On a recent thread someone wrote

"It is my hope that the right-of-centre parties will now slowly coalesce around a true conservative agenda."

What exactly is "a true conservative agenda"?

I see it as racism, bigotry, inequality, hatred of workers, poor people, people with disabilities, LBGTQ people, women and indigenous people. Support for aristocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, exploitation, pollution, christofascism and theocracy, uncaring and dishonest and against progress.

What does OLO think?
Posted by mikk, Sunday, 7 July 2024 8:05:27 PM

Answer-

I see Marxism and Woke-ism and Liberalism as racism, bigotry, inequality, hatred of workers, poor people, people with disabilities, LBGTQ people, women and indigenous people. Marxism as embodied in Russia and China seems to be less developed, and so in a sense less progressive, than The West. Under Totalitarian Marxism it's estimated that 100 million people were killed worldwide in the 20th century in the name of equality.

There are different usages of the word 'Conservative'. It means anything from Libertarian to Traditionalist and often depends on the perspective of the observer- therefore it often isn't an objective term- but a subjective one. As previously discussed on OLO the political landscape isn't well described using the common one dimensional model- I expect that 'mikk' has seen this and is just seeking to be provocative. In order to understand the political landscape it's important to understand it's development over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Political philosophers such as Nietzsche (probably Traditionalist), Dostoevsky (Traditionalist), Ayn Rand (Libertarian), Hobbes (probably Traditionalist), Aristotle (Empiricist), many others have views on demarcation criteria of political ideologies.

Nietzsche talked about the Knightly Code (aka Roman Code) vs the Priestly Code (aka Envy/ Slave Codes) which loosely delineates the Right and Left of political philosophy.

Ayn Rand calls Socialism/ Marxism/ Woke-ism/ Social Progressivism- the politics of death.

Dostoevsky calls Marxists, Nihilist's.

Loosely speaking Traditional Conservativism is based on ancient views on survival of the local community or tribe or family in a hostile world, but given the world is constantly in flux, it's a moving target.

Marxism/ Liberalism (both Left and Right)/ Woke-ism are globalist ideologies and believe in enforcing a worldwide regime of identical drones.

So "Traditional Conservativism is Localist" whereas "Liberalism on the Left and Right is Globalist".

Traditional Conservativism is in a sense "the original social structure".

Traditional Conservativism isn't really on the Left/ Right one dimensional structure but is on a different dimension of politics.

To reject Traditional Conservativism is in a sense to reject the learnings of your ancestors over hundreds and thousands of years and to reject their sacrificial gift to you.
____________

Graham Young's article by Peter Hitchens seems to demonstrate the confusion of people with mixed identity. In Hitchen's case he seems to have elements of European and Middle Eastern heritage. He seems to be engaging in an honest search for meaning given his (and the human) context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

Unherd seems to be a Progressive Centre (Left) Liberal publication

The one unfortunate unintended consequence of Conservatism is that it provided an opportunity for Wokeism to evolve !
It would not be possible to be the other way round.

Comrade Indy,

Do you agree anyone who takes Aged Welfare from the State is a SOCIALIST? Are you one of those dread SOCIALIST?

mikk,

"I disagree that family is the purview of conservatives alone. "

That's not what I said. I was just pointing out that family is central to conservatism. That's not to say its unimportant to non-conservatives.

As to your list of potential families, these are now the current claims about what makes a family, but it is not what was understood to be a family for 99% of human history. Its just another example of taking a concept that is universally favoured and trying to appropriate for leftist causes.

A family is a device to best raise children. that's the conservative view. Ideally, its two biological parents working together to raise their offspring in a loving, caring environment, create productive citizens who will take on similar responsibilities when their time comes.

That's not to say that less than ideal situations may exist and be fruitful. A separated couple may still be able to raise their kids fruitfully. An inserted 'father' pr 'mother' may also work out fine. But there is ample evidence to show that children raised by their biological father and biological mother do, on average, better than all other alternatives. Girls raised by even loving step-fathers will still. on average, be more likely to do worse than those raised by their biological father. And that's not just a social issue - they will also, on average, go through puberty earlier.

"A lot of conservatives feel they are being "cancelled" if anyone uses their own free speech to criticise something conservatives say."

That's not at all what the complaints about the 'cancelling' phenomena are about. Cancelling isn't a dual of ideas. Its more a lynch mob mentality where the cancellers don't argue the point but simply try to organise social media to have the opponent ex-communicated from polite society. Its the absolute antitheses of freedom of speech.

"Modern reformers push for change after recognising that a law or institution is outdated or harmful. They rely on new information and data that highlight the necessity for reform. "

Well that's easy to assert, but I note no evidence for it. And the results of these reforms aren't encouraging in suggesting the changes were well thought through.

The single motherhood issue is an example. I've got no problems with the claim that the reformers saw a need and sought to fix it. A genuine need that needed fixing. But the need had arisen because of the breaching of the old fences (to continue the analogy) whereby single motherhood was socially unacceptable. And the solution to the problem as offered wasn't a return to the old norms but instead to make the state the surrogate father for the fatherless kids.

What they failed to consider was that when you pay more for something you get more of it. When you make single motherhood an economically viable lifestyle choice, people will choose that lifestyle. And they did. And the results are very obvious in today's dysfunctional family structures.

"Reformers used data and social research to argue that supporting single mothers could reduce poverty and provide better outcomes for their children."

And they monumentally failed. To my thinking it is undeniable that children raised in single parent 'families' are at a social, financial and emotional disadvantage to their counterparts. I'd opine that had they known the results of tearing down that particular fence they would have, or should have, chosen a different path - a more conservative path.