Conservatives, What Have You Ever Conserved?

[Jacobtm]

A conservative in the basic sense of the word is someone who wants to conserve things as they are and resist change.

I am of the opinion that the Republican party is basically useless at conserving things. Practically everything liberals have wanted, they have gotten, and Republicans have been an almost completely ineffective force for conserving anything.

Obviously with don't ask don't tell, gay marriage, laws against sodomy, and everything related to homosexuality, Republicans lost badly. They failed to even conserve Bill Clinton's DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell laws. Many Republicans now defwnd gay marriage, something that even Obama and Clinton did not even openly do in 2007.

The Transgendered stuff, you are already losing that and bound to quickly see transgendered everything. Another loss.

What else, the border, no one has of yet done anything to secure that, Bush certainly did not.

What else, school choice? Some small local victories but as a whole our public schools are dtill sh**t and people are villified for wanting to be able to send their kids qhere they would like.

Our debt and deficit? Lol forget about that.

Obamacare? Yea another loss.

How about Christianity? We used to be a Christian country now that is a joke, Atheism is on the rise and many people who call themselves Christians just do so out of habbit without actually having any religion in their life.

Taxes and Guns have been notable victories, many major cities have effectively outlawed guns, so it is a bit of a stalemate.

What else did Republicans supposedly want to conserve back in 2000? What about 1992? 1980?

Every step of the way liberals make strides and strides while Republicans have at most small local victories in the face of a crushing wave of defeats.

Now I see that Republicans are worried about attracting the black and hispanic vote, and to do it want to move further to the left, quicker, as if followijg the Dems lockstep is all they need to do to win. And if you win by moving to the left on everything, what is the point then?

For these reasons I say the Republican party is wirthless if your goal is to conserve anything, and it would be better if it were destroyed. I hope if nothing else, Trump can in fact destroy the modern Republican party as their leaders run screaming from a base whose desires the elites despise.

[Antonio the Sixth]

lol

[afleitch]

Their own farts. By breathing them in.

[muon2]

The assumption in question here is whether it is the party that wants to conserve or the people associated with it. There's seems little question that the GOP has in general moved left since I was in college in the 1970's. There are some exceptions on issues like immigration where the GOP is noticeably to the right of its position 40 years ago.

On the other hand if I look at the position of my age cohort in the 1970's, the GOP today is about where the right side of that group was back then. That is particularly true on social issues where even the right side of my college peers were much more moderate than the older Dems. Economically the ideals of the college kids of the late 70's are very much the mainstream of GOP thought today.

What I would claim as a general truism is that conservative people want to conserve the beliefs and associated policies they held when they were young. The GOP as a conservative party becomes an umbrella for those people who have that view. The GOP does not try to conserve the beliefs of those who made up its rank and file in generations past. The people make the party, not the other way around.

[Cassius]

You're right of course - on most issues, Republicans have at best achieved only temporary victories, or managed to halt change only for a little while (gay marriage is one of the most prominent examples of this). Basically, those on the right can't stop the wheel of progress rolling on, crushing everything underneath it, unless they break the wheel. In order to break the wheel, the right must kick the living sh**t out of its opponents. That, however, is not acceptable in today's liberal, democratic society and culture.

[RFayette]

I agree the GOP has moved left on social issues, but what about economics?  There were far more Republicans in favor of stricter environmental laws, tax increases to balance the budget, more welfare spending, etc.  The Jacob Javitses of the world no lomger are in the GOP, when they once were a core segment.

[StateBoiler]

congratulations to the OP, he won "Dumbest Thread on the Internet" this week

Words change definition over time. The 2015 definition of liberal and the original definition of liberal are entirely different (the American and European definitions in the present day are entirely different). Ditto conservative, it's an incredibly old term in politics, it came to govern a certain belief and over time the term stuck even if the people who use the term have gradually changed. If you don't understand that, you are incapable of passing a middle school social studies exam, at which point why should a person take anything you write intelligently or seriously?

[ag]

There is a good old word reactionary. I think it is being severely underused.

[DavidB.]

You think "sodomy" should be illegal, Jacobtm?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

A conservative in the basic sense of the word is someone who wants to conserve things as they are and resist change.

I'd prefer not to Conserve Roe v. Wade, the 16th Amendment, and several other things that are around today and have been around for quite some time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christianity can't be legislated.  Conservatism won't preserve Christianity because God will do what he wants regardless of who is in power.

[TJ in Oregon]

The point in this thread is a valid one in that social conservatism, if defined as preserving the status quo from change, is always in the process of losing. You will perpetually end up with generation after generation trying to preserve a "less perfect" (using the definition I gave here) version than the previous generation's vision. If that is the definition you are using, you will always, by definition, lose. You will end up perpetually supporting the other side's views 20 years later.

The way this cycle can be broken is to try, not to bring back the past, but to bring about change in a different direction. After all, only a very strange ideology can lead one to the conclusion that the world he grew up in is the vision of perfection. He must resist the urge to try and bring it back because it won't come back. But the fact that things are always going to change says nothing about the direction. What the GOP really needs is less to be burnt to the ground and more to present the US with an alternative, positive vision. Being a political party rather than a philosophy textbook, the vision will probably not be that rigorous because it needs to somehow get 50% of the vote. It's not as though Rick Santorum and Alan Keyes can go into a smoke filled room tomorrow and come out with a viable proposal to reban contraceptives. But there does need to be an actual vision for we'd like to change America for the better rather than resistance to all change. Look across the swath of social issues right now and note that pretty much the only one the GOP hasn't gotten destroyed in (wherein the ground hasn't shifted much at all) is abortion. It's also pretty much the only one we aren't trying to preserve the status quo in.

While we're at it, the Democrats' views here are equally mysterious: what exactly is "social progress" and what is it's vision? As RFayette so wisely posted on here a few months ago, progress toward what? You don't often hear an answer to that question. I did see CrabCake try and take a stab at it in regards to "solving poverty" and his answer was that virtually all leftists believe something like communism will eventually flourish (not in support of any kind of revolution and with revulsion to those who call themselves communists today). But that is one end vision, and one you will never hear the Democrats talk about (if they even share it) because again, parties exist to win elections.

The idea of social liberalism = forward progress = change everything, whereas social conservatism = the status quo of 20 years ago is a bit like two people driving a car blindfolded where they are in a mad fight because one wants to hit the brake and the other the gas while trying to prevent their opponent from doing so. As long as they are about evenly matched, two things are nearly certain: the car will move at some point, and no one is steering.

[Blue3]

Most modern "conservatives" seem to really be "regressives." They don't want to keep things as they are, they want to actually go backwards.

[Figueira]

I like to conserve the environment. But I'm a democratic socialist and I doubt many blue avatars will agree with me on that one.

[Maxwell]

I'm curious, what exactly is wrong with being an athiest?

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Jacobtm]

Most modern "conservatives" seem to really be "regressives." They don't want to keep things as they are, they want to actually go backwards.

There is a good old word reactionary. I think it is being severely underused.

AG is right, the proper term is "reactionary" for someone who wants to go back.

[Jacobtm]

I'm curious, what exactly is wrong with being an athiest?

In the U.S., Atheists have a much lower birth rate than religious people.

Religious people report being happier in their life, religion fills a role that is natural in humanity in promoting in-group cooperation and fostering community, and people feel happier doing this.

In fact atheists in general have been shown to have high levels of disagreeability. The kind of folks who would walk into a church full of people and be like "You're all wrong!"

Religious people outbreed Atheist people but our culture converts those people to Atheism. Meanwhile, religious people all over the world have much higher birthrates than Western Atheists, and are currently sweeping into Western countries and demanding that their religious laws be followed.

So the fall of Christianity in the west does not presage an Atheist age of Reason, it presages the coming of simply a different group of religious people who will have stronger group cohesion and be able to swing cultures their way.

In that way atheism is just the sign of a society in decline. This, regardless of me being an atheist, is my analysis.

When I have more than 20 posts I'll share links.

[Mister Mets]

There's a greater awareness of the fights that liberals won (interracial marriage, gay marriage, greater acceptance for women in the workplace, religious discrimination laws, voting rights legislation for African Americans) but it doesn't mean that every fight conservatives won was bad. If conservatism is a desire to protect the status quo, progressives have had well-deserved losses when it comes to socialism, eugenics and prohibition.

Can't take credit for that since 2004 was the first time I was legally able to vote. I suppose the one thing conservatives is my generation were able to conserve is getting Roberts on the Supreme Court rather than whoever Kerry would have replaced Rehnquist with.

[Figueira]

Some of you moderates and liberals are beyond stupid. Holy sh**t

It would be nice if you explained why rather than cryptically insulting people.

[Maxwell]

Some of you moderates and liberals are beyond stupid. Holy sh**t

It would be nice if you explained why rather than cryptically insulting people.

If DeadPrez were able to in a literate way, believe me, he would.