smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
As promised, for balance
Ultra-Conservatives consider themselves to be the guardians of moral order. Like Liberal Progressives, they also claim to believe in individual rights of each person to a life, free from government restrictions. In reality, however, they often compromise that belief for the sake of expediency, for example, they claim they dislike "Big Government" but are happy to abandon that position, use governmental control, and pass laws, to limit things which they believe impinge on moral order - abortion, birth control, gun control and gay rights are some of the things that conservatives seemingly have a moral certitude about.
When you talk to them about this, many do not see the obvious conflict between their stated desire for the government to get out of people's lives, and their bent for using that very same government as a weapon to restrict people from doing things they do not like.... rules for thee but not for me!
They also claim to believe in freedom of speech. However, unlike Liberal Progressives, who believe free speech should not be absolute, and that governments should routinely intervene in cases of incitement or hate speech, conservatives (especially American ones) claim to believe free speech should be unrestricted, with a very strict interpretation of what is meant by incitement (see the SCOTUS decision in Brandenberg v Ohio - 1969 - its a conservative position I actually agree with). American Conservatives also scream blue bloody murder over the fact that UK police arrest people for Twitter and Facebook posts, but they do exactly the same things themselves. Speak freely about what you thought of Charlie Kirk and if you speak negatively, that can get you fired from your job, or even imprisoned. As a civil servant, criticize The Fat Orange Turd, or go against his wishes at your peril!
In modern politics, Ultra-Conservatives are encouraged more by a belief in a collection of sentiments (many of which are morally dubious, and run counter to their claimed philosophy), rather than by the imperious ideology that sustains the Liberal Progressives. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects - and you will often find there is more obvious disagreement among ultra-conservatives on single issues. This is unlike Liberal Progressives, who will tend to act as a monobloc, i.e. they "follow the tribe". To be fair, conservatives like to follow the tribe too - just look at how they ass-kiss The Fat Orange Turd - but their tribalism is more overall than issue-specific.
Most Conservatives also tend to consider that consequences should be meted out by the individual (using litigation) not by governments. However, like Liberal Progressives, they often compromise their positions when it suits them. They tend to like the status quo, they don't like change, or the abandonment of custom and convention. They are very much believers in the "Chesterton's Fence" principle (a principle from author G.K. Chesterton advising against removing a fence, rule, or custom without first understanding why it was put there, as it was likely built for a good reason, even if that reason is not immediately obvious). They believe that order, justice and freedom, are the result of experience, centuries of trial, error and reflection - they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t. Unfortunately, this belief often conflicts with another conservative belief - deregulation, the systematic removal of laws and rules surrounding industry, and designed to keep corporations in check - and they can end up getting it seriously wrong. Here is a practical example that happened in New Zealand where implementation of conservative philosophy helped lead to disastrous results...
Building codes are borne of years of experimentation - finding out what works and what doesn't work in our environment and climatic conditions. In its obsessive drive towards de-regulation, The Fourth National Government (1990-1999) passed The Building Act 1991, which shifted the building code's prescriptive rules to a performance-base that favoured self-regulation. It introduced private certifiers, which created conflicts of interest and reduced oversight of building work. The result was that years of sound building practice were abandoned in favour of a free-for-all in design concepts. There began a trend towards building Mediterranean-style (especially in more sub-tropical north of the country) the houses with complex roofs, plastered exterior walls, internal decks and small or no eaves. Those designs were inteded for hotter, drier places - and were totally unsuited for our sub-tropical to temperate climate. Any builders reading this can probably predict that happened next - this deregulation led to the url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisis]"Leaky Homes Crisis"[/url]
This was real-world consequences for flawed political beliefs - in effect, conservatives ignored their own belief in Chesterton
- they pulled down the fence, and the result was was an absolute disaster that has so far cost almost NZ$50 billion.
In my opinion, Ultra Conservatives are as bad in their own way as Liberal Progressives. They both have this mindset that only they know what's best for everyone, and any who disagrees with them is a member of "that other tribe".
Ultra-Conservatives consider themselves to be the guardians of moral order. Like Liberal Progressives, they also claim to believe in individual rights of each person to a life, free from government restrictions. In reality, however, they often compromise that belief for the sake of expediency, for example, they claim they dislike "Big Government" but are happy to abandon that position, use governmental control, and pass laws, to limit things which they believe impinge on moral order - abortion, birth control, gun control and gay rights are some of the things that conservatives seemingly have a moral certitude about.
When you talk to them about this, many do not see the obvious conflict between their stated desire for the government to get out of people's lives, and their bent for using that very same government as a weapon to restrict people from doing things they do not like.... rules for thee but not for me!
They also claim to believe in freedom of speech. However, unlike Liberal Progressives, who believe free speech should not be absolute, and that governments should routinely intervene in cases of incitement or hate speech, conservatives (especially American ones) claim to believe free speech should be unrestricted, with a very strict interpretation of what is meant by incitement (see the SCOTUS decision in Brandenberg v Ohio - 1969 - its a conservative position I actually agree with). American Conservatives also scream blue bloody murder over the fact that UK police arrest people for Twitter and Facebook posts, but they do exactly the same things themselves. Speak freely about what you thought of Charlie Kirk and if you speak negatively, that can get you fired from your job, or even imprisoned. As a civil servant, criticize The Fat Orange Turd, or go against his wishes at your peril!
In modern politics, Ultra-Conservatives are encouraged more by a belief in a collection of sentiments (many of which are morally dubious, and run counter to their claimed philosophy), rather than by the imperious ideology that sustains the Liberal Progressives. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects - and you will often find there is more obvious disagreement among ultra-conservatives on single issues. This is unlike Liberal Progressives, who will tend to act as a monobloc, i.e. they "follow the tribe". To be fair, conservatives like to follow the tribe too - just look at how they ass-kiss The Fat Orange Turd - but their tribalism is more overall than issue-specific.
Most Conservatives also tend to consider that consequences should be meted out by the individual (using litigation) not by governments. However, like Liberal Progressives, they often compromise their positions when it suits them. They tend to like the status quo, they don't like change, or the abandonment of custom and convention. They are very much believers in the "Chesterton's Fence" principle (a principle from author G.K. Chesterton advising against removing a fence, rule, or custom without first understanding why it was put there, as it was likely built for a good reason, even if that reason is not immediately obvious). They believe that order, justice and freedom, are the result of experience, centuries of trial, error and reflection - they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t. Unfortunately, this belief often conflicts with another conservative belief - deregulation, the systematic removal of laws and rules surrounding industry, and designed to keep corporations in check - and they can end up getting it seriously wrong. Here is a practical example that happened in New Zealand where implementation of conservative philosophy helped lead to disastrous results...
Building codes are borne of years of experimentation - finding out what works and what doesn't work in our environment and climatic conditions. In its obsessive drive towards de-regulation, The Fourth National Government (1990-1999) passed The Building Act 1991, which shifted the building code's prescriptive rules to a performance-base that favoured self-regulation. It introduced private certifiers, which created conflicts of interest and reduced oversight of building work. The result was that years of sound building practice were abandoned in favour of a free-for-all in design concepts. There began a trend towards building Mediterranean-style (especially in more sub-tropical north of the country) the houses with complex roofs, plastered exterior walls, internal decks and small or no eaves. Those designs were inteded for hotter, drier places - and were totally unsuited for our sub-tropical to temperate climate. Any builders reading this can probably predict that happened next - this deregulation led to the url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisis]"Leaky Homes Crisis"[/url]
This was real-world consequences for flawed political beliefs - in effect, conservatives ignored their own belief in Chesterton
- they pulled down the fence, and the result was was an absolute disaster that has so far cost almost NZ$50 billion.
In my opinion, Ultra Conservatives are as bad in their own way as Liberal Progressives. They both have this mindset that only they know what's best for everyone, and any who disagrees with them is a member of "that other tribe".
