Conservatives have always been regressive, period. Their entire philosophy emerged from the “excesses” of the French Revolution. The forward “movement” (if you want to call it that) was from the “divine right of kings” to the “divine right of lords (chosen by the market)”.
To quote the infinitely quotable (Wilhout, from the top rope…with a fucking blog comment):
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
I understand the desire to take the positive aspects of a word, apply them to your political stance, and pretend that you’re part of a movement. But it isn’t true. It reminds me of when lefties (in often an USA centric thread) describe themselves as “left libertarians” all this crap does is confuse people and make you sound like a pedant.
If you think this is what conservative means, you’re basically just politically homeless…and have been since you started calling yourself that.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 11 hours ago
This, at least, is correct.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Welcome to the club!
I’m there. I vote Democratic but there’s basically no representation for my views to be found.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 8 hours ago
The government needs to adapt, yes, but carefully. You can’t just run with the first or second option, that’s a recipe for regulatory capture.
It’s not “no change is good” but rather “most change isn’t good, so we need to test them until we find the best change”.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
The problem with that is you’re tying up the government’s ability to change in ways that have no correlate in industry or culture. This inevitably leads to government being unable to respond to changes that have already occurred or are currently occurring, and in the case of change driven by industry (i.e., most societal change in the US) that invariably leads to regulatory capture.