| Superficial differences exist between factions, but their fundamental core moral position remains the same. Conservatives believe in a hierarchical society with the elite at the top who must be pampered, and the bottom feeders who must be ignored and kept quiet lest they try to upset the apple cart. Feudalism was deemed to be too rigid, leading to its downfall in the French Revolution. Capitalism exists as an acceptable alternative, where some one with sufficient IQ and talent from the bottom is allowed to float to the top and prevent unnecessary mutinies. Conservative factions differ in only who they think should be at the bottom. Social conservatives think it should be gays and other minorities. Economic conservatives believe it should obviously be poor people. Defense hawks believe it should be people of other countries because the home country is racially and culturally superior. A huge percentage believe in all 3 of them. This is why we see apparently contradictory stances such as 1. Small government folks against cheap food stamps but for expensive wars 2. Railing against cheap universal health care to support an expensive insurance industry 3. Republican devout christians opposed to helping the poor and immigrants The apparent contradiction exists because conservatives never spell out their belief in a hierarchical society outright instead go round and round about in circular arguments - avoiding a statement about their core moral position. And it can also create hilarious dissonance such as gay republicans or Jewish white nationalists like Stephen Miller supporting Nazis. Stephen Miller is a classic example of a person from an ethnicity that was genocided gleefully cheerleading racism. He is a text book example of an all round conservative who hates all minorities, except perhaps Jews :) https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/08/stephen-miller-and-h... |
The differences are significant, but you're correct they share fundamental core moral positions, namely a resignation to the human condition and skepticism about efforts to fundamentally change it.
> Conservatives believe in a hierarchical society with the elite at the top who must be pampered, and the bottom feeders who must be ignored and kept quiet lest they try to upset the apple cart.
No, conservatives recognize that society is inherently hierarchical and believe that efforts to engage in social engineering are typically counterproductive.
> Conservative factions differ in only who they think should be at the bottom. Social conservatives think it should be gays and other minorities.
No, social conservatives believe that "culture" is fragile and difficult to engineer, and we should hesitate to change longstanding institutions like marriage to address the needs of minorities. Case in point, social liberals are literally failing to perpetuate their societies--North America has become wholly dependent on immigration from socially conservative Latin America, while Europe has become wholly dependent on immigration from socially conservative Muslim countries.
> Economic conservatives believe it should obviously be poor people.
Economic conservatives acknowledge poor people will always exist and are skeptical of efforts to "fix" it. Case in point, the mixed results of Great Society programs.
> Defense hawks believe it should be people of other countries because the home country is racially and culturally superior.
Defense hawks acknowledge that great powers will exist on the international stage, and believe that the world is better off with America being the one in charge.
> 1. Small government folks against cheap food stamps but for expensive wars
Food stamps aren't in the Constitution but defense is.
> 2. Railing against cheap universal health care to support an expensive insurance industry
Even Elizabeth Warren doesn't believe you can make our healthcare system significantly cheaper than what we have now. Universal healthcare in other countries may be cheap, but so are lots of other public functions that are extremely expensive in the U.S.
> 3. Republican devout christians opposed to helping the poor and immigrants
The Bible doesn't say anything about using government coercion to help the poor and immigrants. Conservatives give more and religious organizations are the main "boots on the ground" entities working on refugee resettlement.
You're confusing "want" with "accept." Liberals, more strongly than conservatives, want an egalitarian society. Conservatives, more strongly than liberals, are resigned to the idea that you can't have one and trying will probably make things worse. And I don't know if you've looked around lately, but the liberal world is vastly more hierarchical than the conservative world. NYC and SF are incredibly hierarchical, while Iowa is incredibly flat. Liberals have embraced hierarchy economically, culturally, socially, etc.