Voted "Conservative," but I always, when I see this kind of question, have to put an asterisk over it. My conservatism is not what Americans typically call conservative. Because what Americans call conservative is, historically speaking, not conservatism but is, rather, classical liberalism.
My conservatism, which for convenience I will call classical or Tory conservatism, traces its intellectual pedigree through Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas - and probably most importantly - the 18th century British statesman and political philosopher, Edmund Burke, and also the British Prime Minsiters Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.
In an American context, it shows up in the thinking of Alexander Hamilton and then - almost by historical accident, the American Whig Party, and the former Whig turned Republican, Abraham Lincoln. (It is a great historical "what if" as to what the GOP would have looked like had Lincoln lived and the radical Republicans not gained the ascendancy.)
Classical conservatives believe, unlike American conservatives and liberals, that the purpose of government is to answer Aristotle's first questions of politics, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?"
To which classical conservatives respond that the purpose of government is to nurture civic virtue. To reinforce those habits and customs, legitimized by historical usage over time, that make a harmonious and stable social order possible.
Classical conservatives believe in the free market as a tool, rather than an end in itself. They recognize that it is a powerful wealth creator, efficient to some degree, and a guard against an overweening state. However, they believe, as Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."
Consequently, classical conservatives support an ameliorative welfare state. (The welfare state was invented by two conservatives - Disraeli and Bismarck.) The purpose such a welfare state being to reconcile the public to the dynamics of a free market economy by alleviating the negative impact of old age, illness and temporary unemployment.
In this they differ from American liberals who see the welfare state as a lever to engineer social transformation. That is, to restructure society according to some abstract a priori vision. Classical conservatives argue that such a vision is ultimately going to be oversimple and will lead to adverse and unintended consequences.
Tories believe that political philosophy should take as it starting point not human reason, but human nature. That political rights are developed through historical usage, and are not abstract pre-existing. Which is to say that they don't deny that such abstract rights exist. Merely that they are of no practical benefit or use in civil society and law. As Burke put it, "Their abstract perfection is their practical defect."
In all this, then, classical conservatives tend to see less difference between American conservatives and liberals than they see between themselves. Albeit that classical conservatives are more likely to align with their American counterparts insofar as American liberals tend to be more deeply hostile to custom and tradition.
And for example, what are the positions of a conservative like you on LGBTQ people?
At an individual level, it is like any personal relationship. Do you like the person. At a legal and constitutional level, the law is written to inhere in individuals, not categories.
When you begin to write laws to carve out special rules for certain categories, you turn the law into a swiss cheese and you make social cohesion problematic. Beyond that, law is made in response to particular cases.
As Burke said, "It is thus with all those who, attending only to the shell and husk of history, think they are waging war with intolerance, pride and cruelty, whilst, under the color of abhorring the ill principles of antiquated parties, they are authorizing and feeding the same odious vices in different factions, and perhaps in worse."
"The practical consequences of any political tenet go a great way in deciding upon its value. Political problems do not primarily concern truth or falsehood. They relate to good or evil. What in the result is likely to produce evil, is politically false: that which is productive of good, politically is true... I will not enter into the question of how much truth is preferable to peace. Perhaps truth is far better. But as we have scarcely ever the same certainty in the one that we have in the other, I would, unless the truth were evident indeed, hold fast to peace."
I always had what I considered to be liberal or progressive values. My values haven't changed, but it seems that the definition of liberalism has changed. I thought it meant being curious; open minded; generous; willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. But it somehow became an ideology of intolerance and something akin to the Democratic party with a defined set of ideals. If you are "Liberal" you must believe this, this, this and this. There can be no divergence.
There is nothing more obnoxious than a "woke" liberal. They are self-righteous ideologues who seem incapable of thinking beyond what they are told to think by "liberal" mainstream media. They are guided by identity and kinship, rather than logic and knowledge.
I see most issues as complex and nuanced rather than in terms of absolute dualities.
It's not that I don't agree with modern liberals on some issues. I also have good friends who identify as conservative who are the nicest, most generous people you will ever meet. I agree with them on some issues, too. That doesn't make me a centrist because centrism assumes dichotomy (a division into 'two' mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities). I don't fall somewhere between two sides. I'm not on the chart.
After years of education and personal evolution, I realize that I fall somewhere in the left-libertarian (libertarian socialist) range. But how can someone define me based on that very broad definition? It's useless.
I also realized that both political parties signed onto full blown neoliberalism in the 1980s and now work for the globalist bankers. They are NOT working for us. So I have no loyalty to either one.
I no longer want to be associated with labels because to label someone is the stereotype them. No label defines me. I develop my own informed opinions on individual issues. Neither political identity nor ideology, consensus or group think, influence my opinions.
Labels serve no other purpose than to manipulate people and divide them against each other. It is a means of preserving the status quo and preventing people from uniting against their true enemy that is intent on enslaving them.
The problem with all of these labels, is... the lines begin to get blurred.
Liberalism
Classical Liberalism
Progressivism
Libertarianism
Conservatism
In my view, the Tea Party were Libertarians. They didn't want the federal government to have too much power. They wanted a very limited federal government, just like the framers wanted. The federal government's job is to protect our borders. Why in the flying fuck are they just making up shit to be in control of? Do we really need a federal department of education to tell the states what to do?
Anyway, I think I'm a conservative, but like I said, the lines get blurred. Instead of asking people for their label, I think it would be more productive to just ask them a few questions.
1. When someone murders someone with a gun, do you blame the person who pulled the trigger, or do you blame the company that made the gun.
I blame the killer.
I consider conservatism to just be logical. If you blame Smith & Wesson for the murder, you just fuck up the whole system.
2. Did you make yourself get fat, or did the maker of the fork?
3. Is illegal immigration illegal?
Neither. My views are nuanced to a point where I cannot lean towards either side.
Socially I'm more progressive but when it comes to economics one can say I lean to the right.
In general labels to me have very little meaning because they mean different things to whoever you ask. My way of thinking is if someone wants to know where I stand on a certain issue just ask me about that specific issue. Don't assume what I believe in based off of a label.
Opinion
17Opinion
Conservative. For me, American conservatism is the conservation of our constitution and all that it stands for. Its also by extension the conservation of the enlightenment ideals, that is that government exists to protect the rights of the individual, that the individual must come first or all else you will get tyranny (in fact its inevitable), limited government by extension, that all people are created equal and no one gets special treatment, personal liberty is the most important thing in the world as it is what brings not only peace but also prosperity and advancement. It also is the belief in a meritocratic system over other systems. In addition this means also supporting capitalism which itself is an extension of these principles of the right of the individual and the restraint of the government to interfere with others.
I oppose "progressivism" because it is the exact opposite of these tennants. It supports oppression by the government (they use different words for it but it is oppression none the less). It states that the group is more important then the individual (if the individual has zero value then so does the group as zero times any number is still zero). That immutable characteristics are more important then merit. That the rights of the individual do not exist and only the right of the government to dictate how individuals may act or think exists. It is also socialistic by nature which believes that others have the right to steal away your freedoms and to take your property that you have acquired or created fairly simply because they have decided they deserve it more. They also by extension believe in mercantilism, the idea that wealth cannot be generated (which capitalism directly refutes and has proven is not true (otherwise we wouldn't be talking right now, we would be in a field growing what meager food we could or murdering others to steal what they grew)). All of these ideas are not only not "progressive" but are by definition regressive as they are far older then the enlightenment, the theory of capitalism, and the United states itself (and most current countries for that matter).
Well said...
@blank_expression Thank you.
Progressivism doesn't actually mean anything other than "moving forward." It originally referred to a political movement in the early 1900s, but was re-adopted more recently in the late 2000s in an attempt to rebrand the liberals. Both "progressive" and "liberal" as they are commonly used in American politics have very little to do with their actual meaning.
Conservatism is relative to the country in question. Conservatives in the US versus Conservatives in say India, Iran, or Russia would agree on very little, and probably wouldn't even consider the same issues to be important. In short, conservatives are traditionalists or originalists, defenders of a nation's constitution, often rooted in historic cultural values. Like in the above paragraph however, it is frequently misused, and a large chunk of the Republican party in the US are only conservative when it suits them.
Going off of their actual definitions and historical roots, and keeping in mind this is in regards to the United States, I'd consider myself a conservative on the majority of issues that I consider important.
My biggest issue with modern "progressivism" is how short-sighted and hypocritical it is. The movement's leaders, which include both the senile elderly and the young and naiive, regularly push contradictory narratives and/or wildly change their stances on issues that people who truly believe in any ideology would never do, obviously because they care more about power and their own image than actually standing for anything. While being a movement that claims to pride itself on individualism and expression, it goes to far greater lengths than the conservatives ever have at their worst to enforce a communal mindset and suppressing opposing viewpoints. Their "beliefs" change rapidly and erratically, often fly in the face of simple biological and psychological science, and repeatable historical precedent, making a lot of views indefensible by anyone who isn't just a partisan hack looking for some shred of confirmation bias. This is before even taking into account that their party frequently just enriches itself without ever actually improving the lives of anyone they claim to want to, likely because they need that carrot on a stick to keep people voting for them.
By comparison, I don't much care for the Republican party, either. They're much less united, basically a conglomeration of maybe four different sub-groups who only agree on keeping taxes low, but could otherwise be separate parties were it not for the hegemony that would grant the Democrats. Some of them, like the "war hawks" are especially garbage. This is also why I consider them the preferable of the two: their lack of unity prevents them from using the government like a runaway train to push radical policies like the Democrats do, despite what media propagandists may claim. Such efforts never gain enough support even internally to go anywhere.
progressivism today just means you move whatever way you are told to. You dont stand up for anything against the norm because that might single you out.
I think all people, unconcisly if not concisly, want to be liked by others even if they say otherwise. and are therfore to afraid to stand against the norm and stand out in the crowd, and stand up for what they believe.
That my dear sir is what progressivism today has become.
@RealMarek that is the complience that progressiveness has caused because nobody stood up and said "no more"
I used to be a moderate but the way the country is now anyone who was a moderate ten years ago is now a staunch conservative. So I will go with that. A conservative respects the Constitution and wants to preserve the country our forefather founded.
Progressivism sounds like a disease and I guess that is a good description of it. It is implementing policies that run counter to the well being of our country. Illegal immigration, exporting jobs, killing energy exploration, and limiting our personal liberties. All things that have been implemented during the first seven months of the Biden so called Administration.
Conservative, as I think the founding fathers set up the US with strong foundations of individual liberties and regional governance.
I oppose progressives because they are a vehicle for authoritarianism and socialism who create a lot of social decay by fostering vulnerable people's dependance on government handouts and make life harder for everyone by damaging the market and economy while reinforcing crony capitalism.
For today's standards most conservatives are no better than communists. Many European countries that are sleepwalking towards full communism 1918 style are under a conservative government, most notably England. Why is this happening? Simply because conservatives are more concerned to appease their enemies and avoid being called names. Conservatives are cowards who conserve nothing and concede everything. They always fear to push for change. I remember the "freedom" rally in England that was supposed to be against the establishment and for freedom of speech. They could have brought beautiful girls in traditional clothing to dance, but what did they do? They brought a tranny drag queen to shake his ass in front of little children. That was them saying to the communists "heeeeyyy look at us. We are not homophobes. We are sick degenerates exactly like you want us to be"
if it wasn't for the racism the conservatives held I wouldn't been on since my beliefs align with many of theirs but since they are racist unfortunately I am stuck with the "progressive" ones. Hurts my soul that I have to agree with them lmao but my rights are not for debate.
Nobody's rights are up for debate, but I'm willing to bet that if you tell "progressives" you disagree with them on anything, you'll quickly remember which party fought to keep slavery, created the KKK, voted against the Civil rights act, created Jim Crow laws, and which party controls the areas in the country where minorities have the lowest quality of life.
Yes, and it never happened. Y'all are saying Biden will be the most progressive president since FDR, what party was FDR in again? You're telling on yourselves. Southern states were moving to the right slowly and Texas voted Democrat all the way up until 1980 when they started moving out of cities and into rural areas and thus voted red while city dwellers kept voting blue. There was no party switch, you wanna lecture us about Confederates fighting to maintain slavery, that was YOU! Second, they did have valid reasons for fighting and it was a very different time and people were forced into service. Plus rebs treated their citizens no better than they treated slaves, read about how they stole all of their food for "taxes" and starved them to death, burned down their homes if they refused, and had no problem killing anyone who dared to say "no" when men in gray coats knocked on their door and told their little boy he needs to come and fight.
Some time during the 90's or so the world has lost its mind.
I now can't identify with the contemporary understanding of both of the terms.
I'm a Centralist, basically Conservative in some ways and yet also Liberal/Progressive in some ways. In reality most people fall into this category I think.
Conservative, and I define it as wanting limited government, more power for civilians, the preservation of freedom, and the constitution which is a sacred text that millions of great men and women gave their lives to have protected.
I oppose progressivism because it's ironically regressive as it divides people by race and religion, carries heavily and openly racist views, attempts to try socialism again even though it's failed horribly every time it's been implemented, they generally have extremely low IQ and even lower critical thinking skills. It is a completely backwards way of thinking as their constant defense of violent criminals who even go as low as murdering brave men and women who protect us (police) while simultaneously calling them pigs and race soldiers is a perfect example of their backwards thinking. These people are un-American hypocrites and they need to go, all of them.
Neither.. I am a classical liberal, i have little in common with progressives. I do have some on common with conservatives. Like the desire to preserve our freedoms, especially freedom of speech, at all costs.
Conservative. I love the America I grew up in. That’s my definition.
I regularly punch progressive in their heads. I do it for fun and it is one place I and really hit them hard without doing too much damage
@exitseven Me too
More progressive on Healthcare, LGBTQ rights, vaccines, abortions, environment, etc but more moderate on guns and immigration
Conservative. Traditional family values with in reason. But stick to your guns.
Conservatives are self defeating and "progressives" are running civilisation into totalitarianism. Both can suck a fat one.
I'm progressive because I'm American.
Depends
muslim
Technically neither.
Neither
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions