Drlee wrote:More or less. It means being socially traditional which in the American experience ASPIRES to being socially permissive. This does not mean that conservatives of all but the last two decades were libertines. It means that they believed in keeping the government out of our bedrooms.
Goldwater (author of "The Conscience of a Conservative" ) in his 1964 presidential nomination acceptance speech:
So being a conservative
reeeaaallllyyy means
being a social liberal. So we are, again, just talking about this from the perspective of
classical liberals who think that their definition of conservative is the only valid one.On the political compass, then,
classical liberalism is basically a philosophy that is entirely to the Left, would you agree?
We would also then have to say that there are two kinds of American conservatives:
classical liberals who are leftists, like Barry Goldwater, and thus only conservaive in terms of their classical liberalism, and those who are actually God-believing Christians that do not believe entirely in a classically liberal model, right?
No. As you can see. Anti-LGBTQ and anti feminism are NOT socially conservative positions. They have been labeled that by modern, for lack of a better term, fascists (or if you prefer neo-cons) but these are NOT traditionally conservative positions. The conservative embraces the Bill of Rights. ALL of these are recent developments among American neocons.
So, in the classical context,
every American politician has always approved of things likemen privately sodomizign each other, gay marriage, etc., and they have all been fundamentally supportive of women's liberation on every possible front.
It was just that America was run by Fascists for a 150+ years (in terms of feminism) and 200+ years (in terms of gay marraige), and
conservatism did not come into existence in America until Goldwater.
Is that proper analysis?
Honestly, how do you look at history?
These are very, very, very convenient definitions for a politician lying to an ignorant buffoon who pays attention to politics once every 4 years when it is the Presidential election, but do you actually plan on trying to make that fly?
No again. We are criticizing people who have appropriated the term "conservative" and who are quite comfortable in oppressing others for....what? Certainly not for the good of the country. There is no reasonable case to be made for opposing feminism except a very narrow and very tenuous religious one. These dog-whistle issues are designed to cob together a coalition of single issue voters under the banner of so called "conservatism".
That's right, folks: if you are not legally allowed to marry another man/woman and force a Christian baker to make the cake for you, you are oppressed.
These are just "dog-whistle" issues to Fascsits, right?
REEEEELLLL conservatism is about
the government out of my bsuiness -- let me bugger the boys in the bath house. Your grandpa & grandma aren't conservatives, right: they are actually Fascists & bigots. Get the proper terminology right, you neanderthal!Note on Goldwater. He is the very archetypal American conservative writ large. He was the face and voice of American conservatism (along with Buckley) for a very long time.
Buckley, the never-Trumper, and Goldwater, are
the face of American conservatism. You guys have really, really bought the idea that after the fiscal conservative Neocons purged the party of Pat Buchanan types they truly inherited the ability to utterly destroy the legacy of paleo-conservatism
.
Why don't you let
actual conservatives determine what is conservative or not, and
stop defining conservatism as what appeals to you about conservatism as a liberal, and calling everyone else a bigot? It's simply ridiculous.
So much of this post is just a repeat of what I went through with Prosthetic Conscience. Let me be more discerning in what I respond to.
+++
I suggest Verve that you truly look at what you WOULD change if you could. Not through personal preference but by law. For example. Would you ban same sex marriage by law or allow it to be a personal choice grounded on personal ethics or religious belief?
Of course I would ban it by law.
Do you think I am a complete retard lost in my own arguments?
Real conservatives would take the position that the only time the central government should impose its will on the states is when there is a compelling national interest to do it.
Yeah, like 140 years ago when this was still a relevant discussion in American politics.
I do not know how "state's rights" is now some relevant position in the year 2019 we need to go to to talk about conservatism, as if that isn't a ship that left the harbor long ago.
Can we talk about the Civil War, too?