The big idea behind conservatism is “let’s keep things how they’ve been” while progressives seek new solutions to problems. Pre civil war progressives were looking for a means to abolish slavery while conservatives sought to preserve the institution. No mental gymnastics needed.
With your way of reasoning it was the progressives who caused slavery.
At some point in time someone proposed slavery as cheap labor. That would have been a progressive since the ones who just wanted to “keep things as they’ve been” were conservatives…
Your argument is completely absurd. Especially since slavery existed long before anything remotely even resembling progressives and conservatives.
So weird to realize you see your comment as some kind of slam dunk. Doesn’t that get tiring? Having to invent some nonsense to replace reality with, just so your precious feelings don’t get threatened.
(parent comment) The big idea behind conservatism is “let’s keep things how they’ve been” while progressives seek new solutions to problems
This is one way to think about it, and it mostly works because keeping things how they’ve been typically benefits those already in power. But this doesn’t always work as you’ve almost sorta pointed out (your specific example doesn’t work but others potentially could). That is to say, yes, it’s possible to “innovate” in the field of exploitation and if viewed from this perspective your argument makes sense.
That’s why the better way to view the big idea behind conservatism this way: 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. – Frank Wilhoit
Political parties are important differentiators in US politics, because nearly every major party were and are liberal parties. Additionally , in this conversation it’s about politics and political leaders preserving and maintaining slavery, not “who dun it”.
Let’s draw the through line of history, shall we? The Democratic-Republicans (conservative, laissez-faire) are why the constitution preserved slavery for a minimum of 20 years with no exceptions and why the 3/5 compromise existed. It was conservatives that threw a fit about the international slave trade being outlawed. It was a conservative court that ruled against Dred Scott. When it was time to add more states to the union, the Democrats demanded on expanding slavery to maintain their position of power in Congress. The traitorous states that tried to rebel over slavery were ran solely by conservatives.
deleted by creator
The big idea behind conservatism is “let’s keep things how they’ve been” while progressives seek new solutions to problems. Pre civil war progressives were looking for a means to abolish slavery while conservatives sought to preserve the institution. No mental gymnastics needed.
You really argue against yourself here.
With your way of reasoning it was the progressives who caused slavery.
At some point in time someone proposed slavery as cheap labor. That would have been a progressive since the ones who just wanted to “keep things as they’ve been” were conservatives…
What comment did you even read?
Your argument is completely absurd. Especially since slavery existed long before anything remotely even resembling progressives and conservatives.
So weird to realize you see your comment as some kind of slam dunk. Doesn’t that get tiring? Having to invent some nonsense to replace reality with, just so your precious feelings don’t get threatened.
This is one way to think about it, and it mostly works because keeping things how they’ve been typically benefits those already in power. But this doesn’t always work as you’ve almost sorta pointed out (your specific example doesn’t work but others potentially could). That is to say, yes, it’s possible to “innovate” in the field of exploitation and if viewed from this perspective your argument makes sense.
That’s why the better way to view the big idea behind conservatism this way: 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. – Frank Wilhoit
It’s well documented that the political parties had a policy switch some time in the 1930s.
deleted by creator
Political parties are important differentiators in US politics, because nearly every major party were and are liberal parties. Additionally , in this conversation it’s about politics and political leaders preserving and maintaining slavery, not “who dun it”.
Let’s draw the through line of history, shall we? The Democratic-Republicans (conservative, laissez-faire) are why the constitution preserved slavery for a minimum of 20 years with no exceptions and why the 3/5 compromise existed. It was conservatives that threw a fit about the international slave trade being outlawed. It was a conservative court that ruled against Dred Scott. When it was time to add more states to the union, the Democrats demanded on expanding slavery to maintain their position of power in Congress. The traitorous states that tried to rebel over slavery were ran solely by conservatives.