Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I just want conservatism to mean what it meant originally: a cautious approach to change, attempting to preserve our traditions and culture. This modern version is a regression to some imaginary ideal that never existed.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Speaking of which, the relationship between the terms "reactionary" and "conservative" is... interesting, to say the least.
And technically, reactionaries are a type of conservatives.
edited 8th Feb '13 9:23:55 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.By a very simplistic definition, a conservative wants things to stay as they are, while a reactionary wants things to go back to some previous state. A progressive, of course, wishes to change things to a way they haven't been before.
ETA: A radical wishes to throw out the existing system and replace it with something entirely different.
edited 8th Feb '13 9:43:51 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yet Nixon is remembered as a jowl-shaking villain and Ronald Reagan is remembered as a hero.
I wonder who we have to blame for that.
Even Lincoln wasn't exactly a saint, if you care to go digging. The interesting thing about history is that it's only boring when it's white washed. The real thing is simultaneously exciting and depressing.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Isn't a radical conservative something of an oxymoron? Conservatives are supposed to occupy the center of the political spectrum, not the extremes.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If we're trying to make the two terms make as much sense as possible when put together and not just use it as a synonym for a regressionist, I would think a radical conservative would be an advocate for near-absolute stasis.
But I don't think you can get elected in a democracy via the campaign promise of 'Under my watch, NOTHING WILL CHANGE EVER!'
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.If you use radical in the sense of, "advocates a total overhaul/replacement of the system", then it is the polar opposite of a conservative.
Also, conservatives should oppose reactionaries to the same degree that they oppose progressives.
edited 8th Feb '13 11:54:09 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
![]()
Don't you mean moderates? Conservatives are supposed to be on the right side of the political spectrum.
![]()
AFAIK, the kind of order/system that a reactionary would advocate for should be a comparatively outmoded, and often quite old one (e.g. advocating a return to Victorian-era laws/values), whereas a regular conservative would, say, advocate a non-radical reversal of progressive/liberal policies over the past few decades.
edited 8th Feb '13 12:10:06 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I wouldn't say conservatism should be on that spectrum. It's relative to present conditions. Being a conservative in a Soviet Union mean you want to preserve its communism and economic planning. Market advocates would not be conservatives.
To advocate a conservative stance on an issue, you have to show that what we have is better, and attempts for progress are either "regressive" (in a bad way) or have detrimental side effects. It puts priority on preserving what we built up.
The term I find most useful when discussing the political elements I oppose the most is "regressive". If it is the stated policy of a particular group to a) return to a state when things were numerically worse for majorities and minorities of people, and/or b) move to a state that is even worse than our historical low points, there is really no better term.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I'm actually talking about something other than left-right. You could, in theory, have a right-wing progressive; we tend to call them Libertarians in the U.S. A left-wing reactionary might be something like the Communist Party.
I'm a bit too distracted to think of more analogies now, and this discussion is kind of navel-gazey anyway.
edited 8th Feb '13 12:17:23 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Honestly, I think that it's actually the liberals that conservatives are supposed to be the opposite of, not progressives.
edited 8th Feb '13 12:23:04 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I'm just observing that the position of "maintaining the status quo" is inherently neither right nor left-wing. The problem with the word conservative is that it can be used for both "doesn't want things to change" and "right-wing". Maybe we need a better word for it.
edited 8th Feb '13 12:29:43 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"What's the difference between a liberal and a progressive?
I don't think conservatism sounds like a right-wing concept. To me it's to preserve values and limit recklessness, which means you need a strong government to protect those values. Liberalism, on the other hand, emphasis more freedom from excessive control and more personal choice-making.
Social conservatism would kind of fit, because you're preserving social order. But learning in government class that conservatism meant reducing government and increasing economic freedom or deregulation... it didn't add up. I'm not saying those things are bad, just that the meaning doesn't add up.
Best way to illustrate the difference between liberalism and conservatism, in my opinion, is this:
Outlawing marijuana is a conservative position, because marijuana has been illegal for as long as anyone cares to remember.
Outlawing tobacco is a liberal position, because tobacco's been legal for as long as anyone cares to remember.
Outlawing alcohol is neither liberal nor conservative, since its legality varies from place to place and from era to era.
edited 8th Feb '13 12:38:12 PM by RavenWilder
Meanwhile, saying women should not be allowed to attend school is a reactionary position. Saying "abolish government and let everyone do any drugs they want" is a radical position.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Any talk of drones is now considered off topic for this thread. It has been discussed ad nauseam and is crowding out all other discussion. Any mention of drones should be kept to it's own thread
.
Please do not keep derailing this thread. I do not want to have to thump people.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick