[AnthonyMouse]

> It seems inherent in the definitions of a conservative/traditionalist party and progressive/change based party.

I don't really buy this. Despite parties using those terms, they don't really mean anything when any given thing had been the status quo at some point in history.

Were the people who opposed sodomy laws in the 20th century agents of change, or reactionaries pining for the way things were in the time of the Romans? Roe v. Wade has been the law for generations, so aren't Catholics who want to ban abortion now the agents of change?

If someone wants to cut federal spending as a percentage of GDP in half, are they a liberal (because it's a change from the historical practice since WWII) or a conservative (preserving the thing that existed before then)? Does it matter if the thing they want to cut is military spending or entitlements, when both are the long-term status quo? Is market competition liberal (a change from historical feudalism) or conservative (the existing system)? Is regulatory capture liberal or conservative?

Wouldn't the labels have to switch whenever a law is passed, since the advocates of change who achieved it would then become "conservatives" who want to preserve the change they made?

If the answer is that whatever your side wants to do is Change and any change the other side wants to do is Reactionary then you're just trying to justify a ratchet.

[s1artibartfast]

>I don't really buy this. Despite parties using those terms, they don't really mean anything when any given thing had been the status quo at some point in history.

I think that most conservatives don't look to some distant point in the past, but the status quo now, or perhaps some time earlier in their lifetime. If you view all over your examples through this lens, the ambiguity is resolved.

If you look at conservative views and values, they are more consistent through time than liberal views. I think the data presented a few parent threads up clearly supports this view.

I'm not saying there is a moral high ground in being more resistant to change or less resistant to change, but in my mind, it is clearly part of political reality we live in, and a valuable lens to understand the current political divide.

If you don't agree with this view, what alternative do you propose? Are conservative and progressive values and interests random? What values inform the positions they take and how they change over time?

[AnthonyMouse]

> I think that most conservatives don't look to some distant point in the past, but the status quo now, or perhaps some time earlier in their lifetime. If you view all over your examples through this lens, the ambiguity is resolved.

Is it? So a 45 year old Democrat is a "conservative" for opposing abortion restrictions because Roe v. Wade was decided before they were born? Or would become one later in life as people born before the decision die out, just from the passage of time and no change in policy? Someone who wants to cut federal spending is a "liberal" because it has been this high a percentage of GDP as long as anyone currently alive can remember?

> If you don't agree with this view, what alternative do you propose? Are conservative and progressive values and interests random? What values inform the positions they take and how they change over time?

The terms themselves aren't very useful because they're poorly defined. Trade tariffs are an ancient idea that have been enacted and repealed more than once in living memory. Liberal or conservative? I'm not sure it even makes sense to ask the question. It's more like populist vs. globalist.

The one dimensional axis only comes about as a result of the two party system. So what you're really asking is where the positions of Democrats vs. Republicans come from, and then the answer is a lot more obvious. They're political coalitions.

Ask yourself what abortion has to do with minimum wage. Basically nothing, right? You can try to come up with some kind of justification, like maybe having fewer people competing for jobs would lead to higher wages. But then you would expect the pro-abortion party to be the anti-immigration party. Oops.

It's not a coherent philosophy. It's a patchwork coalition that yields enough support to have a majority in the legislature about half of the time.

They change when the math changes. For example, some combination of the falling cost of renewable energy and worldwide efforts to fight climate change are probably about to devastate the oil industry, a major Republican constituency. They're not just going to resign themselves to a permanent minority, they're going to find some way to get back to 50%.

That means either stealing some constituency from the Democrats or taking one of theirs off the table. They're in a decent position right now to take out the teachers unions through school choice programs, for example.

Then the Democrats have to decide whether to let them or fight. If they let them, their platform changes. They don't have to be subservient to the teachers unions anymore, which could have knock on effects for other positions they couldn't previously take because the unions didn't like them. In a lot of ways that helps them, and all it costs them is the votes they won't need if the Republicans simultaneously lose the oil industry.

If they fight there, the Republicans are forced to take some other constituency instead. Maybe they push harder with the economic populism that won them the rust belt in 2016, and take it from the Democrats permanently. That could be worse for Democrats than dissolving the teachers unions; those are some important swing states. The Democrats would then have to find a way to win them back or win some other states instead.

So one thing changes and you get a chain reaction that reshapes the positions of both of the parties. It's not ideology, it's pragmatism.

[s1artibartfast]

I still think we are talking past each other.

My main point was supporting the validity of the relatively static republican position in the PEW data you introduced and later defended.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-...

I see your claim that all political parties seek change, and agree with it. Political parties are inherently a mechanism for enacting change (or denying it)

My claims, formulated more specifically are as follows:

1) I think the trend in the figure you presented with a smaller shift in median republican views shift less than median democrat views from 1994-2017 is realistic.

I think you agree.

2) I think the slower shift in mean republican views is because individual republicans are slower to change their social views.

2A) I think republicans are slower to change their views because. This is associated with respect for "authority" "traditionalism" in the framework of moral foundations theory [1]

2A1) I think there are real differences in the average moral values of republicans and democrats. Neither group is homogeneous, but on average, individuals gravitate towards one party or another based on the moral framework they view the world through. I agree this is a two way feedback, were party affiliation and media consumption can also shift ones moral framework.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory