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.
