conservatives will always lose

[NaturalBornNEET]

Because they are fighting against the one unchanging law of existence: that change and evolution is constant and inevitable. The values they conserve today are the values progressives inaugurated in recent past. They are basically liberals but always one or two steps behind. Notice how little they bitch about homosexuality nowadays (relatively speaking)? Because all their focus is on getting mind-broken over transgenders. Conservatives in 200 years will probably be obsessed with transhumans and clankers that gender and sexuality won't even cross their mind, likewise if you took a conservative today and put them in medieval Europe they'd probably be put in a pillory in the town square for being too degenerate.

Even if they manage to plunge us again into the dark ages humanity will eventually have another enlightenment and come back even stronger. In that way conservatives do serve a role, they are the resistance needed in strength training. They also act as an anchor and sanity-checker so we don't progress too fast and blindly into potential self-destruction.

 

[sinfonia]

Its really not the normal, or natural course of history that liberalism became the dominant ideology. What we today consider normal would be considered absurd and unthinkable even just a hundred years ago; and I think it will be that way again in a hundred years from now.

The reason conservatives have been losing every cultire war since the 1960s (until fairly recently) is that they accepted the basic premises of liberalism, but werent willling to take them all the way through. This is changing now. What we are seeing today is the birth pains of a new social, political, and global order that I believe will shape our civilization for many centuries to come.

 

[Dejected 55]

The problem, as usual, isn't so much the ideas as the people. If you are logical, there are times when conservatism makes sense while there are times when liberalism and progressive actions make sense.

When your food stores are running low, you need to tread carefully and use efficiently to make things last. This is conservatism. In a war when you are backed against the wall with no good options and you know you can't stay but movement will lose lives, you have to pick the best from a list of bad options and run with that to try and survive. That is being progressive.

Progressive vs Conservatism should be two sides of the coin that everyone uses to move forward in life. You weigh one against the other and sometimes have to dive in while other times keep doing what it working well. There's no sense in jumping just for the sake of "progress" when there is no driving need and you have no clue where you will land... patience is prudent here. But when the walls are starting to crack and you see an impending fall coming, staying with "tradition" makes no sense.

Our problem in humanity is that politics is wielded like religion... people pick a side and can't swerve from their side at any cost... and they battle to be "win" more than they do to be "right."

Ideally, our system of government in the US was intended be for people who mostly wanted to go forward but didn't always agree on the path to take to get there... so we have checks and balances designed to help. BUT when you get a bunch of selfish people who just want to further their interests, we get unnecessary divides among people when we all live in the same place and mostly want the same things.

The Republican vs Democrat argument shouldn't be over right vs wrong or good vs evil, but what is the best way to paint the house that we all know needs painting. Debate the kind of paint or where to source it or the color, but agree the house needs to be painted and don't let the disagreement over little points prevent the house from getting painted. Also, sometimes you have to try new paint because you're running low on the other paint and having alternatives is a good thing.

We make things so much harder than they need to be. Two people decide to go to lunch and like very different food. Do they sit and argue forever and starve to death refusing to eat somewhere the other guy likes? Each one only wanting to eat if the other person hates their meal? Does that make sense? Do actual people do that in any other context except for government?