Nostaligist vs. Conservative The Difference Matters
I have long had a problem with the extrapolation, from the principles of Conservatism, that the Conservative position resists all change and longs for the days of the past.
I recently came across an essay that introduced, what I think is, a more accurate distinction—the Nostalgist.
By definition, and my thinking, the Conservative mindset resists radical change and the 'dumping' of historically-proven prescriptions and traditions, but not all change. I think a conservative view is fine with change that doesn't 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'.
I don't think it is the days of yesteryears that the Conservative wants to hold on to, I think that designation belongs to the description of a nostalgist. I think it is the successful prescriptions of our history that a Conservative mind resists changing. Whereas it is the Nostalgist that wants those days back, as in, a Nostalgist resists any change regardless of its origin or intent—they want the days they falsely remember as 'the good ol' days' of their childhood. (or at least what they have romantically constructed as the "good ol' days.")
In past discussions, Russel Kirk has been quoted as defining the principles of Conservatism, and extrapolations of those principles have labeled Conservatives as resistant to change, but, I think those references to his writings are just bad 'Cliff Notes' summations. Following the principles Kirk writes about through to the foundational explanations of Burke, and even deeper to the philosophies of Locke, clearly show that it is not "all" change Conservatives resist. I think history can show Conservatives accepting a lot of beneficial change.
So get it right Liberal critics. Conservatives don't resist all change, they just resist rash change. And history, I think, has proven that to be a valuable perspective.
If you have the interest, and time for a lengthy read, as odd as it seems, Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, in my view, illustrates these views of the conservative mind relative to historical prescriptions and traditions. The term; 'throw the baby out with the bathwater', probably hadn't been coined in his time, but it certainly describes the gist of his thoughts.
GAYour thread theme reminded me of the quote below and this principle goes beyond racial matters. Conservatives have been dragged along and have come to accept changes that they resisted initially and would continue to resist until those aching for change would no longer be denied. Then, after that change is instituted and is set in stone, it could no longer be considered rash.
"For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
ML King, Jr. 1963That is an appropriate quote for this thread Cred. That you would think of it illustrates my point—the thought that Conservatives are no different from Nostalgists. I think they are different animals, but, I think the distinction is a fine line with many "Conservatives" that are really Nostalgists.
As a simple example; Someone that still fights against gay and/or civil Rights would probably think of themselves, and be seen as, a Conservative, yet by the distinction, I am trying to make they would be a Nostalgist, not a Conservative.
I know that seems like a picky-picky perspective, but I am hoping to better flesh out the idea so it doesn't seem so trivial. ;-)
GAI hope that you better flesh out the difference between nostalgists and true conservatives as it now sounds like 6 vs one half dozen......
Yep, as I said, it can seem like a fine line of distinction. I am working on it. I hope this thread helps me get there.;-)
Another example, (maybe); When the issue of gay marriage first surfaced my gut reaction was to resist it, "My God man, a marriage is between a man and a woman. They can have a legal union, leave marriage alone."
That was my gut speaking. When my head got involved and I thought about it I knew my gut was wrong.
So maybe "thought" is part of that fine line of distinction. A true Conservative thinks about their resistance to, (or acceptance of), something before committing to it, whereas a Nostalgist stops at the gut reaction. Anything that contradicts that must be wrong and resisted.
*shrug, still working on it.
GAIs a large part the mistaken memories of better times? In your example of gay marriage, living in the closet and being denied the love and bonds of marriage were certainly not good times! A little thought there shows that but, as you say, the nostalgists don't think beyond those bygone "good times". They live in memories; memories that are either entirely self centered, ignore the not-so-good parts or are just plain false.
Yep. I recently ran across that same thought regarding a John Boehner(sp?) comment that he longed for the good ol' days of his childhood. It was quickly pointed out that in many ways the times of his childhood weren't such "good ol' days" by any standard.
GAGA, I hope you're still working on the differing factor(s) between the nostalagists and the conservatives? Wilder and Cred are not going to sleep.
I think the two terms are pretty well defined and to me, there really is no overlap. The difference is that in the US society and some other countries there is just the left and the right and the conservatives get mixed in with the nostalgists.
Some conservatives are nostalgists in the sense of their timeline, the good ol' days of their youth whereas there are others that want the time of their ancestors back, the days they think were the good ol' days.
GA, I will reflect on Burke's Reflection's first. Then dig in the forum. GA, glad to meet you again here. Thanks.
In my view, it appears many conservatives have kept several political and social philosophies characterized alive and well for decades. We tend to respect for American traditions, republicanism, Christian values, and moral universalism. We lean toward being pro-business and have at some point along the line even became more exceptive of the labor union. As a conservative, I am very much anti-communism, pro-individualism, and fully advocate American exceptionalism. I prefer to have the government stay out of my decision making. These are things that I hold dear, and would not think of ever giving an inch on.
Although, I think many conservatives have a form of thought process that likes to compartmentalize but have become better at just adding more compartments. When it came to gay marriage, yes the immediate thought of some conservatives may just be, this is immoral. I think many conservatives have come to realize it is part of our changing world and realize we as conservatives must move on with what is being excepted in our new world. We make a new compartment to fit a new narrative. A compartment that collects things we need to think more realistically about and understand more completely.
In my opinion, conservatives have come a long way in the past ten years. Yes, we hold our traditions, values, and beliefs of old. But, we have become more than willing to live and let live... We are people that would be very hard-pressed to change our values or our beliefs. But respect other's choices, and rights. I feel we hold on to our values and beliefs due to them serving us well in the past.
I feel conservatives accept changes that are brought about through common sense. What I have witnessed If some form of change makes little sense to a conservative, they tend to step back and ignore, leaving the chaos to others to sort out. It's not that we resist change, it's that change needs to make a sense."I think many conservatives have come to realize it is part of our changing world and realize we as conservatives must move on with what is being excepted in our new world."
I agree with this Sharlee. A real Conservative doesn't resist change just because it is change. A Nostalgist does resist any forward-moving change.
"I feel conservatives accept changes that are brought about through common sense. "
And that is the point of my OP. A real Conservative wants to see change with a purpose, not just change for change's sake.
I am fighting against the categorization that Conservatives resist all change. That's waht a Nostalgist does.
GAI can see where you are going. I will add, I think in the past 15 years the Conservatives mindset has evolved into a new Animal, yes many do and have held the past in good esteem. However, I think a new mindset has evolved which has the Conservative-leaning more toward common-sense versus nostalgia. I think they have held on to being Nostalgic,
In my view, it's obvious that Conservatives are open to change. For example. --- Conservatives elected President Trump, and polls show over 95% of Republicans continue to support him through his historic tumultuous tenure. The Republican of old would have run for cover... Many saw the president as one that in no way resembled any Republican president of old... Yet they saw a very unique "Drain The Swamp" message and agenda that made good common sense for the country.
It seems a pure Nostalgist innately have a sentimental longing or affection for the past. Just feeling it was a more satisfying, rewarding, happier time, and their view of the past is written in stone. I don't find they have as good a foothold in the party as in the past. The new Conservative one might say is a Conservative 2.5.I agree that a Conservative can still be nostalgic for some aspects of the past Sharlee, but not to the point of the Nostalgist I am trying to describe.
However, I don't quite agree with your Trump example. I think the Republican support for Pres. Trump is pure politics and has little to do with accepting change that benefits society's progress.
Also, I don't think today's Conservatives are a "2.5" version, I think the real Conservative, (as I like to see it), has always been willing to accept rational change. I would imagine it easy to go back in history and find plenty of Conservative-change examples that were as equally controversial then as our modern times' gay Rights examples are now.
GAI used the Trump election as an example to show Conservatives are very much acceptable to change that makes a common-sense to them. And yes have been throughout history. I think electing a completely out of the box non-politician president should full prove we are not afraid of change. And willing to continue done the path with him further shows we are on board to change. I can't think it was all political. We Conservatives took a big chance on a candidate that's character is far from what most Conservatives would accept as their own. We tossed nostalgia out the window and opted for change.
I did not want to indicate Conservatives of old were never open to change. I do feel they have evolved to be more willing to accept change more readily. I don't think they will ever give up being somewhat nostalgic. I feel one can be nostalgic about many things. To include one's long time personal association with beliefs, values, rights, religion. I would think most Conservatives do look back on all I have mentioned, due to these very things are being threatened. I think nostalgic feelings of what America was does affect the Conservative's thought process. I don't find Conservatives overly nostalgic, but I do find them more nostalgic them Liberals. I also agree they have always been adaptable to change, and brave when changes needed to be pursued throughout America's history.
As a rule, I don't find liberal nostalgic They are always ready to let the past stay in the past. Very quick to move on from anything that they find did not work out for them personally. They can shift gears quickly, and hold little need for tradition or history. Never in our history has this been so apparent.I agree with most of your comment Sharlee, except the part about Republicans supporting Trump is a sign of acceptance of change.
We have contrary views on that one. I still hold it is a purely political acceptance having nothing to do with "change," but everything to do with holding on to power by playing the hand they were dealt. As I remember, most Republicans, (politicians, of course), did not accept or support him until he won the election and they had no choice.
I would think that the majority, (if not a majority than at least a large segment), of his Republican base would fit the description of Nostalgist more than real Conservatives.
GA
Thank you for the link G.A. I downloaded the pdf and will have a look.
It's one of the themes in conservatism that is on the edge of the sword so to speak. As if you go too far in "nostalgia" and start to glorify it, you have reached fascism. It reminds me of the list Umberto Eco made of the characteristics of fascism.
You have many forms of fascism but all share the same points in one way or another.
1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
4. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
5. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
6. Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
7. The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
8. The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
13. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
From his essay about Ur-Fascism (1995)Well, that is certainly an extreme comparison Peterstreep. I would never have thought of comparing a Nostalgist with a Facist—and still don't, in a real sense, but you are right that Nostalgists do exhibit many of the traits and beliefs in your list.
GAYes it's extreme. It's not that nostalgic is fascist. Definitely not. I think everybody has some nostalgic feelings and ideas about things that used to be better.
Nostalgia is only in combination with other factors becoming fascist.
I put the list here to remind us what fascism is. Often the term is used to lightly for my taste.
As fascism is the extreme and of conservatism, Stalinism is the extreme end of the left. Both with terrible consequences. But it is all a sliding scale.
I like how you make a difference between nostalgic and conservative thoughts/political movements.
I also think that labeling makes things simple and at the same time complicated.
I think you can have conservative thoughts about this and progressive thoughts about that. In the end we a are lucky to live in a free country and don't have to follow strict party politics like in North Korea or China..
I hadn't heard about the Nostalgists as a political movement. But can imagine it.Break out the champagne, we are in agreement.
GA
I have read the thread and it does cause thoughts that I still ponder. Seeing another thread by paradigmsearch there is a video by PragerU. I think it may be a view of a nostalgist. Maybe . . take a peek.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeqBbO_ … e=youtu.be
hint: Skip ads of TrumpI also visited that thread with the PragerU link. But, I don't see the Nostalgist connection. I agree with that hypothetical principal's speech.
GAI am thinking and pondering the following:
"I don't think it is the days of yesteryears that the Conservative wants to hold on to, I think that designation belongs to the description of a nostalgist. I think it is the successful prescriptions of our history that a Conservative mind resists changing. Whereas it is the Nostalgist that wants those days back, as in, a Nostalgist resists any change regardless of its origin or intent—they want the days they falsely remember as 'the good ol' days' of their childhood. (or at least what they have romantically constructed as the "good ol' days.")"
I am thinking of high schools today with their different organizations like La Raza clubs for Hispanics. I live in San Diego area, so very Hispanic. His view would not allow that club. Would a conservative? Do they today?
As I said I am pondering what a Nostalgist is vs. a Conservative. I think a conservative would eventually accept La Raz. A Nostalgist would not.
That is one connection I saw. I liken it to the example of gay marriage of the two contrasted.You have an interesting point Tsmog. One I think would contribute to the Conservative vs. Nostalgist conversation.
As a Conservative, I fully support the Right of students to have such clubs, but, in the context of the purpose of the speech, I support banning them as a school activity. (extracurricular activities on school property are school activities).
The purpose of the speech, as I see it, is to promote student unity and learning, not student cultural or ethnic differences, which is what I think such clubs do.
I understand the apparent weak spot of that argument—that learning about ethnic and cultural differences are a valuable part of a young person's education, but I don't think those type of clubs serve that purpose. I think they serve the purpose of accentuating and promoting those differences. So they would be detrimental to the purpose of unity the speech is trying to promote.
A Nostalgist may also be against such clubs, but I think it would be for different and less supportable reasons. They probably wouldn't support them no matter where they were happening. I would support them in any way that didn't tie them to the school's educational purpose.
Specifically, I think those differences should be taught at some level of education. But taught to all students as a group, (student unity), not to just specific segments of the student body.
GAThank you for expounding the view of a conservative vs. Nostalgist. I may have mislead a little because I was remembering my 'good ole' days where there was a La Raza club, which was community service orientated. I can accept the view of not having any distractions from unity and education, yet I think race and ethnicity are givens that may be difficult to rule out. Yet that is another thread.
I was more looking at Dennis Prager and seeing him as a Nostalgist. I pictured him coming from a Happy Days high school and saying the pledge of allegiance when in elementary school. That was his 'good ole days' I thought that formed his inspiration for the main points of his speech. So, I guess I was prejudging him without knowing him and not looking more closely at his points.You may be right about Dennis Prager. I have stumbled across many PragerU posts/points/articles that I agree with, in the same vein as my agreement with this "Principal's Speech." But, when looking further into PragerU, or a particular point of theirs, I have found them to be more Nostalgist than Conservative.
So I think you have Dennis Prager fairly pegged. Just think of it like that broken clock thing.
And don't go messing with my "Happy Days" and Pledge of Allegiance memories—those were some good times and I don't have a problem with the Pledge. ;-)
GAAnyone who messes with Happy Days is messing with the Fonz, ehhhh! Besides I watch Happy Days every weekday on METV before dinner. As far as the pledge goes I said it in elementary school and adding it was on a Marine Base. So, won't go there.
Now there is a mental picture . . . someone refusing to say the Pledge in a school on a Marine Corp base.
GA
". . . and the conservatives get mixed in with the nostalgists."
That is my point Lobo. I want to separate the two in folks' minds. I think Nostalgists do fit the criticism of resisting all change. I think that is a bad perspective to have and I don't think it is a valid criticism of a real Conservative.
It is one thing to long for fond memories of the past, whether accurate or not, and quite another to let that longing overrule your reason.
GAIn my opinion, as long as you guys have a two-party system that's not something most people are going to be able to comprehend because from what I observe people think left and right, there's nothing in between, in the general sense of course. People do know that there are extremists on both sides, but that is usually associated with violence and not ideology from what I've seen.
Apart from those who think left or right in extreme, they are some independents. These are watching the two main polical system. I believe at the right time, these just jump out for either. So the term conservative or nostalagist can lost its sense.
I'd disagree with that, Lobo. I am very much for freedom to own weapons, but very much a pro-choice at the same time. I highly support gay rights but highly disagree with pushing religion as government approved and supported.
I think there are lots and lots of people like that - some of each side is "right" and some is "wrong".
I get the meaning, and the views expressed.
But I also want to point out that a lot of it depends on who is doing the defining of the word, their perspective, their beliefs.
What is a Conservative?
Is that someone who believes in God?
Is that someone who believes in Capitalism & the Constitution?
Is that someone who is a Republican?
Does it have racial connotations?
Is it being a Nationalist rather than a Globalist?
The issues being conflated in our society today to cause this growing swell of turmoil are definitely being heightened at this time of "lock-downs" by tens of millions of workers and students left with nothing else to do.
But America was at a crossroads of MAJOR issues, any one of which would have rocked our society in difficult times, the fact that several are hitting us all at the same time will have debilitating impact in the months ahead, and maybe for years to come.
We have the racial component of America... we have reached the point where Whites are no longer a significant enough majority (barely being over 50% today) that the "Western Society" AKA "White Society" is being challenged and will continue to be challenged.
We have the Nation's Christian heritage which also has reached the point where it is no longer a majority bringing into question social norms (Christmas, Easter, Customs). Of course Christianity has been under attack from a variety of fronts for many decades now, so this almost goes unnoticed today. Still, between Atheists, Muslims, etc. there is a growing percentage of Americans that don't identify with Christianity.
Economic transition from dominant global leader, to second or third largest economy and with that change, the turmoil that will be caused by not being the world's center of riches and wealth. This ties into the globalist realities of lower wages, less jobs, less upward mobility for anyone not already in the wealthy/elite stratosphere.
These are the types of serious issues that normally result in a nation:
a) Having a sweeping revolution ( see China - Russia & Communism)
b) A covert usurpation (see Germany & National Socialism)
c) Massive external war with other nations in a winner take all scenario.
For some countries that are homogeneous enough (Japan 80s) and are not a leading economy that is downsizing, freezing society and the economy may be possible for decades with no real issues other than stagnation. America is neither a small enough economy or homogenous.
Nor can we have another Civil War in the true sense, as in our past, where the issues were divided by States and easily identifiable as North and South, slave states and non-slave states.
A, B, or C is in our future... it just remains to be seen which one.What is a Conservative?
That's a good question Ken.
Personally I think there are many forms of conservatism. There are also many different voters.
I don't think you have to believe in God to be a conservative.nor white or a Republican.
Yes, it depends a bit on how you define the word. Within the Republican party, you have different points of view. The same with the Democratic party. I think you have democrats who are leaning towards conservatism (Like Biden) and conservatives who are leaning to a more open view like McCain (Saying this with limited knowledge of US politics and an outsider's point of view).
I understand that you are worried. And rightly so, I am too. We live in interesting times, as the Chinese curse goes.
Cooperations who can buy countries, the shifting of world powers, an immense chasm between the upper rich and the rest of the world (
World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50% of the world)
And yes, the relation between religions and politics is also changing.
On the positive note. I think there is less need for war as the world is economically more and more connected. Which perhaps is difficult to combine with nationalism. I don't think A,B or C will happen in the States. Simply because a civil war will not be financially beneficial for most companies. And they rule. Facebook has a massive influence on how a society thinks and behaves. You need a propaganda machine when you want civil unrest.
You are touching a lot of interesting topics Ken. And I think there are a lot of things going on in the States and elsewhere at the moment that are worrisome. (and we even haven't touch COVID and how it will influence the economics and relationships between people.)I am also worried. Who does not? Conservative may be easy to defined by few. But the definition can be challenged. In other words, the voters do not see easy to it. The challenge is that the American political system has evolved from many divers points decades ago. Many divers peoples- Germany, Africans liberated from slavery, Italians, Irish, French, and originally English-with diverse political thoughts, makes the American political machinery too complex and too divers. Nonetheless, America come under a common inspiring entity, God. But God is also being question. The system then continue to be comlex. Only America has the answer.
I am attempting to put the pieces together to best project where things will lead in the future, for the country. I am not worrying about it.
These various matters do not exist in separate bubbles, and in circumstances like this, they work to inflame one another, until instead of having one or two smaller fires to contend with... you have a raging inferno enveloping the entire forest.
Knowing a fair bit of history as I do, I try to correlate how past events caused the rise of the Third Reich, or the throttling totalitarianism of Stalin's reign, and how in the seeming blink of an eye things go from one reality, to a new far more sinister one.
Now one could hope that it is a more enlightened change that occurs, but when the driving force is rage and marxism, and perhaps outside foreign forces (be they China or Russia) then it being a positive change is unlikely.
And we are seeing that extremism and censorship of dissenting voices being played out now by the media, be they CNN or Twitter.
Where you are wrong, is believing the richest 26, or the biggest international corporations care about what happens to America.
They more than anyone want cheap labor and a controllable population, and if they have to destroy America's society, its history, and its Constitution to get what they want, they will happily do so, regardless of the cost in human lives.
You are right about the 'who is doing the defining' thought Ken.
In a topical discussion, all of your listed questions would be relevant. However, in a debate about the authenticity of support for a "definition" most folks will seek the accepted authority for their definition.
In our modern times, that quoted authority would most likely be Russel Kirk and his Ten Conservative Principles.. Which I think is a good authority, but is most often taken for its textual construction without looking into the thoughts that have historically supported that construct.
For instance; Kirk's 2nd and 3rd principle are quoted as proof that Conservatives are against change;
"Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity"
"Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. "
Yet, when both principles are examined they clearly show Conservatives are not against change, they are against rash and radical change.
So it doesn't matter, to a real Conservative, it the question of change involves a belief in God or Globalism, the tradition of Thanksgiving or the tradition of a nuclear 2-parent family.
The changes being demanded by recent times are certainly changes a Conservative will resist because for the most part, they are rash and radical.
A Nostalgist will resist any change to our policing authorities, a Conservative will consider some types of policing reform, (for instance, I don't support the recent militarization of our enforcement agencies), and an Idiot will support defunding our law enforcement agencies.
As for your choices . . . the optimist side of me is fighting the pessimist side that says we are track for choice B.
GAGA, certainly, some of the changes going on these days are questionable. Like: why is Trump impeached? Why is he reinstated? Each factor has differing answer. Others like "Do you like Trump" is divisive. More answers can be easy to give from the conservatives than an antagonist, right or wrong? This make me recalled Ken's flame. And it remind me of how certain conservatives had to sided with Trump. So he gets back to power. GA, I believe conservatives were right in resisting drastic changes and preserving the others old or recent.
You are right about the different answers to your mentioned topical changes Miebakagh, but the changes I am thinking about—relative to the Conservative vs. Nostalgist description, are the more foundational societal changes, such as individual Rights or government and Constitutional structure.
GAGA, rights like amending the American Constitution, gun control, and owning gun(s)?
I think to focus on Rights obscures the point of the difference in resistance to change between a Nostalgist and a Conservative.
Think of the Right of gays to get married in my previous example. A Nostalgist will resist this change forever and completely. A Conservative will accept this change—even if it isn't a change they like. A real Conservative understands progress requires some change, but it is the nature of the change they may resist.
To continue that example, even though a Conservative will accept the change of gay marriage, they may still resist the societal change of bathroom designations related to the current alphabet of proposed gender selections. In short, a real Conservative may still hold fast to the idea that there are only two biological genders—male and female, (plus that one anomaly of mixed genitalia), while accepting other gay issue changes.
GAGA, conservatives can be permissive, when they allow changes they do not necessarily welcome?
I would probably say "accepting" rather than "permissive." Anyone will accept change they "welcome."
I might not like some proposed change, but if I can see a benefit or need for that change then I would have to get onboard with it.
A recent example; the military Special Forces just graduated its first female candidate. I don't agree with that. She was a petite 5 ft. tall. When I think of Special Forces I think strong and forceful warriors. I just can't see a petite 5 ft. female meeting those warrior demands.
But, she was tough enough and strong enough, and determined enough to complete the 53-week(?) training course right along side those strong male macho warriors of her class. So what the hell do I know. It only makes sense for me to accept that change. And I do. It destroys my lifelong image of a Special Forces soldier, so maybe my lifelong image needs updating.
Conversely, I would venture that a Nostalgist will view this as an unacceptable blasphemy. Ipso facto, the difference between a Conservative and a Nostalgist.
GAJust to clarify, SF selection is not 53 weeks. Its 24 days (sometimes even less). After which it is a vacation.
Its the easiest of the "Special Forces" schools to get through, its a cake walk compared to Ranger School (which was just over two months long when I went through). When I went through the pass rate was in the teens. And it was common for trainees to be seriously injured, in fact my class was the first to go through a full Swamp phase after several soldiers lost their lives during that part of training.
Many go from Basic to MOS to Airborne to Ranger school consecutively, so we are looking at over four months of escalating physical and mental trials.
And Army SF selection is like being at a resort compared to SEAL training, which does take 53 weeks (maybe you had the two confused). All Navy SEALs must complete the 24 week Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) school, a basic parachutist course and then the 26 week SEAL Qualification Training program.Well hell Ken. I was noting that example from memory of a news announcement. Now you have made me go look for the details.
While you are right about the 24-day selection process, the full SF course can take about a year. It appears the candidate of this discussion did do about 53 weeks of courses.
It also appears that even though the 24-day selection process may be physically tough, the later 4-week "Robin Sage" course is the real physical test.
I didn't mean for my 53-week reference to be taken as 53 weeks of in-the-mud Seal-type training. But I do get your point that the Army SF training isn't as tough as Seal training.
As a side note, it appears that about two dozen women have graduated from the Army's Ranger training courses you mentioned.
But I do feel a little better. Maybe my Special Forces warrior image can remain in place if I just keep in mind that it is Seal Special Operators that I am thinking of. ;-)
GA
I agree, in that a Conservative in the sense of an American, is one that wants to preserve societal norms rather than accept what is deemed radical change.
But then when it comes to others labeling people a Conservative, it can take religious or racial connotations.
You are looking for a definitive point where one can parse Nostalgia from Conservative... its hard to be a Conservative and not have some Nostalgia entwined within those beliefs.
---
As to the protests and rallies for BLM, its unfortunate that they are being used as a screen by the likes of Antifa and Anarchists who are instigating much of the violent unrest.
---
Yes, I too believe B is most likely, and will come as a result of Biden being elected... many may believe he is a force for what was (here Nostalgia kicks in).
Many older voters in particular that are turned off by Trump's antics (lack of decorum and civility) ... or who sit and listen to CNN or MSNBC or NPR and don't realize these have become tools of propaganda for radical change in this country, may believe Biden is the answer.
I think once Biden is elected, the real "voices of change" will exert control over the party and force the extreme changes many Americans are not expecting a Biden election to result in.
I expect the likes of Schumer, Pelosi, and Biden to quickly be swept aside (ages 80, 78, 70 they will not have the mental acuity to resist) or be nothing but puppets for the more extreme powers within the party.
Those who are hoping to "get things back to normal" are being duped into voting for Biden. He is a vehicle for change, the type of change where we have "hate speech" outlawed or enforced by a social credit system, massive tax hikes on the working class, and other fun "advances" to our society.I think you are right on all points Ken. I am simply building a foundation to stand on when I want to dispute the, (generally), Liberal claim that Conservatives are dinosaurs because they resist change and progress. I simply believe that is factually not true. So the Nostalgist will be pointed out to them as the real target of such claims.
As for Biden, I think his recent days' proclamations of his agenda goals prove your point. The Democrat party will become a far-Left party with no room for any other views. After 2020 they will no longer be able to claim they are the "Big Tent" party.
GA
Interesting topic GA. I completely agree with this analysis, it definitely describes me. I wrote an article some years back about being all in for progress but not all in for progressivism, there’s a big difference. We are moving at warped speed at this point, wherein progressivism is being replaced with something much worse, but that’s another topic for another day.
Ken, it is had to imagine the likes of Biden and Pelosi can become stoges in the hands of the power. Fact is Bill Clinton is a smoke screan? Those in their 70's and 80's were not usually senile and imbecil. Do you think the voters are program robots? Has President Trump ever become the first family puppet?!
Biden clearly has deteriorating mental facilities.
This is Biden 30 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0
This is Biden now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iq4HSYNCHo
Pelosi as well.
This is Nancy 20 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWuBFHRR0dw
This is Nancy now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO7x-hccB_c
Some people MAY maintain a high level of mental capacity and clear headed thought process into their 80s and beyond... not these two.
And to be clear about the science of how the mind works, as far as I know the cognitive ability of every person begins to deteriorate at some point in the mid to late 60s.
Some are more affected than others, some last into their 90 without showing serious decline, most do not.
Pelosi is 80 and Biden is 78... past their prime and going downhill fast.Ken, but, don't these two very senile human beings make wonderful vessels to use to promote an all kind of crazy agenda?
And just think we have many in our society, young and old that would vote for a mere piece of antique pottery...Death of a Nation... we are on the verge of being an oppressed society, and people who think they are creating a revolution that will lead to more freedom and equality are the ones who will be most surprised when they are living in the 21st century version of Stalin's regime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGdCsojeRsEI totally agree. Never in my life have I been more sure that the country is in real trouble of collapsing. I saw this coming over the past 15 years.
I have been lucky in life due to hard work and endurance I prepared for a plan B. I own a home in Puerto Vallarta Mexico. Each year I have spent more and more time there. I have come to appreciate the life I enjoy in Mexico and will abandon America if need be. I barely recognize it anymore anyway. I will leave it and hope it will survive under the pressure of a teardown.
I see no sense at my age in watching it collapse first hand. I will do it from afar.
Ken, good comparison. And the hidden but obvious part of the mind science. Both the likes of Pelosi and Biden is what I call 'hate against.' The mind is not in hamony with itself. So the likes of Biden is better than pottery? Or the reverse? Look at Trump in the same comparison. He is 'really jolly.' I think is mind is not so affect, with that stupid cliche "you're fake news." Still, Trump picks on Biden's blunder to enhance his presidency and win a second term. Odd creatures indeed!
I would say there is an age effect on Trump as well.
But I would say its minimal and if he were to get a second term, he would still leave the Presidency younger than Biden is today.
Considering the level of stress that position entails, having someone in their 80s hold it is inconceivable, our world moves too fast in the 21st century for anyone suffering from dementia or some other form of mental decline to hold the position.
Yet here we are, trying to pretend that Biden is OK and can do the job. At best he is a puppet, at worst he is a Trojan Horse.
We are also trying to pretend the radical changes occurring in our government in certain cities and states, in the media, and the social platforms we use to communicate and speak to one another, is just a minor shift.
Here is some nostalgia for consideration:
Here is Don Lemon in 2013:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NdT4qbDIe4
Here is Don Lemon in 2018:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJbix0XJjGg
Here is Don Lemon in 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tGjm9ONRqc
We have drastically changed how we view the world, and who is "to blame" for its problems.
That said, I agree that improvements can be made, I agree that the top 1% and their immediate supporters have way too much wealth and power, and the common Americans, especially those classified as poor, have been getting a raw deal for decades now.
But I also believe Biden is a puppet and groups like BLM are fronts for far more radical change, revolutionary and totalitarian change, and I don't think it can be stopped... at best delayed.
Our colleges are filled with courses today that teach nothing but Social Justice and revolutionary Doctrine. Tens of thousands of young adults are programmed to believe America is evil, that white men and the patriarchy are the sources of all that is wrong with the world today.
Each year, tens of thousands are programmed to be radicals and extremists, to believe the world owes them something... they are not taught to work hard, to be of benefit to society and humanity... they are taught that society and our nation needs to be torn down.
And we will reap the rewards of allowing our Nation's Universities and colleges to be filled with ideologues and radicals.
These people now fill positions in State and Federal government, in the NY Times and Washington Post, at CNN and MSNBC, Facebook and Twitter.
They don't want peaceful, progressive change. They want to overthrow what is and replace it all at once... this will lead to chaos at best or outright totalitarianism like we see in China today.
Think about it... regardless of what you think of Trump... he is the President of the United States... and they are censoring him on all Social Platforms, they are taking every utterance out of context to use as they want in the MSM, and they are doing their best to silence anyone who would support him.
I'm just not sure what 21st version of history this is... the Communist Revolution of Russia or the National Socialist usurpation of Germany.
That is how I would have pegged you too ABWilliams. And as is obvious, that is also how I view myself. I like your thought about the difference in supporting progress while resisting Progressivism.
GA
Related Discussions
- 141
Is Western Conservatism Founded on Religion Rather Than Reason?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
In researching my new book "Conservatism in America: Theory and Reality" I ran across this comment by Russell Kirk about the father of conservatism - Edmund Burke. It says:"Revelation, reason, and assurance beyond the senses tell that the Author of our being exists, and that He...
- 16
Have Liberals and Conservatives Changed Since The 1960s
by Sharlee 3 years ago
8 Core Principles of ConservatismIndividual FreedomLimited GovernmentThe Rule of Law. Peace through StrengthFiscal ResponsibilityFree Markets.Human DignityConservatives are not opposed to common-sense change. However, conservatives prefer gradualism when it comes to change.Conservatives support the...
- 94
Describe the difference between a liberal and a conservative.
by Allen Donald 12 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
- 45
It seem that conservatives r "do as I say, not do what I do" WHY?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Why do conservatives think that virtue and morality should be identified with their political agenda and what view of morality do they profess?The conservative Speaker of the House of Representatives, embracing family values, suggested that the children of welfare mothers be taken away from the...
- 64
Scientific American: succinct difference between Right and Left
by Credence2 7 months ago
The Scientific American article is not terribly long but...But it reinforces for me why I am on the correct side.But I hear that conservatives distrust higher education and scholarship. What is the palatable replacement for them? I would hazard to guess. So here are some excerpts for those without...
- 148
Progressivism vs. Conservatism What About This Statement
by ga anderson 4 years ago
I hope that this does not turn into another Trump thread, but, since his name is mentioned I hold no illusions that it will not.The quote is relative to an article about changing eras between traditional conservatism and political correctness and progressivism.Progressive columnist William Galston...