Speaking conservative

[Daemon Sophic]

I don’t know if this is a Debate point so much as just a point of discussion. I just found this interesting article.
Trump supporters define “corruption” differently than the rest of us.

The take-away point is similar to many other discussions on the topic of conservative thought processes. i.e. - Conservatives see things through a ‘retrospectoscope’, with everything being better in the past (good ol’ days).
It is food for thought for anyone trying to speak with a conservative thinker, and particularly if trying to convince that conservative of some new viewpoint. The best approach is to try to convince them that the change you propose will make things better by making it more like the good old days, to bring back the good old days, to “Make America Great Again”. Attempting to present something new as a better way of doing things is doomed to failure, since by definition “new” equals “bad”.
Tribalism seems to be in their blood. Or at least in their brains.

 

[Kenny]

I don’t know if this is a Debate point so much as just a point of discussion. I just found this interesting article.
Trump supporters define “corruption” differently than the rest of us.

Tribalism seems to be in their blood. Or at least in their brains.

It is so easy for people to paint conservatism into a small box.

Were it so easy to relegate it to a few sentences.

"It would be like saying all liberals are communists!" Fake news in both instances.

 

[Quintessence]

What's interesting is that as a Pagan, I tend to think of the past as "good old days" as well, but from a very different mindset than U.S. conservatives do. My "good old days" are pre-colonial America when the tallgrass prairie wasn't a nearly extinct ecosystem and land ownership was a foreign concept to the peoples who lived here. Somehow, I don't think invoking my version of "good old days" ethics would work on political conservatives when it comes to explaining to them why conservation and the environment are important.

 

[sun rise]

It is so easy for people to paint conservatism into a small box.

Were it so easy to relegate it to a few sentences.

"It would be like saying all liberals are communists!" Fake news in both instances.

I might surprise you by agreeing with your general thesis to some extent. Because to me as a progressive, the good old days were during FDR's presidency, President Obama's time and so forth.

But in the past, conservatives were distrustful of drastic change while progressives were all about change. Currently the right is pushing for fundamental and drastic change and the left is trying our best to stop that change. That is, of course, until we control government again.

And another switch is that the right was all about local control rather than federal government mandates. Now federal control is the goal of the current regime in areas such as air pollution while the left wants to preserve our ability to specify tighter pollution standards at the state level.

 

[Quetzal]

Somehow, I don't think invoking my version of "good old days" ethics would work on political conservatives when it comes to explaining to them why conservation and the environment are important.

I don't think so either because the conservative platform does not value conservation or the environment.

 

[Kenny]

I don't think so either because the conservative platform does not value conservation or the environment.

There is good and bad in both platforms. Let us not paint such small boxes.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think so either because the conservative platform does not value conservation or the environment.

I've always found that weird. Conservative. Conservation. Conservation is an analog to keeping things traditional, so you'd think it'd be in alignment. It's akin to preserving their vision of "traditional human family" only applied to ecosystems and environments. I'm not sure I quite understand why conservation and environmental protections get labeled as "progressive" and "liberal." I don't see it that way, but the conservative party that should have been all about conservation abdicated that role and left it to the liberals, I guess. I didn't used to be that way. I remember when this stuff was much more bipartisan. I don't know what happened.

 

[WalterTrull]

everything being better in the past (good ol’ days).

I guess I thought that was implied from the dictionary definition of conservative, well... keeping things the same. The going backwards bit seems new.

 

[Brinne]

I agree that trying to put such a broad movement into such a small box is rather ineffective. There's significant differences among American right-wing movements, compare someone like Ron Paul to Russel Kirk. Fusionism, paleocon, neocon, traditionalist, libertarian, ect. Just as there's a large amount of disparity between progressives, liberals, blue dog democrats, and democratic socialists (and in turn their thought process and approach to politics). The state of American political discourse is (generally) based around big-tent coalitions of a number of, sometimes conflicting, ideologies.

I also think there's good points made in the thread about how both sides do want change, it just depends on who's in the establishment and who is in the opposition. I also wouldn't say that mainstream conservatism has a total aversion to new things or change but a skepticism to certain new things.

 

[Quetzal]

There is good and bad in both platforms. Let us not paint such small boxes.

Can you show some recent examples of the Republicans introducing and advocating for legislation that aims to preserve or even expand our natural resources?

 

[Quetzal]

I remember when this stuff was much more bipartisan. I don't know what happened.

Money happened. GOP candidates began accepting monetary contributions from fossil fuel industries.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you show some recent examples of the Republicans introducing and advocating for legislation that aims to preserve or even expand our natural resources?

Trump wants to use oil and gas money to fix national parks

This example notwithstanding, it doesn't look good for natural spaces.
But Trump is just a blip in their decline. Worse are....
- Building & zoning codes which encourage excessive land use for new buildings.
- Expanding population consumes ever more resources.
- Continued fossil fuel burning.
- A general lack of appreciation for the natural world & all the interesting critters it offers.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is so easy for people to paint conservatism into a small box.

The problem is the conservative right and not just conservatives, and it is a very big full box. I come from a family of moderate Republican conservatives, and my uncle was a Republican Congressman. We talked frequently and before he passed he realized there was no place in the Republican party for him any more.

Were it so easy to relegate it to a few sentences.

It would take more than a few sentences to describe the conservative right, but not much more.

"It would be like saying all liberals are communists!" Fake news in both instances.

The conservative right is far easier to define. The use of the 'fake news' absurd scapegoat term is one very distinctive attribute of the conservative right in the USA.

. . . more to follow . . .

 

[Quetzal]

Trump wants to use oil and gas money to fix national parks

This example notwithstanding, it doesn't look good for natural spaces.
But Trump is just a blip in their decline. Worse are....
- Building & zoning codes which encourage excessive land use for new buildings.
- Expanding population consumes ever more resources.
- Continued fossil fuel burning.
- A general lack of appreciation for the natural world & all the interesting critters it offers.

Fair enough. I wasn't a fan of his sweeping cuts to the DOI budget.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think so either because the conservative platform does not value conservation or the environment.

There is good and bad in both platforms. Let us not paint such small boxes.

[/QUOTE]
I think that's a bit of a duck, Ken. Even just today, as environmental protections erected by Obama are being torn down by Trump, I think you should at least acknowledge that at least that one statement appears to have some merit of truth to it: either conservatives do not value conversion or the environment, or they simply don't believe (or care to believe) the science that shows the very real danger that your children or grandchildren might just not have a habitable planet on which to live.

 

[Kenny]

Can you show some recent examples of the Republicans introducing and advocating for legislation that aims to preserve or even expand our natural resources?

Save Our Seas Act of 2018 (S. 756)

 

[Kenny]

I think that's a bit of a duck, Ken. Even just today, as environmental protections erected by Obama are being torn down by Trump, I think you should at least acknowledge that at least that one statement appears to have some merit of truth to it: either conservatives do not value conversion or the environment, or they simply don't believe (or care to believe) the science that shows the very real danger that your children or grandchildren might just not have a habitable planet on which to live.

Apparently your misread what I said...

Did I say the Republicans were perfect or did I say there is good and bad on BOTH platforms.

and again.. don't paint such SMALL boxes on a group of people than span all types of positions

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree that trying to put such a broad movement into such a small box is rather ineffective. There's significant differences among American right-wing movements, compare someone like Ron Paul to Russel Kirk. Fusionism, paleocon, neocon, traditionalist, libertarian, ect. Just as there's a large amount of disparity between progressives, liberals, blue dog democrats, and democratic socialists (and in turn their thought process and approach to politics). The state of American political discourse is (generally) based around big-tent coalitions of a number of, sometimes conflicting, ideologies.

I also think there's good points made in the thread about how both sides do want change, it just depends on who's in the establishment and who is in the opposition. I also wouldn't say that mainstream conservatism has a total aversion to new things or change but a skepticism to certain new things.

Disagree, the conservative 'right' would not be inclusive of all you describe, nonetheless they are by far dominantly white evangelical Christian. Groups like traditionalists, and libertarian are too diverse and variable, and include the full range of the political spectrum. They also form a more consistent distinct political block than the other groups you mentioned.

Donald tRump would a traditionalist admirer of Andrew Jackson. I would be a traditionalist admirer of Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Kenny]

The problem is the conservative right and not just conservatives, and it is a very big full box. I come from a family of moderate Republican conservatives, and my uncle was a Republican Congressman. We talked frequently and before he passed he realized there was no place in the Republican party for him any more.



It would take more than a few sentences to describe the conservative right, but not much more.



The conservative right is far easier to define. The use of the 'fake news' absurd scapegoat term is one very distinctive attribute of the conservative right in the USA.

. . . more to follow . . .

you are welcome to an opinion.

But notice what you just said " I come from a family of moderate Republican conservatives," - but someone is trying to paint you into just one SMALL box.

Thus, indeed,"Tribalism seems to be in their blood. Or at least in their brains." is fake news.

 

[shunyadragon]

you are welcome to an opinion.

But notice what you just said " I come from a family of moderate Republican conservatives," - but someone is trying to paint you into just one SMALL box.

I would be very pleased if anyone put me in this unfortunately box. Nonetheless what I described is very valid, and unfortunately a BIG BOX.