Three Pillars of Leftdom

[Valmy]

I have to admit I am not very knowledgeable about the political affiliations of the Walton family.

[Barrister]

No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives.  They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.

Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.

Yep. Conservatives, by their very definition are the group of people whose views are destined to lose to progress. ALL human progress has happened against the wishes of the conservatives of their times.

That's only true if you view progress as a straight line, always improving.  Again, history has shown that a great deal of what we thought was "progress" was a terrible mistake.  Communism.  Prohibition.

Change can just as easily be for the worse as for the better.  It's why you see purportedly "progressive" countries like Venezuela to be basket cases.

So as a Conservative, sure, sometimes you'll be opposed to change that, in retrospect, were positives.  But just as often, if not more often, you'll be opposed to changes and glad that you were.

[Tamas]

No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives.  They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.

Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.

Yep. Conservatives, by their very definition are the group of people whose views are destined to lose to progress. ALL human progress has happened against the wishes of the conservatives of their times.

That's only true if you view progress as a straight line, always improving.  Again, history has shown that a great deal of what we thought was "progress" was a terrible mistake.  Communism.  Prohibition.

Change can just as easily be for the worse as for the better.  It's why you see purportedly "progressive" countries like Venezuela to be basket cases.

So as a Conservative, sure, sometimes you'll be opposed to change that, in retrospect, were positives.  But just as often, if not more often, you'll be opposed to changes and glad that you were.

Communism is a valid example, I give you that, although I would mention that if it has not had its chance at running half the world, it would still be fought for as a viable society. Rest of the examples simply not valid.

And basically, all political progress which has ended up being accepted by society has been toward more personal liberty OR (the illusion) of higher social safety. All of these have been throughout history has been opposed by conservatives. EVERYTHING and I do mean absolutely everything you as a conservative hold dear and worth defending was once considered a liberal/evil monstrous concept by conservatives.

[CountDeMoney]

BB's all tough talk in court, would like to see how he does on defense before the revolutionary tribunal.

[Razgovory]

Sure, because the Dems get to re-write their history and are forgiven for all their racism and discrimination.

Question:  When Democrats swung in favor of civil rights in the 1940's why did those who oppose civil rights go to the GOP?  Why did the GOP accept them?

[CountDeMoney]

Question:  why are you arguing with Siege?

[Malthus]

No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives.  They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.

Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.

Yep. Conservatives, by their very definition are the group of people whose views are destined to lose to progress. ALL human progress has happened against the wishes of the conservatives of their times.

That's only true if you view progress as a straight line, always improving.  Again, history has shown that a great deal of what we thought was "progress" was a terrible mistake.  Communism.  Prohibition.

Change can just as easily be for the worse as for the better.  It's why you see purportedly "progressive" countries like Venezuela to be basket cases.

So as a Conservative, sure, sometimes you'll be opposed to change that, in retrospect, were positives.  But just as often, if not more often, you'll be opposed to changes and glad that you were.

Communism is a valid example, I give you that, although I would mention that if it has not had its chance at running half the world, it would still be fought for as a viable society. Rest of the examples simply not valid.

And basically, all political progress which has ended up being accepted by society has been toward more personal liberty OR (the illusion) of higher social safety. All of these have been throughout history has been opposed by conservatives. EVERYTHING and I do mean absolutely everything you as a conservative hold dear and worth defending was once considered a liberal/evil monstrous concept by conservatives.

BB's point is that all political "progress" that has been rejected or shown to be monserous in practice has been opposed by conservatives, too.

One example of an issue embraced by progressives and opposed by conservatives, and later largely discredited and discarded nowadays - the Eugenics movement.

[CountDeMoney]

But I loved the Eugenics. . DONT MESS WITH A MISSIONARY MAN

[Martinus]

That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

This is the classic case of lying by omission.  Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for.  If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans.  I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.

Sure, because the Dems get to re-write their history and are forgiven for all their racism and discrimination.

And let's not forget the "leftist" Swedes and their blot and human sacrifices...

[Martinus]

No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives.  They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.

Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.

Yep. Conservatives, by their very definition are the group of people whose views are destined to lose to progress. ALL human progress has happened against the wishes of the conservatives of their times.

That's only true if you view progress as a straight line, always improving.  Again, history has shown that a great deal of what we thought was "progress" was a terrible mistake.  Communism.  Prohibition.

Change can just as easily be for the worse as for the better.  It's why you see purportedly "progressive" countries like Venezuela to be basket cases.

So as a Conservative, sure, sometimes you'll be opposed to change that, in retrospect, were positives.  But just as often, if not more often, you'll be opposed to changes and glad that you were.

Communism is a valid example, I give you that, although I would mention that if it has not had its chance at running half the world, it would still be fought for as a viable society. Rest of the examples simply not valid.

And basically, all political progress which has ended up being accepted by society has been toward more personal liberty OR (the illusion) of higher social safety. All of these have been throughout history has been opposed by conservatives. EVERYTHING and I do mean absolutely everything you as a conservative hold dear and worth defending was once considered a liberal/evil monstrous concept by conservatives.

BB's point is that all political "progress" that has been rejected or shown to be monserous in practice has been opposed by conservatives, too.

One example of an issue embraced by progressives and opposed by conservatives, and later largely discredited and discarded nowadays - the Eugenics movement.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Sheilbh]

That's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.

They are a dying breed, I give you that much.

No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives.  They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.

I remember British lefty writer Hopi Sen writing about what he thought were the best traits of his sort-of platonic ideal conservatism and they basically boiled down to a sense of perspective which led to other virtues like a sense of humour and so on.

Basically MacMillan forever. Which is something I wouldn't be entirely averse to

That's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.

Classical liberalism was, classically, the (very) pious prattling of the middle class. You look into any temperance movement, or group that set about 'improving' the working class and you found classical liberals. They had the same lack of empathy (which classical conservatism has) which made them grating then and grating now.

Which of course isn't to say it doesn't have its virtues, but it's a bit like the King Over the Water. The lower it's declined in actual electoral popularity, the greater it's panaceac potential.

Edit: Incidentally I think the whole PC thing is part of the liberal inheritance of western leftiness. It's that same moral fervour to reform people and save them, not from the demon drink, but rancid racism.

[Sheilbh]

How far back to go till we find that everything is "Pretty damn good"?

But that's reactionary views which is different. Conservatives, at their best, have a sense of perspective. Things aren't that bad. The likelihood of them making a radical change is slim. The likelihood of a radical change being for the best is almost nil.

Therefore the goal's to bend with the wind and manage change in an organic way while maintaining that sense of lightness. Long after we're gone there'll still be English shires or prairie fields. The best we should hope for or want from our leaders is that they're a wise steward of the nation passing it on in not too much worse condition than they found it.

[grumbler]

Classical liberalism was, classically, the (very) pious prattling of the middle class. You look into any temperance movement, or group that set about 'improving' the working class and you found classical liberals. They had the same lack of empathy (which classical conservatism has) which made them grating then and grating now.

Yes, the problem with classic liberals is that they way over-estimated the ability of the common man to recognize and work towards his own interests.  It was, as you note, the philosophy of the middle-class "self-made man" and presumed that anyone who didn't make himself was just lazy.

[Sheilbh]

One example of an issue embraced by progressives and opposed by conservatives, and later largely discredited and discarded nowadays - the Eugenics movement.

Yep. And he's from Canada, so I imagine has something of the British conservative tradition which isn't legitimist or reactionary. It isn't entirely opposed to change.

It was conservatives who passed Catholic Emancipation (and Jewish Emancipation), the proportionally largest increase in suffrage, the first universal education law and have always had strands like Villa Conservatism or One Nation Toryism.

I think that's different from an often more rigid conservative heritage in much of Europe - especially Catholic countries.

[Duque de Bragança]

That's only true if you view progress as a straight line, always improving.  Again, history has shown that a great deal of what we thought was "progress" was a terrible mistake.  Communism.  Prohibition.

So as a Conservative, sure, sometimes you'll be opposed to change that, in retrospect, were positives.  But just as often, if not more often, you'll be opposed to changes and glad that you were.

Prohibition seen as progress by whom?
Well, perhaps for islamo-like protestants in (North?) America and specially organised crime but I don't think the latter is the "we" you mentioned. Do you mean Canada and other US neighbors (Saint Pierre et Miquelon) which made a lot of money from it?