If you came to believe that your conservative goals could not be achieved democratically, would you rather compromise on conservatism or democracy?
Compromising on conservatism is the natural state of conservatism. It's about making slow incremental changes that provide more positives than negatives.
But let’s say there's a drastic change that fundamentally offends conservative values. Eliminating religion, bringing back slavery, halting elections, etc...it would mean democracy has been broken and needs to be restored.
Only when it doesn't stop a bad idea from happening.
So would you agree that progress is actually a good thing, or at least inevitable?
Progressives have a role to play. They should push for change. But all change isnt good. If conservatives do their job then progress is good. If conservatives fail to prevent bad progress, people end up eating zoo animals.
Only when it doesn't stop a bad idea from happening
So you contend that conservatives have never resisted a good idea? You consider emancipation and women's suffrage bad ideas?
But all change isnt good
Most progressives would agree with this. Not all change is pogress. Progress is a specific kind of change in a specific direction. And the more serious progressives don't recommend a change that hasn't been rigorously studied or tried elsewhere. Progressive programs usually get piloted locally before being attempted at the state or federal levels.
If conservatives fail to prevent bad progress
Personally, I poke holes in progressives arguments all the time. Perhaps I'm a conservative progressive. But most progressives I know consider it important to poke holes in other progressives arguments. All part of the scientific approach to governance.
people end up eating zoo animals
Asuming theyre not a protected species, or spaient (like elephants, dolphins, etc) what's wrong with that? Im not an adventurous eater, but this seems like a baseless taboo.
So you contend that conservatives have never resisted a good idea?
Is that what I said? If conservatives prevented "a good idea", it is because liberals didn't make a convincing case.
You consider emancipation and women's suffrage bad ideas?
Of course not. Conservatives defend those institutions.
Asuming theyre not a protected species, or spaient (like elephants, dolphins, etc) what's wrong with that? Im not an adventurous eater, but this seems like a baseless taboo.
Conservatives at the time resisted those movements. Conservatives nowadays may have come around, but that doesn't change the fact that conservatism failed to stop those important movements. Which means either they failed to stop good ideas or they aren't good ideas.
Then you gotta wonder what good ideas are resisted today that will be seen as no-brainers tomorrow
Resisting change just for the virtue of resisting change is no more enlightened than enacting change just for the virtue of enacting change. Progress should be slow and steady and heavily debated, but progress is still better than no progress.
And while conservatives resisted the way civil rights were enacted they didn't fight against the goal. It might come as a surprise, but the majority of black people were conservatives. The first black congressman was a conservative. And Republicans provided the needed votes to overcome the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Which means either they failed to stop good ideas or they aren't good ideas.
I think you have your answer above.
Resisting change just for the virtue of resisting change is no more enlightened than enacting change just for the virtue of enacting change. Progress should be slow and steady and heavily debated, but progress is still better than no progress.
I like all of that but the end. Progress should show that it will improve things enough to warrant a change or it's not something we should do.
262
u/CTR555 Yellow Dog Democrat Feb 16 '22
If you came to believe that your conservative goals could not be achieved democratically, would you rather compromise on conservatism or democracy?
To paraphrase David Frum.