newrepublic: Do Conservatives Know Much About Conservative History?

[Bozo the kKklown]

Quote

Writing in Politico on Sunday, historian Geoffrey Kabaservice argued that liberals, and particularly liberal historians, have done conservatism a profound disservice in recent decades. Under the headline “Liberals Don’t Know Much About Conservative History,” Kabaservice lamented the “veritable tsunami of historical literature on conservatism” in the past 20 years, “virtually all” of which “have been written by liberals.” Kabaservice, author of the fine book Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, believes that these works “reveal the pitfalls for liberals writing about a movement with which they have no personal experience. If you’re a historian who has not a single conservative colleague—and perhaps not even one conservative friend—chances are you’ll approach conservatism as anthropologists once approached tribes they considered remote, exotic, and quite possibly dangerous.”

 

While Kabaservice specifically faults scholars like Corey Robin, Lisa McGirr, Nancy MacLean, Heather Cox Richardson, and Rick Perlstein, the burden of his critique is far broader. At heart, Kabaservice is angry that liberal writers treat conservatism unsympathetically, emphasizing the dark side of the movement. Further, he feels liberals ignore the intellectual achievements of conservatism and focus excessively on the role of popular pundits and political organizers (although, if the point, as Kabaservice says, is to produce historical scholarship that explains the rise of Trump, than a focus on these individuals would seem appropriate).

 

As an example of liberals painting too negative a picture, he claims that Cox Richardson “contends that racism was the essence of Buckley’s New Right, and further that the Birch Society spread his ideas to ordinary voters.” Kabaservice doesn’t see it that way: “Buckley’s endorsement of Southern segregation,” he writes, “was a moral blot on the conservative movement, and he later acknowledged it as his gravest error. But it’s anti-historical to assume that Buckley was little more than a Klansman with a large vocabulary, or to dismiss the monumental divisions on the right as minor quarrels within a united white supremacist alliance.”

 

 

Read the rest:

 https://newrepublic.com/article/151127/conservatives-know-much-conservative-history

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Do you mean conservatives, or do you mean "conservatives"?

[PleaseBlitz]

Are there conservatives anymore?

[Renegade7]

Wish you added that to thread i started so it could be bumped since i responded to a lot if posts to close it out.  Its whatever, and the answer is absolutely not, a lot of republicans aren't conservatives and a lot of conservatives are jus hiding behind facets of this political philosophy in order to be racist, assholes, and or control freaks over things they don't agree with in our society (like gay rights and pissing  on US territories that would be blue instead if sticking to their states right cause).

 

The interpretation of conservative is a moving target anyway, its not like liberalism where change is a common theme regardless of the topic

[DogofWar1]

49 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Do you mean conservatives, or do you mean "conservatives"?

 

That's precisely the problem.

 

Make a list of conservative principles and you can find myriad examples of the more right leaning party of the time breaking those principles.

 

Indeed, I don't know if there can be said to be a "conservative" history.  Such history shall basically always exist through the lens of the politicians who championed "conservatism," but if we keep finding deviations from conservatism, is it right to call it a history of conservatism?

[Renegade7]

24 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

That's precisely the problem.

 

Make a list of conservative principles and you can find myriad examples of the more right leaning party of the time breaking those principles.

 

Indeed, I don't know if there can be said to be a "conservative" history.  Such history shall basically always exist through the lens of the politicians who championed "conservatism," but if we keep finding deviations from conservatism, is it right to call it a history of conservatism?

 

K, so I'm going to post this since we're about to come full circle now:

 

 

I believe you can look at a history of conservatism in this country and how its evolved into what we have today.  There are different types of conservatism that overlap each other.  But thats not the same as what Saudi Arabia would consider conservative, a country that is just now letting women vote and drive. 

 

There is a type of conservatism thats rooted in Nationalism, so that part i don't believe Republican Party has totally lost touch on.  If anything I'd say they have doubled down on that with direction its gone under Trump.  But Fiscal Conservatism is dead in this country, and that used to be a big part of what i thought the GOP stood for.  I haven't heard a word from them about deficits or the national debt since Trump got elected, especially after the tax cuts passed.

 

If you look at the polls on certain issues, you can argue that by definition the Republican is splitting into progressive conservatives on one end (conservatives that support stuff like gay marriage and medicare for all, which is more then people talk about) and authoritarian conservatism, where people are perfectly fine with the authoritarianism direction Trump is trying to take us, whether they fully understand what that actually means or not.

 

At one time Jefferson was considered a Liberal, and he's one of the forefathers of American Conservatism in regards to his emphasis on states rights and not letting federal government get too powerful in areas it "doesnt need to".  I imagine as the country becomes more progressive ill be considered a conservative for fighting vehemently against the rise of socialism in this country.  I already get accused of that on facebook because i don't want to go as far as some of they do in respects to Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism.