So What Do Conservatives Actually Want to Conserve?

[Bobby_Ouroborus]

They call themselves Conservatives meaning they want to maintain the status quo. Right?

So what is the status quo that needs conserving other than White Male Christian privilege and traditions?

So if that is what Conservative are aiming to conserve, doesn't that make them inherently racist. chauvinistic and intolerant? If you want to preserve the privilege of a specific race doesn't that betray the fact that you think your race is superior for some reason and deserves that privilege over others?

[Alaric I]

They call themselves Conservatives meaning they want to maintain the status quo. Right?

So what is the status quo that needs conserving other than White Male Christian privilege and traditions?

So if that is what Conservative are aiming to conserve, doesn't that make them inherently racist. chauvinistic and intolerant? If you want to preserve the privilege of a specific race doesn't that betray the fact that you think your race is superior for some reason and deserves that privilege over others?

I think you may be misinterpreting something.  What they want to do is conserve the ideals that this nation was built on.  Unfortunately they haven't come out from those days.  They skew the idea of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness" to mean "anyone that isn't condimed outright by the bible".  So they aren't inherently racists, yet they are against homosexuals.  Liberals also have come away from what they were built to do, liberate all the people regardeless of race, sex, age, sexual orientation etc.  I think the best stance to have is somewhere in the middle, hold steady to the constitution, yet make sure the ideals that this country were founded on are applicable to all men.  Let gays marry, make sure the black guy sitting next to in teh front of the bus has the same opportunity I do to succeed, don't try to barge into my house and take my shit just because you think I may be doing something illegal.  It funny because now more than ever I see similarities in the way both sides think, and they vastly outweigh the differences in my mind.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm somewhat conservative, in that I want the government to quit encroaching upon our freedoms.  That puts me at odds with both wings of the political turkey, at times.
As far as all the perjoratives you're tacking on, too  many conservatives share those views, but that doesn't mean all of us do.

[Jmpty]

They call themselves Conservatives meaning they want to maintain the status quo. Right?

So what is the status quo that needs conserving other than White Male Christian privilege and traditions?

So if that is what Conservative are aiming to conserve, doesn't that make them inherently racist. chauvinistic and intolerant? If you want to preserve the privilege of a specific race doesn't that betray the fact that you think your race is superior for some reason and deserves that privilege over others?

By George, I think you've got it.

[Brian37]

"Conservitive" means hord and exploit for selfish self interest.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"Conservative" and "Liberal" both have dictionary definitions that aren't part of their political ideology.

And both have specific political definitions unconnected to the dictionary definitions.

It annoys me how silly people can be about confusing those.

[Bobby_Ouroborus]

"Conservative" and "Liberal" both have dictionary definitions that aren't part of their political ideology.

And both have specific political definitions unconnected to the dictionary definitions.

It annoys me how silly people can be about confusing those.

Maybe you should take it up with Websters or explain to us all what "Conserve", "Conservative" and "Conservatism" actually mean since Websters got it all wrong.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"Conservative" and "Liberal" both have dictionary definitions that aren't part of their political ideology.

And both have specific political definitions unconnected to the dictionary definitions.

It annoys me how silly people can be about confusing those.

Maybe you should take it up with Websters or explain to us all what "Conserve", "Conservative" and "Conservatism" actually mean since Websters got it all wrong.

I did not say that Websters got it wrong.  They have the general definition correct.

But there does exist a specialized political definition with little in common with the political definition.  Such usages are commonly called "Jargon", such as "legal jargon", "medical jargon", "scientific jargon", etc.

To illustrate, look at the difference between the way a scientist uses the word "theory" and the way an average person uses the word "theory".  The use by an average person more closely relates to the scientific term "hypothesis."

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...]  explain to us all what "Conserve", "Conservative" and "Conservatism" actually mean since Websters got it all wrong.

To what point?  You already have your preconceived notions and won't brook differences of opinion; that much is obvious from the snarling tone you have in this thread.

[Brian37]

"Conservative" and "Liberal" both have dictionary definitions that aren't part of their political ideology.

And both have specific political definitions unconnected to the dictionary definitions.

It annoys me how silly people can be about confusing those.

Maybe you should take it up with Websters or explain to us all what "Conserve", "Conservative" and "Conservatism" actually mean since Websters got it all wrong.

I did not say that Websters got it wrong.  They have the general definition correct.

But there does exist a specialized political definition with little in common with the political definition.  Such usages are commonly called "Jargon", such as "legal jargon", "medical jargon", "scientific jargon", etc.

To illustrate, look at the difference between the way a scientist uses the word "theory" and the way an average person uses the word "theory".  The use by an average person more closely relates to the scientific term "hypothesis."

How about this, since humans are diverse and complex and not as simple as one word political or economic monocromatic solutions, why don't we accept we have a pluralistic society and pluralistic economy.

What I cannot stand is one class of people think because they have money they get to write all of our laws.

[Alaric I]

What I cannot stand is one class of people think because they have money they get to write all of our laws.

But it isn't "one class of people".  Every politician relies on lobbyists to help them write legislation.  It's been going on since the very begining.  This is part of the reason the banks are pretty much cemented where they are at, congressmen taking money from them to write legislation to protect them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How about this, since humans are diverse and complex and not as simple as one word political or economic monocromatic solutions, why don't we accept we have a pluralistic society and pluralistic economy.

What I cannot stand is one class of people think because they have money they get to write all of our laws.

Wealth is power.  They don't think they get to write all our laws.  They buy a politician to do that for them.

I'm not saying it's right, but it is the fact of the matter.  Money talks, and everything else walks, in DC.

[Outnumbered]

The sad truth is that you are as free as you are wealthy. We have a very corrupted system. A big flush followed by term limits and outlawing lobbying might be a start. Not likely though. The status quo is very strong.

[Alaric I]

The sad truth is that you are as free as you are wealthy. We have a very corrupted system. A big flush followed by term limits and outlawing lobbying might be a start. Not likely though. The status quo is very strong.

There are avenues.  If you can get a petition with enough signatures they will look at it.  If you can get one that has way more than the 2,500 or whatever it takes on the website they start to take it seriously.  We can enact change in the government, people just seem to be too content to complain and not act though.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The sad truth is that you are as free as you are wealthy. We have a very corrupted system. A big flush followed by term limits and outlawing lobbying might be a start. Not likely though. The status quo is very strong.

There are avenues.  If you can get a petition with enough signatures they will look at it.  If you can get one that has way more than the 2,500 or whatever it takes on the website they start to take it seriously.  We can enact change in the government, people just seem to be too content to complain and not act though.

I'm not so sure about that.  I think much of what passes for action on the part of our government today is simply theater designed to mollify voters, that has very little actual effect.