I have only seen such statements made in bad faith to mean "my subjective political opinions are objective reality". It's quackery. I see people on the conservative end say it too.
The meaning is that when things that should not be political questions because they have objectively correct answers do become political in recent years most of the time it is liberals whose positions match the objectively correct answer.
Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that liberals are more often correct than conservatives on how to deal with those things--that often is something that does not have an objectively correct answer and so is something that people can reasonably disagree over and so can reasonably become political.
For example consider climate change. How to address climate change is something that does not have an objectively correct answer and so you can't say that any given political group is right or wrong on that.
However, the question of whether or not the increases in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere since pre-industrial time are most due to human activity is a question that does have an objectively correct answer. The C in CO2 comes in several different isotopes, and by looking at changes in the ratios between those isotopes in the C in atmospheric CO2 it is possible to determine that most of the increase has come from burning fossil fuels.
If a political group is taking the position that the rise in CO2 is not due to human activity they are objectively wrong, and the phrase that reality has a well known bias against that group is a way of highlighting that.
If you actually look back towards all of human history and analyze the conservative and progressive positions at the time, you will find yourself almost exclusively siding with progressives.
Conservatism, as an ideology, is built on the belief that conservatism has always been wrong, until about 20 years ago to just now. That's what they're trying to conserve: always the very, very near past.
I don't think that's accurate. Many US conservatives think that the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers have ideas that are right and are worth conserving. Many would think that the ideas of limited government and government by the people are worth preserving.
From what I've seen, close to zero US conservatives think that right now. They might say they think that, but obviously you can't just listen to people. You have to look at their actions.
> Conservatism, as an ideology, is built on the belief that conservatism has always been wrong, until about 20 years ago to just now.
That's hilariously wrong: you're basically claiming current-day conservatives [or at least Trump I conservatives, if you want to be hyper-literal) are all about conserving [Democratic-party] Clintonism. Pretty soon they'll all in on Obamacare? You're trying to be clever but have no idea what you're talking about.
I mean... yeah. All this talk about cutting services and fixing the deficit. That's Clinton stuff, that's what he did. That was his platform.
The anti-gay stuff? Uh, yeah, Clinton. Anti-drug rhetoric? Clinton! Protecting our borders? Believe it or not, Clinton!
> Pretty soon they'll all in on Obamacare?
I mean, yeah. The entire concept of Obamacare was a compromise to soothe conservatives. It solidified the power and necessity of private insurance in America by entrenching it in regulation.
They're not gonna be for universal healthcare, but Obamacare? You bet your ass that's going to be their platform in a few years.
> The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, ... This relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces.
> ...the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate an investigation of a service member's orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors. ... Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass".
> passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities. Support was bipartisan, though about a third of the Democratic caucus in both the House and Senate opposed it. Clinton criticized DOMA as "divisive and unnecessary". He nonetheless signed it into law in September 1996.
tl;dr: Anyone who believes or defends the idea:
>>> Conservatism, as an ideology, is built on the belief that conservatism has always been wrong, until about 20 years ago to just now. That's what they're trying to conserve: always the very, very near past.
Doesn't know what they're talking about and doesn't have their facts straight.
>> That's hilariously wrong: you're basically claiming current-day conservatives [or at least Trump I conservatives, if you want to be hyper-literal) are all about conserving [Democratic-party] Clintonism.
> I mean... yeah. All this talk about cutting services and fixing the deficit. That's Clinton stuff, that's what he did. That was his platform.
JFC, do you know nothing? Conservatives aren't seeking to conserve Clintonism, Clinton co-opted a lot of conservative policies (see: "triangulation"). That's the source any overlap, and conservatives still hate him for all the other stuff.
The idea that conservatives' only ideology is preserving the status quo of exactly N years ago, is completely unsupported by the facts and frankly ludicrous. Give it up. There's some genuine radicalism there, and whatever things they seek to "conserve" tend to fit in one of a few ideological frameworks that drive what they pick and choose.
