[heurisko]

> That said, I find the definition of conservatism quoted by the OP insightful: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

Insightful? I found it a straw man. I've long found left vs right to do more with personality traits. Tribalism is not reserved for either side.

On the right, people are more likely to be conservative as they prefer stability and what is known. Those on the left are not as conservative, as they prefer openness and unpredictability.

Both perspectives have merits.

[cs702]

The definition is not about conservatism vs liberalism (or progressivism, or some other -ism). It's only about defining conservatism.

Off the top of my head, I couldn't find any examples that contradict it. Maybe you could?

I mean, if your goal is to prove it wrong, why not find at least one example that contradicts it?

[ohCh6zos]

In my mind a conservative is anyone who would side with G.K. Chesterton concerning his fence, and a progressive is anyone who would side with his neighbor.

[082349872349872]

Chesterton has another nice quote (which I will let you all find) to the effect that: the young man thinks the old man is wrong (and he is indeed) ... but the young man is wrong about what is wrong with him. of course GKC puts it much better than I do.

[082349872349872]

Ach, never mind, don't worry about me, I'll just find it myself...

GKC> I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him.

[pas]

no, Chesterton's fence is just good strategy. radicalism is when people disregard that.

the difference is where one looks for these fences, where one notices them, how much time one spends on understanding their reason for being, and how one responds after gaining that understanding.

populism is loudly proclaiming that there are easy ways to get rid od the fence, and making "everyone" happy.

chauvinist nationalism is blaming outsiders for the need for the fence, keeping it up, and claiming that our fence is the best, of course.

fascism is palingenetic ultranationalism, claiming that our ancestors had the best fences, and we are destined for similar greatness, and the way to that greatness is whatever fences our great leader comes up with, because our great leader understands ancestral fences the best.

...

now, what is conservativism? it's very similar to these, it's basically the claim that we need to respect the fences first and foremost and not understanding them. and the claim/belief that fences cannot be really removed anyway, so one should try to live and respect them, and eventually through this process one will also gain the understanding for their reason of being.

liberalism is to allow people to put up their own fences, and get rid of the old big ancestral ones.

neoliberalism is to set up markets where people can buy/sell ask/bid for fence rights.

contemporary rationalism is to set up prediction markets, recruit superforecasters to participate, and then put the fences where they maximize the global fairness & happiness prediction market.

[giraffe_lady]

I don't think that distinction holds anymore in the american political context, assuming it ever did.

Several projects of the conservative movement would cause sweeping or dramatic changes to the status quo, or are otherwise destabilizing. Trying to reinstate a social or political circumstance that existed 70 or 150 years ago is revanchism and will be just as disruptive as the changes themselves were. Someone who highly valued stability for its own sake would not pursue those projects.

And through that lens a lot of "progressive" positions are conservative: environmentalism, labor relations, regulation on growth of certain industries. A lot of these boil down to "let's just not" or not so much, not so fast or we don't need it; inherently conservative stances.

Literal conservatism is the branding and justification of the political movement but in fact both sides of this are accepting of change in some situations and resistive of it in others. They differ in what values they use to decide what changes to support or oppose. And the model of simple openness to change is completely inadequate to explain which, or why.

[w0de0]

Straw men are among the most insightful constructions; they expose the crow’s idiocy.