like what exactly are they?

when Trump first won, i remember repeating the cliche of how i missed "real conservatives", but when i really think deeply on it, what exactly do they believe?

and do any of the things that fall under 'conservative values' NOT intersect w/white supremacy, sexism or hetero-normalcy?

if the answer is no, is it possible that conservative is synonomous w/bigoted?

i'd like your thoughts

d

"But rest assured, in my luxurious house built on the backs of people darker than me, I am sipping fine scotch and scoffing at how stupid you are." - bshelly

“I don’t like that and/or I don’t understand it, and so no one should like that or allow it.”

It’s definitely fair to say that conservative is synonymous with bigotry. They think racism and bigotry is just surface level obvious shit, and refuse to acknowledge the deeper systematic elements to it or be at all empathetic or introspective.

Being a conservative is all about resisting progress because it makes you uncomfortable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

you can pretty much link every pillar of the conservative platform to the maintenance/furtherance/appeasement of white supremacy.

states rights (anti federal protection against discrimination), 2nd amendment (insecurity related to black prowess), abortion (low white birth rates and 'replacement'), low taxation (starving social safety programs for underserved black/brown communities), etc.

even modern conservative judicial philosophies like originalism/textualism are a front operation for repealing decades of progressive social/cultural advancements (particularly on racial equality).

They have issues they believe in that aren't necessarily bigoted related like:

abortion{which was already mentioned}
climate change and their myths espoused
smaller government and lower taxes
Tax cuts for the wealthy(They still believe in Reagan's trickle down theory}
Family Values/Catholic Values=no to divorce, abortion, etc}
Strong Military{meaning war is sometimes necessary}
Gun rights

Where it has taken racist stances are:

being pro police in unarmed black men's death in custody

supporting the prison industrial complex to build more prisons

decimation of voting rights which im hoping Dems pass the John Lewis Bill to restore those rights

Blatant Voter suppression{see above}

Immigration

Trump's America inflamed the differences to heights never reached before. Trump blatant White Nationalist's support and anti BLM support and the 95% of Rep in Congress whos support him, couldn't be more clearer that its ingrained in their agenda. And as long as Conservatives support that him, they will be painted with that same brush. But here's the thing. Even having lost the Presidency, they still on betting they can win national elections having this stance and are betting on 2022 to prove it. Im hoping that Dems can for once changed the narrative in the midterms and come out and vote enough to have an impact on slowing that dangerous group down.

its a shame that gay marriage and abortion have taken precedence over peace and service to the poor

The notion that our collective decision-making should be made by the smallest, most localized authority is a conservative value,

That's just a shot at answering your question. The things I would definitely not argue here are:

-that the GOP or its various constituents are motivated in any meaningful way by this value

-that this value doesn't dovetail with particularly conservative vehicles of oppression in mutually buttressing ways

-that this value is not also articulated in forms of liberal or left-wing thought

...which leaves it a pretty abstract notion, so you can feel free to discard it based on how your question was intended. But I do think that this concept is a fundamental part of the conservative understanding of liberty and that it isn't *necessarily* hostile to liberation of various oppressed groups so much as it's very easy to weaponize that way.

>The notion that our collective decision-making should be made
>by the smallest, most localized authority is a conservative
>value,

I think in a vacuum, I very much believe that people should govern themselves and bad government happens most often when people are far removed from the people making decisions about their lives. If there is a pothole in my street, I want to be able to call up someone in government to complain about it. I want my congress person to have an office in my neighborhood and I can make an appointment to speak with him.

That being said, there is a HUGE exception to this rule as it pertains to the rights of minority groups (and when I say minority groups broadly). The local majority should not be able to infringe on the rights of minority groups.

We always know what republicans mean when they say small government and states right. They don't want the federal government interfering with how they poorly treat minority groups.

Its an exception that 100% swallows up the rule for good reason. I wish there was a non-racist way to see local rule work and be value in our government.







**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Solidarity is the idea that, however different we are, our lives are bound to each other, materially and spiritually. And so there is no meaningful understanding of liberation (material or spiritual) wherein I can be free but you are not. If we aren't all free, none of us are. That this is *definitional* in any understanding of human freedom, that the very concept can't be supported by oppression.

>The local majority should not be
>able to infringe on the rights of minority groups.

Right. This is where the two meet. That subsidiarity preserves our individual liberty while solidarity makes an assertion that these two sets of rights, in a properly ordered understanding of human freedom, cannot conflict. So if a conflict is perceived, somebody has misunderstood what the purpose of all this chatter about "rights" is actually for.

In any event, I'm not really trying to defend any particular political demonstration of this value, particularly on the right. I just know that it's an actual idea, with meaningful philosophical content, that is often identified as a "conservative value" per the question's framing.

they'll hop back and forth over the fence on any given issue as long as they feel they're sticking it to the libs

Is really the only consistent one I can think of.

It's racism with a cover story.

shortchanging quality of life for folks in the country so politicians can give away money to companies to screw same said folks over even more.

Now that I have lived in a conservative area and liberal, I can complete see the hustle these cats are running.

>RE: I used to think that taxes were a legit beef, but its just classism/ racism

Reposting here for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

It's more like a flag to signal you are part of a certain team. But with no common ideas

You have people say that Trump was the most conservative president in history for "reasons".
Then you have other people who argue Trump was not conservative at all for "reasons" (often for the same reasons the first group called him conservative).

It's just hard to find consistent themes anymore.

I used to answer this question by saying: limited role/function of government, self reliance, focus on tradition and order. But now, who knows

>I used to answer this question by saying: limited
>role/function of government, self reliance, focus tradition
>and order. But now, who knows

.. when I mentioned "it's not important until it happens to me." I think even the "self reliance" thing is built on racism and bigotry as well. In that, white people have a much easier time being "self reliant" since we have a 400 year head start in terms of wealth, resources, and opportunity at our disposal.

But funny how "self reliance" takes a back seat when white people face even the slightest inconveniences. I wouldn't call this particular example a "slight" inconvenience, it's pretty serious - but the situation in Texas right now is a good example of what I'm talking about. Two weeks ago they were all "fuck the feds !!" and talking about secession. Now they're begging for federal funds because they got 2 inches of snow.

Again, it's very serious and I don't mean to minimalize what the *people* of the greater Austin area are going thru - it's horrible and I wish them well. I'm talking about the Governor and politicians who found it acceptable to laugh at other states who needed fed funds in the past, openly. Who are now begging for funds themselves.

Yes. All of this. We’re a team when I need something from you. When I’m good and I can tell myself that ‘I got here by myself’, then the empathy is nowhere near what they want in return. It’s a tough group of folks to tolerate due to the lack of consistency and their embarrassing failure to follow the golden rule they were once quick to reference.

The tradition and order part is the scariest one for me. Forever, I have considered Murrica to be operating as a loose caste system. Of course, you CAN ascend well beyond whatever ‘class’ you were born into, but there’s going to energy coming against you if you ‘move up too much’...especially if you are not white. Entertainment and sports folks deal with this all the time. So, to me, the worst conservative folks think it is their call to decide who can and can’t ‘move up’. And what upward mobility is valid and which ones are ‘bullshit’. Or how much should be enough. Ask a maga about any famous black singer or rapper. Enjoy the loaded responses.

Or in the nfl, see the replies when a white qb gets a new contract vs when the growing number of black qbs get one. This was maid absurdly clear when Christian McCaffrey got paid vs the reaction to Kamara or the other guys getting their money.

>>I used to answer this question by saying: limited
>>role/function of government, self reliance, focus tradition
>>and order. But now, who knows
>
>.. when I mentioned "it's not important until it happens to
>me." I think even the "self reliance" thing is built on racism
>and bigotry as well. In that, white people have a much easier
>time being "self reliant" since we have a 400 year head start
>in terms of wealth, resources, and opportunity at our
>disposal.
>
>But funny how "self reliance" takes a back seat when white
>people face even the slightest inconveniences. I wouldn't call
>this particular example a "slight" inconvenience, it's pretty
>serious - but the situation in Texas right now is a good
>example of what I'm talking about. Two weeks ago they were all
>"fuck the feds !!" and talking about secession. Now they're
>begging for federal funds because they got 2 inches of snow.
>
>Again, it's very serious and I don't mean to minimalize what
>the *people* of the greater Austin area are going thru - it's
>horrible and I wish them well. I'm talking about the Governor
>and politicians who found it acceptable to laugh at other
>states who needed fed funds in the past, openly. Who are now
>begging for funds themselves.

... it happens to me."

>and do any of the things that fall under 'conservative values' NOT intersect w/white supremacy, sexism or hetero-normalcy?

No. Conservatives love to talk about "tradition" but since our tradition was built on white supremacy, patriarchy, and hetero-normalcy and homophobie, "tradition" is quite literally all of those things. And "conservatism" means aversion to change.


I think conservatism is definitely synonymous with bigotry. I think they are mutually exclusive even if it's not overt on an individual level.

And the tribe they perceive being part of is a white one.

It's in the maintenance and defense of the tribe that conservatives so quickly sell out their so-called "values". This was strikingly on display when Trump was shitting on vets, and conservatives didn't give a shit. Trump had become the leader of the tribe, and anything he did tactically to further that was fair game.

It's cultlike.

Out of morbid curiosity, I like to imagine what would happen if you had a phenom-type black "traditional" conservative Republican candidate for pres in 2024, and Trump ran against that person in the GOP primary, and Trump outflanked the black conservative on the left. Is there ANY "values-abrogating" position Trump could take that would result in his defeat in this primary? I wish we could run that sim to see how far Trump would have to go to lose in this situation.

>RE: I think conservative thinking is more rooted in "tribe" than values
>And the tribe they perceive being part of is a white one.
>
>It's in the maintenance and defense of the tribe that
>conservatives so quickly sell out their so-called "values".
>This was strikingly on display when Trump was shitting on
>vets, and conservatives didn't give a shit. Trump had become
>the leader of the tribe, and anything he did tactically to
>further that was fair game.
>
>It's cultlike.

Hence why the GQP had no actual platform at this year's RNC. And hence why the "Blue Lives Matter" crowd has been utterly silent about the murder of Brian Sicknick on 1.6.

>Hence why the GQP had no actual platform at this year's RNC.
>And hence why the "Blue Lives Matter" crowd has been utterly
>silent about the murder of Brian Sicknick on 1.6.

Terrific examples. The capitol is ultimate example. The "law and order party" suddenly pro-insurrection (or sympathetic, at best), since it's their people.

that real "conservative values" folks SHOULD have DEADED him over, but like you said, he was heading the tribe so they looked the other way.

that ish started way back in 2015 and they were staring at their shoes and whistling back then.

on every level.

Instead it's the manipulation of conservative ideas by the Republican Party and the twisted ways that they apply these "values" that make them dangerous.

Small government isn't a terrible idea, depending on the circumstances. But like Buddy said earlier in this post, it's the way that the GOP has twisted and used that concept that makes it bad.

I think you could argue a similar thing for several other so-called conservative values (fiscal responsibility, strong military, few regulations, etc.).

.. when you're speaking about the state's ability to infringe on a person's privacy and rights.

Small gov't is not so great when it comes to regulating businesses' and corporations' freedom to price gauge or fuck over the general population.

The GQP loves to conflate the two, and act like regulating big business is somehow = to the gov't infringing on individual rights.

And repug voters eat it up.

It's fucked.


>Small government isn't a terrible idea, depending on the
>circumstances. But like Buddy said earlier in this post, it's
>the way that the GOP has twisted and used that concept that
>makes it bad.

know exactly what they want and are trying to get it.

they haven't been misled.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It's like the saying, "Not all Republicans are racist, but all racists are Republicans..."

I think the majority of people in the country are some combination of politically centrist, socially ignorant or just plain apathetic.

The white supremacists, the fundamentalists, the hardcore capitalists...etc., are a small percentage of those people who would say they believe in conservative values, but they are the most activist. A larger swath of folks just allow themselves to lead by them. The question would be whether you consider those people guilty by their apathy.

I think the same applies to the other side as well. A larger group of people that would probably call themselves liberal have very little interest in, or even knowledge of, progressive issues.

It's called "Know Your Enemy." The stated purpose is to try and quantify/identify exactly this. What do conservatives *actually* stand for ? Why do they operate politically the way that they do ? What is the history of conservative intellectualism and thought, and how closely has it actually reflected its own stated value system throughout modern history ?

It's a *super* dense podcast, at least the first several episodes. Early on the two hosts tended to hone in on one book or one central tenet of conservative intellectualism so I found myself rewinding a lot.

But I have to say that it's been super, super illuminating on a number of levels. The hosts typically do a nice job of laying bare exactly what motivations conservatives have and how conservative "intellectualism" is typically used, as I think most of us are acutely aware, as a tool to give cover for their more abhorrent and ghoulish actual ideals and motivations. But the hosts explain all this in a way that doesn't come off as just piling on. They first try to honestly explore what "decent" conservatives may actually believe, before diving into the practical and functional results of conservative philosophy and policy and highlighting how their values more often than not result in utter failure on a societal level.

It's good for that reason but also because one of the hosts is a self-described "recovering right wing intellectual" who has since become a fervent leftwinger/borderline socialist. So he offers a unique perspective that I don't think you often get from other leftwing podcasts.

Anyway I highly recommend it because I think this podcast actually answers a whole lot of what you're asking here in a satisfying way, that offers genuine and honest explorations of conservative thought without serving to, in really any way, *defend* conservatives or their stated beliefs unless warranted (in rare cases).

"But rest assured, in my luxurious house built on the backs of people darker than me, I am sipping fine scotch and scoffing at how stupid you are." - bshelly

Sounds very good. Added this to the podcast list. Thanks!

>It's called "Know Your Enemy." The stated purpose is to try
>and quantify/identify exactly this. What do conservatives
>*actually* stand for ? Why do they operate politically the way
>that they do ? What is the history of conservative
>intellectualism and thought, and how closely has it actually
>reflected its own stated value system throughout modern
>history ?
>
>It's a *super* dense podcast, at least the first several
>episodes. Early on the two hosts tended to hone in on one book
>or one central tenet of conservative intellectualism so I
>found myself rewinding a lot.
>
>But I have to say that it's been super, super illuminating on
>a number of levels. The hosts typically do a nice job of
>laying bare exactly what motivations conservatives have and
>how conservative "intellectualism" is typically used, as I
>think most of us are acutely aware, as a tool to give cover
>for their more abhorrent and ghoulish actual ideals and
>motivations. But the hosts explain all this in a way that
>doesn't come off as just piling on. They first try to honestly
>explore what "decent" conservatives may actually believe,
>before diving into the practical and functional results of
>conservative philosophy and policy and highlighting how their
>values more often than not result in utter failure on a
>societal level.
>
>It's good for that reason but also because one of the hosts is
>a self-described "recovering right wing intellectual" who has
>since become a fervent leftwinger/borderline socialist. So he
>offers a unique perspective that I don't think you often get
>from other leftwing podcasts.
>
>Anyway I highly recommend it because I think this podcast
>actually answers a whole lot of what you're asking here in a
>satisfying way, that offers genuine and honest explorations of
>conservative thought without serving to, in really any way,
>*defend* conservatives or their stated beliefs unless
>warranted (in rare cases).

Convservative = society is best the way it is, and better the way it used to be. With varying levels of discernment about what that means.

So their only real mission is keeping anything from changing. the slower and harder they can make any move to rebalance things, the better.


beyond that, especially for the religious ones, it's suicide. On one hand you have a society with equal opportunity, or more equal opportunity. They believe that means the death of the society they prefer, and really the death of themselves because they don't have any self identity outside of it.


So you'll never be able to make them change their minds based on what's better for them, because everything you're selling is death. Even if the side they're on is making their life worse or will kill them, it's ok because at worst it's the same as the alternative.

For the ones who've really thought it through, their mission is simple: they feel like they're on top, and they want to end the game before things change. They are actively trying to bring about armageddon, whether that's linked to religion or not...it's all about hoarding wealth and power until they're the last ones left and the lights go out.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and its so utterly selfish

and inhumane

this can't be the rest of my life..i just refuse. that reality is a big part of why i can't wait to be able to put this country in my rear view mirror

d

"But rest assured, in my luxurious house built on the backs of people darker than me, I am sipping fine scotch and scoffing at how stupid you are." - bshelly

and just are taking away a very different course of action

fuckit, end the game while we're winning.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>fuckit, end the game while we're winning.

Pretty fortunate to be winning at the level that we are in the first place.

Need to take advantage. And only have two years.

there is a 50 state strategy happening that has gained even more momentum since the election and Jan 6

progressives have FINALLY figured out what the GOP has known for decades: personnel is policy & politics are local.

State legislatures, mayors, sherriffs, county execs, circuit courts and DA's have long been ignored (on a grand scale) by liberals and progressives, while the right has been hyper focused on controlling those important levers of power

the battle is on now tho...2022 will definitely show up whose winning.

d

"But rest assured, in my luxurious house built on the backs of people darker than me, I am sipping fine scotch and scoffing at how stupid you are." - bshelly

they consistently demonstrate that they don't believe in any of the things they claim to believe in like the free market or states rights or individual liberties or respect for law and order, or anything jesus ever said, and are perfectly fine with everything they claim to be against the second its suits them.

but as long as they can successfully point to the libs as the ones doing all the shit they themselves are openly doing, they'll keep fighting on that lie. they don't care if they're hypoocrites because the libs are the real hypocrites. the libs are the real racists. the libs are the ones trying to undermine democracy. conservatives are the ones being bullied by intolerant liberals, hollywood, blm, and big tech

shit, their whole platform now is that they're the warriors against cancel culture and how it has everyone afraid of openly voicing an opinion outside of what the mob has decided is acceptable... but they're 1000% fine with cancel culture if it applies to someone like Kaepernick. For all their bitching about about Margorie Taylor Green being targeted, they tried to cancel Liz Cheney on literally the same week for daring to color outside the lines. the ultimate irony being that the only thing that saved her was a secret ballot so that they could agree she wasn't wrong without having to put their names behind it

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-mayor-quits-after-saying-residents-are-lazy-amidoutages

"No one owes you or your family anything; nor is it the local governments responsibility to support you during trying times like this! Sink or swim, it’s your choice!" he wrote. "The City and County, along with power providers or any other service owes you NOTHING!"

"If you have no water you deal with out and think outside of the box to survive and supply water to your family," he added. "If you were sitting at home in the cold because you have no power and are sitting there waiting for someone to come rescue you because your lazy is direct result of your raising!"

"Am I sorry that you have been dealing without electricity and water; yes! But I’ll be damned if I’m going to provide for anyone that is capable of doing it themselves!" Boyd continued in the post. "Bottom line, quit crying and looking for a handout! Get off your ass and take care of your own family!"

To be a successful conservative, you're supposed to deliver these messages to OTHERS, not to a sizable percentage of your own constituency lol.

But it's very revealing about how conservative politicians (not to mention voters) misjudge the extent of the privileged ingroup, and their own likelihood under unbridled capitalism of ending up OUTSIDE OF IT.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/dw7lCpFmsyfS0/giphy.gif

The bootstraps speech isn't supposed to be given to them!

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

You asked for race, but.....same thing

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-mayor-quits-after-saying-residents-are-lazy-amidoutages
>
>"No one owes you or your family anything; nor is it the local
>governments responsibility to support you during trying times
>like this! Sink or swim, it’s your choice!" he wrote. "The
>City and County, along with power providers or any other
>service owes you NOTHING!"
>
>"If you have no water you deal with out and think outside of
>the box to survive and supply water to your family," he added.
>"If you were sitting at home in the cold because you have no
>power and are sitting there waiting for someone to come rescue
>you because your lazy is direct result of your raising!"
>
>"Am I sorry that you have been dealing without electricity and
>water; yes! But I’ll be damned if I’m going to provide for
>anyone that is capable of doing it themselves!" Boyd continued
>in the post. "Bottom line, quit crying and looking for a
>handout! Get off your ass and take care of your own family!"
>

I love how this clown legit thinks that the government is not responsible for the well being of their constituents. Which is literally their job description.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Of particular note is his, uh, apology.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-mayor-resigned-telling-people-111237826.html

The mayor of a Texas city resigned after telling people it was their own fault if they were suffering from the vast loss of electricity in the state this week amid a historic cold snap.

Tim Boyd, the mayor of Colorado City, accused his constituents of looking for a "handout" as power went out across the state. He encouraged residents with no water to "think outside the box to survive."
Video: Turkish power plant turns scrap tires into electricity
Scroll back up to restore default view.

The outburst came in a since-deleted Facebook post that included numerous misspellings.

It said: "No one owes you are your family anything; nor is it the local government's responsibility to support you during trying times like this! Sink of swim it's your choice!"

He said later in the post: "I'm sick and tired of people looking for a damn handout! If you don't have electricity you step up and come up with a game plan to keep your family warm and safe.
winter storm 7.JPG
A sign warning motorists on a highway north of Jackson, Mississippi, on Monday. Barbara Gauntt/Clarion-Ledger/USA Today Network via REUTERS

"If you have no water you deal without and think outside the box to survive and supply water to your family.

"If you are sitting at home in the cold because you have no power and are sitting there waiting for someone to come rescue you because your lazy is direct result of your raising.

"Only the strong will survive and the weak will parish."


At least 20 people had died in connection to the storms as of early Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.

Boyd resigned Tuesday. According to Fox News, he said in a Facebook post: "I would never want to hurt the elderly or anyone that is in true need of help to be left to fend for themselves.

"I was only making the statement that those folks that are too lazy to get up and fend for themselves but are capable should not be dealt a handout. I apologize for the wording and some of the phrases that were used!"

Freezing temperatures across many US states have left people battling ice and snow and have caused severe power outages.

Texas is seeing some of its coldest temperatures in more than 30 years, the BBC reported.

Millions of homes and businesses in Texas were without power Tuesday.

Some of the deaths were directly linked to efforts to try to get warm. The Houston police said a woman and a girl died of carbon-monoxide poisoning after trying to use their car to generate heat.

I want so badly to watch a barrage of "nobody owes you or your wife anything" comments, but it seems he's no longer on social media

Ya it's definitely way easier to characterize conservative *policy* than conservative *values* lol

I agree with what you and others allude to... what seems to guide a lot of conservative policies/proposals is thinly veiled (if veiled at all lol) loathing for women, minorities (whether racial, ethnic, sexual and gender, etc), the poor, immigrants, etc.

On an individual level, even *if* a person isn't socially conservative (and as such likely harboring racist, sexist, and/or heteronormative/lgbtq+ antagonistic sentiments)... like others have said I also find their common thread is craven selfishness and greed. These are the people cool with even the most hard right government so long as their family's tax exposure is minimized and they're not directly impacted by any state violence. They could care less about population health and safety, genocide, mass corruption, etc. The only White male conservatives I've met have been of this non-socially-conservative variety (and were also either wealthy or from a wealthy background). Most of the Black (African) male conservatives I've known have been more socially conservative (and are unionized working class but consistently vote against the pro-labor left-wing party in their jurisdiction to support the conservative party off the strength of this conservative values bs). The few female conservatives/conservative voters I've met, whether White or Black, have stated they vote conservative or have always voted conservative because it was expected in their (hetero-)marriage and/or upbringing (which I think speaks to another conversation we could be having about the extent to which patriarchy shapes political values up and down the 'left-right' spectrum).

For me personally, it helps a lot to think about things from a comparative/international angle too tho. For example, a lot of African and Middle Eastern countries lean further right than what's considered an acceptable level of conservatism in the West (eg. countries where being lgbtq+ is still punishable by stoning to death https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45434583), just like some European countries might lean further left. To me, differences between political parties become a lot more subtle when almost every party espouses just the one flavor of the one section of the political spectrum (which I guess isn't always a bad thing and can at times make governing more collaborative eg. Angela Merkel's center-right CDU party's grand coalition with the center-left SPD). In some contexts tho things even seem to flip, like a supposed 'left-wing' party taking its interventionism so far it approaches fascism, or the neoliberalism of a supposed 'right-wing' party actually resulting in a country's most progressive policies/programmes.

For example in Nigeria, it's the 'right-wing' party (People's Democratic Party, or PDP) that introduced a national health insurance scheme for the population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Democratic_Party_(Nigeria)#Political_ideology), ended the government's fuel subsidy (https://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/12/fuel-subsidy-removal-how-okonjo-iweala-convinced-jonathansambo-ministers/), and implemented a public-private financing scheme for affordable lending/mortgages to expand homeownership/homebuilding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria_Mortgage_Refinance_Company). In contrast, it's Nigeria's 'left-wing' party (All Progressives Congress, or APC) that ordered security forces to gun down protesters mobilizing against police brutality last fall (https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2020/11/17/lekki-toll-gate-shooting-army-police-lon-orig-mkd.cnn), and also froze bank accounts of organizers (https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/11/13/nigeria-punitive-financial-moves-against-protesters), floated legislation to ban social media and institute the *death penalty* for dissent/what the gov considers 'hate speech' (https://www.theafricareport.com/51915/nigeria-social-media-bill-threatens-death-penalty-for-hate-speech/), and just banned cryptocurrencies (https://qz.com/africa/1970446/nigerias-central-bank-takes-aim-at-cryptocurrency-again/, https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-nigerians-are-reacting-to-the-cryptocurrency-ban-2021-02-15). In fact even when attempting to engage in left-wing policy, like Nigeria's N-Power program which is basically a kind of federal job guarantee program for youth, the APC-led government plays the kind of games you'd expect from an anti-labor fatcat corporation (eg. https://www.naijanews.com/2020/02/21/n-power-reveals-when-beneficiaries-will-receive-january-stipend-2/, http://saharareporters.com/2020/04/23/ministry-humanitarian-affairs-accused-converting-n-power-beneficiaries’-salaries-covid-19). And in the end, both these dominant political parties are socially conservative... so for marginalized people in Nigeria such as sexual and gender minorities, they're a long way from having any representation in government to look out for them/voice their issues.

I feel like for clusterfucks like Nigeria, focusing on the 'values' landscape is almost *all* we can do to make sense of the country's politics... because the beacons we typically use in the West to identify who or what is conservative like political party, policy, labels/slogans, gender imbalance, lack of diversity, etc are a lot more ambiguous. In fact what's probably *least* ambiguous is the gaping divide between the values of the more modernized, tolerant, tech-enabled youth of that country v. the values of the aging, tribalistic, militaristic, authoritarian hyperpatriarchal political class. Nigeria's currentpolitical class is dominated by an elderly superminority wielding authoritarian, conservative, and frankly unrepresentative control over a population of which 90% is younger than 55yo lol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nigeria#Age_structure). Personally, I don't think change can/will happen in Nigeria until the current political class and its 'values' (regardless of political party) is replaced with officials who instead share the youth's values and/or are members of the younger generations themselves.

So ya. I guess where I'm at is their 'values' seem basic/primitive at first, but in some ways might illuminate interesting synergies we wouldnt detect otherwise using our usual markers. But for sure tho it's complete disregard for women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, and potent selfishness/anti-collectivism that seems to animate conservative people/policies most consistently, whether we're talking at the level of the individual or subnational, national, regional, global, etc.

"But rest assured, in my luxurious house built on the backs of people darker than me, I am sipping fine scotch and scoffing at how stupid you are." - bshelly

I think this discussion has been missing a global and historical perspective and almost all the discussion in here has been very specifically talking about the modern American conservative movement.

I don't know if it travels worldwide. One of the most depressing books I have read is The Fate of Africa: A History of the Continent Since Independence by Martin Meredith and its depressing because its story after story of "left wing" revolutionaries who otherthrow an oppressive government just to turn into an oppressive government themselves.

I don't know much about the history of Nigeria but when I think of left wing versus right wing I mainly think about it in cold war terms in regard to who backed their revolution. If its the USSR, its left wing. If its right wing, its the USA. I think the capitalist versus socialist leaning of the government would somewhat line up with which superpower backed them, but whether they were repressive and totalitarian did not.

Anyway, I will read up on Nigeria now.





>Ya it's definitely way easier to characterize conservative
>*policy* than conservative *values* lol
>
>I agree with what you and others allude to... what seems to
>guide a lot of conservative policies/proposals is thinly
>veiled (if veiled at all lol) loathing for women, minorities
>(whether racial, ethnic, sexual and gender, etc), the poor,
>immigrants, etc.
>
>On an individual level, even *if* a person isn't socially
>conservative (and as such likely harboring racist, sexist,
>and/or heteronormative/lgbtq+ antagonistic sentiments)... like
>others have said I also find their common thread is craven
>selfishness and greed. These are the people cool with even the
>most hard right government so long as their family's tax
>exposure is minimized and they're not directly impacted by any
>state violence. They could care less about population health
>and safety, genocide, mass corruption, etc. The only White
>male conservatives I've met have been of this
>non-socially-conservative variety (and were also either
>wealthy or from a wealthy background). Most of the Black
>(African) male conservatives I've known have been more
>socially conservative (and are unionized working class but
>consistently vote against the pro-labor left-wing party in
>their jurisdiction to support the conservative party off the
>strength of this conservative values bs). The few female
>conservatives/conservative voters I've met, whether White or
>Black, have stated they vote conservative or have always voted
>conservative because it was expected in their
>(hetero-)marriage and/or upbringing (which I think speaks to
>another conversation we could be having about the extent to
>which patriarchy shapes political values up and down the
>'left-right' spectrum).
>
>For me personally, it helps a lot to think about things from a
>comparative/international angle too tho. For example, a lot of
>African and Middle Eastern countries lean further right than
>what's considered an acceptable level of conservatism in the
>West (eg. countries where being lgbtq+ is still punishable by
>stoning to death https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45434583),
>just like some European countries might lean further left. To
>me, differences between political parties become a lot more
>subtle when almost every party espouses just the one flavor of
>the one section of the political spectrum (which I guess isn't
>always a bad thing and can at times make governing more
>collaborative eg. Angela Merkel's center-right CDU party's
>grand coalition with the center-left SPD). In some contexts
>tho things even seem to flip, like a supposed 'left-wing'
>party taking its interventionism so far it approaches fascism,
>or the neoliberalism of a supposed 'right-wing' party actually
>resulting in a country's most progressive
>policies/programmes.
>
>For example in Nigeria, it's the 'right-wing' party (People's
>Democratic Party, or PDP) that introduced a national health
>insurance scheme for the population
>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Democratic_Party_(Nigeria)#Political_ideology),
>ended the government's fuel subsidy
>(https://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/12/fuel-subsidy-removal-how-okonjo-iweala-convinced-jonathansambo-ministers/),
>and implemented a public-private financing scheme for
>affordable lending/mortgages to expand
>homeownership/homebuilding
>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria_Mortgage_Refinance_Company).
>In contrast, it's Nigeria's 'left-wing' party (All
>Progressives Congress, or APC) that ordered security forces to
>gun down protesters mobilizing against police brutality last
>fall
>(https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2020/11/17/lekki-toll-gate-shooting-army-police-lon-orig-mkd.cnn),
>and also froze bank accounts of organizers
>(https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/11/13/nigeria-punitive-financial-moves-against-protesters),
>floated legislation to ban social media and institute the
>*death penalty* for dissent/what the gov considers 'hate
>speech'
>(https://www.theafricareport.com/51915/nigeria-social-media-bill-threatens-death-penalty-for-hate-speech/),
>and just banned cryptocurrencies
>(https://qz.com/africa/1970446/nigerias-central-bank-takes-aim-at-cryptocurrency-again/,
>https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-nigerians-are-reacting-to-the-cryptocurrency-ban-2021-02-15).
>In fact even when attempting to engage in left-wing policy,
>like Nigeria's N-Power program which is basically a kind of
>federal job guarantee program for youth, the APC-led
>government plays the kind of games you'd expect from an
>anti-labor fatcat corporation (eg.
>https://www.naijanews.com/2020/02/21/n-power-reveals-when-beneficiaries-will-receive-january-stipend-2/,
>http://saharareporters.com/2020/04/23/ministry-humanitarian-affairs-accused-converting-n-power-beneficiaries’-salaries-covid-19).
>And in the end, both these dominant political parties are
>socially conservative... so for marginalized people in Nigeria
>such as sexual and gender minorities, they're a long way from
>having any representation in government to look out for
>them/voice their issues.
>
>I feel like for clusterfucks like Nigeria, focusing on the
>'values' landscape is almost *all* we can do to make sense of
>the country's politics... because the beacons we typically use
>in the West to identify who or what is conservative like
>political party, policy, labels/slogans, gender imbalance,
>lack of diversity, etc are a lot more ambiguous. In fact
>what's probably *least* ambiguous is the gaping divide between
>the values of the more modernized, tolerant, tech-enabled
>youth of that country v. the values of the aging, tribalistic,
>militaristic, authoritarian hyperpatriarchal political class.
>Nigeria's currentpolitical class is dominated by an elderly
>superminority wielding authoritarian, conservative, and
>frankly unrepresentative control over a population of which
>90% is younger than 55yo lol
>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nigeria#Age_structure).
> Personally, I don't think change can/will happen in Nigeria
>until the current political class and its 'values' (regardless
>of political party) is replaced with officials who instead
>share the youth's values and/or are members of the younger
>generations themselves.
>
>So ya. I guess where I'm at is their 'values' seem
>basic/primitive at first, but in some ways might illuminate
>interesting synergies we wouldnt detect otherwise using our
>usual markers. But for sure tho it's complete disregard for
>women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, and potent
>selfishness/anti-collectivism that seems to animate
>conservative people/policies most consistently, whether we're
>talking at the level of the individual or subnational,
>national, regional, global, etc.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://www.theonion.com/i-dont-even-want-to-be-alive-anymore-1819584611?utm_campaign=The%20Onion&utm_content=1613585718&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3NtNIHVVuSI5-7IXOM2grHHCJP4dW4NOA3nOuzna-JX16lVyoaslIk-bo

I know there are a lot of people out there who are upset about some of the things I've been saying on my radio program lately. My comments about the situation in Haiti have hurt and angered many Americans who genuinely care about the plight of the Haitian people, and that hurt and anger will likely never go away. Many of you are probably wondering, "What would compel a human being to say things like that?" Well, here's your answer: I am a very bad person. And, to tell you the truth, I don't really want to be alive anymore.

Try to look at it from my point of view. I have no reason to live. In my 59 years, I've made millions of dollars, built a veritable media empire, and accomplished virtually everything that a man of my limited imagination and worldview could possibly accomplish. And yet, at this point, in no way could you refer to what I'm doing as "living," exactly. I just sort of exist. I derive no real pleasure from life. Oh, sure, I talk a big game about what a golf nut I am and how much I enjoy the taste of a fine cigar, but it's all horseshit. Complete and utter horseshit.

I don't enjoy that stuff. I don't enjoy anything. I don't even want to be here. The sadness and regret I feel every waking hour of my life is absolutely unbearable. I am a miserable pig and I do not want to exist.

The irony is that, even if I did die, the hell I would surely be sent to could not possibly be any worse than the bottomless pool of excrement I already paddle around in like some demented, shit-covered walrus. In fact, every time I hear my voice coming through the headphones I nearly gag, and I think, "What the fuck am I doing?" Why would I say that Michael J. Fox is faking his Parkinson's symptoms? Why would I find it funny to play a song called "Barack the Magic Negro"? Why would I tell people not to give aid to Haiti?

What the fuck is wrong with me?

I live in constant terror and that terror informs my every word, thought, and action.

See, the thing is, I honestly cannot control the bilious hatred and filth that oozes out of my mouth. I want to—believe me, I want to—but I can't. And every time I speak, a tiny voice inside my head is screaming, "Stop talking, you stupid, insensitive prick. JUST STOP FUCKING TALKING. All you do is spread hate and fear, and the world would be a better place without you, you worthless, amoral, cocksucking fuckface."

What I should really do is just commit suicide. I have this little Sunday ritual I started around the time I publicly compared the torture at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity prank, where I climb into my Jacuzzi and put a gun in my mouth. But I can never work up the guts to pull the trigger. A few times I came close to overdosing on prescription pain pills, but my goddamn doctors were always there to save me. If I had any sense, I would just hole myself up in a Red Roof Inn with a case of Jack Daniel's and slowly drink myself into the gaping maw of death itself.

But what can I say? I guess I'm just too much of a fat fucking pussy to follow through.

You know what? I wish someone would just kill me. I'm serious. Yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking: "Oh my God, how can you say such a thing? You can't print that in a newspaper!" But see, I don't care anymore. I've cried my tears. I've battled my demons, and I've lost. It's over. It's all over. The only thing left for me to do now is just go away. Have I even once contributed a single ounce of good to humanity? Put me out of my misery. I wouldn't make a fuss. I wouldn't even humiliate myself by saying goodbye. For the first time in my odious, pitiful life, I'd accept my fate with quiet dignity.

Then I wouldn't have to live with my wretched, wretched self. Oh, the release.

I've imagined my death a thousand times over, and it's always the same. In my mind's eye, a serene setting comes into view. I see a funeral procession driving down some small-town Main Street in Nowheresville, U.S.A. On one side of the street, a collection of sycophants and morons are paying their respects in subliterate, sanctimonious tones. Meanwhile, on the other side of the street, I can just make out the faint image of a young boy, his brow furrowed in confusion, clutching the hand of his father. "Who is that man, Daddy?" he asks as the hearse containing my bloated, lifeless body rolls by. "Who is that person they speak of?" The father will then lower his head and say, "There, my son, go the remains of Rush Hudson Limbaugh, the most abominable lump of festering dog shit in the history of American broadcasting. May the likes of him never again soil or tarnish the greatness of our fair country."

Please forgive me, everyone. I am so sorry.

Neitzche had a theory of a death drive in man. Controversial topic but worth exploring as a framework for certain behaviors imo.

If we look at conservatism as the politics of old people, how much of it is about making the world a worse place out of spite, or a lack of "generativity":

generativity noun
gen·​er·​a·​tiv·​i·​ty | \ ˌjen-(ə-)rə-ˈtiv-ət-ē \
plural generativities
Medical Definition of generativity
: a concern for people besides self and family that usually develops during middle age
especially : a need to nurture and guide younger people and contribute to the next generation —used in the psychology of Erik Erikson

At its heart, modern conservatism is defined by its antipathy to liberalism. Whereas intellectually, it is differentiated by its four heads: (1) traditionalism; (2) neoconservatism; (3) libertarianism, and (4) the religious right. You can read a summary of Ceaser's argument below:

https://lawliberty.org/four-heads-and-one-heart/

I, however, have a less charitable take than Ceaser. Modern conservatism, IMO, is increasingly authoritarian. Conservatives are more than willing to compromise on their so-called intellectual principles, in order to rally behind an authoritarian strong man: especially during moments of perceived crisis. According to Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, neo-conservatism is reducible to the distinction between friend and enemy. And this distinction is far from logically consistent; it is whatever distinction authoritarian leaders are willing to make in order to maintain the legitimacy of their rule -- especially when that rule undermines the existing rule of law and the ability of the legislature to check executive power.

https://aeon.co/essays/carl-schmitts-legal-theory-legitimises-the-rule-of-the-strongman

regarding morality, treating of others, sexual behavior, women's roles

thanks for engaging on this topic cuz i really thought it was gonna be a snark fest LOL

d

"But rest assured, in my luxurious house built on the backs of people darker than me, I am sipping fine scotch and scoffing at how stupid you are." - bshelly

>i really thought it was gonna be a snark fest LOL


"Snark" and "conservatism" kinda goes hand in hand.

That's why so many Onion articles are essentially true haha.

that it would've been satire to say that conservatives widely push the idea that their opponents are literally coming to rape your kids


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Study: Conservatives are Terrified (and That's Why They're Conservative)
https://youtu.be/1q6mUkj12gY

also, this was from 2004, but the book 'Whats the matter with Kansas' is a good ref
https://youtu.be/lNv5eull29k


as I understand the convervative perspective it would be thies:

the most important thing is the self. communities are built with many individual selves - to have a good community, you need to have a good individual self.

The self is responsible for all good or bad things happening. If bad things happen, it is because the self has failed and that failing is moral.

Poor people are poor because they choose to be poor.

Systemic racism is bullshit. Blacks and other people are not taking responsibility for their actions because they are choosing to be victims, poor and criminal.

Guns don't kill people - people kill people.

Capitalism is important, entertaining any other systems is bad because its a dangerous thing to fuck with a system that drives motivation of the self.

Add in zero sum thinking, obscured racism, antiquated thoughts on masculinity & roles, xenophobia and you got yourself a cake.

...based in death, destruction and white nationalism.
An ideology that would rather see destruction of everything by their hand than anything resembling a shared prosperity.
Assholes.