[humanrebar]

> As a result, you can "steelman" the sentiments behind many conservative arguments by summarizing them...

Which conservative arguments? It seems like you're just referring to a different brand of identity politics as "conservative".

[motohagiography]

That is a sound observation. I think what we call identity politics is a divisive style of argument across the spectrum, and not a political stripe in itself.

In the Jonathan Haidt model, conservatives tend to be rule seeking and internally group biased, where liberals prefer the opportunities created by external influences and focus on outcomes.

Regarding the original article, 20th century wars figure prominently in the minds of conservatives, and it's worth considering that many good people are indexed on factors in a narrative that includes them.

[humanrebar]

I'd phrase it as conservatives find good principles are more trustworthy than good individuals, especially given that turnover guarantees more opportunities to install bad individuals in power.

There is a principle that some knowledge is crowd-sourced over time and we shouldn't ignore that. If there is a fence in a field, we should figure out why it is there before tearing it down. And we should tear it down in a gradual and reversible way in case we were wrong in our original guess.

Your comments about which groups are in charge of what could be that kind of conservatism if you squint, but it ignores the fact that individualism is one of the principles conservatives are trying to preserve.