pseudo-conservatism

[phuckphace]

I've mentioned "pseudo-conservatism" or false conservatism in a few threads and figured it would be helpful to expand further. and even if you don't classify yourself as conservative at all, and especially if you do, this should clarify things nicely. :D

so let's get started. the more politically astute among us already know about the policy shift that all major Social Democratic parties underwent several decades ago, away from the core ideology of social democracy and towards neoliberalism and Big Money politics. it's less well known, at least amongst pseudocons themselves, that conservatism also underwent a similar shift, to the point where what remains is no longer "conservatism" in any meaningful sense.

"Shit Pseudocons Say"

a pseudocon can be instantly recognized by the telltale things they say, which are ironically not conservative at all.

"We ought to invade X country" - most pseudocons are also neocons, so when it comes to foreign policy they're all for sending American soldiers anywhere that needs more "freedom." the stated reason for intervention is irrelevant, if the word "intervention" is used in positive context, you're talking to a pseudocon.
- real conservatives oppose any and all foreign intervention.

"X is a problem, but doing anything about it is socialism." - just as there was once the Know Nothing party, pseudocons could be thought of as the "Do-Nothings." pseudocons view public policy as a form of wish-fulfillment, i.e. let's outlaw things we don't like, because. if we ban X it will cease to be an issue, because. to a pseudocon, policy initiatives intended to facilitate improvement of material conditions (such as universal healthcare) are "social engineering". if you encounter a "conservative" who thinks "the greater good" is solely a Marxian fixation, they're a pseudocon.
- real conservatives recognize that social order is impossible to maintain when the well-being of society is left to chance (i.e. the "free market".) if social order is to survive, it must be insulated from the volatile boom-and-bust cycle of markets.

[phuckphace]

cont.

rejection of environmentalism and environmental regulation - pseudocons believe that the environment is magic and can quickly rebound from whatever we throw at it. we should allow corporations to dump as much toxic waste into rivers and oceans as they please, so say the pseudocons, and anyone who disagrees is a "tree-hugger."
- real conservatives understand the importance of man's connection to nature and the need for preserving our world for future generations, and thus proactive environmental regulation. it's pretty difficult to keep your society healthy when everyone is retarded due to lead exposure, or X area is unlivable thanks to a contaminated water table.

"taxation is theft" - more and more pseudocons have adopted what are essentially libertarian positions on many issues, such as taxation. given that libertarianism is a liberal, not conservative ideology, it's a further giveaway that these self-proclaimed "conservatives" aren't actually conservative. pseudocons often spend inordinate amounts of time wringing their hands over the nominal 35% tax rate that is levied on the "job creators", under the premise that the wealthy are entitled to every cent they run into and therefore drastic cuts are called for.
- real conservatives see wealth concentration as destabilizing and counter to the ideals of democracy (if applicable). because money is political capital, the more money you have, the better able you are to exert inordinate amounts of political influence. therefore, we understand that confiscatory taxation is necessary in order to break up concentrated wealth, which would otherwise (and does) work to erode the very social order that conservatism seeks to protect. root of all evil and whatnot.

[Capto]

i love you

[Arkansasguy]

cont.

rejection of environmentalism and environmental regulation - pseudocons believe that the environment is magic and can quickly rebound from whatever we throw at it. we should allow corporations to dump as much toxic waste into rivers and oceans as they please, so say the pseudocons, and anyone who disagrees is a "tree-hugger."
- real conservatives understand the importance of man's connection to nature and the need for preserving our world for future generations, and thus proactive environmental regulation. it's pretty difficult to keep your society healthy when everyone is retarded due to lead exposure, or X area is unlivable thanks to a contaminated water table.

"taxation is theft" - more and more pseudocons have adopted what are essentially libertarian positions on many issues, such as taxation. given that libertarianism is a liberal, not conservative ideology, it's a further giveaway that these self-proclaimed "conservatives" aren't actually conservative. pseudocons often spend inordinate amounts of time wringing their hands over the nominal 35% tax rate that is levied on the "job creators", under the premise that the wealthy are entitled to every cent they run into and therefore drastic cuts are called for.
- real conservatives see wealth concentration as destabilizing and counter to the ideals of democracy (if applicable). because money is political capital, the more money you have, the better able you are to exert inordinate amounts of political influence. therefore, we understand that confiscatory taxation is necessary in order to break up concentrated wealth, which would otherwise (and does) work to erode the very social order that conservatism seeks to protect. root of all evil and whatnot.

You seem sufficiently knowledgable about it, why not come over to our side (reactionary conservatism)?

I'd add that the existence of wealth concentrations is not a cause of social disorder (indeed, I could hardly imagine a properly ordered society larger than a city-state that lacked a nobility). The accumulation of wealth as occurs in America causes instability. Particularly due to the grossly unjust methods enshrined in the system.

Also, differentiating between pseudocons and neocons is sort of like differentiating between synonyms and words that mean the same thing.

[phuckphace]

*opens thread*
*no Vlerchan posts*
*cries*

You seem sufficiently knowledgeable about it, why not come over to our side (reactionary conservatism)?

before the NKVD purged the other thread, you'll recall me attempting to explain that my flavor of NatSoc Lite is not incompatible with traditionalist conservatism, with which you took issue. I don't consider myself a full-on reactionary, although I do borrow heavily from them. although I like them, most reactocons tend to be eye-rollingly cynical about the state's role in protecting society (i.e. "collectivism is a Marxist conspiracy.")

I also take issue with the extent to which reactocons believe things can be dialed back. don't get me wrong, I would give my left arm to travel back in time to the 1850s and chill with Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, but reactocon fan-fiction in which King Buchanan rules an agrarian free-market society of sustenance farmers with 12 children to each family has an enormous plot hole: amongst other things, we lack the appropriate amount of social capital that was present "in the old days" but has since been driven to near-extinction. if a reversion back to traditionalism is to occur, the material conditions that enable it to thrive must first be correct. if you're waiting on capitalistic markets to pave the way, you'll be waiting a while.

The accumulation of wealth as occurs in America causes instability. Particularly due to the grossly unjust methods enshrined in the system.

well, no disagreements there.

Also, differentiating between pseudocons and neocons is sort of like differentiating between synonyms and words that mean the same thing.

yeah there is a lot of overlap between the two camps, but there are also many self-proclaimed True Conservatives who still buy into threadbare pseudocon arguments. I want to ask them what exactly is it that we intend to conserve, because right now it's looking like the answer is "profit margins."

[Arkansasguy]

before the NKVD purged the other thread, you'll recall me attempting to explain that my flavor of NatSoc Lite is not incompatible with traditionalist conservatism, with which you took issue. I don't consider myself a full-on reactionary, although I do borrow heavily from them. although I like them, most reactocons tend to be eye-rollingly cynical about the state's role in protecting society (i.e. "collectivism is a Marxist conspiracy.")

The state most certainly does have a right and duty to protect society against those who threaten the social order with false ideas.

But the problem with what's known as collectivism (distinguished from communitarianism) is that, by making people dependent on bureaucratic collectives rather than on individuals, it tends to weaken social capital.

I also take issue with the extent to which reactocons believe things can be dialed back. don't get me wrong, I would give my left arm to travel back in time to the 1850s and chill with Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, but reactocon fan-fiction in which King Buchanan rules an agrarian free-market society of sustenance farmers with 12 children to each family has an enormous plot hole: amongst other things, we lack the appropriate amount of social capital that was present "in the old days" but has since been driven to near-extinction. if a reversion back to traditionalism is to occur, the material conditions that enable it to thrive must first be correct. if you're waiting on capitalistic markets to pave the way, you'll be waiting a while.

It's not necessary to reapportion the amount of urban versus rural land! it's simply necessary (in the economy) to eliminate the power of the bourgeoise and to create a nobility. In any case, traditional social conservatism in General is an extreme long shot in our society.

And I don't advocate capitalism, I advocate feudalism.

[Vlerchan]

*opens thread*
*no @Vlerchan posts*
*cries*
As VTs reigning anti-conservative I didn't think I would be Much sought after. But sure:

I don't think that paleoconservatives or neoconservatives are phonies. Rather I think that the US conservative tradition is centred around conserving a broadly liberal order: instead of being concerned with the duties of citizens the US conservative tradition has always been concerned with their rights. There's a fundamental difference here. Rights set individuals as equal before the law whilst Duties set individuals as existing together within the law - the former enshrines the individual as a political actor in her own right whilst the latter refers to her within the context of the whole.

So within the context of the US conservative tradition I see nothing wrong with their liberal bent. This is because US conservative is inherently liberal - it's based in the Enlightenment tradition. It differentiates itself from Liberalism itself through its continued emphasis of the Christian tradition complimenting Enlightenment tradition - as seen in its 'family values' rhetoric - but I always just figured that an increasingly ineffectual means of tempering the Free Market.

What I got from this thread is how meaningless the term Conservative is. But that's to be expected. Like liberalism it is constantly adapting - except whilst liberalism adapts to the material conditions you have conservativism adapting to liberalism. The gains made during the era of Enlightenment served to cement liberalism within mainstream political culture. Fascism and Communism are reactions to this. Modern conservatism is just its veiled enabler.

---

I don't write a lot of long stuff. Here's to hoping that's comprehensible.

"We ought to invade X country"
I think it's important to remember that post-Enlightenment conservatism is a broadly cosmopolitan tradition.

Irony-of-ironies is that this stems from the Enlightenment traditions basis in Christian tradition. It was Christians who conceptualised the individual possessing a soul that exists independent of all social identities. This culminated in the Enlightenment belief in natural rights - which before religion fell out of fashion where derived from god; now it's 'reason'. Good conservative recognise our natural rights that exist common to all - irony-of-ironies again: and are enshrined by the UN - and it's the worst sort of evil to allow the suppressing of these rights to exist.

Modern conservatism by its very nature can't recognise pluralism. Re: Arkansasguy for more of this.

"X is a problem, but doing anything about it is socialism."
I think it's worth considering whether you're a progressive?

You want to move beyond Enlightenment thinking which currently dominates affairs. Sounds progressive to me.

rejection of environmentalism and environmental regulation
This is just an output of the corporate capture of US media and government.

I don't think it's a 'conservative' viewpoint per se.

"taxation is theft"
These people are called paleolibertarians.

[Cpt_Cutter]

These people are called paleolibertarians.

These people are called Idiots.

I'm sorry, I was scrolling through and couldn't resist the opportunity.

[Vlerchan]

phuckphace: I just labelled you a progressive. I was hoping for at least outrage.

[Danny_boi 16]

phuckphace: I just labelled you a progressive. I was hoping for at least outrage.

I was hoping for cool explosions...
I think this "pseudo-conservatism" is a excellent point to highlight. Real conservatives, have all but diapered from political office and major party platforms. It has become so far from the original intent that conservative parties in the US have lost all connection with party founders. People like: Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Taft. And then, there are the branded "compassionate" conservatives that a now isolated from mainstream party machines (ie., the Bush presidents). In the UK (as and outsider looking in) doesn't seem to have neocons of verbal "policy". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but PM Cameron, seems to still have normal/ traditional conservative ideologies and policy agendas.

[phuckphace]

Vlerchan

not to worry, I wasn't ignoring this thread. writer's block is a bitch.

anyway, I suspect you're right - and tbh it's actually somewhat of a relief to know that this whole thing was literally "programmed to fail". might have taken the better part of two centuries and some change but hey.

I've complained a lot about the phenomenon of placing too much importance on arbitrary individual rights to the detriment of real and tangible society itself, and how badly that's likely to turn out. that would certainly explain pretty much everything that's wrong with America (even worse than I initially imagined).

I think it's worth considering whether you're a progressive?

You want to move beyond Enlightenment thinking which currently dominates affairs. Sounds progressive to me.

phuckphace: I just labelled you a progressive. I was hoping for at least outrage.

lol. I'm not offended I can assure you.

eh, I always thought that the term progressive is roughly equivalent to "Social Democrat" or "libertarian with a welfare state," neither of which I feel any affinity toward. I mean yeah, fuck the Enlightenment, but I don't see what it is I'm supposedly progressing towards. help me out man!

And then, there are the branded "compassionate" conservatives that a now isolated from mainstream party machines (ie., the Bush presidents).

don't get me started on them

"I'd love to help you but I'm not a commie socialist, sorry =( "

In the UK (as and outsider looking in) doesn't seem to have neocons of verbal "policy". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but PM Cameron, seems to still have normal/ traditional conservative ideologies and policy agendas.

lol David Cameron

he and Obama pretty much overlap on the Political Compass - really all you need to know

[Vlerchan]

I've complained a lot about the phenomenon of placing too much importance on arbitrary individual rights to the detriment of real and tangible society itself, and how badly that's likely to turn out. that would certainly explain pretty much everything that's wrong with America (even worse than I initially imagined).
I would recommend reading into Eastern philosophies if I was you. Lots of them tend to be more Duties-based.

You might also want to check out Disreali's One Nation conservatism if you haven't already.

eh, I always thought that the term progressive is roughly equivalent to "Social Democrat" or "libertarian with a welfare state," neither of which I feel any affinity toward. I mean yeah, fuck the Enlightenment, but I don't see what it is I'm supposedly progressing towards. help me out man!
I remember I use to use it as a descriptor here because it was just that vague and meaningless.

[IconoclasticHeretic]

The state most certainly does have a right and duty to protect society against those who threaten the social order with false ideas.

But the problem with what's known as collectivism (distinguished from communitarianism) is that, by making people dependent on bureaucratic collectives rather than on individuals, it tends to weaken social capital.


*cringes*


And I don't advocate capitalism, I advocate feudalism.

*cringes again*


What I got from this thread is how meaningless the term Conservative is. But that's to be expected. Like liberalism it is constantly adapting - except whilst liberalism adapts to the material conditions you have conservativism adapting to liberalism. The gains made during the era of Enlightenment served to cement liberalism within mainstream political culture. Fascism and Communism are reactions to this. Modern conservatism is just its veiled enabler.


Beat me to the punch. But I +1 this. ^^


This is just an output of the corporate capture of US media and government.

I don't think it's a 'conservative' viewpoint per se.


+2

I would recommend reading into Eastern philosophies if I was you. Lots of them tend to be more Duties-based.

You might also want to check out Disreali's One Nation conservatism if you haven't already.

+3, I may not agree with everything you have to say. But you know your shit.