Some thoughts on conservatism V. modern liberalism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14578518
I was going to write this as a reply to another user's response to a topic but I think it's too long so I'm creating a new one. These are just some sparse thoughts on conservatism and modern liberalism.

I use the label conservative because out of all the labels it fits me better, but I'm not necessarily your typical US conservative - Conservatism means essentially conserving something - The distinction between conservatives and liberals is not a huge one, the difference is between social perceptions and preferred methods. I'd say modern liberalism and progressivism has a strong correlation with a deep rebellious desire to break free from oppression, to impose progress because it is always desirable and forget about the past - It is connected with a modernist attitude that promotes a worldview based on open mindedness, common sense and tolerance and it excludes anyone who doesn't agree.

There's many sub-sects of conservatism, some of them have been pointed out by Noob. Being a conservative just means you want to conserve something about the current status quo, and that differs depending on where you live - A british conservative is not the same as an American conservative, as the latter is (ironically) closely tied to classical liberalism which is the predominant ideology America was founded upon and has known for the last three centuries. Attitudes like supporting or opposing universal healthcare system depend on where you live - Being a conservative in my country entails being pro-free healthcare since it has been the healthcare system for decades and most people like some state intervention - It's actually a tradition, so it would be anti-conservative to promote privatizations and less regulations.

For the most part, I see values like prudence and temperance as crucial to any society and I am too on the right to associate myself with liberals and socialists, so conservative seems to suit me, and many of my opinions.

Ultimately, conservatism and modern liberalism are just two different approaches to classical liberalism and the enlightenment, and both provide different methods to solve problems or even have a different conception of what actually constitutes a real problem or not. For conservatives, gays not getting married is not a problem since they can still marry opposite gender people, so everyone is treated equally - For liberals, it is a form of discrimination.

Despite the differences between what being a conservatism means, I think in most of the western world we can recognize a few common traits (with sub-variations inside each one)

- A support for tradition, traditional values coupled with a healthy, moderate degree of patriotism and national pride - Not necessarily a nationalistic patriotism of the fascist kind but a health patriotism and loving your country.

- Promotion of tribalism as something acceptable and natural, and not as an archaic middle age notion that we should leave behind

- Some degree of social conservatism even in pro-same sex marriage conservatives - There is a social and moral order that forms a type of continuum and it should be preserved

- Overall respect for your ancestors' ideas and a skepticism towards change - When it happens, it should be gradual, slow and well thought. Slow transitions and reform are more desirable than shitting on the past and making a progressive revolution.

- Support for a capitalist economy, mostly with a mixed market with government public services and privately owned businesses. In America, the support for private economy is higher. As a general rule, conservatives support individual rights and free choice, so they dislike welfare and social support programs.

- Religious belief in the majority's religion or, for non-believers/spiritualists a respect for the traditional religion and valuing it's historical importance.

- A support for sovereignty and a strong military, but this doesn't equal with randomly invading whoever you want. A strong military's main purpose is to defend, not to attack.

- A support for both the individuality of each person but also some kind of duty towards the state and the nation.

- Generally a support for retribution over rehabilitation, and sometimes for the death penalty.

- Climate change denialism, creationism and biblical literalism don't count because those are issues almost exclusive to american conservatives.

- A skepticism towards some part of globalization, multiculturalism and immigrants - Not necessarily open xenophobia and hatred but I have doubts to the benefits immigrants are bringing to my country aside from filling jails and using welfare systems that hardworking citizens just don't get. (and if someone points this out, just cry "racism" even if you're a white immigrant).

So, am I crazy or just half-crazy?
#14582846
As Oliver Stone once said: "I think experience will teach you a combination of liberalism and conservatism. We have to be progressive and at the same time we have to retain values. We have to hold onto the past as we explore the future"
#14585138
Conservatism went wrong when it became attached to capitalism. Capitalism is a dynamic system that tends to be the enemy of forces trying to conserve things other than the wealth of capitalists. Social conservatives lament the decline of traditional society in the West and try to lay the blame on Cultural Marxism, the Jews, and other culprits but really it is capitalism that has forced the changes that most on the Right hate.

Alain de Benoist explained how the Right failed to fight the Money Power, which was always the real enemy of conservatism and the desire to preserve what is good in one's culture and civilization. Benoist writes:

The Right forgot that its only true enemy is Money. It should have considered everything opposing the system of money as its objective ally. Instead it gradually joined the other side. The Right was better equipped than any other force to reframe the anti-utilitarian values of generosity and selflessness, and to defend them. But, little by little, the Right acceded to the logic of interest and the defense of the market. At the same time, it fell in line with militarism and nationalism, which is nothing but collective individualism, something that the first counter-revolutionaries had condemned as such.


You can find the entire piece here: http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/the ... -old-right

Contemporary conservatism is just one flavor of liberalism. I agree with you that there are some distinctions but they are not that large in my opinion. As you wrote, they are different approaches to liberalism.
#14585169
Piccolo wrote:Conservatism went wrong when it became attached to capitalism. Capitalism is a dynamic system that tends to be the enemy of forces trying to conserve things other than the wealth of capitalists. Social conservatives lament the decline of traditional society in the West and try to lay the blame on Cultural Marxism, the Jews, and other culprits but really it is capitalism that has forced the changes that most on the Right hate.


The identification of conservatism with money is a peculiarly American phenomenon. The idolization of mammon and traditional Christian values can't be comfortably combined, and it's Christianity that's taken the biggest hit. As Trump says about confession: "I don't bring God into that picture."
#14589040
Conservatism is an ideology, given about by greed, and utter contempt and destruction on the environment, the worker and the poor, while serving the elite at the top at the expense of all others. It wastes military dollars on wasteful and imperalist needs, where they could be better spend on funding free education for all from childcare+, providing a free nationalized healthcare, providing a guaranteed job for workers and funding unions to fight big business and improve the conditions for the workers.

In essence, conservatism is the persuit of greed and material needs, without consideration for others, animals and the environment.

My thoughts, anyway.
#14635940
quetzalcoatl wrote:


The identification of conservatism with money is a peculiarly American phenomenon. The idolization of mammon and traditional Christian values can't be comfortably combined, and it's Christianity that's taken the biggest hit. As Trump says about confession: "I don't bring God into that picture."[/quote]

As if liberals aren't concerned with money?

Witness Bill and Hillary Clinton, whining about the 1% while charging $250k per speech.

Or Micheal Moore, who also rails against the 1% while owning many homes.

Understand, I'm not against anyone being wealthy. You wealthy, more power to you. What I'm against is people running down wealthy, while raking in cash themselves.

The major difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives want everyone to be rich,
Liberals only want themselves to be rich.
#14635956
so_crates wrote:As if liberals aren't concerned with money?

Witness Bill and Hillary Clinton, whining about the 1% while charging $250k per speech.

Or Micheal Moore, who also rails against the 1% while owning many homes.

Understand, I'm not against anyone being wealthy. You wealthy, more power to you. What I'm against is people running down wealthy, while raking in cash themselves.

The major difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives want everyone to be rich,
Liberals only want themselves to be rich.

You're quite missing the point. Sure, liberals and conservatives are both equally mammon worshipers. The point being that "conservatives" and "liberals" do not represent distinct ideologies, but alternate methods of advancing a similar agenda. (BTW, the notion that conservatives want everyone to be rich is not even a good talking point.)

The fact that mainstream conservatives are actively betraying fundamental Christian values should be concerning to believers, as Pope Francis has pointed out.
#14635963
so-crates wrote:The major difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives want everyone to be rich,
Liberals only want themselves to be rich.



You what?


The wealth of Conservatives is literally built upon the poor they subjugate. The whole Conservative economic model would grind to a halt were there not 'little people' for then to deride, demean, disenfranchise and exploit. 'Trickle-down' theory doesn't work.
#14635966
And it's different under liberalism?

The simple reality is that no matter what society you create you need a class that gives orders and a class that takes orders.

Also, how do those little people fare under socialism?

Soviet Union, not so well.

Nazi Germany, again not so well.

Venezuela, again not so well.

Cuba, not so well.

As it turns out, those little people do worst under socialism than capitalism. At least capitalism offers them a way out of their poverty.
#14635970
so_crates wrote:And it's different under liberalism?

I wouldn't know...I'm not a liberal.

The simple reality is that no matter what society you create you need a class that gives orders and a class that takes orders.

Really? Sez who?

At least capitalism offers them a way out of their poverty.

I would rather work toward a society that erdicated poverty. Capitalism depends on poverty as the fuel that drives it.
#14635972
Really? Sez who?


I notice you attacked the premise without offering an alternative.

So tell me, how do you create a society without a ruling class and working class?
#14635974
Creating the society isn't the problem. It's deconstructing the present systems without causing mayhem and chaos that's the problem. Every attempt by humankind throughout history to try and build a better society has faltered because there will always be the self-interested egotists who will seek to manipulate society in their favour. A society built on true individual merit remains a dream for the future, but modern 'conservatism' offers only a nostalgic, backwards-looking society, rooted in the past.
#14635976
Cartertonian wrote:Creating the society isn't the problem. It's deconstructing the present systems without causing mayhem and chaos that's the problem. Every attempt by humankind throughout history to try and build a better society has faltered because there will always be the self-interested egotists who will seek to manipulate society in their favour. A society built on true individual merit remains a dream for the future, but modern 'conservatism' offers only a nostalgic, backwards-looking society, rooted in the past.



So, what pray tell, is toward looking? Socialism? Communism?

Both failed ideologies. I rather like the lies they tell for both failures. It's always, They didn't take it far enough. They bankrupted how many countries. How far did they want them to take it?
#14636199
Dagoth Ur wrote:The Soviet Union was not bankrupt. Lern2history. It was imploded from the top.

Also lol you're the kind of American that doesn't even know that liberalism is the ideology of America. American conservatism is the right-wing of liberalism.


I believe you are slightly in error.

Libertarianism is the ideology of America.

We came here for liberty, not to have a big government nanny state dictate every aspect of our lives to us. Big government and nanny states are what liberalism is all about.

Doubt me? What's Obama been working on creating for the last seven years?

Has government grew or shrunk the last seven years?

Wasn't Johnson for cradle to grave entitlements?

As far as the Soviets go

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... -economies

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]