[pinopinopino]

Ah, propaganda 101: "If you want to influence your enemy, make sure he/she sympathizes with you". I also read an interesting article about this, that conservatives do care about the environment if you give it the correct emotional cue.

E.g. instead of saying they have to save the environment for the future generation (which perhaps generates a guilty feeling), we want to preserve nature to keep it as it is (which they view as a positive thing, preservation of that which is good), they suddenly gave a lot more money to the cause.

Same here in the Netherlands, conservatives here fight for gay rights. Simply because it is part of our tradition. They also fight with all their might for Black Pete, look it up, because there is the constant blame game being played and they feel that the tradition is attacked. And how much I love the tradition, the current Black Pete has some stereotypes baked in. And am I a nationalist and conservative, a rare breed in my country ^_^

I am curious what happens if there is a positive sound. E.g. tell them to go back to an older tradition, Black Pete as ferocious demon helper of Saint Nikolaas. Would they still oppose change? My guess would be that there is less of an issue then and people will experiment with new image.

Perhaps something to try out locally.

[shireboy]

I'm not familiar with conservatism in the Netherlands, but I don't think that is accurate description of conservatism in the US. A conservative sees inherent value in clean air, water, land for future generations and for preservation. They are often avid fishers, hunters, outdoorspersons, and want pristine environment both for future generations and it's own sake. They simply disagree on the best ways to go about preserving the environment, and often on the tactics used by liberals (including guilt discussed above) and the proper role of government in said preservation. They like clean water as much as the next person, but don't believe that a city council banning straws at their favorite restaurant is really relevant to that goal.

[raxxorrax]

In the corporate world we learn to take everything we can get and are rewarded for it. For our direct benefit like compensation. Not saying understatement isn't something a good image of a leader requires today, but most people know it is dishonest in practice and are just fine with keeping up appearances.

Why should I not apply that to the resources of our environment? Future generations? Right, they will be okay as it is. Leading by example might help, but modesty isn't something we transport in pop or corporate culture.

Conservatives were the original environment protectors in the US. Probably politics that drove them away from it. In the current political climate dogmatism is spread pretty evenly.

[pinopinopino]

>Conservatives were the original environment protectors in the US. Probably politics that drove them away from it. In the current political climate dogmatism is spread pretty evenly.

I like this observation. We should drive them back again though. I think they are not that hard to move if you bring the message in the correct way.

[throwaway316943]

Conservatives are by nature conservative. They prefer gradual change to over night revolution. They want to see the proof that something will work. Instead of saying “we must eliminate the internal combustion engine” say “we must continue to improve the automobile” and instead of “we need a green economy” “we need an efficient and independent economy”. You do have to live up to your words though, conservatives are also very detail oriented and will call you out if you don’t deliver.

[throwaway616961]

> conservatives are also very detail oriented and will call you out if you don’t deliver.

Do you have any evidence that conservatives are more detailed oriented? Anecdotally conservative US presidents Regan (response to AIDS crisis), George W. Bush (War in Iraq), and Trump (COVID response) did not seem to care about policy details. Policies such as lowering tax rates to increase total tax revenue (Laffer Curve) does not seem detail oriented.

[rimliu]

I don't really get this obsession with preserving the status quo. It is not universally good and by doing so we may prevent good things from happening.

[pinopinopino]

Just like how changing things is not universally good. Let's not get into that discussion ^_^ I am a mixed bag on that anyway, sometimes change is good and sometimes preserving things is better.

[jonfw]

I would argue that there is a lack of understanding of how well the status quo prevents bad things from happening. We take for granted how many problems we've solved, because many of these problems didn't exist in our lifetimes.