Jessi Danger
l_Shamrock_l
Jessi Danger
l_Shamrock_l
Conservatism to my understanding is wanting to "conserve" a person's current lifestyle and values. It can take many forms based on various factors. The conservatives of today have different values than the conservatives of yesteryear, and the conservatives of tomorrow will have different values than the conservatives of today. This "elitist" definition seems more like an attempt to pander to people who have already established prejudice towards a certain political ideal and is meant to rationalize that prejudice by declaring them enemies of the common people and garner support accordingly...
I'd say there is no "conservation," in Conservatism. For example they criticize past systems of power as well. For example Edmund Burke found the Aristocracy decadent.... but he still favored one.
I don't think you understood what I said at all, or rather chose to ignore it. I didn't say conservatism glorifies old systems, I said they "conserve" what they know and have experienced; their own traditions and way of life. Whatever system they partake in.
I did, I simply just disagree. They don't seem to always act to conserve something. Simply they create new systems to ensure a hierarchy exists.
For example, when the Aristocracy fell, it became the Land Owners and Slave owners, when they failed it became the Business owning elite,
As an example, Social Security and safety nets are fairly old now. As is compulsory education ect.... yet they are all now antithetical to conservative values today. They oppose the State now..... were as in the past they did not. I'm saying there isn't much evidence they support conserving older customs. While the name would intuitively imply that, I doubt that is their reasoning.
I can understand how it can seem like that, but it seems like a bit of over-analysis. The "hierarchy", as you call it, does exist, it would just be dumb to think otherwise, but it doesn't exist as a means of keeping people in check or some form of "Social Darwinism" or power struggle as you seem to make it out to be. Again, it would be dumb and naive to think it doesn't happen but that's the exception, not the rule: It's more of a "You keep what you earn and you earn what you work for" type of mentality.
Which brings me to "opposing the state": It's not the state they oppose, it's what the state's becoming that is counter to their beliefs. In California, for example, they're making it incredibly easy for illegal immigrants to live without having to face any penalties at all for their "illegal" status or even crimes they may commit. They can get a driver's license, they passed a law that prevents deportation for "non-violent crimes" (They can still come to our country and get away with committing crime though?) and recently attempted to give them free college grants (While actual citizens have to pay for it themselves? Wat?). We have corrupt politicians trying their hardest to ban every kind of gun and gun accessories despite not knowing anything at all about them and all the studies and numbers showing gun control is counterproductive, people trying to ban hunting, certain hunting techniques, tools, banning people from eating their own home-grown food without certain kinds of processing (based on product of course) and, in the midst of a drought, dumped tons of water instead of using it for agriculture... It's not that they are against the state, they are against what it's turning in to: A machine constantly eroding their rights and emphasizing reliance on the government. Hell, we have a huge stand off going on right now because someone didn't realize their cow was grazing a bit too far and didn't want to pay a $20,000 fine for something that resulted in absolutely no damage.
As for "conserving older customs" I think the fact they "Oppose the state now" is actually indicative of their "conservative" status considering how much the state's changed.
