krishna bound

5y

This isn't really me attaching definitions onto things randomly, it's pointing out that modern conservatism doesn't really have any strong beliefs which sets itself apart from other contemporary ideologies.
While I know technically conservatism is an umbrella term, it really doesn't seem to mean much for modern politics. Like is Libertarianism Conservative? People say so in terms of American politics, but it's not really in ideological terms, because the core basis of Libertarianism is Individualist Liberalism. While Conservatives have adapted aspects of Libertarianism separately, i.e. small government mercantilism, there doesn't really seem to be any consistency in why having a small government matters to them - the lines drawn for why things should be structured or why certain things should be small or others not are completely arbitrary.
If modern conservatism wants to be an arm of general Liberalism, it's just going to be fighting itself as an Ouroboros where it can never figure its issues out, since it's not in any manner distinct from the actual system it claims to be fighting against. If conservatism just wants to be a branch of liberalism, it's not a real ideology which will ever gain any ground since actual liberals will always be the ones to shift the overton window of acceptability politics.
When I talk about market dogma, I say it because it's inseparable from most modern conservative rhetoric. Like if I say "corporations are causing social decay", then why is not more "conservative" (in paleoconservative definition) to want to destroy those corporations, vs letting them grow infinitely? Is the responsibility of market conservatism somehow more meaningful than social conservatism? Paleoconservatism did not have its primary concern with size of government nor in type of market; the primary concern of paleoconservatism pre-WW2 was social values and conservation of culture and national identity. Conservatism shifted following WW2, and Paleoconservatism basically dropped out of the Conservative umbrella, which basically now just includes various branches of Neoliberalism (Reaganism, Small Government Conservatism, etc) and Lite-branches of Libertarianism (Civil Libertarianism, etc) - most other forms of what would otherwise traditionally be conservatism (i.e. Paleoconservatism, Clericalism, Civic Nationalism, Integralism) basically are no longer represented under said branch anymore.
Also Environmentalism is a STRONG issue which originated in conservative rhetoric - hell, in modern economics it originated in LIBERTARIAN rhetoric. AnCaps like Rothbard & Mises wrote extensively on Environmentalism. Rothbard wrote “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution” in 1982 - in Mises's "Epistemological Problems of Economics" (1960), he pointed to the position of environmentalism as related to the state. Outside of Libertarian/AnCap types, "Green Conservatism" is a policy which was historically associated with what is now morphed into "right wing" philosophy. Hayek wrote "The Road to Serfdom" (1944) where he argued for environmentalism as a position of conservatism due to the obligation of authority to its citizens. In modern history, Roosevelt was one of the initial progenitors of enviromental regulations, such as natural park designations. The NEPA & NOAA were both created under Nixon. In terms of "extreme" right wing ideology, Fascism was originally known for its extreme care about the environment - Italian Fascism was at the time known as a "rural" ideology due to the emphasis placed on preservation of natural landscapes and environments, and regulation of corporations to prevent destruction of natural land (for retaining "national beauty").
If you want to learn more about historical ideology and their place in modern political debate, not even trying to be condescending, I can give you a lot of reading recs which if you lean conservative may seriously contribute to your politic interest

DAVIDP

5y

You really out here typing essays on KTT2

space0cadet

5y

We are history and politics nerds
I think of it not as KTT, but just as any other discusson platform

DAVIDP

5y

You really out here typing essays on KTT2

TheRocket64

5y

Any liberal who voted for Biden has blood on their hands too tbh

Lou

5y

30,000 Afghans died in 2019. Trump freed 5000 taliban fighters including the co-founder and current leader. Blood on trump voters hands or no?

Lou

5y

how

TheRocket64

5y

Because everyone keeps voting for these old white career politicians who are war criminals

Everyone knew exactly what they were getting when they voted for him and Kamala the cop

Lou

5y

he’s getting tf out?? that’s a good thing. the opposite of a war criminal

TheRocket64

5y

Any liberal who voted for Biden has blood on their hands too tbh

space0cadet

5y

bruh any president does, they are all heads of a warmongering imperialist money hungry empire

did ya know trump bombed Afghanistan more than any other president? it's not just Biden's fault

Undecided

5y

Every president since Carter has blood on their hands from this war. lmao

TheRocket64

5y

I'm talking about his 47 years in the senate

And getting troops out isn't what I'm talking about either

I'm specifically talking about not protecting Afghan refugees from genocide

Seeing something bad happen and doing nothing is just as bad as the crime itself