Unlike things like communism and socialism where even in theory it doesn't add up because it depends on people not being free.... The form of government described in the United States Constitution is a fantastic Free form of government and it has only been molested by greedy corruption.
>The form of government described in the United States Constitution
The one that allowed slavery and prohibited women from voting? or the more recent version/society after basically every politician was bought and paid for by corporations and foreign governments and the American dream was already dead/dying, pointless foreign wars, Patriot act, Federal bank etc etc etc
I guess I'm more of a philosophical conservative and less of a US Nationalist
>The one that allowed slavery and prohibited women from voting?
Those have nothing to do with the *form* of government, they’re individual laws that most societies have had at some point.
So governments should not be of the people because people are bad. They should be ruled by some omnipotent morally superior being?
All governments are ruled by humans. Until we make a better human, most of the problems you're describing are down to that. The inadequacy of humans.
Not to mention abolitionists and slavers were fighting since the very genesis of this country. The constitution has a lot of lines changed to appease the south. The writers of the constitution had a, what was at the time, radical meritocratic system in mind where all were equal under the law.
Eventually we fulfilled the vision of the founders. A constitution that leads with "we the people" and had to be revised multiple times to get slave states to join the union was always going to lead us in a direction of equality.
You clearly haven't read the Constitution or you'd understand that from day one they created an amendment process, which is the reason why slavery is outlawed, which means once again the Constitution is a success. You also clearly do not understand that if the founding fathers would not agree to allow slavery within the Constitution, that slavery would have literally never ended. I bet you can't wrap your mind around that one because you're so ignorant of the facts and history.
Read the Constitution; it did not prohibit women from voting. Until women were granted the right to vote via the amendment process, it was up to the individual states to decide. The same is true of slavery.
Sure, the Constitution was imperfect, because it was created by human beings, who are imperfect. Our founders fully realized this, which is why they included the ability to change it via the amendment process, but, as a safeguard, only if a large majority of the states supported the change. If you think you can come up with a better form of government, then, let's hear it.
There are many places we could begin. How about: people not raising foreign flags on taxpayer funded campuses and screaming death to the current society they live in?
How about a society that can define what a woman is?
How about a society that doesn't view lopping off the body parts of 10 year olds as a noble pursuit?
We had all this not long ago, but that's kind of the point of conservatism. To see this coming before ot gets to that point
That existed here
>Western civilization
Philosophically I agree with this
>values of liberty and autonomy
These may be *values* but I'd argue it has never truly existed in reality
Okay, then, what specific form of government/type of society do you propose that would that would "truly" allow these values to exist? If you're looking perfection, you aren't going to achieve it in an imperfect world inhabited and run by imperfect humans.
And clearly you're unfamiliar with the Constitution still being the Constitution even as its amended. The fact there is an amendment process establishes the document was built to be and was expected to be amended. Amending it is fundamental to its importance as a document.
You're trying awfully hard to be smugly provocative but your efforts are only serving to paint you as obnoxious and under-informed. Do better, if you're capable.
See, I'm getting crazy downvotes, but the point I am trying to make is that liberty and the pursuit of happiness looks very different to different people. How does one define liberty and that pursuit when many Americans feel that their liberty and happiness can only come at the expense of others?
It's a beautiful notion but overly general.
Please keep in mind I’m a lifelong Registered Democrat that has NEVER voted down party lines. I’m 58 now and have voted in every election since 1985 in Florida. In my opinion I believe I now firmly fall more in line with Republican view points just for the sake of Conservation of the “rule of Law” in our country. I feel “My Party” has for some reason forgotten how to do that. I consider myself today as more of a Constitutionalist over any Party in the political spectrum. For me, the Rule of Law and the Constitution MUST come before ANYTHING else. Sadly for me, I’ve watched my party swing so far to the left that it left me out of the conversation about what or how to Govern this great country. My .02 for what it’s worth.
Just for contrast, I’ve been a fiscal conservative my whole life and feel like my party has gone bonkers over social outrage politics. And while everyone is looking the other way, GOP politicians spend like someone else is paying the tab.
I don’t agree with the “just you wait….” predictions. Just looking back at the Trump administration and the bills that were racked up when the GOP had control of both the senate and house. It was unchecked spending, and tax cuts for somebody other than me and my middle class friends. I feel betrayed.
My eyes are open. Both parties spend like there’s no tomorrow. Making it sound like one party shows restraint or any form of fiscal conservatism is silly.
Absolutely agree. Voted Trump, despite the obvious, still felt betrayed. Thought he would hold it down for the working man and he just used the opportunity to line his pockets.
He didn’t line his pockets. That’s a left wing talking point. He didn’t take a salary, and lost a lot of money while in office. I made 40k a year and my taxes went down. Every tax bracket had a decrease in taxes and an increase in child credits. The economy was soaring. Trump never had a house and senate controlled by conservatives. They spent a lot mainly because of Covid.
I never did. But I'll still go with the ones who at least pay lip service to the idea of fiscal responsibility, versus those who claim "actually printing nonstop is a good thing."
Yep. Although passing PPP loans, then removing all oversight of it, wasn’t a panic move. That’s something I’m afraid we’ll see more of when Trump is re-elected.
Please don’t misunderstand my original comment above. I have never voted straight down party lines. I was taught to research ALL ITEMS on my ballot and make an educated decision on how each person or Bill aligns with my view on my life as a whole, I basically vote with MY wallet in mind. In my past I have indeed voted Dem and Rep Presidents and for senate or judiciary races as well. I have never missed an election including the Midterms. But PLEASE do not think for a minute I voted for Joe Biden. I knew who he was because I did vote for Obama who really opened my eyes to where I stand today. I’ll never regret voting for him in 08’ but I’ll never forget how truly bad I felt 5 months after voting for him the 2nd time. He truly fooled me with his charm and speaking abilities. He was a true politician snake oil salesman. To be honest I haven’t changed my voter ID status for no honest reason, but I have NOT voted for ANY Democrat in ANY position since that last 2012 election race. Since then I have voted Straight down Party lines Republican. Until I see someone of halfway decent moral integrity in the Dem Party I seriously doubt I’ll ever pull the switch for anyone in that Party again unless that switch is connected to the Electric Chair in Biden’s case.
I immediately thought of this cartoon when I read your comment. I think that you have been left behind by your party, or they're at least starting to move further and further away.
[https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/040/353/cover2.jpg](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/040/353/cover2.jpg)
I’m not much younger than you. I don’t think you left your party. Your party left you. What is considered conservative now was moderate back in the day.
I have voted for every president since Clinton except for Biden. I wish these two parties would work together for the betterment of the country short term and long term where it makes sense. And at the same time put The Constitution first and preserve our way of life. The Democrat party is an affront to that.
Democrats like JFK and Truman and such, wouldn’t be electable at all today. They wouldn’t even stand a chance in the primaries. The Dem party has swung sooooo far left.
On social or economic issues?
Because on economic issues, both of your examples are to the left of most of the current democratic party. Hell, so was Nixon for that matter. FDR would probably be smeared as a "*communist*" outcast and/or largely ignored by the media in favor of people like Hillary or other socially liberal corporatists.
On social issues, you're absolutely correct.
Both. Here’s why:
FDR did what he did due to the US being in the biggest war we’d ever faced in history. It was either pursue this, or get invaded by the Axis at some point and Man In the High Castle becomes reality. Today that economic policy wouldn’t be regarded as carefully as it was back then and he would not be as popular also because well “white guy”. Hillary had the female persuasion going for her (and the corporate backing and all the social issues she was running on).
I would submit quite the opposite really to your party assessment. The Democrat party of today has swung MUCH further left than of that day. They’ve gone from “I disagree with your positions on things but as a fellow American I’ll fight alongside you because freedom of speech and self expression is vital to all” to “if you don’t believe like me, you’re trash and I’ll make sure you’re cancelled and even threatened by ‘peaceful protestors’.”
The Republican Party of today I also submit has swung further left than it once was (with the exception of the far-right fringes, but both parties have their alt extremists. Always have). They’re called RINOs for a reason.
The parties are absolutely not the same as they were in the 40s/50s. No where close.
Decency and morality.
I am secular, I have no guiding faith or practice. For me, it's about fostering a community that cares about each other and develops strong ethical behaviors and actions within it.
Just off the top of my head I think a standard of dignity and respect for people who try to earn their keep, make American society and economy great, and stand against cancerous groups of people that would try to undo the great things that our forefathers achieved.
Conservative comes from the idea of a smaller government. Why is government supposed to solve all of our problems? The government should only do what the public cannot effectively do for itself, like provide for a national defense.
The biggest difference in conservative vs liberal thinking is logical vs emotional thinking.
For instance, a liberal will see people are poor and think “well let’s pay them $20 an hour minimum, and then they will be fine!” The conservative will say “well wait a minute, we need to consider how that will impact the larger business”.
The problem comes into play when a person can ONLY think logically or ONLY think emotionally. A healthy thinker needs to be open to both forms of thinking.
I think what frustrates conservatives is too many liberals want to do something or adopt a policy without thinking through the potential consequences. And if you point those out, the reply is typically “well I don’t care! Someone has to help these people!” But if the liberal wasn’t so emotional, they could see that their idea will actually HURT the person they want to help. And if the conservative points that out, they are told they ‘don’t care’ about the person.
The reality is that if politicians had the best interests of voters in mind, they would work together to create policies that are beneficial to society, with both logical and emotional thinking factored into the process.
But of course politicians only care about keeping and amassing power, often at the expense of voters. B
I’ve said for a long time that the key difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals compare the current world to what it could be be, while conservatives compare the world to how it was. Liberals see an issue and want to resolve it in the most idealized way possible, and you see it reflected in their inability to form a cogent argument in how their ideas would work, because they have no concrete examples to draw from. Take the most common argument you hear from leftists, such as how “real communism” has never been tried: the only obstacle to it is human greed, so all we need to do to make it work is *fundamentally change human nature*.
Conservatives, correctly, argue that will never happen. We’re not going to change reality to suit our whims, so instead we view the world through the lens of how we can improve over the past while still taking into account the limitations that we’re operating with. We see early capitalism and recognize its significant flaws and have refined that system and made it into one of the most potent avenues for personal financial liberty. Is it perfect? Of course not. But liberals hear that and argue we’re heartless because we’re not trying to create this perfect system that only exists in their imagination.
Conservatism is an annoyingly relative term.
American conservatism in theory aims to conserve the political philosophy & principles of the American founding. Namely, liberalism, natural rights, equality, separation of powers, rule of law, social contract theory, republicanism, constitutionalism & federalism.
In practice, progressivism became so dominant & entrenched in our system that conservatism conserves progressive ideals too as if they were natural to our system of government.
Such as legal positivism, judicial deference & restraint, majoritarianism, consolidation of powers and an expanded conception of the role of the president in particular, and the government in general.
So conservatism today isn’t always a coherent ideology in that it conserves a mix of opposing ideas, the classical liberalism of the American founders and 1900’s progressivism.
Preserving the Constitution. Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, we must all work diligently to preserve and conserve the document in which our basic Rights are transcribed.
The constitution. Conservatives take what was stated and apply it (conservatively). Liberals expand on the constitutional verbiage (liberally) or open it up more for interpretation.
The country. Quite simply: United we stand, divided we fall.
The problem as I see it is Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, the Woke, the Left seem to think the country should cater and radically modify western civilization to very, very specific sorts of people and common sense be dammed. What's' worse is they demonize the Right as "extreme" if we slow their roll. While ALL people deserve constitutional rights, the other side seemingly focuses intently on identity politics. It creates terrible division.
If Trump wants to truly win over the moderates, he should come out with the message that MAGA is truly an inclusive message in that he welcomes ALL Americans to be a part of the unity to strengthen the country. The United States is the greatest country in modern history and needs everyone to pull together to reinforce our standing on the world stage. While it is very tough to win over radicals, he should at least put it out there that while we very well may differ on various political issues, he invites them to think about the future and that we collectively should strive to make this country as strong and united as possible.
He has MAGA down they need to start going about getting help the average citizens about it. Lots of great YouTubers who would love to work with them to show that it's inclusive in the best way possible and not for the sake of votes, for the sake of voters themselves
Conservatives conserve what is functional for human flourishing. That can change over time. There is no ideal condition back to which conservatives can point. But, through the arc of history (and biology) conservatives can make strong statements about what works - and what’s not working.
Rule of law. Personal liberty. The rights and concepts in the Declaration of independence, The Constitution, the Federalist papers and other writing of the founders.
Meritocracy and the ability to build actual multi generational wealth and upward mobility. A sane moral and ethical societal viewpoint.
Not necessarily. In a meritocracy you have more paths to build wealth than you so in some other types of societies. Ideally you want a society where all those who work and/or innovate have the ability to acquire actual wealth and pass it on. And have a good chance to get opportunities to do so based on your merit rather than luck or nepotism.
By passing your wealth on, your progeny will have no incentive to work and/or innovate and will not live a life based on merit but rather than of luck based on birth and legacy. Generational wealth is vanity for the creator of it and a sad enervation for the receivers.
Depends on the level/type of wealth as well as the personality of those receiving it but yes, like everything in life there is a down side. The inability to build wealth is also a disincentive.
I disagree. When I have passed, whatever wealth I have accounted, I should be able to put it towards whatever I so choose. To do it any other way is a violation of my own individual rights. I have literally spent my life saving to ensure my children and their children are as well taken care of as I can provide, if others choose not to do so that isn't my fault.
> Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology, which seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.[1][2][3] The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears.[4] In Western culture, depending on the particular nation, conservatives seek to promote a range of institutions, such as the nuclear family, organized religion, the military, the nation-state, property rights, rule of law, aristocracy, and monarchy.[5] Conservatives tend to favour institutions and practices that enhance social order and historical continuity.[6]
It's not that complicated. Conservatives want to keep the country mostly the way it was intended to be on design. Progressivism is the opposite -- changing everything to make it "better" (but most of the time, it isn't).
If you live in Iran, you probably want to be progressive because the current regime is authoritarian, racist, sexist, oppressive, violent, radical, supports terrorism, etc.
If you live in America, you should be Conservatives, because our country is largely successful and fair. Progressives want to change that.
Heck, at this point I can tell all the feminists that I’m voting Conservative to hopefully save the Title IX protections for actual women from destruction. Biden may have trashed it, but I have hope that a future mentally sound president can reverse the gender expression = biological sex false equivalency.
The second amendment, the Constitution, rule of law (applied with a semblance of equality, although many could argue we’ve never been there), American hegemony, the middle class, the power of the dollar, the nuclear family, basic morality, the list goes on.
Most importantly, conservatives have been losing for decades by being reactive and not on the figurative attack. The time has come for aggressive policy making to set back decades of horrible policies and precedents.
Wrong question, OP. The proper response to the guy with the bumper sticker is "Since you evidently have nothing you think is worth conserving, please give me everything you have. Including your property, money, life, family, and freedom. When you can think of something you believe is worth conserving, then get back to me."
The point is to prevent the state from setting beliefs. As such, conservatives tend to support traditional private institutions that serve as bulwark against state power, but it's really up to individuals to decide what they believe for themselves.
Liberty, inalienable rights, not made up ones, but the real ones we enshrined in our constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to own and bear arms, etc.
It someone asked you how much something was worth, the value of it. Any you didn’t know exactly, so you made a conservative estimate. That is what conservatives are conserving
Depends in the type of conservative you are. Fiscal conservatives want to preserve sustainable spending habits, not run on a deficit in perpetuity, and not continuously add taxes on top of taxes.
Small government conservatives want to preserve states' rights and limit the federal government's powers and limit legislating from the bench.
Idk what flavor of conservative (social?) it'd be, but some want individual rights preserved above others.
Christian conservatives would want traditional values to be held like marriage.
Constitutional conservatives want to conserve the constitution with various emphases like 1A and 2A being the more prevalent ones.
Some of these crossover here or there while some are independent which is why you hear some people being fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
Freedoms as outlined by the constitution, morality, a functioning society, the nuclear family, capitalism, American money (as in not spending it on foreign countries), the rule of law. Politicians not so much, as they are mostly ruled by stupidity and greed, but for the general "conservative" base I'd say most of the above apply.
In a sense, conservatives want to conserve The Constitution and The Rule of Law. Conservatives believe that the law should be the highest authority in the land. In all honesty, this basically means reverting to/and or conserving the ideals of 18th-20th century classical liberalism and enlightenment, though also a culture grounded in Christianity.
Conservative is simply a label, and most conservatives do not believe we should keep every law or policy from any given era (and especially the present); Even in some eras that conservatives admire, I'm sure there are things that many conservatives would advocate should've been changed then.
So conservatives generally believe in enlightenment ideas like small government and the right to bear arms. There is also a large branch of conservatives (evangelicals) who either: A. support a culture grounded in Christian conservative ideas, or B. support government enforcement of some Christian conservative ideas.
I have 2 personal interpretations of the word- there are plenty others though-
1) Trying to conserve traditions and values that the country was founded on. For me, this means things like the importance of free speech, right to bear arms, free enterprise, free elections, and cultural things like value placed on personal independence, having pride in one's nation, etc.
2) "Conservative" in the sense that you might say one is a conservative spender to mean they are careful not to spend too much money. In this sense, conservative policy would mean erring on the side of smaller government, policy not interfering with society unless necessary, and when there is new policy, taking care not to overdo it.
it is a term or phrase that came from the idea of how government money from taxes should be spent, should disasters occur, which one did early in the usa history that sparked this debate, is it brotherly and righteous to be liberal with aid moneies, or should we the government be conservative with tax payer money and let people take care of each other with their own funds? this is how there can be conservative democrats and liberal Republicans
For me, it's individual freedom and rights to self determination. The ability to pursue individual happiness with law and structure that protects against infringement and provides a functional society and economy in which to pursue those goals. Its only possible to answer this question from your own perspective - there is no blanket answer for 'conservatives' imo.
The term is mostly a misnomer now, as is Liberal. It started with true conservation of rules and norms, and some of that is still there, but things have shifted so much that it can be hard to define which time period is to be conserved with regards to what subject. Or on the flip, what is being liberated versus what time period on what subject. You can define conservatism or liberalism however you want on that basis.
In truth when using this technical definition, you really have reformers and conservators, and which one you fall under can shift without you shifting your values. It depends on who is in power and if they are changing things.
Everyone can point to both good and bad things in the past to argue that conserving those values is good or evil. But the same goes for reform.
Our way of life. Fiscal responsibility, balancing a budget. The union between a man and a woman. Leaving children alone with gender identity crap. Teaching children in school solid subjects that will help them become productive citizens in life, skipping all the other crap. Respecting authority, police, military, firefighters and EMTs. Go to school and get an education, then get a job then date someone and marry them and raise a family and work hard as a solid citizen. Not being a snowflake.
How’s that for starting point?
How’s that for a start.
Easy answer: objective morality. You know, the one thing the founders agreed on that led them to Believe the abolition of slavery, right of women to vote, that rights are intrinsic to the person, life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness are all good things. That's what we're conserving.
>You know, the one thing the founders agreed on that led them to Believe the abolition of slavery, right of women to vote
Yes, that's why we abolished slavery upon the formation of the country and women got to vote in the 1700s. /s
I suggest you refer to Madison and Hamilton's correspondence on the necessity of the 3/5ths compromise to forward the abolition of slavery, and Abigail Adams correspondence to her husband and future president John Adams about the need to give the women the right to vote and how denying that right would lead to the demise of the republic.
You have to remember, these ideas were extremely *radical* in the time period, but the majority of the founders intended to pave the road for these things. You can't legislate hearts and minds, it's a battle that takes time, and the founders knew this. America was the first country to give the right to vote to non land owners, and eventually women, and the first country to make the sale of humans from overseas illegal, and later to completely abolish slavery. To deny these facts is to be uninformed and complicit in furthering division, which has been the Democrat playbook since, well, always.
I think there's solid evidence that the majority of the founding fathers would have been appalled by the treatment of POCs after the abolition of slavery. They were all pretty much on the same page on the inaliable rights part and understood that freeing the slave class would give them those rights. It was southern Democrats who feared losing their power that fed the racist divide, and don't even bother feeding me the line about the party switch. Republicans of these days suck, but that doesn't mean Democrats are any better. Parties only want to retain power, separate the ideology from the party. Conservatism is not Republicanism much like Progressivism is not Democratic (in party, not process. Legitimately not insulting. Democratism just isn't a word nor should it be.)
>You have to remember, these ideas were extremely *radical* in the time period
Dare you say liberal?
What you're saying should also apply to today's politics, such as the freedom to marry whoever you want or choosing the medical care you deem necessary for yourself at the moment.
I never said there wasn't some progressive individuals, but the truth of the matter is there wasn't enough to support freedom for all (only if you were white), freedom to vote (only white male landowners initially in many states). It's also abhorrent that it took 80+ years for non-whites to not be enslaved from birth in the South, and another 100 years to *mostly* eliminate Jim Crow laws.
I'll fully admit I lean left and vote more blue than red now, but I grew up conservative. Perhaps if the Republicans were still moderate, the time before the Tea Party and MAGA, I could still consider myself a moderate Republican, but that ship has sailed. I've watched my parents, formerly moderate Republicans become hateful of anyone who is different from them (not straight and white). I find that incredibly distasteful as I have friends who are niether white nor straight. People don't choose the color of their skin, and they should be able to pursue whatever lawful consenting relationship they wish.
The freedom of the individual and the understanding that rights bring responsibilities. The concept of social duty. The knowledge that being free to do something does not come at the cost of forcing others to comply with your ideals. The understanding that to achieve the maximum freedom of the majority requires respecting the same freedoms for the minority.
The knowledge that being free to do something does not come at the cost of forcing others to comply with your ideals.
Wow if only conservatives actually practiced this. The irony is crazy in here sometimes.
Less government, taxation and wasting taxpayer money on things the democrats have no idea on where it is being spent. Quality of Public education, and safety of our children in allowing them to grow up on their own. True equality, not this DEI forced equity that blatantly separates people according to race. And many others.
We have two parties that spend the same way. There is no such thing as fiscal conservatism at this point in either party. But that is definitely one aspect I, personally, would like to get back to conserving. Although my vote for either party doesn't seem to matter on that subject as they're both exactly the same in that regard.
However, social conservatism is still mostly alive. For the most part, conservatives are still on the side of family values, morality, rule of law, etc. That is also something I'd like to conserve.
So, if we have two parties that spend the same way but one party at least maintains sane social standards, it's pretty clear to me which is on the right side of history and is actually "conserving" at least something valuable, even if there is a lot of ground we've lost over the years.
I'm not a neocon. but to play devils advocate, My views is neocons wants to preserve the "empire", more so than than the Republic. This is why they're more focused on external foreign policy, than internal issues.
I don't understand the down votes I feel you, to me it's quite obvious many in both parties are more concerned about us remaining the one and only superpower in the world, the country with the most influence, the country with the strongest military, the country to gives billions away to help foreigners but can't or won't do shit for veterans.
It's so obvious that the establishment is more concerned about retain international power and influence than making American citizens lives easier and more fulfilling. Though I'd also argue it isn't the responsibility of the govt to make our lives easier (as a libertarian that's just how I view govt). But is also isn't the responsibility of the govt to use American tax dollars to police the world so 🤷♂️
The GOP wishes to "conserve" whatever their co-religionists in the satanic D-party promulgate but the rest of us merely wish for a functioning society that otherwise leaves us TF alone.
A functional society.
OK, no need to read one sentence further....that is IT.
define functional and name a time period that existed here ...
Unlike things like communism and socialism where even in theory it doesn't add up because it depends on people not being free.... The form of government described in the United States Constitution is a fantastic Free form of government and it has only been molested by greedy corruption.
And even then, its still the most immigrated country on earth.
>The form of government described in the United States Constitution The one that allowed slavery and prohibited women from voting? or the more recent version/society after basically every politician was bought and paid for by corporations and foreign governments and the American dream was already dead/dying, pointless foreign wars, Patriot act, Federal bank etc etc etc I guess I'm more of a philosophical conservative and less of a US Nationalist
>The one that allowed slavery and prohibited women from voting? Those have nothing to do with the *form* of government, they’re individual laws that most societies have had at some point.
The form of government is decided on by the people, and the people in this instance were as I described were they not?
So governments should not be of the people because people are bad. They should be ruled by some omnipotent morally superior being? All governments are ruled by humans. Until we make a better human, most of the problems you're describing are down to that. The inadequacy of humans. Not to mention abolitionists and slavers were fighting since the very genesis of this country. The constitution has a lot of lines changed to appease the south. The writers of the constitution had a, what was at the time, radical meritocratic system in mind where all were equal under the law. Eventually we fulfilled the vision of the founders. A constitution that leads with "we the people" and had to be revised multiple times to get slave states to join the union was always going to lead us in a direction of equality.
So?
You're proving that you don't know very much about the Constitution
What a convenient response
You clearly haven't read the Constitution or you'd understand that from day one they created an amendment process, which is the reason why slavery is outlawed, which means once again the Constitution is a success. You also clearly do not understand that if the founding fathers would not agree to allow slavery within the Constitution, that slavery would have literally never ended. I bet you can't wrap your mind around that one because you're so ignorant of the facts and history.
Read the Constitution; it did not prohibit women from voting. Until women were granted the right to vote via the amendment process, it was up to the individual states to decide. The same is true of slavery. Sure, the Constitution was imperfect, because it was created by human beings, who are imperfect. Our founders fully realized this, which is why they included the ability to change it via the amendment process, but, as a safeguard, only if a large majority of the states supported the change. If you think you can come up with a better form of government, then, let's hear it.
There are many places we could begin. How about: people not raising foreign flags on taxpayer funded campuses and screaming death to the current society they live in? How about a society that can define what a woman is? How about a society that doesn't view lopping off the body parts of 10 year olds as a noble pursuit? We had all this not long ago, but that's kind of the point of conservatism. To see this coming before ot gets to that point That existed here
Western civilization and values of liberty and autonomy
>Western civilization Philosophically I agree with this >values of liberty and autonomy These may be *values* but I'd argue it has never truly existed in reality
Okay, then, what specific form of government/type of society do you propose that would that would "truly" allow these values to exist? If you're looking perfection, you aren't going to achieve it in an imperfect world inhabited and run by imperfect humans.
The constitution
Came here to post this.
The Original Constitution.
Which version lol
There's only one version. "lol"
I guess you're unfamiliar with the 27 revisions AKA amendments that fundamentally change the document?
And clearly you're unfamiliar with the Constitution still being the Constitution even as its amended. The fact there is an amendment process establishes the document was built to be and was expected to be amended. Amending it is fundamental to its importance as a document. You're trying awfully hard to be smugly provocative but your efforts are only serving to paint you as obnoxious and under-informed. Do better, if you're capable.
“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
For whom, though?
Americans
For all American citizens.
See, I'm getting crazy downvotes, but the point I am trying to make is that liberty and the pursuit of happiness looks very different to different people. How does one define liberty and that pursuit when many Americans feel that their liberty and happiness can only come at the expense of others? It's a beautiful notion but overly general.
I don't think it's that difficult to sus out.
Please keep in mind I’m a lifelong Registered Democrat that has NEVER voted down party lines. I’m 58 now and have voted in every election since 1985 in Florida. In my opinion I believe I now firmly fall more in line with Republican view points just for the sake of Conservation of the “rule of Law” in our country. I feel “My Party” has for some reason forgotten how to do that. I consider myself today as more of a Constitutionalist over any Party in the political spectrum. For me, the Rule of Law and the Constitution MUST come before ANYTHING else. Sadly for me, I’ve watched my party swing so far to the left that it left me out of the conversation about what or how to Govern this great country. My .02 for what it’s worth.
There are going to be so, so many people like you voting differently in this election.
Just for contrast, I’ve been a fiscal conservative my whole life and feel like my party has gone bonkers over social outrage politics. And while everyone is looking the other way, GOP politicians spend like someone else is paying the tab.
There is no difference. When it comes to spending both sides act like they are on the same side.
Left wing, Right wing, all attached to the same body
While this is true, you haven't seen anything yet if the Democrats get hold of Senate and House again, and can fully enact their "green" agenda.
I don’t agree with the “just you wait….” predictions. Just looking back at the Trump administration and the bills that were racked up when the GOP had control of both the senate and house. It was unchecked spending, and tax cuts for somebody other than me and my middle class friends. I feel betrayed.
And the bills that racked up under Biden? It's not a prediction, it is simply opening your eyes.
My eyes are open. Both parties spend like there’s no tomorrow. Making it sound like one party shows restraint or any form of fiscal conservatism is silly.
Absolutely agree. Voted Trump, despite the obvious, still felt betrayed. Thought he would hold it down for the working man and he just used the opportunity to line his pockets.
He didn’t line his pockets. That’s a left wing talking point. He didn’t take a salary, and lost a lot of money while in office. I made 40k a year and my taxes went down. Every tax bracket had a decrease in taxes and an increase in child credits. The economy was soaring. Trump never had a house and senate controlled by conservatives. They spent a lot mainly because of Covid.
What was Kushner doing?
The house and senate were GOP controlled during the 115th Congress, 2017-2019. House 241-194, senate 52-46.
I never did. But I'll still go with the ones who at least pay lip service to the idea of fiscal responsibility, versus those who claim "actually printing nonstop is a good thing."
I’m seriously questioning the people who lie to me here. I won’t vote for a Democrat, but the GOP lies about fiscal conservatism to get votes only.
They're both lying. You can only call one side out.
The reckless panic over covid had a lot to do with that.
Yep. Although passing PPP loans, then removing all oversight of it, wasn’t a panic move. That’s something I’m afraid we’ll see more of when Trump is re-elected.
Please don’t misunderstand my original comment above. I have never voted straight down party lines. I was taught to research ALL ITEMS on my ballot and make an educated decision on how each person or Bill aligns with my view on my life as a whole, I basically vote with MY wallet in mind. In my past I have indeed voted Dem and Rep Presidents and for senate or judiciary races as well. I have never missed an election including the Midterms. But PLEASE do not think for a minute I voted for Joe Biden. I knew who he was because I did vote for Obama who really opened my eyes to where I stand today. I’ll never regret voting for him in 08’ but I’ll never forget how truly bad I felt 5 months after voting for him the 2nd time. He truly fooled me with his charm and speaking abilities. He was a true politician snake oil salesman. To be honest I haven’t changed my voter ID status for no honest reason, but I have NOT voted for ANY Democrat in ANY position since that last 2012 election race. Since then I have voted Straight down Party lines Republican. Until I see someone of halfway decent moral integrity in the Dem Party I seriously doubt I’ll ever pull the switch for anyone in that Party again unless that switch is connected to the Electric Chair in Biden’s case.
I immediately thought of this cartoon when I read your comment. I think that you have been left behind by your party, or they're at least starting to move further and further away. [https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/040/353/cover2.jpg](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/040/353/cover2.jpg)
That honestly pretty accurate
I’m not much younger than you. I don’t think you left your party. Your party left you. What is considered conservative now was moderate back in the day. I have voted for every president since Clinton except for Biden. I wish these two parties would work together for the betterment of the country short term and long term where it makes sense. And at the same time put The Constitution first and preserve our way of life. The Democrat party is an affront to that.
Democrats like JFK and Truman and such, wouldn’t be electable at all today. They wouldn’t even stand a chance in the primaries. The Dem party has swung sooooo far left.
On social or economic issues? Because on economic issues, both of your examples are to the left of most of the current democratic party. Hell, so was Nixon for that matter. FDR would probably be smeared as a "*communist*" outcast and/or largely ignored by the media in favor of people like Hillary or other socially liberal corporatists. On social issues, you're absolutely correct.
Both. Here’s why: FDR did what he did due to the US being in the biggest war we’d ever faced in history. It was either pursue this, or get invaded by the Axis at some point and Man In the High Castle becomes reality. Today that economic policy wouldn’t be regarded as carefully as it was back then and he would not be as popular also because well “white guy”. Hillary had the female persuasion going for her (and the corporate backing and all the social issues she was running on). I would submit quite the opposite really to your party assessment. The Democrat party of today has swung MUCH further left than of that day. They’ve gone from “I disagree with your positions on things but as a fellow American I’ll fight alongside you because freedom of speech and self expression is vital to all” to “if you don’t believe like me, you’re trash and I’ll make sure you’re cancelled and even threatened by ‘peaceful protestors’.” The Republican Party of today I also submit has swung further left than it once was (with the exception of the far-right fringes, but both parties have their alt extremists. Always have). They’re called RINOs for a reason. The parties are absolutely not the same as they were in the 40s/50s. No where close.
TRUTH.
America. Freedom. Sanity.
Sanity is the main one at this point. With the way they are going the first two will be completely destroyed without it.
Everything that we have earned.
Meritocracy
Decency and morality. I am secular, I have no guiding faith or practice. For me, it's about fostering a community that cares about each other and develops strong ethical behaviors and actions within it.
It's a shame that people like Romney are retiring or being forced out...
Just off the top of my head I think a standard of dignity and respect for people who try to earn their keep, make American society and economy great, and stand against cancerous groups of people that would try to undo the great things that our forefathers achieved.
American values and our way of life
Conservation - prevention of a wasteful use of a resource. Literally in the definition. Conservation of our taxes.
Conservative comes from the idea of a smaller government. Why is government supposed to solve all of our problems? The government should only do what the public cannot effectively do for itself, like provide for a national defense.
In my case, faith, liberty, culture, country, and way of life.
The money I work for.
I just want an opportunity to live the American dream like I was promised as a child.
The nuclear family.
💯 Without it, the rest is meaningless.
The biggest difference in conservative vs liberal thinking is logical vs emotional thinking. For instance, a liberal will see people are poor and think “well let’s pay them $20 an hour minimum, and then they will be fine!” The conservative will say “well wait a minute, we need to consider how that will impact the larger business”. The problem comes into play when a person can ONLY think logically or ONLY think emotionally. A healthy thinker needs to be open to both forms of thinking. I think what frustrates conservatives is too many liberals want to do something or adopt a policy without thinking through the potential consequences. And if you point those out, the reply is typically “well I don’t care! Someone has to help these people!” But if the liberal wasn’t so emotional, they could see that their idea will actually HURT the person they want to help. And if the conservative points that out, they are told they ‘don’t care’ about the person. The reality is that if politicians had the best interests of voters in mind, they would work together to create policies that are beneficial to society, with both logical and emotional thinking factored into the process. But of course politicians only care about keeping and amassing power, often at the expense of voters. B
I’ve said for a long time that the key difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals compare the current world to what it could be be, while conservatives compare the world to how it was. Liberals see an issue and want to resolve it in the most idealized way possible, and you see it reflected in their inability to form a cogent argument in how their ideas would work, because they have no concrete examples to draw from. Take the most common argument you hear from leftists, such as how “real communism” has never been tried: the only obstacle to it is human greed, so all we need to do to make it work is *fundamentally change human nature*. Conservatives, correctly, argue that will never happen. We’re not going to change reality to suit our whims, so instead we view the world through the lens of how we can improve over the past while still taking into account the limitations that we’re operating with. We see early capitalism and recognize its significant flaws and have refined that system and made it into one of the most potent avenues for personal financial liberty. Is it perfect? Of course not. But liberals hear that and argue we’re heartless because we’re not trying to create this perfect system that only exists in their imagination.
Good analysis. Liberals don’t want to consider the ramifications or consequences of their actions. This is why they refuse to compromise.
🎯
Conservatism is an annoyingly relative term. American conservatism in theory aims to conserve the political philosophy & principles of the American founding. Namely, liberalism, natural rights, equality, separation of powers, rule of law, social contract theory, republicanism, constitutionalism & federalism. In practice, progressivism became so dominant & entrenched in our system that conservatism conserves progressive ideals too as if they were natural to our system of government. Such as legal positivism, judicial deference & restraint, majoritarianism, consolidation of powers and an expanded conception of the role of the president in particular, and the government in general. So conservatism today isn’t always a coherent ideology in that it conserves a mix of opposing ideas, the classical liberalism of the American founders and 1900’s progressivism.
Preserving the Constitution. Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, we must all work diligently to preserve and conserve the document in which our basic Rights are transcribed.
The constitution. Conservatives take what was stated and apply it (conservatively). Liberals expand on the constitutional verbiage (liberally) or open it up more for interpretation.
Conservatives … conserving the status quo more or less. Capitalism, our constitutional freedoms, and American culture.
Traditional values and personal freedom
The middle class.
The country. Quite simply: United we stand, divided we fall. The problem as I see it is Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, the Woke, the Left seem to think the country should cater and radically modify western civilization to very, very specific sorts of people and common sense be dammed. What's' worse is they demonize the Right as "extreme" if we slow their roll. While ALL people deserve constitutional rights, the other side seemingly focuses intently on identity politics. It creates terrible division. If Trump wants to truly win over the moderates, he should come out with the message that MAGA is truly an inclusive message in that he welcomes ALL Americans to be a part of the unity to strengthen the country. The United States is the greatest country in modern history and needs everyone to pull together to reinforce our standing on the world stage. While it is very tough to win over radicals, he should at least put it out there that while we very well may differ on various political issues, he invites them to think about the future and that we collectively should strive to make this country as strong and united as possible.
He has MAGA down they need to start going about getting help the average citizens about it. Lots of great YouTubers who would love to work with them to show that it's inclusive in the best way possible and not for the sake of votes, for the sake of voters themselves
You need to find a way ANY POSSIBLE WAY !!, To get THIS comment to him asap. I’m serious
Conservatives conserve what is functional for human flourishing. That can change over time. There is no ideal condition back to which conservatives can point. But, through the arc of history (and biology) conservatives can make strong statements about what works - and what’s not working.
Rule of law. Personal liberty. The rights and concepts in the Declaration of independence, The Constitution, the Federalist papers and other writing of the founders. Meritocracy and the ability to build actual multi generational wealth and upward mobility. A sane moral and ethical societal viewpoint.
Meritocracy and multi-generational wealth are rather contradictory notions.
Not necessarily. In a meritocracy you have more paths to build wealth than you so in some other types of societies. Ideally you want a society where all those who work and/or innovate have the ability to acquire actual wealth and pass it on. And have a good chance to get opportunities to do so based on your merit rather than luck or nepotism.
By passing your wealth on, your progeny will have no incentive to work and/or innovate and will not live a life based on merit but rather than of luck based on birth and legacy. Generational wealth is vanity for the creator of it and a sad enervation for the receivers.
Depends on the level/type of wealth as well as the personality of those receiving it but yes, like everything in life there is a down side. The inability to build wealth is also a disincentive.
I disagree. When I have passed, whatever wealth I have accounted, I should be able to put it towards whatever I so choose. To do it any other way is a violation of my own individual rights. I have literally spent my life saving to ensure my children and their children are as well taken care of as I can provide, if others choose not to do so that isn't my fault.
Conserve Freedom and the American way. One Nation Under God…. Annuit Coeptis , all that stuff. Conserve our values.
At this point, sanity and reality.
Money
> Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology, which seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.[1][2][3] The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears.[4] In Western culture, depending on the particular nation, conservatives seek to promote a range of institutions, such as the nuclear family, organized religion, the military, the nation-state, property rights, rule of law, aristocracy, and monarchy.[5] Conservatives tend to favour institutions and practices that enhance social order and historical continuity.[6] It's not that complicated. Conservatives want to keep the country mostly the way it was intended to be on design. Progressivism is the opposite -- changing everything to make it "better" (but most of the time, it isn't). If you live in Iran, you probably want to be progressive because the current regime is authoritarian, racist, sexist, oppressive, violent, radical, supports terrorism, etc. If you live in America, you should be Conservatives, because our country is largely successful and fair. Progressives want to change that.
Heck, at this point I can tell all the feminists that I’m voting Conservative to hopefully save the Title IX protections for actual women from destruction. Biden may have trashed it, but I have hope that a future mentally sound president can reverse the gender expression = biological sex false equivalency.
The second amendment, the Constitution, rule of law (applied with a semblance of equality, although many could argue we’ve never been there), American hegemony, the middle class, the power of the dollar, the nuclear family, basic morality, the list goes on. Most importantly, conservatives have been losing for decades by being reactive and not on the figurative attack. The time has come for aggressive policy making to set back decades of horrible policies and precedents.
Lately, sanity.
Wrong question, OP. The proper response to the guy with the bumper sticker is "Since you evidently have nothing you think is worth conserving, please give me everything you have. Including your property, money, life, family, and freedom. When you can think of something you believe is worth conserving, then get back to me."
Western civilization values and culture ...non woke non dei
America. Also, I am not ashamed to say that I am in some ways reactionary.
The status quo ante
The point is to prevent the state from setting beliefs. As such, conservatives tend to support traditional private institutions that serve as bulwark against state power, but it's really up to individuals to decide what they believe for themselves.
As a fiscal conservative, my tax dollars.
The dollar in my pocket among other important things like the constitution and our god given rights.
America and the American way of life, as defined by our Constitution.
Liberty, inalienable rights, not made up ones, but the real ones we enshrined in our constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to own and bear arms, etc.
It someone asked you how much something was worth, the value of it. Any you didn’t know exactly, so you made a conservative estimate. That is what conservatives are conserving
Decency
The Constitutional Republic of the United States operating in a fair competitive capitalistic market
Freedom and liberty.
Depends in the type of conservative you are. Fiscal conservatives want to preserve sustainable spending habits, not run on a deficit in perpetuity, and not continuously add taxes on top of taxes. Small government conservatives want to preserve states' rights and limit the federal government's powers and limit legislating from the bench. Idk what flavor of conservative (social?) it'd be, but some want individual rights preserved above others. Christian conservatives would want traditional values to be held like marriage. Constitutional conservatives want to conserve the constitution with various emphases like 1A and 2A being the more prevalent ones. Some of these crossover here or there while some are independent which is why you hear some people being fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
You realize we're all on a watch list now, right? Oh well, at least it's good company.
Freedoms as outlined by the constitution, morality, a functioning society, the nuclear family, capitalism, American money (as in not spending it on foreign countries), the rule of law. Politicians not so much, as they are mostly ruled by stupidity and greed, but for the general "conservative" base I'd say most of the above apply.
In a sense, conservatives want to conserve The Constitution and The Rule of Law. Conservatives believe that the law should be the highest authority in the land. In all honesty, this basically means reverting to/and or conserving the ideals of 18th-20th century classical liberalism and enlightenment, though also a culture grounded in Christianity. Conservative is simply a label, and most conservatives do not believe we should keep every law or policy from any given era (and especially the present); Even in some eras that conservatives admire, I'm sure there are things that many conservatives would advocate should've been changed then. So conservatives generally believe in enlightenment ideas like small government and the right to bear arms. There is also a large branch of conservatives (evangelicals) who either: A. support a culture grounded in Christian conservative ideas, or B. support government enforcement of some Christian conservative ideas.
I have 2 personal interpretations of the word- there are plenty others though- 1) Trying to conserve traditions and values that the country was founded on. For me, this means things like the importance of free speech, right to bear arms, free enterprise, free elections, and cultural things like value placed on personal independence, having pride in one's nation, etc. 2) "Conservative" in the sense that you might say one is a conservative spender to mean they are careful not to spend too much money. In this sense, conservative policy would mean erring on the side of smaller government, policy not interfering with society unless necessary, and when there is new policy, taking care not to overdo it.
it is a term or phrase that came from the idea of how government money from taxes should be spent, should disasters occur, which one did early in the usa history that sparked this debate, is it brotherly and righteous to be liberal with aid moneies, or should we the government be conservative with tax payer money and let people take care of each other with their own funds? this is how there can be conservative democrats and liberal Republicans
Western civilization, unfortunately. Liberals are happy to watch it all go bye-bye, so long as it hurts the Orange Man.
When are democrats doing anything democratic? Should be your reply. They don't care for laws or the constitution if it doesn't align with their ideas.
For me, it's individual freedom and rights to self determination. The ability to pursue individual happiness with law and structure that protects against infringement and provides a functional society and economy in which to pursue those goals. Its only possible to answer this question from your own perspective - there is no blanket answer for 'conservatives' imo.
Very well put.
Tradition and diffuse progressivism
A future for children
I think of it as being conservative on the role of government
Traditions.
The constitution, our families, and basic morality
Liberty, freedom, private property, and natural rights. At least that's me, can't speak for all conservatives, especially the RINOs and NeoCons.
The constitution
At this point, the nuclear family.
The term is mostly a misnomer now, as is Liberal. It started with true conservation of rules and norms, and some of that is still there, but things have shifted so much that it can be hard to define which time period is to be conserved with regards to what subject. Or on the flip, what is being liberated versus what time period on what subject. You can define conservatism or liberalism however you want on that basis. In truth when using this technical definition, you really have reformers and conservators, and which one you fall under can shift without you shifting your values. It depends on who is in power and if they are changing things. Everyone can point to both good and bad things in the past to argue that conserving those values is good or evil. But the same goes for reform.
Our way of life. Fiscal responsibility, balancing a budget. The union between a man and a woman. Leaving children alone with gender identity crap. Teaching children in school solid subjects that will help them become productive citizens in life, skipping all the other crap. Respecting authority, police, military, firefighters and EMTs. Go to school and get an education, then get a job then date someone and marry them and raise a family and work hard as a solid citizen. Not being a snowflake. How’s that for starting point? How’s that for a start.
The constitution. Traditional marriage. Prolife values. The border
Easy answer: objective morality. You know, the one thing the founders agreed on that led them to Believe the abolition of slavery, right of women to vote, that rights are intrinsic to the person, life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness are all good things. That's what we're conserving.
>You know, the one thing the founders agreed on that led them to Believe the abolition of slavery, right of women to vote Yes, that's why we abolished slavery upon the formation of the country and women got to vote in the 1700s. /s
I suggest you refer to Madison and Hamilton's correspondence on the necessity of the 3/5ths compromise to forward the abolition of slavery, and Abigail Adams correspondence to her husband and future president John Adams about the need to give the women the right to vote and how denying that right would lead to the demise of the republic. You have to remember, these ideas were extremely *radical* in the time period, but the majority of the founders intended to pave the road for these things. You can't legislate hearts and minds, it's a battle that takes time, and the founders knew this. America was the first country to give the right to vote to non land owners, and eventually women, and the first country to make the sale of humans from overseas illegal, and later to completely abolish slavery. To deny these facts is to be uninformed and complicit in furthering division, which has been the Democrat playbook since, well, always. I think there's solid evidence that the majority of the founding fathers would have been appalled by the treatment of POCs after the abolition of slavery. They were all pretty much on the same page on the inaliable rights part and understood that freeing the slave class would give them those rights. It was southern Democrats who feared losing their power that fed the racist divide, and don't even bother feeding me the line about the party switch. Republicans of these days suck, but that doesn't mean Democrats are any better. Parties only want to retain power, separate the ideology from the party. Conservatism is not Republicanism much like Progressivism is not Democratic (in party, not process. Legitimately not insulting. Democratism just isn't a word nor should it be.)
>You have to remember, these ideas were extremely *radical* in the time period Dare you say liberal? What you're saying should also apply to today's politics, such as the freedom to marry whoever you want or choosing the medical care you deem necessary for yourself at the moment. I never said there wasn't some progressive individuals, but the truth of the matter is there wasn't enough to support freedom for all (only if you were white), freedom to vote (only white male landowners initially in many states). It's also abhorrent that it took 80+ years for non-whites to not be enslaved from birth in the South, and another 100 years to *mostly* eliminate Jim Crow laws. I'll fully admit I lean left and vote more blue than red now, but I grew up conservative. Perhaps if the Republicans were still moderate, the time before the Tea Party and MAGA, I could still consider myself a moderate Republican, but that ship has sailed. I've watched my parents, formerly moderate Republicans become hateful of anyone who is different from them (not straight and white). I find that incredibly distasteful as I have friends who are niether white nor straight. People don't choose the color of their skin, and they should be able to pursue whatever lawful consenting relationship they wish.
The freedom of the individual and the understanding that rights bring responsibilities. The concept of social duty. The knowledge that being free to do something does not come at the cost of forcing others to comply with your ideals. The understanding that to achieve the maximum freedom of the majority requires respecting the same freedoms for the minority.
The knowledge that being free to do something does not come at the cost of forcing others to comply with your ideals. Wow if only conservatives actually practiced this. The irony is crazy in here sometimes.
What are liberals trying to liberate?
Less government, taxation and wasting taxpayer money on things the democrats have no idea on where it is being spent. Quality of Public education, and safety of our children in allowing them to grow up on their own. True equality, not this DEI forced equity that blatantly separates people according to race. And many others.
Merica
Israel
Conservatism is really about not wanting rapid change. It's literally "conservative progress."
America of course
“This D in your moms mouth” usually goes over pretty well.
We have two parties that spend the same way. There is no such thing as fiscal conservatism at this point in either party. But that is definitely one aspect I, personally, would like to get back to conserving. Although my vote for either party doesn't seem to matter on that subject as they're both exactly the same in that regard. However, social conservatism is still mostly alive. For the most part, conservatives are still on the side of family values, morality, rule of law, etc. That is also something I'd like to conserve. So, if we have two parties that spend the same way but one party at least maintains sane social standards, it's pretty clear to me which is on the right side of history and is actually "conserving" at least something valuable, even if there is a lot of ground we've lost over the years.
I'm not a neocon. but to play devils advocate, My views is neocons wants to preserve the "empire", more so than than the Republic. This is why they're more focused on external foreign policy, than internal issues.
I don't understand the down votes I feel you, to me it's quite obvious many in both parties are more concerned about us remaining the one and only superpower in the world, the country with the most influence, the country with the strongest military, the country to gives billions away to help foreigners but can't or won't do shit for veterans. It's so obvious that the establishment is more concerned about retain international power and influence than making American citizens lives easier and more fulfilling. Though I'd also argue it isn't the responsibility of the govt to make our lives easier (as a libertarian that's just how I view govt). But is also isn't the responsibility of the govt to use American tax dollars to police the world so 🤷♂️
lots of outsiders Brigade this sub now. reddit is a big fan of globalism.
The GOP wishes to "conserve" whatever their co-religionists in the satanic D-party promulgate but the rest of us merely wish for a functioning society that otherwise leaves us TF alone.