Conservatism -- by definition -- is "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing the importance of established hierarchies and institutions (such as religion, the family, and class structure), and preferring gradual development to abrupt change".
The sole value of conservatism is respect for and obedience to [one's perception of] traditionally established hierarchy, and hierarchy dictates that those on top (in-groups) are rightfully idolized and receive privileges, credibility, and resources, while those on the bottom (out-groups) are demonized/dehumanized and/or bound by restrictions, scrutiny, and lack of resources.
To them, the second-greatest injustice imaginable is for those [they perceive to be] on top [of social hierarchy] to be bound by the restrictions, scrutiny, and lack of resources reserved for those on the bottom. The first greatest injustice is for those on the bottom to have access to the rights, credibility, and resources reserved for those on top.
Conservatives absolutely need an underclass [for society] to demonize and dehumanize in order to maintain [their] hierarchy, and every single one of their policies and rhetoric work to do exactly that. Unless the accusation is one of disrespecting hierarchy, every right-wing accusation is a confession -- every. single. one; always! -- as it is never the act itself that upsets them, but rather, the social standing of the person doing the act, as said act is a privilege meant for those on top of [their perceived] hierarchy (See also: pedophilia - Trump and the Catholic church versus LGBTQ+ and drag queens; protests - January 6th vs. BLM and No Kings; parental rights - anti-LGBTQ+ vs pro-LGBTQ+; indoctrination - religion vs. education).
Those who believe all people are people see hypocrisy, while those who believe some people are "more/less" people than others see hierarchy. Hypocrisy implies a sense of equality/parity, as the accusation of such is that someone is violating a universal or common standard. Hierarchy directly states that there is no equality/parity, that different social strata have different standards, that the only universal standard concerning hierarchy is that those on top are allowed privileges which are denied to those on the bottom, and that the bottom are held to standards which the top are exempt from.
I've always said that the core tenet of conservatism is exclusion. I appreciate you putting that into greater, more detailed words. I will definitely be using the framing of this comment in the future.
I once took this morality survey thing. It was intense and took a while. And everything was on a scale, it wasn't a just yes/no. At the end they ask you to rate where you see yourself on a political like spectrum. Those that were conservative tended to value things like obedience and maintaining order. Whereas people who were more in the other side valued individualism and free thinking. That was like 20 something years ago. Can't remember who had the poll but the data visualization was on point.
I'm not sure I fully follow. Are we saying purity/sanctity is one thing? Where is the opposite. Should it be purity/creativity? Loyalty/openness. Fairness/Justice
While those are the terms the study I provided use, Haidt himself used the following dichotomies in his book (elaborated upon on pages 110-126, and summarized on page 127):
Those don't seem equivalent in neutrality. Sanctity vs degradation are harsh. Sanctity vs change is more neutral. I'm guessing this author came to an interesting conclusion.
The author's politics lean right, so the harshness comes as no surprise. My analysis of conservatism is partly influenced by his concepts of "[moral] purity": how such define the apex of their perceived [social] hierarchy, how they promote illusions that if one strives to become/honor/respect said apex that they will be among the "in-group", how they spend countless amounts of energies to ensure that those who do not strive to become/honor/respect -- or, heaven forbid, work in the opposite direction of -- said apex are among the "out-group".
That's interesting because then inherently a trad wife or SAHM would never be be striving for honor, respect, apex of greatness. And therefore would never be considered upper echelon or part of the in-group. Also even more interesting that the Conservative women are of the in group even though they aren't trad wives and SAHMs. So perplexing.
A trad wife or SAHM would be "striving for honor, respect, apex of greatness" within her socially-accepted station; for example, she can rise to be head of a women's church group, but not in any positions of authority that are specifically reserved for a man. She will be among the upper echelons within her social group, and may even be respected outside for her social status, but she will never be allowed to "step out from her place" into something that's perceived as rightfully belonging to a man.
Concerning conservative women -- and "class traitors" in general -- the issue is that most people subscribe to hierarchical institutions [on some level] already -- such as classism, ageism, genderism, religion, machismo culture, corporate culture, military, school, et cetera -- and until they are willing and able to challenge the concepts of hierarchy and consider how such are not only incompatible with -- but diametrically-opposed and anathema to -- the concepts of equality and egalitarianism, they will fall victim into demonizing and dehumanizing an "out-group" at the behest of those they consider socially superior. Each and every single one of them truly believe that by doing so, they secure their place among the in-group, never realizing security is a privilege far above their station.
Makes sense. Psychologically speaking. It's a lot of if/then rationalizing. They have steadfast heirarchies and rules but certain things can not confirm and instead of a gray area, it gets immediately classified within the hierarchy.
Edit: I wonder if there are certain mental disorders related to hyper-rigidity of societal structure and roles. Though I guess those folks would never have been sent to an institution before like 20 years.
All the conservatives I know are Democrats. A conservative would never try to overthrow our democracy on J6 (for instance). I think the people you're pointing to are more authoritarian than conservative. They'll do anything for their dear leader and don't care what institutions they destroy to get there.
I made no mention of political parties, only political ideology.
When some conservatives feel that society has progressed too far -- in other words, those traditionally on the lower echelons of [social] hierarchy being accepted and given rights, credibility, and resources reserved for those above their station; and/or those traditionally on the upper echelons being questioned and bound by the restrictions, scrutiny, and lack of resources reserved for those below their station -- they will relinquish the "preferring gradual development to abrupt change" and "social stability" parts, and hearken and appeal to traditional hierarchical institutions, especially those that promote "might makes right", as violence is a tool meant for those on top of social hierarchy to use upon those on the bottom to ensure the latter's submission and obedience. Nationalism and racism are the go-to institutions for such, though sex[ual preference/identity] -- those who don't conform to traditional gender roles/norms/appearances/attitudes -- is also popular; they will demand strict stratification of society and social hierarchy where in-groups and out-groups are clearly defined, where some people are "less people" than others. The former -- by nature -- will shrink as less and less people will be found to be "pure", and virtually everyone is considered "less people" (with significantly fewer rights, credibility, and resources) when compared to the leader at the apex. This is known as being reactionary, which is the end result of conservatism, leading into fascism.
many of the characteristics we have come to associate with contemporary conservatism—racism, populism, violence, and a pervasive contempt for custom, convention, law, institutions, and established elites—are not recent or eccentric developments of the American right. They are instead constitutive elements of conservatism, dating back to its origins in the European reaction against the French Revolution.
But reaction is not reflex. It begins from a position of principle—that some are fit, and thus ought, to rule others—and then recalibrates that principle in light of a democratic challenge from below.
In defending such orders, moreover, the conservative invariably launches himself on a program ofreactionand counterrevolution, often requiring an overhaul of the very regime he is defending.
There’s a fairly simple reason for the embrace of radicalism on the right, and it has to do with thereactionaryimperative that lies at the core of conservative doctrine. The conservative not only opposes the left; he also believes that the left has been in the driver’s seat since, depending on who’s counting, the French Revolution or the Reformation. If he is to preserve what he values, the conservative must declare war against the culture as it is.
Ever since Edmund Burke invented conservatism as an idea, the conservative has styled himself a man of prudence and moderation, his cause a sober— and sobering—recognition of limits. “To be conservative,” we heard Michael Oakeshott declare in the previous chapter, “is to prefer the familiar to the unknown . . . the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant.” Yet the political efforts that have roused the conservative to his most profound reflections—the reactions against the French and Bolshevik revolutions; the defense of slavery and Jim Crow; the attack on social democracy and the welfare state; and the serial backlashes against the New Deal, the Great Society, civil rights, feminism, and gay rights—have been anything but that.
They call themselves conservatives, they consume conservative media, they buy conservative merch, etc. etc.
If the label has become tainted by association, then level-headed former conservatives need to find a new label for themselves. Otherwise your message will forever be prefaced (and drowned out) by disclaimers about what kind of person is a "real" conservative and which is an authoritarian. You guys won't have any trouble finding each other and coming up with a rebranding that suits you.
53
u/Shido_Ohtori 8h ago
"Perceived victimhood, authoritarianism, populism, and white identity are the most powerful predictors of support for violence, though military service, conspiratorial thinking, anxiety, and feelings of powerlessness are also related."
Studies also show that "radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent. In the United States, we find no difference between the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing and Islamist extremists.", and numerous investigations show that "right-wing populists are generally more likely to justify political violence compared to mainstream voters and non-voters".
Conservatism -- by definition -- is "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing the importance of established hierarchies and institutions (such as religion, the family, and class structure), and preferring gradual development to abrupt change".
The sole value of conservatism is respect for and obedience to [one's perception of] traditionally established hierarchy, and hierarchy dictates that those on top (in-groups) are rightfully idolized and receive privileges, credibility, and resources, while those on the bottom (out-groups) are demonized/dehumanized and/or bound by restrictions, scrutiny, and lack of resources.
To them, the second-greatest injustice imaginable is for those [they perceive to be] on top [of social hierarchy] to be bound by the restrictions, scrutiny, and lack of resources reserved for those on the bottom. The first greatest injustice is for those on the bottom to have access to the rights, credibility, and resources reserved for those on top.
Conservatives absolutely need an underclass [for society] to demonize and dehumanize in order to maintain [their] hierarchy, and every single one of their policies and rhetoric work to do exactly that. Unless the accusation is one of disrespecting hierarchy, every right-wing accusation is a confession -- every. single. one; always! -- as it is never the act itself that upsets them, but rather, the social standing of the person doing the act, as said act is a privilege meant for those on top of [their perceived] hierarchy (See also: pedophilia - Trump and the Catholic church versus LGBTQ+ and drag queens; protests - January 6th vs. BLM and No Kings; parental rights - anti-LGBTQ+ vs pro-LGBTQ+; indoctrination - religion vs. education).
Those who believe all people are people see hypocrisy, while those who believe some people are "more/less" people than others see hierarchy. Hypocrisy implies a sense of equality/parity, as the accusation of such is that someone is violating a universal or common standard. Hierarchy directly states that there is no equality/parity, that different social strata have different standards, that the only universal standard concerning hierarchy is that those on top are allowed privileges which are denied to those on the bottom, and that the bottom are held to standards which the top are exempt from.
"Know your place" is their mantra.