Why does the future always have to be liberal?

[Joey1996]

It's not, the south was far more reactionary about slavery in 1860 than it was in 1800.

Yes, circumstances such as the Northwest ordinance and isolation of slavery in southern states, or Germany losing WW1 can hinder the process... but most societies progress in periods of prosperity.

The US was more conservative in the 80s 90s and 00s than 30s 40s 50s

For whom? My great grandparents were sharecroppers in the 1930s ffs.

He doesn't mean civil rights. He means economic policy given his track record.

Ah Yes, he's a Reaganite, he thinks Hitler was a socialist

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's not, the south was far more reactionary about slavery in 1860 than it was in 1800.

Yes, circumstances such as the Northwest ordinance and isolation of slavery in southern states, or Germany losing WW1 can hinder the process... but most societies progress in periods of prosperity.

The US was more conservative in the 80s 90s and 00s than 30s 40s 50s

For whom? My great grandparents were sharecroppers in the 1930s ffs.

He doesn't mean civil rights. He means economic policy given his track record.

Civil Rights arent a left right issue


There were many conservatives who were staunch supporter of Civil rights, while their were liberals who opposed it .

[Joey1996]

It's not, the south was far more reactionary about slavery in 1860 than it was in 1800.

Yes, circumstances such as the Northwest ordinance and isolation of slavery in southern states, or Germany losing WW1 can hinder the process... but most societies progress in periods of prosperity.

The US was more conservative in the 80s 90s and 00s than 30s 40s 50s

For whom? My great grandparents were sharecroppers in the 1930s ffs.

He doesn't mean civil rights. He means economic policy given his track record.

Civil Rights arent a left right issue


There were many conservatives who were staunch supporter of Civil rights, while their were liberals who opposed it .

Hey guess what? Economic policy plays a huge role in civil rights

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's not, the south was far more reactionary about slavery in 1860 than it was in 1800.

Yes, circumstances such as the Northwest ordinance and isolation of slavery in southern states, or Germany losing WW1 can hinder the process... but most societies progress in periods of prosperity.

The US was more conservative in the 80s 90s and 00s than 30s 40s 50s

For whom? My great grandparents were sharecroppers in the 1930s ffs.

He doesn't mean civil rights. He means economic policy given his track record.

Civil Rights arent a left right issue


There were many conservatives who were staunch supporter of Civil rights, while their were liberals who opposed it .

Hey guess what? Economic policy plays a huge role in civil rights

1980s and 2000s were more conservative when it comes to economic policy that 1930s-1970s by far.

[Sumner 1868]

It's not, the south was far more reactionary about slavery in 1860 than it was in 1800.

Yes, circumstances such as the Northwest ordinance and isolation of slavery in southern states, or Germany losing WW1 can hinder the process... but most societies progress in periods of prosperity.

The US was more conservative in the 80s 90s and 00s than 30s 40s 50s

For whom? My great grandparents were sharecroppers in the 1930s ffs.

He doesn't mean civil rights. He means economic policy given his track record.

Civil Rights arent a left right issue


There were many conservatives who were staunch supporter of Civil rights, while their were liberals who opposed it .

Hey guess what? Economic policy plays a huge role in civil rights

1980s and 2000s were more conservative when it comes to economic policy that 1930s-1970s by far.

Why would you pick the decades of first-wave mass incarceration and USA Patriot Act as good example of civil rights?

[pbrower2a]

I mean, I can't imagine someone in 1955 saying "Thirty years from now will be conservative" or someone in 2009 saying "Just wait, the conservative populist revolt is coming".

Why does the future always "automatically" have to be liberal?

Conservatism is at best a fallback in the event of the failure of innovation and reform. Educational conservatism would involve the rejection of the look-say method in reading and the "New Math" after those got bad results.  Social conservatism would require that loosey-goosey styles of child-raising be abandoned when they get bad results. Cultural conservatism might involve a rediscovery of the merits of 'old dead males' whose merit is obvious (Vermeer, Bach, Tolstoy) in the wake of garbage expressing the unsavory desires of its creators as 'art'. Don't get me wrong: people outside the realm of 'dead white males' can now be supremely worthy of attention. The sicko who celebrates his pedophilia or the incompetent dabbler who shows his lack of knowledge of artistic conventions likely deserves to be ignored, of course.  Economic conservatism could mean that governments reject radical measures to create economic equality that has no compelling cause for such.

Against a reactionary demagogue like Donald Trump, liberalism is the fallback position.

Social progress has tended to be toward liberal humanism. Alternatives such as feudalism (a return to which would be unconscionable), Bolshevism, fascism, Nazism, the Taliban, and ISIS are not only antithetical to liberalism but easily refuted by liberal humanism.

  

[Lumine]

It doesn't.

Or to be more precise, if the definition of "liberal" is of change to the status quo and "conservative" equals preservation of a given order, then obviously the future will be constantly more "liberal" under such simplistic terms. Using a more complex but more realistic view of liberalism, conservatism, socialism and other ideologies you'll find that history offers plenty of examples of changing societies and cultural views that become more conservative, even if you want to restrict that term to a specific type of religion-based social conservatism (which a nation can perfectly become more of).

If the question pertains specifically as to why American conservatism doesn't seem as viable an option in the future as American liberalism seems to be, I'd say you'd have to blame intense political ineptitude, dysfunctional organization and coherence, and of course, an excessive reliance on tired soundbites that are meant to represent conservatism. The most glaring example would be a GOP debate like the 2016 ones, which were a constant use of empty soundbites by almost every candidate on almost every debate and which, rather than an actual and inspiring vision, were reduced to saying "taxes", "Ronald Reagan" and "Obama" every five seconds.

And well, the current White House certainly doesn't help the case for American conservatism...

[twenty42]

It’s pretty simple. Young people tend to be liberal, and old people tend to be conservative. Pundits predict the old conservatives will die out and the young liberals will overtake the voting landscape. Said young liberals get older (wiser?) and become more conservative. The young liberals of the previous generation become old conservatives, and their children become the young liberals. Rinse and repeat.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It’s pretty simple. Young people tend to be liberal, and old people tend to be conservative. Pundits predict the old conservatives will die out and the young liberals will overtake the voting landscape. Said young liberals get older (wiser?) and become more conservative. The young liberals of the previous generation become old conservatives, and their children become the young liberals. Rinse and repeat.

Reagan did better among younger voters than older voters

[Karpatsky]

It’s pretty simple. Young people tend to be liberal, and old people tend to be conservative. Pundits predict the old conservatives will die out and the young liberals will overtake the voting landscape. Said young liberals get older (wiser?) and become more conservative. The young liberals of the previous generation become old conservatives, and their children become the young liberals. Rinse and repeat.

Reagan did better among younger voters than older voters

Yeah, the 'old conservative, young liberal' is not a real thing; rather, it is a specific consequence of a single generational shift: the Western (largely American) Baby Boomers, who were more conservative than either those who preceded them and followed them.

Re: the main question, the future isn't necessarily 'liberal', but it will not be 'conservative'. The world changes, this is inevitable, and if you define any societal change at all as 'liberal', then you will find yourself a frustrated 'conservative'. In many ways, modern society is more conservative than it was in the past, especially in the United States; there was a time when the majority of American workers were unionized.

[Inmate Trump]

Liberals want progress; conservatives do not.

Without liberal thinking, we'd still be owning slaves.  Every cultural and scientific advance is due to liberal thought.  Naturally, as we move farther into the future, the more liberal we as a society will become.

Conservatism will always be something of the past because they always look to the past (or at the very least, staying the same).  There is no push forward with conservative thought; it is always a look behind.  Make America Great Again implies that the progresses and advances we've made have not made us greater and that we should return to a prior cultural/scientific era (the 1950s, 60s, or the 1880s--that part is left open to interpretation).

Liberals look forward to the future; conservatives are frightened by it, which is why they resist almost everything that moves society forward.

Liberals accept the past, including past mistakes; conservatives long for the past, including those mistakes (which they don't necessarily view as mistakes).

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat debate; it's an ideological debate and it's a fairly simple one.  The future is always going to be liberal because we will always be moving forward.  Even when conservative thought slows us down (as it has right now), we will eventually get back on track.  It's a hiccup that eventually stops so you can go on about your day; but you will go on.  Just as after the Trump era, American society (culturally, scientifically, technologically) will again move forward; but as long as Trump and his ilk are making policy, progress and societal growth will be retarded.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Most of the country is actually quite conservative, so I don't know why the future has to be liberal.

[Inmate Trump]

Most of the country is actually quite conservative, so I don't know why the future has to be liberal.

Most of the nation's population are not responsible for society moving forward.

But even still, most of the country is actually moderate, not conservative.

[progressive85]

It doesn't.  The young have not always been a liberal group and they're still not.  Somewhere walking around a Kindergarten classroom is the next Ronald Reagan... and the next FDR.  Politics is cyclical and always changing and reinventing itself.

[Joey1996]

It’s pretty simple. Young people tend to be liberal, and old people tend to be conservative. Pundits predict the old conservatives will die out and the young liberals will overtake the voting landscape. Said young liberals get older (wiser?) and become more conservative. The young liberals of the previous generation become old conservatives, and their children become the young liberals. Rinse and repeat.

Reagan did better among younger voters than older voters

Reagan was hated in urban communities, only won 9% of the black vote in his 1984 landslide..less than Bush Jr. in 2004. Why do "Reagan Republicans" continue to push his disastrous economic plans?

[pbrower2a]

Most of the country is actually quite conservative, so I don't know why the future has to be liberal.

...but when conservatism fails, liberalism is far better than extremist alternatives.

[Rookie Yinzer]

It's not, the south was far more reactionary about slavery in 1860 than it was in 1800.

Yes, circumstances such as the Northwest ordinance and isolation of slavery in southern states, or Germany losing WW1 can hinder the process... but most societies progress in periods of prosperity.

The US was more conservative in the 80s 90s and 00s than 30s 40s 50s

For whom? My great grandparents were sharecroppers in the 1930s ffs.

African-Americans and other oppressed groups don’t exist in his world view.

[Badger]

It's not, the south was far more reactionary about slavery in 1860 than it was in 1800.

Yes, circumstances such as the Northwest ordinance and isolation of slavery in southern states, or Germany losing WW1 can hinder the process... but most societies progress in periods of prosperity.

The US was more conservative in the 80s 90s and 00s than 30s 40s 50s

For whom? My great grandparents were sharecroppers in the 1930s ffs.

He doesn't mean civil rights. He means economic policy given his track record.

Civil Rights arent a left right issue


There were many conservatives who were staunch supporter of Civil rights, while their were liberals who opposed it .

Name three of either.

[Badger]

Hope.

[Nyvin]

Because conservatives are always either happy with how things are now or want to go back to how things were a couple decades (or centuries..) ago.

Liberals see problems in the world and work to fix them.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's not, the south was far more reactionary about slavery in 1860 than it was in 1800.

Yes, circumstances such as the Northwest ordinance and isolation of slavery in southern states, or Germany losing WW1 can hinder the process... but most societies progress in periods of prosperity.

The US was more conservative in the 80s 90s and 00s than 30s 40s 50s

For whom? My great grandparents were sharecroppers in the 1930s ffs.

He doesn't mean civil rights. He means economic policy given his track record.

Civil Rights arent a left right issue


There were many conservatives who were staunch supporter of Civil rights, while their were liberals who opposed it .

Name three of either.

Conservative: Richard Nixon , Howard Baker , even Barry Goldwater (he voted for 1957,1960 CRA while LBJ watered them down)


Liberal : Robert Byrd

[TJ in Oregon]

Liberals want progress; conservatives do not.

Without liberal thinking, we'd still be owning slaves.  Every cultural and scientific advance is due to liberal thought.  Naturally, as we move farther into the future, the more liberal we as a society will become.

Conservatism will always be something of the past because they always look to the past (or at the very least, staying the same).  There is no push forward with conservative thought; it is always a look behind.  Make America Great Again implies that the progresses and advances we've made have not made us greater and that we should return to a prior cultural/scientific era (the 1950s, 60s, or the 1880s--that part is left open to interpretation).

Liberals look forward to the future; conservatives are frightened by it, which is why they resist almost everything that moves society forward.

Liberals accept the past, including past mistakes; conservatives long for the past, including those mistakes (which they don't necessarily view as mistakes).

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat debate; it's an ideological debate and it's a fairly simple one.  The future is always going to be liberal because we will always be moving forward.  Even when conservative thought slows us down (as it has right now), we will eventually get back on track.  It's a hiccup that eventually stops so you can go on about your day; but you will go on.  Just as after the Trump era, American society (culturally, scientifically, technologically) will again move forward; but as long as Trump and his ilk are making policy, progress and societal growth will be retarded.

If you define liberalism as merely referring to whatever direction we happen to be heading, then of course the future will be liberal. If you define liberalism as a particular ideology about the nature of man how a society ought to be constructed, then it's not at all apparent that the distant future adopt that view as opposed to some other view. If anything, liberalism has taken a huge beating over the last couple years, although it is still the massively dominant ideology of the US and western Europe.

Also, the connection between liberalism and scientific advancement isn't particularly strong. If you look at the political views of influential scientists over the course of the last couple millennia, you'll find a wide variety more or less corresponding to the dominant ideologies in the cultures in which they lived.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Why is this assumption being made? In many places (like Eastern Europe), the young people are more conservative than their parents and grandparents. The future will be conservative in these places.

More generally, on a global scale I fear a regression to nationalistic tribalism is upon us.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Because the people educating the next generation are mostly liberal.

I can safely say that left-leaning academia have had relatively little effect on the political views of their undergraduate students. Many have embraced anti-left/PC/social justice views in response to perceived groupthink among professors and the "college establishment".

Why is this assumption being made? In many places (like Eastern Europe), the young people are more conservative than their parents and grandparents. The future will be conservative in these places.

More generally, on a global scale I fear a regression to nationalistic tribalism is upon us.

We had better hope the resurgence of nationalism/isolationism will lead to more peace and greater attention to environmental issues.

[Hollywood756]

Liberal : Robert Byrd

Wait.. what?  You're going to have to show the math to me on this one. Was Byrd a liberal?