Many conservatives have a loose relationship with facts. The right-wing denial of what most people think of as accepted reality starts with political issues: As recently as 2016, 45 percent of Republicans still believed that the Affordable Care Act included “death panels” (it doesn’t). A 2015 poll found that 54 percent of GOP primary voters believed then-President Obama to be a Muslim (…he isn’t).
Why are conservatives so susceptible to misinformation? The right wing’s disregard for facts and reasoning is not a matter of stupidity or lack of education. College-educated Republicans are actually more likely than less-educated Republicans to have believed that Barack Obama was a Muslim and that “death panels” were part of the ACA. And for political conservatives, but not for liberals, greater knowledge of science and math is associated with a greater likelihood of dismissing what almost all scientists believe about the human causation of global warming.___
I think it’s far/extreme politics rather than just conservative, they are quite beyond basic conservative at this point. Lemmy makes it easy to observe how the far left also believes lies and propaganda that confirms their ideology.
Tankies push false communism with the bourgeoisie still at the top giving scraps to the proletariat and passing it off as paltry socialism. There’s no societal change to the hierarchy, balance of power, or wealth.
It’s more a weird ultra nationalism where proletariats are being tricked into thinking power has been given to the people when the ones at top are abusing their power to oppress forms of counter thought to seize whatever they want and retain their wealth. I wouldn’t consider them left just because there’s some form of socialism. Lot of countries do if at the very least they fix roads and have fire fighters.
The far left doesn’t just mean tankies. Tankies are authoritarian, which is why they have also don’t care about facts (conservatism is an inherently authoritarian ideology). That’s why a liberal right doesn’t exist; it’s a contradiction. The liberal far left (so anarchists and socialists) are pretty extreme and still care about facts.
I did mean tankies for what’s obvious on Lemmy.
What is inherently authoritarian about conservatism? There are democrat conservatistes, it just often depends on the time cursor of what they want to conserve. Economically liberal and socially conservative is a very common stance too.
So the long answer is this. It’s a 20 minute video of a leftie analyzing what conservatives actually believe (as in what framework can be used to understand and predict their seemingly contradictory positions), with another 12 minute video next in the same series if you want to see the evidence. I strongly recommend it; he’s good at what he does.
Anyway, the short answer is this: Conservatism is an ideology built on hierarchies. It attempts to sort people based on their wealth and success within the capitalist system, with the people at the top of the hierarchy—aka the ultra-rich—being inherently deserving of their wealth and more capable of using it to the benefit of society. Think Reaganomics. This is why they don’t like social justice and welfare; to them it’s taking money—and therefore power—away from its rightful holders and giving it to people who don’t deserve it. Also, the guy who invented conservatism was a monarchist trying to find a way an aristocracy might exist within democracy in the wake of the French Revolution because he predicted that democracy would spread across Europe. His conclusion was that the new aristocracy would be the ultra wealthy, and they’d have power by virtue of having the most money*. I have to reiterate: The video is really good and you should watch it. Hell, watch the whole series; it’s downright prophetic.
*He used the subjective theory of value, or the assertion that the price someone is willing to pay for something is how much value it has. As a result, people with more money have more say in the value of things and therefore more power in society.
Do you mean Democrat the party or democrat as in people who think democracy is good? If the latter then while they may say—and even think—that they’re democrats, you’ll still see authoritarianism in the the positions they hold and the politicians they support.
Those people are only small c conservative because of identity politics, and don’t subscribe to capital C Conservatism as an ideology. Ideologically they’re much more accurately described as liberal/centrists who as an addon don’t like the idea of minority rights (which historically is a pretty common position).
I feel like your point of view and the one of this video is based on the USA’s Republican Party, which is considered far right rather than just conservative in Europe.
There’s plenty of traditional right/conservative parties in Europe who defend democracy, liberal economy, but socially conservative, for example German’s CDU (Angela Merkel) and its equivalents in other EU countries.
I addressed this point here:
Someone who wants to roll back social welfare and corporate regulation would be considered a conservative. Anti-immigrant sentiment, while bad for many reasons, isn’t incompatible with liberalism.
Again, I feel like this is your point of view and maybe the one from the USA left. I think what you call capital C Conservatism is far right in EU. Although it’s true that part of the traditional right in the EU have started to ally with the far right, as the far right keeps scoring higher in the elections every year.
I guess if we accept European conservatism (as you describe it; I’m basically taking your word for all this) then it’d have to be designated as an exception. However, the things I wrote apply to most strains of conservatism, because it’s still baked into the very core of the ideology. European conservatives get out of this conflict by being extremely centrist rather than taking firm conservative positions.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_Germany#Modern_conservatism
authoritarianism, in my view, is the degree to which power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. so, a dictator for example, who makes decisions for everyone in their jurisdiction, is a highly authoritarian form of government.
and so is a representative who was given power by the majority (>50% of the ppl they will be ruling over), without being given a strict mandate on what policies to enact, or instant recallability if they didnt obey such mandate.
in ur example of “economically liberal, socially conservative”, lets disregard the economic stance for a moment and see if the socially conservative stance would be authoritarian.
as i understand, examples of conservative social policies include: anti-abortion laws, anti-trans healthcare, abolition or diminishing of welfare, among many others.
in these examples, it is the state that exercises power over an individual’s freedom.
abortion laws decide for pregnant ppl if they will be allowed from deciding whether to bring their pregnancy to term.
anti-trans laws decide for trans ppl whether they can decide to take hormones or get surgeries that they want to have.
welfare cuts are a form of economic coercion, pressuring ppl to find a job with a living wage, or die trying.
all of these are examples of the state exercising its concentrated power over individual ppl, to make decisions for them (or rather, prevent them from having the decision in the first place).
of course authoritarianism is a spectrum. and a country can be authoritarian without being a dictatorship, there is nuance in everything. but i hope i cleared up why conservatism (which in my experience has always presumed a state to be necessary) is inherently authoritarian.
All democratic countries, even the most progressive, have the state exercising power over the individual people to make decisions for them. To use examples deemed good for left people: paying for everyone’s healthcare, paying for everyone’s retirement, who you are allowed to have sex with, who is allowed to buy or make those products etc… Whether they are deemed more or less acceptable depends a lot on personal morality and political ideology.
correct. all states do this; it is their function.
u gave no examples of decisions being made for people. all of these examples are instances where the state does not restrict what decisions the individual can make.
healthcare and retirement being a bit more complex ofc, but those are still not instances of decisions being made for someone else, it is still up to the individual whether to accept such payments or not.
this is a big difference between liberal and conservative views. progressives or liberals often want more freedoms for individuals and more restrictions on corporations, whereas conservatives traditionally would want more restrictions on individuals and more freedoms for corporations
I don’t understand the distinction you make on restrictions.
You have no choice than to respect those rules, or you will be fined or sent to jail. How is this not a restrictions on what you can decide?
i think i see where the misunderstanding lies.
so, if the state says that being in gay relationships is allowed… for me as a gay person, that changes nothing. all it does for me in a gay relationship is that the state wont be in my way because of my choice of partners.
now if u as an individual had an issue with my relationship, the state would (ideally) restrict u from attacking me on that grounds.
so, ig i agree that in that sense, the state will restrict an individual on how much power they can exert on other individuals. as the saying goes: ur freedom ends where mine begins.
so as an individual, i may decide what gender i want to be in a relationship with, because the state wouldnt get in my way.
but if i wanted to decide for someone else what their relationships should look like, then the state would intervene.
on that point, as an openly queer person myself, i dont really see the state in a protective role of me in that way. if i got in a situation where im attacked on these grounds… empathy, warmth, solidarity, from bystanders and from friends, would be what i need. cops and other state actors are more likely to be the cause of discrimination, than the thing that stops it and heals the wounds.
so to ur original point that progressive countries still want to impose restrictions on ppl… i think that is a point where leftists would split between those who think a state is necessary to fight discrimination and power imbalance, and those who think states are the perpetuators of discrimination and imbalances of power.
and in my opinion, with the definition of authoritarianism that i gave, any ideology that necessitates a state will be inherently authoritarian, although a progressive one perhaps less so than a conservative one.