[Quantum]

I always hear how mainstream conservatives are for conserving traditional mores, yet don't seem to define or even attempt to defend these values? Conservatives have made no attempt to preserve the demographic majority in their societies, or prevent the excesses of commercialism destroying traditional values of the people. Conservatives seem to resist the liberal values of that era and then accept it, pretending that it has always been a traditional value. Since when did 'traditional' marriage include interracial relationships and no-fault divorce? Before the civil rights movement, neither of these 'traditional' values were widely accepted by mainstream society.

Do conservatives do nothing other than defend the current liberals system and ape what liberals did a few decades ago?

[Rich]

Since when did 'traditional' marriage include interracial relationships and no-fault divorce?

Well the Church of England, the Episcopalian tradition, was founded for the purpose of giving Henry VIII a no fault divorce (under the guise of an annulment). And I'm not sure that interracial marriage was taboo prior to the fifteenth century.

[SolarCross]

I always hear how mainstream conservatives are for conserving traditional mores, yet don't seem to define or even attempt to defend these values? Conservatives have made no attempt to preserve the demographic majority in their societies, or prevent the excesses of commercialism destroying traditional values of the people. Conservatives seem to resist the liberal values of that era and then accept it, pretending that it has always been a traditional value. Since when did 'traditional' marriage include interracial relationships and no-fault divorce? Before the civil rights movement, neither of these 'traditional' values were widely accepted by mainstream society.

Do conservatives do nothing other than defend the current liberals system and ape what liberals did a few decades ago?

Yes, it is funny to hear this observation coming from the left / liberal quarter as you usually like to make out that your "progress" is mortally threatened by conservatives / reactionaries instead of being barely hampered by them. Conservatives are just progressives that drag their feet.

In a decade or two progressives will be making bestiality part of the public school curriculum and conservatives will be whining about how "it is a step too far" whilst trumpeting their support for "traditions" like the abolition of marriage and homosexual training in schools.

[Rich]

Yes, it is funny to hear this observation coming from the left / liberal quarter as you usually like to make out that your "progress" is mortally threatened by conservatives / reactionaries instead of being barely hampered by them. Conservatives are just progressives that drag their feet.

In a decade or two progressives will be making bestiality part of the public school curriculum and conservatives will be whining about how "it is a step too far" whilst trumpeting their support for "traditions" like the abolition of marriage and homosexual training in schools.

Brilliant post Taxizen, you've become a so much better human being since you stopped being a Libertarian.

[SolarCross]

Brilliant post Taxizen, you've become a so much better human being since you stopped being a Libertarian.

Thank you Rich.

I suppose the flip side to the question "what do conservatives actually conserve?" is "to what exactly are progressives actually progressing us?". Do any of you know where you are taking us? Is there a clear promised land at the end of all this progress or are you just driving the collective bus for the sake of being the driver and just whimsically taking this turn or that according to how you feel at the time until the fuel runs out?

[Cartertonian]

In a decade or two progressives will be making bestiality part of the public school curriculum and conservatives will be whining about how "it is a step too far" whilst trumpeting their support for "traditions" like the abolition of marriage and homosexual training in schools.

You're clearly confused, Taxizen. Bestiality is already part of the public school curriculum and the output of that sector, being mostly conservative, will oppose its inclusion in the state school curriciulum because such things should properly be the preserve of society's elite.

Seriously, though, you're quite right. The only difference between 'conservatives' and 'progressives' is the pace at which they are willing to change. Conservatives like to ride the brakes, while progressives like to put their foot on the gas!

[Drlee]

Buckley famously said "Conservatives stand athwart history and shout Stop!"

In the US there is no real difference between the two camps. Conservatives in the US seek to preserve corporate profits and prerogatives above those of individual citizens. All of the abortion/gay marriage/religious rights are just diversionary tactics. Weapons of mass distraction if you will.

[SolarCross]

Seriously, though, you're quite right. The only difference between 'conservatives' and 'progressives' is the pace at which they are willing to change. Conservatives like to ride the brakes, while progressives like to put their foot on the gas!

Okay but what are we supposed to be changing into? Fast or slow where are we going? What is the destination? Extending the driving analogy a bit, you may remember that until recently my main line of business was taxi driving, it is incomprehensible to me to set off for a drive without a clear destination in mind. Occasionally I would have a customer get into my car with a blank look on their face, I'd ask them where they want to go, and they would say "I don't know just drive". I usually tell them to get out at that point.

[ComradeTim]

"to what exactly are progressives actually progressing us?". Do any of you know where you are taking us? Is there a clear promised land at the end of all this progress or are you just driving the collective bus for the sake of being the driver and just whimsically taking this turn or that according to how you feel at the time until the fuel runs out?

To a classless and stateless society, where tolerance is extended to all those who are peaceful and the constant competition for resources is replaced with co-operation and plenty.

[annatar1914]

Okay but what are we supposed to be changing into? Fast or slow where are we going? What is the destination? Extending the driving analogy a bit, you may remember that until recently my main line of business was taxi driving, it is incomprehensible to me to set off for a drive without a clear destination in mind. Occasionally I would have a customer get into my car with a blank look on their face, I'd ask them where they want to go, and they would say "I don't know just drive". :?: I usually tell them to get out at that point.

As for me, I can no longer be a 'conservative', conservation of what is merely a previous phase of Modernism. It is the road to destruction. What needs to happen and what will happen eventually is that this artificial state of affairs will no longer be propped up and we will see a return to Monarchism. And it will happen in the way Good has always prevailed over Evil; in battle. Right is Might.

[quetzalcoatl]

I can no longer be a 'conservative', conservation of what is merely a previous phase of Modernism. It is the road to destruction. What needs to happen and what will happen eventually is that this artificial state of affairs will no longer be propped up and we will see a return to Monarchism. And it will happen in the way Good has always prevailed over Evil; in battle. Right is Might.

You are partially right. Every road is the road to destruction. All paths lead inevitably to the grave, both for individuals and societies. The question then becomes "which road is least obnoxious?"

For most people, this simply means being left alone. The libertarians had a good notion but completely blew it when they bought into an imaginary capitalism. The communists had a good notion but completely blew it when they bought into the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat (which failed to dissolve itself as advertised). National syndicalism had a good notion but utterly annihilated itself in WW II.

You won't find the answer in monarchism. In fact, you won't find the answer anywhere, because there is no answer - there is not even a question. Humanity has always walked a tightrope between order and chaos, freedom and power, equality and hierarchy.

It will always be thus.

However forcefully you vanquish your enemy, you can never vanquish the enemy that resides in your reptilian sub-brain.

The horrors that have afflicted us throughout history will only be continued, next chapter same book, by the philosophy of empire: might makes right. And your inversion of empire ("right makes might") is as old as history itself, from Akhenaten to Charlemagne right down to Ruhollah Khomeini.

So good luck with your battles. Just remember your first battle is with the fiercest opponent of them all: yourself.

[annatar1914]

You are partially right. Every road is the road to destruction. All paths lead inevitably to the grave, both for individuals and societies. The question then becomes "which road is least obnoxious?"

For most people, this simply means being left alone. The libertarians had a good notion but completely blew it when they bought into an imaginary capitalism. The communists had a good notion but completely blew it when they bought into the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat (which failed to dissolve itself as advertised). National syndicalism had a good notion but utterly annihilated itself in WW II.

You won't find the answer in monarchism. In fact, you won't find the answer anywhere, because there is no answer - there is not even a question. Humanity has always walked a tightrope between order and chaos, freedom and power, equality and hierarchy.

It will always be thus.

However forcefully you vanquish your enemy, you can never vanquish the enemy that resides in your reptilian sub-brain.

The horrors that have afflicted us throughout history will only be continued, next chapter same book, by the philosophy of empire: might makes right. And your inversion of empire ("right makes might") is as old as history itself, from Akhenaten to Charlemagne right down to Ruhollah Khomeini.

So good luck with your battles. Just remember your first battle is with the fiercest opponent of them all: yourself.

Monarchism is the very embodiment of the sad truth of human nature as it is, in the fallen world we live in, and makes the people content to live their lives and do battle with the internal enemy within themselves. All this and more, for society should be thus structured to provide no impediment to the successful resolution of one's spiritual battle, and honor the rights of God as well.

[SolarCross]

To a classless and stateless society, where tolerance is extended to all those who are peaceful and the constant competition for resources is replaced with co-operation and plenty.

Ah utopia, the one good thing that can be said of progressives of the marxist-leninist strain is that they do have some long term goal in mind and are not just flailing around changing things for the sake of it like other progressives. The trouble is marxists are the kind of driver that promises to take you to a good hotel but mysteriously seems to pick a route that takes you straight to the bad part of town... and you the hapless passenger are never seen again.

[Quantum]

Yes, it is funny to hear this observation coming from the left / liberal quarter as you usually like to make out that your "progress" is mortally threatened by conservatives / reactionaries instead of being barely hampered by them. Conservatives are just progressives that drag their feet.

I am not threatened by conservatives reversing "my" progress (not all leftists have the same social policies). Most of the time conservatives act as an annoyance to liberals but ultimately accepts the liberal narrative in the future. Our man in no. 10 Dave is trying to convince us that gay marriage is a conservative value.

Another thing about conservatives is that they profess to be nationalists, yet sell off national assets to foreigners and screw over the domestic working class. The Arabs, Chinese and Russians control a significant part of the British economy, the Americans hold huge sway via the EU, yet somehow the public was convinced that the government represents the public's national interest.

[quetzalcoatl]

I am not threatened by conservatives reversing "my" progress (not all leftists have the same social policies). Most of the time conservatives act as an annoyance to liberals but ultimately accepts the liberal narrative in the future. Our man in no. 10 Dave is trying to convince us that gay marriage is a conservative value.

Another thing about conservatives is that they profess to be nationalists, yet sell off national assets to foreigners and screw over the domestic working class. The Arabs, Chinese and Russians control a significant part of the British economy, the Americans hold huge sway via the EU, yet somehow the public was convinced that the government represents the public's national interest.

That analysis is dead wrong in its most important aspect. "Conservatives" have completely won the day in economic policy; they write the narrative and frame the issues, even for so-called "liberals" (who are too dim, for the most part, to realize the rug has been yanked out from under their feet). The TINA doctrine introduced by Thatcher governs even the Labour Party today.
Hence their retreat to easy 'social' issues. There is no 'national' interest to be represented at all; there is only the interest of transnational capital - and they have as little concern for the interest of the US as they do for the interest of Britain.

[Quantum]

That analysis is dead wrong in its most important aspect. "Conservatives" have completely won the day in economic policy; they write the narrative and frame the issues, even for so-called "liberals" (who are too dim, for the most part, to realize the rug has been yanked out from under their feet). The TINA doctrine introduced by Thatcher governs even the Labour Party today.
Hence their retreat to easy 'social' issues. There is no 'national' interest to be represented at all; there is only the interest of transnational capital - and they have as little concern for the interest of the US as they do for the interest of Britain.

Yes, "conservatives" have won the class war but liberals support neoliberalism just as much. I'm talking about the culture wars and the conservatives have lost that. I agree with your last point, though.

[Godstud]

Conservatives tend to conserve ignorance and out-dated views, in general.

[SolarCross]

That analysis is dead wrong in its most important aspect. "Conservatives" have completely won the day in economic policy; they write the narrative and frame the issues, even for so-called "liberals" (who are too dim, for the most part, to realize the rug has been yanked out from under their feet). The TINA doctrine introduced by Thatcher governs even the Labour Party today.
Hence their retreat to easy 'social' issues. There is no 'national' interest to be represented at all; there is only the interest of transnational capital - and they have as little concern for the interest of the US as they do for the interest of Britain.

They haven't won the day at all on the economic front. The fall of the USSR made socialist economics unprogressable for a while (this is the underlying point about TINA), but that just meant conservatives could hold the line for a few decades but they are already slipping hard. Your progress is dragging us all under even on the economic front.

[Torus34]

I can speak with some degree of knowledge about 'conservatives' in the US of A, being myself a citizen of this strange land.

You'll note the quotes. That's because I distinguish between what I call thinking conservatives -- those who are willing to question the axioms and precepts of liberals and conservatives -- and the 'conservatives' best exemplified by the call-in enablers of talk show hosts. The former deserve my respect. The latter confine their thinking to the stringing-together of whatever buzz-phrases and talking points are currently in vogue.* Their nearest kin on the evolutionary tree are not the great apes but rather the parrots.

* Ref: Any US of A AM radio call-in show. You can tune in and verify whenever.

"And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." Geoffrey Chaucer.

[Pants-of-dog]

They conserve the past victories of previous progressive liberals as we slowly drag all of you into a better world.

In doing so, they are a rearguard defense against the forces of monarchism, fascism, authoritarianism, theocracy, and other ideologies that deny the basic rights of human beings.

However, they also conserve capitalism, which is a problem.