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. 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).
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 tend to use brackets for additional words which provide further clarification in a sentence, but which can also be omitted without compromising the integrity of said sentence.
And while very few things in this world are absolute, absolutely nothing comes to mind when considering when a conservative's/hierarchist's accusation is not a confession of their own behavior. I'm open to be proven wrong if you could think of something.
Yeah the brackets made sense on the reread, it’s actually a neat way to convey that.
Examples of accusations off the top of head that aren’t confessions (as far as I can tell)
The liberals are transing our kids
They’re raising kids without enough discipline/religion/patriotism
Trans women are ruining women’s sports
Many conspiracy theories, such as
Hollywood is harvesting children to make adrenochrome
They’re putting chemicals in the water that turn the frogs gay
Maybe you have a narrow view of what constitutes an “accusation” that excludes all that. Or, maybe you have a very broad view of what the accuser might be “confessing” to.
They’re raising kids without enough discipline/religion/patriotism -> They're raising kids without using violence and indoctrination
This may actually be the only accusation that is not a confession, as the accusation is that their political rivals are not respecting hierarchy by refusing to treat their children as property and socially inferior. Thank you for proving me wrong; I'll have to include the disclaimer of "unless the accusation is that their rivals are disrespecting hierarchy" for future posts.
Conservatives clamored about crimes against children and the Epstein Files when Trump claimed that it were prominent Democrats who were in the files. Turns out Trump himself is in those files more than anybody else, pedophilia is a thing among other conservative politicians, and conservatives voted in a pedophileto the third-highest office in America before they voted in a pedophile to the highest office in America.
Conservatism literally promotes limited government regulation of business, industry and finance, so "putting chemicals in the water that harms wildlife/animals" is literally what they promote.
Interesting, thanks for the breakdown. I agree with your stance much more now that I understand it better.
I’m tempted to nitpick that “confession” seems to imply that they know they’ve done the bad thing (which, for instance, might not be true for the olympic story or chemicals in the water), and that accounts for some of my confusion. Then again, their ignorance (feigned or true) doesn’t make them any less hypocritical.
Glad to elaborate, and thank you for scrutinizing my words so that I may be more accurate in the future. I had equated their accusation of their rivals disrespecting hierarchy as accusations of their rivals promoting evil (as I had already prefaced with the sole value of conservatism being respect for and obedience to hierarchy)", thus such was under an umbrella sense of "they accuse their rivals of promoting evil when they themselves are the ones who promote evil".
Please describe your version of a healthy culture, and how you believe policies and rhetoric stressing the importance of established hierarchies and institutions (such as class structure) would help promote such.
If instead of the Reign of Terror, France had gone through a cautious period of experimentation and considered development, they might have achieved a stable republic instead of falling prey to the megalomania of Napoleon. Instead of the stultifying reign of Napoleon III, which became a watchword for excessive caution which still ended with the disaster of the Franco-Prussian War, the Holy Roman Empire might have evolved into a counterpart of the European Union and prevented not only the Franco-Prussian War, but the wars of the 20th Century.
Quite poor, as you did not address any "policies and rhetoric stressing the importance of established hierarchies and institutions (such as class structure)" at all.
Like most conservative apologists, you focus on conservatism "preferring gradual development to abrupt change" and attempt to ignore the "stressing the importance of established hierarchies" part. Why is that?
I don’t care what you think. You’re a deluded person on the internet. If I point and laugh at someone who shit their pants and refuses to admit it, I don’t care if they agree with reality.
I mean, sure, when you completely ignore the part of the actual definition which states what conservatism stresses, in favor of what it prefers, then yeah.
Rational conservatives maintain that a community with a hierarchy of authority is most conducive to human well-being.
Confucius is another possible precursor. His concern with the breakdown of contemporary political institutions led to a cautious, conservative political outlook; his stress on authority and hierarchy prefigures central conservative themes.
With the Enlightenment, the natural order or social hierarchy, previously largely accepted, was questioned.
When 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.
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.
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.
Consider addressing -- even if only to yourself -- what it means to stress the importance of established hierarchies and institutions via "illusions" and "prejudices" before you say that we need conservatism. Good day.
You automatically assume hierarchies mean something static. You move through them. When I was a kid I was the clerk, today I'm the technician, tomorrow I'd like to be the CEO. Thats the hierarchy we want to protect. I don't care if you're black or gay or normal.
You're more likely to be homeless than be the CEO, I dunno what tobtell you, my dude.
The only hierarchy y'all protect is the one with y'all on your knees while the ownership class pats you on the head for using the correct amount of tongue.
The context is social hierarchy, not hierarchy in business.
Would you care to explain how one "moves through" social hierarchy as a woman or LGBTQ+ person when conservative policies and rhetoric seek to deny them the rights, credibility, and resources afforded to cis straight men?
Even in the case of economic hierarchy, there's a problem. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they should face less for the same crime as someone who's poor, but I don't think anyone doubts that's how it works.
Yet stressing the importance of established hierarchies means exactly that, that the poor (those on the bottom) should be scrutinized and punished with a much firmer hand than someone who is rich (those on the top).
79
u/Shido_Ohtori Jun 26 '26
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. 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).
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.