zlacker

This is probably the best quote about conservatism: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

See: https://kottke.org/22/12/the-boring-conservatism-of-elon-mus...

>>b0sk+(OP)
Have you heard of the concept of an "ideological turing test"? https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.htm...

>>b0sk+(OP)
That's not what conservatism is. If you want the actual best quote about conservatism, it's this one:

> There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

- G. K. Chesterton

(Also, "conservative" and "right-wing" are not the same thing)

>>George+Oe
This is exactly it, people confuse conservatism with fascism, just like they confuse liberalism with communism.

>>George+Oe
You're describing small c conservatism, actually being conservative about change. It's a valid point of view and at least debatable. Even the most progressive person is conservative about some things.

The GP's comment is describing the capital C Conservatism brand. It's subsumed the idea about being politically conservative and combined it with an astounding mix of racism, bigotry, and in many cases outright fascism. It's weaponized the Chesterson Fences concept describing some fantasy "back in the day" utopia that only institutionalized racism, bigotry, and fascism will bring back into existence.

Unfortunately for the small c conservatives the big C Conservatives have turned their descriptor into their brand name and polluted debate about conservative politics.

>>George+Oe
While I agree that's a great description of the general concept of conservativism, it has absolutely nothing to do with the people calling themselves conservatives these days. The best I can come up with is that it describes where they started off before they got so mad and wanting to tear everything down.

I had never voted for a major party candidate in a national election before, but in 2020 I found myself voting for Biden out of a genuine sense of conservatism.

>>George+Oe
I think thats an obviously false cover story, along the lines of "states rights". By plotting when these "principles" are followed or broken you can map the real motives.

For a centuries long historical review see:

The Reactionary Mind

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reactionary_Mind

> It argues that conservatism from the 17th century to today is based on the principle "that some are fit, and thus ought, to rule others".[1]: 18 [2] Robin argues that rather than being about liberty, limited government, resistance to change, or public virtue, conservatism is a "mode of counterrevolutionary practice" to preserve hierarchy and power.[1]: 17

>>giantr+Fq
"Capital X" means there's an official party with that name. I have no idea what you're talking about.

>>ZeroGr+FD
I should think that I know my own mind, and those of my self-described conservative friends and acquaintances, better than some randon guy I've never heard of. But please, tell me more about my secret plots

>>webere+l51
Capital X tries to distinguish the political label from the the adjective:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_S...

Vs

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/conservative