it inaccurate. Fear of loss, fear of risk, fear of change. Conservatism holds that if things are pretty good, most changes are likely to make things worse and not better, and so change is to be treated with suspicion, and people pushing for it doubly so, since altruism is rare.
A bicycle needs both pedals and brakes. We need to move forward, but not recklessly. Before a change is made, the case needs to be argued as to why it is necessary, what it will cost (and there’s always a cost), how to ensure it actually achieves what it sets out to achieve, and how it might be misused in the future. In other words, before a change can be made in the name of Progress, it needs to be demonstrated that the change actually is Progress. To progressives, this feels like standing in the way of Progress. To a conservative, this is safeguarding Progress, the Progress previous generations achieved, from changes that, again, are more likely to be bad than good.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 hour ago
That’s not what we see with Conservatism with, and is much more in line with 20th century Progressivism (i.e. leveraging empirical knowledge to moderate political change).
Conservativism in practice, as I’ve seen it almost invariably, says new is always bad, traditional is always good. It’s a bicycle that’s all brakes and no pedals.
Sometimes a system that took centuries to build, like chattel slavery, should be destroyed in months or years, and inaction does more bad than good. Progressivism took off after the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution because empirical data showed that traditional structures were ill-suited for the quickly evolving world.
Conservativism in the modern era is akin to trying to fill your gas tank with oats and hay. Cars aren’t horses, and the longer you drag your feet in updating your policies, the more damage you’re going to do to your engine.
The problem is that things aren’t pretty good for most people. The system is in shambles and most suggested changes probably would make things better for everyone who isn’t a millionaire.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 hours ago
I think that, perhaps, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the generally accepted (speaking for the US here) definition of the conservative political ideology actually is.
Modern conservatives do not care about conserving the environment. Literally the opposite.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 17 hours ago
I know what the generally accepted definition is, I just don’t accept it. Regressives don’t have a right to call themselves conservative and I won’t stop calling them out on it.
onslaught545@lemmy.zip 15 hours ago
But conservatives have always been regressive in the US.
Uruanna@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
You built up your very own definition of the word while ignoring what any political conservative movement in the world actually does. You listened to someone’s argument on the concept of a definition, an idea that was stapled to a word in your head, without actually looking at factual reality. What you describe is simply not what any conservative party anywhere does.
Starting with the idea that you are conserving something that runs well and not spending resource on frivolous nonsense that doesn’t work - just look at everything a conservative party actually funds while blocking money for anything remotely humanitarian because they claim it doesn’t work, or based on the slightest disagreement about a boundary, while being themselves the very reason it doesn’t work.
Look at what is actually protected. And at who isn’t, based on not giving too much to someone you don’t think deserves it. Do those who already have all that deserve it?
Starting with your environmental conservationist sensibility and reducing that you want to be a conservative is already super wild, it’s antinomic. You think you protect something from greed and selfishness, but those who who block progress are the selfish ones who hoard everything out of greed, using “this doesn’t deserve it” or “you can’t prove this works” as an excuse to keep everything. You are not safeguarding anything, and there’s zero place for environmental protection in any conservative party anywhere.
Bongles@lemmy.zip 17 hours ago
What would you call someone with the beliefs that they’ve mentioned then? I agree, I don’t know of a current “conservative” political group/party that follows that idea anymore but what word better explains how they actually want things?
Uruanna@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
In the US? … Obama? (In a very big nutshell)
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 17 hours ago
I agree. This person is a conservative. The other “conservatives” are just fascists who inherited the label and it no longer fits.