The thing is, I don’t think my fundamentals have changed at all:
The purpose of a government is to better the lives of its citizens
The constitution is a living document and was intended to be modified as time passes
Nobody is infallible. We can all misunderstand things
We shouldn’t change things unless there is evidence that things need to be changed (this is the conservative part)
You should strive for a moral viewpoint that everyone can apply equally. There is no us vs you.
Political parties are a detriment to the people
You should be able to vote for whoever you want. (George Washington’s viewpoint)
Compromise is generally good.
We should have the freedom to choose ideas
Work within the system to find what needs to be changed. Then, change the system to accommodate
Conservatives and liberals should agree on the end goal, even if they disagree on the me tbh is to get there.
I’m a bit of a centrist. I think we should always take the middle ground, after passing the options through a moral filter. In other words, the moral middle ground between genocide and don’t kill people isn’t to kill some people. It’s to not kill people at all.
I don’t like things like feminism, black history month, and pride month. However, I understand their importance. To me, female, black, and LGBTQA+ are just all people. They should all have human rights.
Don’t like feminists? Join them. The point of feminism is to create a world where feminism doesn’t exist. We’ll just all be humans.
Black history is American history and it should be included year round. LGBTQA+ is fine so long as everything about it is consensual - and it is.
Don’t like the gays? Don’t be gay. You don’t have the right to infringe on other people’s human
rights. We don’t need to make a big deal about it, or have a month of celebration. They should be able to just exist. My only objection to LGBTQA+ is porn. I should be able to choose between penis and not penis, but that is easily rectified behind the scenes.
I have viewpoints liberals hate: it’s okay to address the adverse side effects of marijuana (ie. Disproportionate imprisonment of a distinguishable subgroup — not subclass — of people). It should be okay to research marijuana. It is not okay to legalize it before the experts have sufficient data and have evaluated such data. The best way to battle climate change in transportation isn’t electric vehicles. Lithium ion batteries are unstable. The best way is to let me drive whatever car I want, and provide places to do so (ie. Race track that’s a toll road), and install public transportation. Then, you slowly take away lanes until there is only one lane and the shoulder to get by in case of an accident.
I have views Republicans hate. While I enjoy firearms, I think the second amendment interpretation ignores the precondition of the militia. The president should not be immune to criminal prosecution of any kind. Fascism because your “team” is on top is still not OK. Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one. Religion should not guide government policy.
Like, isn’t it better if things are data driven (and filtered for bias)?
Universal healthcare makes sense by the numbers. The more people you represent, the more leverage you have during negotiation. Sure, your taxes go up - but that’s how government works…
Fighting climate change makes sense. If climate is change is real and we ignore it, the world becomes nigh unlivable. If climate change is real and we do something about, life is better for all the organisms that live on earth. If climate change is false and we do nothing, cool. If climate change is false and we fight climate change, we can all breathe better. What’s the downside here?
Fines should not be a fixed amount. It should be based on percentage of income. $300 fine for some making $8/hr for 8 hours a day is, assuming average of 30.437 days a month, is approximately 15.5% of gross monthly income. Whereas if you make, say, $60,000/year assuming an average of is just 6%. And the actual spending power goes down drastically more, the less you take home.
I’m a pretty progressive guy and I don’t think there’s much in here to disagree with. The only nit I would pick is that inertia isn’t a great argument to keep things the way they are. That is, “we’ve always done it this way” isn’t a great reason to do anything.
Your framing of conservatism is in line with the Eisenhower era when we weren’t linked into this existential crisis about the concept of governance. But for the last twenty years (at least) the American right has been against the very idea that the government should govern.
The left is trying to argue about who it should serve, taking its existence as a precondition, and the right is trying to dismantle it without regard for who it serves. As a result, we’re pretty much irrecoverably talking past each other.
It’s not so much that it’s keep things the way they are because we’ve always done it this way.
It’s more, maintain order while we figure out if the system works. If it doesn’t, change it. I don’t think it’s as much inertia as it is there are a lot of things on the agenda. Let’s change what changes would be more effective first
The thing is, I don’t think my fundamentals have changed at all:
I’m a bit of a centrist. I think we should always take the middle ground, after passing the options through a moral filter. In other words, the moral middle ground between genocide and don’t kill people isn’t to kill some people. It’s to not kill people at all.
I don’t like things like feminism, black history month, and pride month. However, I understand their importance. To me, female, black, and LGBTQA+ are just all people. They should all have human rights.
Don’t like feminists? Join them. The point of feminism is to create a world where feminism doesn’t exist. We’ll just all be humans. Black history is American history and it should be included year round. LGBTQA+ is fine so long as everything about it is consensual - and it is.
Don’t like the gays? Don’t be gay. You don’t have the right to infringe on other people’s human rights. We don’t need to make a big deal about it, or have a month of celebration. They should be able to just exist. My only objection to LGBTQA+ is porn. I should be able to choose between penis and not penis, but that is easily rectified behind the scenes.
I have viewpoints liberals hate: it’s okay to address the adverse side effects of marijuana (ie. Disproportionate imprisonment of a distinguishable subgroup — not subclass — of people). It should be okay to research marijuana. It is not okay to legalize it before the experts have sufficient data and have evaluated such data. The best way to battle climate change in transportation isn’t electric vehicles. Lithium ion batteries are unstable. The best way is to let me drive whatever car I want, and provide places to do so (ie. Race track that’s a toll road), and install public transportation. Then, you slowly take away lanes until there is only one lane and the shoulder to get by in case of an accident.
I have views Republicans hate. While I enjoy firearms, I think the second amendment interpretation ignores the precondition of the militia. The president should not be immune to criminal prosecution of any kind. Fascism because your “team” is on top is still not OK. Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one. Religion should not guide government policy.
Like, isn’t it better if things are data driven (and filtered for bias)?
Universal healthcare makes sense by the numbers. The more people you represent, the more leverage you have during negotiation. Sure, your taxes go up - but that’s how government works…
Fighting climate change makes sense. If climate is change is real and we ignore it, the world becomes nigh unlivable. If climate change is real and we do something about, life is better for all the organisms that live on earth. If climate change is false and we do nothing, cool. If climate change is false and we fight climate change, we can all breathe better. What’s the downside here?
Fines should not be a fixed amount. It should be based on percentage of income. $300 fine for some making $8/hr for 8 hours a day is, assuming average of 30.437 days a month, is approximately 15.5% of gross monthly income. Whereas if you make, say, $60,000/year assuming an average of is just 6%. And the actual spending power goes down drastically more, the less you take home.
Etc etc etc
I’m a pretty progressive guy and I don’t think there’s much in here to disagree with. The only nit I would pick is that inertia isn’t a great argument to keep things the way they are. That is, “we’ve always done it this way” isn’t a great reason to do anything.
Your framing of conservatism is in line with the Eisenhower era when we weren’t linked into this existential crisis about the concept of governance. But for the last twenty years (at least) the American right has been against the very idea that the government should govern.
The left is trying to argue about who it should serve, taking its existence as a precondition, and the right is trying to dismantle it without regard for who it serves. As a result, we’re pretty much irrecoverably talking past each other.
It’s not so much that it’s keep things the way they are because we’ve always done it this way.
It’s more, maintain order while we figure out if the system works. If it doesn’t, change it. I don’t think it’s as much inertia as it is there are a lot of things on the agenda. Let’s change what changes would be more effective first