Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not at all. The very objective of imposing or opposing a law based on which group it benefits is in opposition to conservative ideology. Period.
Not as most people define conservatism.
Ah! But that's its own pickle, isn't it? Definitions change based on where you are and who you're talking to. I'm hampered by the fact that the question was asked using what is really the wrong term. "Conservative" can mean a wide range of things, but broadly has to do with slow/minimal change rather than fast/significant change. How that manifests within a society will vary greatly.
Since the question was about "conservative principles", and specifically mentioned the religious right, I interpreted the question to be in the context of what modern (mid 20th century forward) conservatism in the United States is about. The more correct term (and even that term is subject to different meanings) is: Classical Liberalism, which is more correctly contrasted to Social Liberalism. Both of which we are also still talking about in the context of US politics.
Classical liberalism is "conservative" because social liberalism is the "newer" ideology in the US. The US was founded on the principles of classical liberalism (hence the name), so in the US "conservatives" are going to tend to oppose the newfangled ideas and changes that exist within the ideology of social liberalism and thus support the ideas of classical liberalism.
It is from the principles of classical liberalism that the idea that we should treat people equally under the law and not "pick sides" comes from. Sorry if that was confusing, but unfortunately it takes a bit of explanation to get from one word in one context to another.
Um... But to be fair, social liberalism isn't really about "picking sides" either. It just tends to manifest that way in modern society. Social liberalism is really about the idea that the government can and should intercede in our lives to make them "better". It also tends to place the importance of providing a more balanced outcome across society higher than ensuring maximum liberty. It's from that desire which comes concepts like the idea that a large gap between "rich and poor" is bad, or that we should provide some minimum amount of safety net for all people, or some minimum amount of services and living level for everyone regardless of their own contributions.
And that objective tends to require the "picking sides" thing I talked about earlier. It's not really part of the principle itself, but it's how those principles are taught and how you get people to follow them. It's terrifically hard to make an argument based on philosophical concepts about broad social needs and rights. It's terrifically easy to say "we should help poor people, so let's create government programs to help poor people". Same result in the long run, but one is just easier to manage. But the downside is that you're "helping poor people" instead of pursuing an agenda based on the principle that total social outcome can be improved if we only equalize the individual outcomes a bit. And that lends itself to being "for or against" poor people.
Quote:
I don't like that animal rights groups are linked to liberalism, and even though I'm liberal as well their ideology goes completely against my own, but I'm not going to deny that most people would consider them to be liberal.
Yeah. To be honest, both animal rights and environmental causes tend to fall outside the normal rationales. But I think you're still making the mistake of thinking that your ideology is about the things you support or oppose. You may not support animal rights groups, but you do agree with the idea that it's ok to use government to pursue the things you do agree with. It's that ideology which you share with those activists, even if you completely disagree with what they want to do.
Which is what I was trying to explain earlier (and apparently failing to some degree).
Quote:
Conservatism and liberalism aren't defined by a core underlying philosophy. Individuals might have core underlying philosophies, but the collective does not. What defines them is a collection of stances on individual issues that have a high degree of overlap.
I disagree. I also think you're arguing a moving target here. You're correct that individuals have underlying philosophies and collectives don't. But if collectives are made up of people who agree with a given thing, then that distinction is kinda moot. Also, we do tend to adopt said philosophies based on a common agreement with other more basic concepts. And those things to tend to be "defined" in ways that exist outside the individual.
Quote:
The religious right and purely fiscal conservatives may not agree on everything, and what they do agree on they may not agree on for the same reason, but there is enough overlap for the groups to get along and work toward fairly common goals.
Now you're talking about a political party though. That's not the same thing.