What Exactly Is Conservatism?

[sun rise]

In my attempt to avoid a confirmation bubble, I occasionally read articles like this one. Of course, being a conservative outlet, the piece lauds conservatism:

What Exactly Is Conservatism?

If conservatism is true, it is true for all times, all places, and all persons.... it remains universally tied to certain humane principles, whatever its local manifestations. It is imagination, perhaps our highest faculty for knowing, that allows the conservative to stand not only within, but also simultaneously above, the moment.

And of course, conservatives believe in the virtue of conservatism.

For all of conservatism’s history, I would argue, conservatives have wanted to promote all that is good, true, and beautiful. They believe, at least in the Western tradition, in prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, faith, hope, charity, labor, fate, and piety. These ten virtues—Greek, Roman, and Christian—have formed the basis of promoting the humane, promoting what it means to be human, to be man, to be woman, to be a person.

I see nothing unique to conservatism when it comes to justice, for example, hope and charity. Using "faith" as in faith that something better is possible, it's certainly a liberal ideal.

The author then lists a whole slew of notable people. In that list, I hardly think of Socrates as a conservative - quite the opposite. George Washington as a conservative? He was a revolutionary radical.

Now this paragraph I agree with:

Does this mean that all who have embraced the label conservatism over the last century or so are actually conservatives? Of course not. Conservatism, like all good terms, has been hijacked—sometimes by the demagogues, sometimes by the populists, sometimes by the nationalists, sometimes by the politicos, and sometimes simply by those who prostitute themselves to the public in order to make some cash.

But oh boy I see this exactly the opposite:

conservatism is deeply poetic. It loves the gothic, the quirky, and the strange. Unlike liberalism and socialism and corporatism, it praises (true) differences and even celebrates them.

 

[Rival]

I applaud the effort.

As a conservative (small c for those in the UK) I would argue what the Lotus Eaters argue - that there's really no such thing as a conservative philosophy (especially in Britain where we tend to have very different ideas and philosophies to those of the Continent), but the closest and best would be Locke's 'Life, liberty and property',

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Conservatism is a response to many of the uprisings on the continent (for example, to the ideals of the French Revolution). I would argue in a nutshell, it is, as one speaker put it, 'suspicious of big ideas' - because big ideas tend also to fall very catastrophically (i.e., the French Revolution produced people like Robespierre and the butchering of thousands of innocents just because they were aristocracy and ended up with Napoleon, another kind of king; or the Russian Revolution that had big ideas but ended in a totalitarian nightmare etc.) Conservatism takes a look at culture and while it may think progress is inevitable and ought to be a part of the system (progressivism in a broad sense), it looks at working slowly within the system to change what needs changing. It is opposed to the idea of change for change's sake.

A good example of conservatism would be the Constitutional Monarch system in the UK - we kept our tradition (conservative) but amended it with something more egalitarian - only, it happened over hundreds of years. See about Disraeli and his ideas, which are the basis of my own conservatism,

These legislative reforms were radical in many ways giving lie to the notion that conservatism is backward-looking and opposed to change. As far as Disraeli was concerned, conservatism and change are compatible so long as the change proposed does not ride roughshod over the cherished traditions and institutions which people so highly value.

He once said, “In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws, the traditions of the people, or in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines.” This is the essence of conservatism.

And the essence of One-Nation Conservatism,

Disraeli's conservatism proposed a paternalistic society with the social classes intact, but with the working class receiving support from the establishment. He emphasised the importance of social obligation rather than individualism. [...] One-nation conservatism was his solution to this division, namely a system of measures to improve the lives of the people, provide social support and protect the working classes.

Disraeli justified his ideas by his belief in an organic society in which the different classes have natural obligations to one another. He saw society as naturally hierarchical and emphasised the obligations of those at the top to those below. This was a continuation of the feudal concept of noblesse oblige, which asserted that the aristocracy had an obligation to be generous and honourable. To Disraeli, this implied that government should be paternalistic.

One-nation conservatism - Wikipedia

In his novel ‘Sybil’ (1845) Disraeli examined the gap between the wealthy elite and the working-classes. He laments that they were “as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were … inhabitants of different planets.” Disraeli argued that it was in the interests of the ruling elite to adopt a stance of paternalism towards those less fortunate. For instance, the provision of a safety net for the unemployed would alleviate the most acute forms of poverty. More importantly, it would prevent the emergence of revolutionary consciousness amongst the disaffected.

One-Nation Conservative | Politics | tutor2u

If you really want to dive in and listen to popular conservatives I strongly recommend The Lotus Eaters. They're British style, usually atheistic, small c conservatives and social conservatives. You'll probably disagree with everything but it's strongly recommended to answer the question,

The Thesis of Conservatism | Lotus Eaters

 

[Heyo]

In my attempt to avoid a confirmation bubble, I occasionally read articles like this one. Of course, being a conservative outlet, the piece lauds conservatism:

What Exactly Is Conservatism?

If conservatism is true, it is true for all times, all places, and all persons.... it remains universally tied to certain humane principles, whatever its local manifestations. It is imagination, perhaps our highest faculty for knowing, that allows the conservative to stand not only within, but also simultaneously above, the moment.

And of course, conservatives believe in the virtue of conservatism.

For all of conservatism’s history, I would argue, conservatives have wanted to promote all that is good, true, and beautiful. They believe, at least in the Western tradition, in prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, faith, hope, charity, labor, fate, and piety. These ten virtues—Greek, Roman, and Christian—have formed the basis of promoting the humane, promoting what it means to be human, to be man, to be woman, to be a person.

I see nothing unique to conservatism when it comes to justice, for example, hope and charity. Using "faith" as in faith that something better is possible, it's certainly a liberal ideal.

The author then lists a whole slew of notable people. In that list, I hardly think of Socrates as a conservative - quite the opposite. George Washington as a conservative? He was a revolutionary radical.

Now this paragraph I agree with:

Does this mean that all who have embraced the label conservatism over the last century or so are actually conservatives? Of course not. Conservatism, like all good terms, has been hijacked—sometimes by the demagogues, sometimes by the populists, sometimes by the nationalists, sometimes by the politicos, and sometimes simply by those who prostitute themselves to the public in order to make some cash.

But oh boy I see this exactly the opposite:

conservatism is deeply poetic. It loves the gothic, the quirky, and the strange. Unlike liberalism and socialism and corporatism, it praises (true) differences and even celebrates them.

"Conservatism" is the philosophy "to conserve", to maintain what is, the status quo. It is right in the middle between "progressivism" which wants new and improved things and "regressivism" which wants things to return to "the good old days".
"No experiments" was the slogan for the conservative CDU in Germany in 1957 and is one of the best explanations for conservatism.
The modern conservative is opposed to EVs, trans rights and young people, just because they are "new". New things are always worse than existing things.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is Conservatism

 

[Shadow Wolf]

These ten virtues—Greek, Roman, and Christian—have formed the basis of promoting the humane, promoting what it means to be human, to be man, to be woman, to be a person.

And we have found it utterly necessary to leave huge parts of that influence in the past.
Times change, and as change is the only constant it makes conservativism a paradox the way it's presented by the author. And, no, I don't just mean part ways with with ancient Greeks and things like their treatment of women, but even their ideas of the city and wilderness would be foriegn and cumbersome to us and absolutely preposterous. The Romans cherished the story of Romulus and Remus. Today many would say it's conclusion is more barbaric than those so-called barbarians they were trying to keep out.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I am afraid I have minimal understanding of US politics, and no idea at all of what it is US conservatives stand for; they do things differently over there.

But if I can offer a perspective from this side of the pond; one abiding theme of English conservatism, is a romantic attachment to an idealised past which almost certainly never existed in the manner in which it is recalled. Being an English romantic myself, though one more sympathetic to the radical mindset of Blake, Shelley, Keats and Coleridge, I can embrace the seductive power of this perspective. John Major’s (arguably the one genuinely conservative U.K. Prime Minister of the last 50 years) vision of “Cricket on the village green, warm beer in a country pub, and old maids cycling to holy communion through the mist…” has a poetic allure that it would be churlish to dismiss out of hand. It’s worth remembering, though, that John Major grew up in the grimy inner London suburb of Brixton; his vision was a fantasy of his own creation, albeit a fantasy both recognisable and evocative.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And we have found it utterly necessary to leave huge parts of that influence in the past.
Times change, and as change is the only constant it makes conservativism a paradox the way it's presented by the author. And, no, I don't just mean part ways with with ancient Greeks and things like their treatment of women, but even their ideas of the city and wilderness would be foriegn and cumbersome to us and absolutely preposterous. The Romans cherished the story of Romulus and Remus. Today many would say it's conclusion is more barbaric than those so-called barbarians they were trying to keep out.

In Mary Beard’s wonderful SPQR, she advances the argument that the Julio-Claudian dynasty embraced the Romulus and Remus myth precisely because it justified fratricide, during an era of perpetual civil war.

Rome (and Athens) contribution to European culture is undeniable, and in many ways they were way ahead of their time. But I don’t think anyone would seriously argue for a return to slavery, crucifixion, or gladiatorial combat.

 

[Koldo]

In my attempt to avoid a confirmation bubble, I occasionally read articles like this one. Of course, being a conservative outlet, the piece lauds conservatism:

What Exactly Is Conservatism?

If conservatism is true, it is true for all times, all places, and all persons.... it remains universally tied to certain humane principles, whatever its local manifestations. It is imagination, perhaps our highest faculty for knowing, that allows the conservative to stand not only within, but also simultaneously above, the moment.

And of course, conservatives believe in the virtue of conservatism.

For all of conservatism’s history, I would argue, conservatives have wanted to promote all that is good, true, and beautiful. They believe, at least in the Western tradition, in prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, faith, hope, charity, labor, fate, and piety. These ten virtues—Greek, Roman, and Christian—have formed the basis of promoting the humane, promoting what it means to be human, to be man, to be woman, to be a person.

I see nothing unique to conservatism when it comes to justice, for example, hope and charity. Using "faith" as in faith that something better is possible, it's certainly a liberal ideal.

The author then lists a whole slew of notable people. In that list, I hardly think of Socrates as a conservative - quite the opposite. George Washington as a conservative? He was a revolutionary radical.

Now this paragraph I agree with:

Does this mean that all who have embraced the label conservatism over the last century or so are actually conservatives? Of course not. Conservatism, like all good terms, has been hijacked—sometimes by the demagogues, sometimes by the populists, sometimes by the nationalists, sometimes by the politicos, and sometimes simply by those who prostitute themselves to the public in order to make some cash.

But oh boy I see this exactly the opposite:

conservatism is deeply poetic. It loves the gothic, the quirky, and the strange. Unlike liberalism and socialism and corporatism, it praises (true) differences and even celebrates them.

In a nutshell, if you want to figure out what is conservatism in practice anywhere in the world: It is the collective name we use for the backwards positions concerning social and economic matters that, despite being widely regarded as backwards, manages to maintain significant popular support.

 

[exchemist]

I applaud the effort.

As a conservative (small c for those in the UK) I would argue what the Lotus Eaters argue - that there's really no such thing as a conservative philosophy (especially in Britain where we tend to have very different ideas and philosophies to those of the Continent), but the closest and best would be Locke's 'Life, liberty and property',

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Conservatism is a response to many of the uprisings on the continent (for example, to the ideals of the French Revolution). I would argue in a nutshell, it is, as one speaker put it, 'suspicious of big ideas' - because big ideas tend also to fall very catastrophically (i.e., the French Revolution produced people like Robespierre and the butchering of thousands of innocents just because they were aristocracy and ended up with Napoleon, another kind of king; or the Russian Revolution that had big ideas but ended in a totalitarian nightmare etc.) Conservatism takes a look at culture and while it may think progress is inevitable and ought to be a part of the system (progressivism in a broad sense), it looks at working slowly within the system to change what needs changing. It is opposed to the idea of change for change's sake.

A good example of conservatism would be the Constitutional Monarch system in the UK - we kept our tradition (conservative) but amended it with something more egalitarian - only, it happened over hundreds of years. See about Disraeli and his ideas, which are the basis of my own conservatism,

These legislative reforms were radical in many ways giving lie to the notion that conservatism is backward-looking and opposed to change. As far as Disraeli was concerned, conservatism and change are compatible so long as the change proposed does not ride roughshod over the cherished traditions and institutions which people so highly value.

He once said, “In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws, the traditions of the people, or in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines.” This is the essence of conservatism.

And the essence of One-Nation Conservatism,

Disraeli's conservatism proposed a paternalistic society with the social classes intact, but with the working class receiving support from the establishment. He emphasised the importance of social obligation rather than individualism. [...] One-nation conservatism was his solution to this division, namely a system of measures to improve the lives of the people, provide social support and protect the working classes.

Disraeli justified his ideas by his belief in an organic society in which the different classes have natural obligations to one another. He saw society as naturally hierarchical and emphasised the obligations of those at the top to those below. This was a continuation of the feudal concept of noblesse oblige, which asserted that the aristocracy had an obligation to be generous and honourable. To Disraeli, this implied that government should be paternalistic.

One-nation conservatism - Wikipedia

In his novel ‘Sybil’ (1845) Disraeli examined the gap between the wealthy elite and the working-classes. He laments that they were “as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were … inhabitants of different planets.” Disraeli argued that it was in the interests of the ruling elite to adopt a stance of paternalism towards those less fortunate. For instance, the provision of a safety net for the unemployed would alleviate the most acute forms of poverty. More importantly, it would prevent the emergence of revolutionary consciousness amongst the disaffected.

One-Nation Conservative | Politics | tutor2u

If you really want to dive in and listen to popular conservatives I strongly recommend The Lotus Eaters. They're British style, usually atheistic, small c conservatives and social conservatives. You'll probably disagree with everything but it's strongly recommended to answer the question,

The Thesis of Conservatism | Lotus Eaters

Thank you for this, @Rival . It makes me feel I am not going mad after all , reminding me, as it does, of why I used to think of myself as broadly a One Nation type of conservative, back in the days when that was still a thing. But now the political ground has moved so far under our feet, in the UK and US at least, that I seem to find myself left of centre!

Disraeli's remarks about the class divide may point to one reason for the change: the political emancipation of the former working class. One Nation conservatism contains with it a sense of noblesse oblige, now out of fashion, that the fortunate (by birth or achievement) have a duty to help those less fortunate. But this smacks of paternalism and that is resented. Nowadays the appeal of conservative politicians is not that the middle class will help the working class get on in life, but to magnify and exploit the fears of the latter of being hard done by: immigration ("Vey come over 'ere.....") , the EU, "wokeness", "elites" (which means people like you and me with a university education, i.e. who actually know stuff ) and so forth.

This I find duplicitous, divisive and unconstructive - and we can see the effects of that in how the UK and the US have been governed in recent years.

 

[PureX]

I'm mostly a liberal, but can appreciate conservatism as an ideal and as a practice in it's original form. Every society needs to be able to preserve and maintain it's core values and processes or it will soon disintegrate. And I believe this is the original intent of conservatives.

That being said, however, every society also needs to be able to adapt to the constant changes and innovations of time and human ingenuity. And the conservatives tend to want to stand in the way of that, as it is their nature. And they must not be allowed to do so indefinitely. Or society will stagnate, and wither, until it becomes irrelevant.

So what we really need is a reasonable balance between the strength of conservatism and the adaptability of liberalism.

By the way, what is currently being called conservatism in the U S these days is not conservatism. It's radical rightist extremism falsely claiming to be conservatism. Jan 6 proves that in spades.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If you really want to dive in and listen to popular conservatives I strongly recommend The Lotus Eaters. They're British style, usually atheistic, small c conservatives and social conservatives. You'll probably disagree with everything but it's strongly recommended to answer the question,

The Thesis of Conservatism | Lotus Eaters

I found the rest of your post informative, but Carl Benjamin (AKA Sargon of Akkad) is one of the authors on the Lotus Eaters, and I really don't think he's a remotely good example of an intellectually honest and ethical conservative. He has a history of being a provocateur and utterly irresponsible individual, especially in his involvement in the "Gamergate" debacle and the death threats and harassment from his followers against Anita Sarkeesian that he contributed to with his tirades.

Just a few examples of his character (warning per Rule 5: language in the links):

Ukip candidate: I don't give a **** about the Holocaust

Anita Sarkeesian's Harasser Showed Up to Her VidCon Panel | The Mary Sue

UKIP candidate said it's alright to sexually abuse young boys | JOE.co.uk

YouTube cuts cash flow to Ukip candidate who repeatedly joked about raping Labour MP

I can disagree with many conservatives and still view them as well-intentioned, responsible people. Carl Benjamin, on the other hand, is a thoroughly malicious and irresponsible individual.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm mostly a liberal, but can appreciate conservatism as an ideal and as a practice in it's original form. Every society needs to be able to preserve and maintain it's core values and processes or it will soon disintegrate. And I believe this is the original intent of conservatives.

That being said, however, every society also needs to be able to adapt to the constant changes and innovations of time and human ingenuity. And the conservatives tend to want to stand in the way of that, as it is their nature. And they must not be allowed to do so indefinitely. Or society will stagnate, and wither, until it becomes irrelevant.

So what we really need is a reasonable balance between the strength of conservatism and the adaptability of liberalism.

By the way, what is currently being called conservatism in the U S these days is not conservatism. It's radical rightist extremism falsely claiming to be conservatism. Jan 6 proves that in spades.

I have never understood the difference between Republican and Conservative, as for the American context.
Could you please explain it to me?

 

[PureX]

I have never understood the difference between Republican and Conservative, as for the American context.
Could you please explain it to me?

Many of the conservatives under capitalism are just wealthy elites intent on 'conserving' the advantages in power and control that their wealth gives them in a capitalist economic system. The Republican Party in the US is really just the wealthy capitalist party. Yes, it's conservative, but only for the purpose of maintaining the advantages of wealth and power afforded by capitalism. It's more the party of greed than it is the party of actual conservatism in the ideological sense. But they have learned how to co-opt the real conservatives and the radical social conservatives and use them to promote their agenda of maintaining and furthering capitalist greed. However, at the moment, they are having to fight them to maintain control of the party.

 

[Estro Felino]

Many of the conservatives under capitalism are just wealthy elites intent on 'conserving' the advantages in power and control that their wealth gives them in a capitalist economic system. The Republican Party in the US is really just the wealthy capitalist party. Yes, it's conservative, but only for the purpose of maintaining the advantages of wealth and power afforded by capitalism. It's more the party of greed than it is the party of actual conservatism in the ideological sense. But they have learned how to co-opt the real conservatives and the radical social conservatives and use them to promote their agenda of maintaining and furthering capitalist greed. However, at the moment, they are having to fight them to maintain control of the party.

I think religion (Christianity) is instrumentalized to lure the populace into some sort of echo chamber, that is not conductive of the public good, in my humble opinion.
I (in my humble opinion) define Conservatism as the desire to maintain social cohesion against the forces that want to destructure it. So, citizens shall have a spiritual vision of citizenry, of being members of a society that functions perfectly thanks to a solid structure. Which is made up of trust, economic justice, and social justice.

This spirituality has very little to do with the Christian religion because there are so many atheists (for example) that have a much deeper spirituality than some Catholics I know.
I know leftist Catholics who enjoy seeing society destructured.

 

[PureX]

Societies need to be "destructured" to be restructured in more positive and effective ways. The forces that exist to maintain the structure don't like this. They resist it. But they need to step aside to allow those positive changes to happen or their society will stagnate and become irrelevant.

Organized religions tend to be very conservative, and so will often fight any change, even the positive and necessary ones. It's why we can't allow religions to dictate governmental policies (well, one of the reasons). But it's also why we can't allow the rich capitalists to dictate government policy, either, as we currently are doing. They will fight ANY change that threatens their wealth and power, even if it's good and necessary change. And in the end this will destroy the society that allows them to maintain that strangle hold.

It's heartbreaking to witness how many Americans understand that we can't allow religion to control government, and yet cannot see that allowing business to control government is equally destructive, and for basically the same reasons.

It's the government that has to maintain that balance between conservatives and liberals. And when it can no longer do that, society is doomed one way or the other.

 

[wellwisher]

It's heartbreaking to witness how many Americans understand that we can't allow religion to control government, and yet cannot see that allowing business to control government is equally destructive, and for basically the same reasons.

It's the government that has to maintain that balance between conservatives and liberals. And what it can no longer do that, society is doomed one way or the other.

If you look at the Twitter files the various releases show that there was/is an unholy alliance between Government; Intel Agencies, Hi Tech, Social Media and the Democrat Party. We can also add the George Soros donor type who may be calling some of the shots.

The problems that occurred; divide the country, was not connected to religion, but to lopsided Government control that cheated to win. Those on the Left cannot be trusted to give good advice in these forums when the tactics of their leader are very underhanded; constant disinformation. That unholy alliance is now being exposed yet the marching orders are to blamed it on religion?

The latest Twitter release shows the genesis of the so-called "Russian Interference", which were code words for a CIA and FBI stunt to interfere in the 2016 election, and then justify their unholy alliance Coup against the Trump administration. Trump saw the cheat before it was exposed and became a target.

From what I read several years ago, the Russians did have a social media presence that spent somewhere around $100K. The Hillary campaign spent over $1Billion on propaganda. If the Russians were so successful in such a shoestring budget, why did DNC waste nearly a $Billion, on the Washington propaganda types, that cost a million times more, but who can be out foxed by a spartan team on a shoe string budget? This lack of sense and skill could explain their need to lie and cheat and paint a minor player as the kingpin.

 

[Estro Felino]

Societies need to be "destructured" to be restructured in more positive and effective ways. The forces that exist to maintain the structure don't like this. They resist it. But they need to step aside to allow those positive changes to happen or their society will stagnate and become irrelevant.

It's the exact opposite. When there is chaos and turmoil, two factions fighting against one another, the elites are sitting comfortable watching them killing one another.
And they enjoy it, since they are evil elites.

When a society is totally cohesive, the elites are really, really, really in trouble.
Because the populace will demolish the wall of their dominance.

 

[Rival]

I found the rest of your post informative, but Carl Benjamin (AKA Sargon of Akkad) is one of the authors on the Lotus Eaters, and I really don't think he's a remotely good example of an intellectually honest and ethical conservative. He has a history of being a provocateur and utterly irresponsible individual, especially in his involvement in the "Gamergate" debacle and the death threats and harassment from his followers against Anita Sarkeesian that he contributed to with his tirades.

Just a few examples of his character (warning per Rule 5: language in the links):

Ukip candidate: I don't give a **** about the Holocaust

Anita Sarkeesian's Harasser Showed Up to Her VidCon Panel | The Mary Sue

UKIP candidate said it's alright to sexually abuse young boys | JOE.co.uk

YouTube cuts cash flow to Ukip candidate who repeatedly joked about raping Labour MP

I can disagree with many conservatives and still view them as well-intentioned, responsible people. Carl Benjamin, on the other hand, is a thoroughly malicious and irresponsible individual.

I think you're being a bit harsh. Carl has said some decent stuff and it is worth listening to.

 

[wellwisher]

Conservatism is based on using test proven ideas, from the past, with the most positive data support, due to their longevity. It is similar to science where the best theories, are not about the new flash and hype, but about long term test proven data; Newtonian Mechanics. This has been superseded by Einstein's Relativity but Newtonian is more useful at earth based conditions; man on the moon and bridge building.

Liberalism, is more about novel ideas, which may or may not work. They typically have very little in the way of long term test proven data. It may be something brain stormed in meetings or complied in a new book, but with very little pilot test data. The result is that social cost keep going up due to poor ideas being over sold but locked into place by politicians and law makers.

Conservatives, love the Constitution, since this has been a test proven template for free people pursuing the American Dream. This has led to the world's most advance nation; USA.

One may notice that this advanced nation no longer rates a high in things like education. The reason for this is Liberalism controls education. This is an example where poor ideas have become institutionalized and have degraded national performance scores. This is also an example of the erosion of values, caused by unproven novelty; modern math. If this culture was based on Conservative values it would regain its status as the light on the hill. Once you throw Liberal sand in the gears, the light get dimmer; educational dumb down appears to be needed to sell even more bad ideas.

If you look at the gender fad that recently appeared, where is the long term test data that supports this? How does it end in 20 years? If they had such data it would be easier to accept. This new fad has been historically treated as pathology. Mind over matter trying to ignore an entire chromosome will not end well. The Liberals are working hard to use disinformation; guilt trip, instead of data, to add historical pathology to the USA. This amounts to even more government waste and social dumb down for worse ideas.

The main social problem is, Liberalism creates all type of problems that adds expense to the culture. Everyone in both parties are forced to pay via collective tax dollars. Even if you oppose this you are caught in the middle. The Conservatives, who would avoid such waste, now have to give their tax revenue to buffer the dummies, so the dummies never have to learn.

What would happen is we separated the Federal and State tax revenues between the two approaches; Conservative and Liberal. Both the Liberals and Conservative would only be able to spend its share of tax revenue. The Right will be able to use test proven methods, cut costs and offer a tax cut. It will no longer have to pay and supplement for the the bad ideas of the Left. The Left will have to take full credit. Then we compare to see what is better using objective data; cost versus benefit. The Left can spin all it wants to its base, but in the end, we will stay objective and compare the test scores. This would cause the Left to implode, as the smarter people jump ship.

 

[Rival]

I can tell who did and didn't read my post