[random314]

Conservativism is about maintaining and perpetuating hierarchies in society and fighting hard against anything that might change the hierarchy. Different conservative groups differ on who should be at the bottom of the hierarchy.

In the USA, we have

1. Social conservatives - anyone who isn't white, heterosexual, Christian should be at the bottom hierarchy. Tucker Carlson informs them who they should focus on at the present moment. For now it is trans people. It was Mexicans and Muslims very recently and immigrants are a perennial favorite.

2. Libertarians - We already have people at the bottom of the hierarchy. Let's just keep them there by disallowing government support and subjecting them to monopolies and arcane private contracts. They are also highly supportive of bombing nations perceived to be lower in the hierarchy.

3. Big business - doesn't care who is at the bottom as long as they are guaranteed exclusive reign at the top.

Obviously, hierarchies are difficult to maintain in a democracy as the majority of the people are at the bottom of the hierarchy. This problem is solved by obfuscation and propaganda. Group 3 uses Group 2(rayiner et al) to construct messaging and propaganda to convince Group 1 to vote against their own interests. In fact, the US Democratic party is also center right and operates in a similar, but less blatant fashion. This can be seen from how Bernie Sanders was shut out of the party nominations even if it meant losing the 2016 elections.

[rayiner]

You’re correct that conservatism seeks to preserve natural hierarchies. It arises from a worldview that says that things are the way they are for reasons, and that efforts to reshape the world according to human machinations are susceptible to failure. “Keeping people at the bottom” is often a side-effect of that worldview, insofar as conservatives are naturally distrustful of large scale efforts at social change.

> 1. Social conservatives - anyone who isn't white, heterosexual, Christian

Social conservatism is where “black and brown people” have the most in common with white republicans: https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-repu.... By contrast, social liberalism was invented by white people. It arises out of the intense individualism that’s unique to white European societies.

That’s why the GOP had its best performance in decades among minorities in 2022, despite underperforming expectations among white people. Social liberalism—specifically abortion—didn’t motivate minority voters in the same way as it did white voters. That’s why DeSantis and Youngkin straight up won Hispanics in states Obama won twice, by focusing on cultural issues. That’s why, back in 2000, Muslims got George W. Bush elected: https://www.cair.com/cair_in_the_news/survey-shows-bush-supp... (“In key states like Florida, where Mr. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore by just 537 votes, CAIR says Muslims in that state preferred the president over his opponent by 64-thousand votes.”). Luckily for liberals, it’s very difficult to get different groups of conservatives to trust each other.

I’m frankly offended at the insinuation that I’m a libertarian! I’m a typical “brown” American—I voted for Biden but tell my kids they can’t have tattoos like the white people.

[random314]

> natural hierarchies

Lol

> Social conservatism is where “black and brown people” have the most in common with white republicans:

Sure conservative blacks and browns, just like the whites can be compelled to vote against their own interests by group 2 and group 3.

> in 2000, Muslims got George W. Bush elected

Your ability to fish for random bits of data to reinforce whatever point you are making is exceptional.

> I’m frankly offended at the insinuation that I’m a libertarian!

I honestly don't care about getting your political category right, but now that I recall - you are a social conservative of the Clayton Bigsby variety.

Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that conservatism is inherently anti democratic.