That was when republicans were the progressives and democrats were the conservatives, though.
Before the party flip, it makes little sense to refer to ‘republicans’ and ‘democrats’. Those labels changed, not only in their values, but what the ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ platforms even were at that time, since there were different crossover issues than in today’s society.
Before the major flip during the Southern Strategy of the 60s/70s, though.
That’s sort of what I meant by crossover issues early on making even ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ muddy, even beyond ‘Republican’ and ‘Democratic’ being basically meaningless to our modern ears.
There were plenty progressive Democrats back then, who do you think lead the New Deal and Great Society movements? The parties did not line up so neatly into “progressive” and “conservative” during this time. There was a lot more variety within each party, and both parties had both left- and right-leaning wings that often disagreed
Yep. Conservatives (edit: the Conservative bloc of American politics, not whatever other thing you’re writing a snide reply about right now) came to be called that because they were interested in conservation of nature, before it came to describe fiscal policy or religious extremism. The conservatives of today are nothing like them.
the terminology of being a “conservative” did not come from supporting conservation of nature. that might be one aspect, and indeed, still today, there are conservatives that are very much interested in the conservation of nature, but this is not where it came from. it came from schools of thought in the american and french revolution concerning conservation of aspects of tradition, aristocracy, royalty, and religion.
afaik, this has also been the case tbroughout american history as well. perhaps you are referring to people like teddy roosevelt, who identified as a conservative to the public and had conservationist views and policies.
You say it’s not true, but then you describe a time during which the word was used in a different way, as more of an adjective or categorization than to name a party defined by that category. I stand by what I said.
Conservatives came to be called that because they were interested in conservation of nature, before it came to describe fiscal policy or religious extremism.
You made this totally incorrect statement without any evidence and now you’re arguing with a person (who seems to actually know history) who accurately described the origin of the political term “conservative.” What’s up with that?
Amazing how everyone who has shown up to “um akshually” me is either misinterpreting what I said or talking mad shit without making a point. Blocked because you’re doing the latter.
No, that’s misinformation. The fathers of conservative thought, Edmund Burke and Joseph DeMaistre, were literally monarchists: the the only thing they want to “conserve” is hierarchy. The conservatives of today are the truest to their origins that they’ve been since the Confederacy.
They weren’t an American political party referred to as Conservatives though. Thanks for the supplementary history but maybe try not being so combative with presenting it in the future.
They weren’t an American political party referred to as Conservatives though.
And there still isn’t such a thing, so what’s your point? Political party name isn’t the same as ideology. Are you going to argue that the Nazis were “socialists” next, just because that’s what their name claimed?
maybe try not being so combative with presenting it in the future.
Maybe try to debate honestly instead of relying on fallacious semantic arguments and tone-policing.
If you keep blocking everybody who calls out your BS soon you won’t have anyone to talk to at all.
The bottom line is that the modern Republican party is truly conservative, in the official Burke and DeMaistre monarchist sense (although they euphemize it as “unitary executive” now), no matter how much you try to pretend they mean the word differently.
That’s where the term “reactionary” comes from. It means they want to re-enact the past… or, more usually, a rose-tinted second-hand narrative of a past that never really was.
That was when republicans were the progressives and democrats were the conservatives, though.
Before the party flip, it makes little sense to refer to ‘republicans’ and ‘democrats’. Those labels changed, not only in their values, but what the ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ platforms even were at that time, since there were different crossover issues than in today’s society.
Mmm it was mid flip. Don’t forget that Republicans railed against Social Security that FDR was proposing.
Before the major flip during the Southern Strategy of the 60s/70s, though.
That’s sort of what I meant by crossover issues early on making even ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ muddy, even beyond ‘Republican’ and ‘Democratic’ being basically meaningless to our modern ears.
There were plenty progressive Democrats back then, who do you think lead the New Deal and Great Society movements? The parties did not line up so neatly into “progressive” and “conservative” during this time. There was a lot more variety within each party, and both parties had both left- and right-leaning wings that often disagreed
While there was a party flip on social issues in the 1960’s, Republicans from 1910’s to today were the party of big business.
Republican’s opposed Unions, Labor laws, and the New Deal that created Social Safety nets and helped Labor over Capital.
Yep. Conservatives (edit: the Conservative bloc of American politics, not whatever other thing you’re writing a snide reply about right now) came to be called that because they were interested in conservation of nature, before it came to describe fiscal policy or religious extremism. The conservatives of today are nothing like them.
to my understanding, that is very much not true.
the terminology of being a “conservative” did not come from supporting conservation of nature. that might be one aspect, and indeed, still today, there are conservatives that are very much interested in the conservation of nature, but this is not where it came from. it came from schools of thought in the american and french revolution concerning conservation of aspects of tradition, aristocracy, royalty, and religion.
afaik, this has also been the case tbroughout american history as well. perhaps you are referring to people like teddy roosevelt, who identified as a conservative to the public and had conservationist views and policies.
You say it’s not true, but then you describe a time during which the word was used in a different way, as more of an adjective or categorization than to name a party defined by that category. I stand by what I said.
You made this totally incorrect statement without any evidence and now you’re arguing with a person (who seems to actually know history) who accurately described the origin of the political term “conservative.” What’s up with that?
Amazing how everyone who has shown up to “um akshually” me is either misinterpreting what I said or talking mad shit without making a point. Blocked because you’re doing the latter.
When you make shit up and state it as fact, you’re going to find people disagree with you. Taking that personally sounds hard
You win here if you take the L.
Accepting corrections shows that you are a serious person who is interested in the truth, not in scoring meaningless victory points.
To put it another way, you are acting like Trump. Inability to back down is incredibly weak.
Thanks for telling me to lay down and take revisionist history, .ml user. It’s very on brand. Also blocked.
No, that’s misinformation. The fathers of conservative thought, Edmund Burke and Joseph DeMaistre, were literally monarchists: the the only thing they want to “conserve” is hierarchy. The conservatives of today are the truest to their origins that they’ve been since the Confederacy.
The Alt-Right Playbook Endnote 3: Origins of Conservatism
Francois rene de chateaubriand
They weren’t an American political party referred to as Conservatives though. Thanks for the supplementary history but maybe try not being so combative with presenting it in the future.
And there still isn’t such a thing, so what’s your point? Political party name isn’t the same as ideology. Are you going to argue that the Nazis were “socialists” next, just because that’s what their name claimed?
Maybe try to debate honestly instead of relying on fallacious semantic arguments and tone-policing.
Republicans. The official party name is Republicans, and they are known very well as “the Conservative party”. Sometimes a capital C is actually used.
Get blocked for revisionist history nonsense, as well as misinformation and being a massive hypocrite.
If you keep blocking everybody who calls out your BS soon you won’t have anyone to talk to at all.
The bottom line is that the modern Republican party is truly conservative, in the official Burke and DeMaistre monarchist sense (although they euphemize it as “unitary executive” now), no matter how much you try to pretend they mean the word differently.
That’s absolutely not true. It has always referred to preserving traditions and institutions.
Many “conservatives” of today shouldn’t be called that imho, it’s more like they are progressive but in a different direction
Regressives?
They’re just reactionaries
That’s where the term “reactionary” comes from. It means they want to re-enact the past… or, more usually, a rose-tinted second-hand narrative of a past that never really was.