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
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