Revamped is the key point. Progressive version of something old. (I'm not a fan of Obama's medical plan. Medicare for all is practical.) The rule only holds if the idea is enacted and in place. for a while.Examples?
A counter-point is Obamacare, which was a revamped and patched-up version of The Heritage Foundation's counter-Clinton plan in the early-mid nineties.
This is obviously true, and a key reason why conservatives always lose in the long run.The reactionary ideas of today are conservative ideas from the past.
Sounds intuitive. What do you think?
This is obviously true, and a key reason why conservatives always lose in the long run.
That's pretty damn vague and could be used as a defense of any culture.In the sense that nothing ever stays the same, yes. There is a need for balance though. You need strong roots that anchors people and instill order and unifies people. You also need to be able to change where change is needed and compassion when order is too harsh.
You can't be unbending but you can't have no roots to weather the storm.
Examples?
A counter-point is Obamacare, which was a revamped and patched-up version of The Heritage Foundation's counter-Clinton plan in the early-mid nineties.
Absolutely.The reactionary ideas of today are conservative ideas from the past.
Sounds intuitive. What do you think?
Mitt Romney (R) implemented "Romney care" in MA.I thought that the ACA was originally a Republican plan, there are like a million articles on the web about it.
Mitt Romney (R) implemented "Romney care" in MA.
That's pretty damn vague and could be used as a defense of any culture.
I think liberal ideas today become conservative principles tomorrow. Liberals have won all of the rights and freedoms that conservatives value so highly all through history and they had to overcome conservative resistance all down the line. Something as simple as universal suffrage had to be won over conservative resistance.The reactionary ideas of today are conservative ideas from the past.
Sounds intuitive. What do you think?
Nope.The reactionary ideas of today are conservative ideas from the past.
Sounds intuitive. What do you think?
In the sense that nothing ever stays the same, yes. There is a need for balance though. You need strong roots that anchors people and instill order and unifies people. You also need to be able to change where change is needed and compassion when order is too harsh.
You can't be unbending but you can't have no roots to weather the storm.
You've expressed two contradictory principles. Any possible position can (and will) be justified by the selective combination of opposite ideas.It's not a defense of any one particular thing. It's a principle.
You've expressed two contradictory principles. Any possible position can (and will) be justified by the selective combination of opposite ideas.
This is the problem with mainstream conservatives. You accept the left's moral framework, but try to resist its natural outcomes. You can't actively rollback anything the left does, because that would be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, etc.
Of course. Every time conservatives and liberals fought in the past, the liberals were obviously right as a matter of moral principle. But five minutes ago they went insane, so conservatives are now (for the first time ever) justified is resisting them.Here's the problem with your position, sometimes there actually is a reason to change. Despite the overuse of the term by many on the left, some things can be racist. After all, we ended slavery, gave votes to minorities and women, gave actual equal rights to both, ended Jim Crow laws, ect.
This is a liberal caricature. No one opposes change "for the sake of opposing change". Past generations of conservatives opposed progressive changes for principled reasons. From time to time, they even changed things in the opposite direction (which is more than can be said for their descendants today). You don't understand that, because your principles are the same as those of the left, tempered only by inchoate common sense.This is what I'm talking about. Being obstinate and stubborn for the sake of it is too much of one thing when there needs to be a balance.
Many things would be nice in theory. The question you should ask yourself is, is the equilibrium you're proposing stable or unstable? Is it an equilibrium at all, or are you just slowing the other side down a little? Keep in mind that even establishing a "slight conservative majority" in the permanent government would require the Hill to be controlled by people far more right-wing than anyone there at present.My ideal society isn't to have total conservative dominance. I'd like a slight conservative majority (because that is where I lean) but not one that is overpowering. That only leads to unchallenged thoughts and extremism.
Of course. Every time conservatives and liberals fought in the past, the liberals were obviously right as a matter of moral principle. But five minutes ago they went insane, so conservatives are now (for the first time ever) justified is resisting them.
This is a liberal caricature. No one opposes change "for the sake of opposing change". Past generations of conservatives opposed progressive changes for principled reasons. From time to time, they even changed things in the opposite direction (which is more than can be said for their descendants today). You don't understand that, because your principles are the same as those of the left, tempered only by inchoate common sense.
Many things would be nice in theory. The question you should ask yourself is, is the equilibrium you're proposing stable or unstable? Is it an equilibrium at all, or are you just slowing the other side down a little? Keep in mind that even establishing a "slight conservative majority" in the permanent government would require the Hill to be controlled by people far more right-wing than anyone there at present.
I don't oppose progressives "for the sake of opposing progressives". I oppose them because their principles are wrong. Take the example of universal suffrage. Presumably you recognize the push to expand voting rights to teenagers, felons, foreigners, residents of DC and Puerto Rico, and so forth as a naked power grab by the left. Yet you agree with the left that all of their previous expansions of suffrage were not merely good but morally necessary. You adhere to the same principles as the left regarding the right to vote, but are restrained by unprincipled common sense. Which is why you will ultimately fail to stop them.I never said liberals were always right. I just gave some examples where change is needed and was proper to do so.
I wasn't talking about anyone else. I was talking about you. Your attitude presented as opposing a group for the sake of opposing a group. That's a fools game.
Nothing is perfectly stable, but many things are metastable. There have been plenty of political orders throughout history in which change was measured in centuries. Your "ideal society" would fall apart instantly. Which is a shame given that it'd take a full right-wing takeover merely to establish it.Nothing is perfectly stable. That's why I said it was my ideal society, because sometimes ideals can only exist in thought but never in the real world. There will always be change, no matter what. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If you lose it doesn't mean you were wrong to make that stand. I would not support the actual establishment of a permanent conservative majority in real life execution because that would create an imbalance in itself and would require the tools of oppression to maintain.
I don't oppose progressives "for the sake of opposing progressives". I oppose them because their principles are wrong. Take the example of universal suffrage. Presumably you recognize the push to expand voting rights to teenagers, felons, foreigners, residents of DC and Puerto Rico, and so forth as a naked power grab by the left. Yet you agree with the left that all of their previous expansions of suffrage were not merely good but morally necessary. You adhere to the same principles as the left regarding the right to vote, but are restrained by unprincipled common sense. Which is why you will ultimately fail to stop them.
Nothing is perfectly stable, but many things are metastable. There have been plenty of political orders throughout history in which change was measured in centuries. Your "ideal society" would fall apart instantly. Which is a shame given that it'd take a full right-wing takeover merely to establish it.
I thought that the ACA was originally a Republican plan, there are like a million articles on the web about it.
You wrote that you don't oppose progressives (I actually said liberals) for the sake opposing progressives in those specific words but then you go on to basically just present like that. This is demonstrated by you seeming to take issue with the examples I provided about past changes that needed to happen. Which one of the example that I provided of past changes do you object to?
- Women's suffrage?
- Minority suffrage?
- Ending Slavery?
- Ending Jim Crow laws?
Which one of those would you like to take away?
And you keep acting like agreeing with one thing means I have to agree with all the things. I even specifically address this false dichotomy when I wrote that I never stated liberals were always right. It may come as a shock to you but you can agree with one thing and still have discernment about other things.
For example, I object to lowering the voting age. If anything, if we are going to change the voting age, it should be increased, not decreased. I also object to DC gaining statehood or w/e. DC is supposed to be set apart onto it's own.
Any system can be classified as oppressive by declaring certain parts of social order to be oppressive. Certainly, all measurable evidence indicates that people are more dissatisfied with "free" governments than with reactionary ones.The examples of history where change was measured in centuries were systems that were held in place by oppression. It was great if you were on the top but not so great for those who were not, which was the majority. We don't have a very long history of systems that provided the levels of freedom we have today. This is a fairly new concept, only being a couple hundred years old and even then there was gross inconsistencies (e.g. slavery).
I generally think freedom of association is a good thing and letting anyone with a pulse wield power over others is a bad thing. But that's not really the point. The point is, have you ever actually considered the other side of those issues? Have you read the arguments made by conservatives of yesteryear as to why those things would be disasters? Have you compared their predictions to the results?
Or do you just assume that because they lost they were wrong?
Of course you can agree with the left on some things and disagree on others. Else there would be no mainstream conservatism. The point is that your positions are inconsistent.
So excluding irresponsible voters is okay after all? What determines when it's okay and when it isn't?
Any system can be classified as oppressive by declaring certain parts of social order to be oppressive. Certainly, all measurable evidence indicates that people are more dissatisfied with "free" governments than with reactionary ones.
There are progressive republicans. Neither party is exclusively liberal or conservative. For example republicans may support progressive programs that give more rights to big business/corporations. And I consider the ACA a mess and a failed compromise with the health insurance industry. Medicare for all was the obvious already tested existing solution that could have been expanded, but democrats would not challenge big business. Big business wanted to force people to buy health insurance so they could continue to rake off their share (which provides no health services) and only inflates costs).I thought that the ACA was originally a Republican plan, there are like a million articles on the web about it.