Conservativism is, at its root, all about being selfish

Seriously, that’s what it’s all about. So much of conservative thought (and especially libertarian policy) is about being selfish.

I got mine, so who cares about you?

Programs and policies that benefit them are perfectly acceptable but if it helps anyone else, it’s a waste of government time and money.  Oh sure, they code their selfishness with the word “liberty” but when they talk about liberty they mean they want to do whatever they want and screw anyone else who may be hurt in the process.  “I should have the liberty to discriminate and take away everyone else’s liberty” is what a lot of their argument boils down to.

But let’s be honest here — it’s not just about them personally but their group.  “Our religion needs to have its religious laws forced upon everyone else, but your religion should be banned. Our immigrant forefathers are the core of this country but you immigrants are not welcome. Tax breaks for things we do are reasonable government expenditures but tax breaks for what you do are just plain theft from me.”

The history of progress in America has largely been the fight by liberals against conservatives who selfishly did not want to share what they had: their power, their wealth, their freedoms.

What is the common thread of all of these movements in America?:

  • Abolishing slavery
  • Giving women the right to vote
  • Abolishing child labor
  • Establishing a minimum wage
  • Worker’s rights
  • Civil rights
  • Environmental protection
  • Gay rights

Yes, that’s correct. Liberals supported all of this, and conservatives opposed them, because they didn’t benefit them and in fact, removed many of them from having the power they once held.

And we’re seeing that now. It’s not a coincidence that the conservatives are the ones now protesting quarantines and refusing to protect society in general. You can discuss all sorts of political reasons why that is, but it really boils down to selfishness.

(Note: This is very much a simplification of conservative thought and does not necessarily apply to all government policies such as foreign affairs and such. But it’s useful to remember when you read something about a conservative’s position. Quite often, you can boil it down to selfishness for themselves and people like them.)

EDIT:  I am currently deleting all the replies from people who clearly did not read this article but say “Oh yeah?  Well, a Republican abolished slavery” — when clearly the post talks about liberals and conservatives and not parties in the slightest.  Read some history, pay attention, and maybe read the comments below before making yourself look stupid in public.

77 thoughts on “Conservativism is, at its root, all about being selfish

    • “But if we forgive student loan debt, how is that fair to people who have already struggled to pay their debt off?”

      Like, if we found a cure for cancer, would they say “We can’t cure anyone’s cancer, because that’s unfair to cancer patients who have died”?


      Liked by 2 people

      • Well said. Or its like saying “if we give women the right to vote, how is that fair to the women who have not been able to vote in the past?”

        Or “if we abolish slavery, how is that fair to people who already died in slavery?”

        Liked by 1 person

      • False equivalency. No different than Pat’s add ons as well.

        College debt was taken on by those who agreed to its terms. Forgiveness is no less insane a proposition as forgiving any other debt agreed to by anyone else. What’s preposterous is the belief that this gimme to college students can’t be done without creating hundreds of millions others with their hand out expecting debts they took on to be wiped away.

        Not only that, as college grads earn more and hold jobs of greater control over the country and world than non-grads, paying off student debt is yet another bail out for the upper class.


      • Well, let’s just say there honestly is no comparison between relieving young folks (or their parents) of a lifetime of debt, or a life. ….apples and oranges.


      • There’s a guy below saying, “False equivalency: people who took on college loans agreed to the terms.”

        This is utter bullshit, because
        1) No one who took on a college loan expected to *never be able to get a job*, because:
        – their industry radically changed
        – they had disabled children or parents who required full time care
        – their university missed HUGE portions of industry knowledge, because the university policies haven’t changed in 30 years.
        ALL 3 of these things happened to me,

        2) People & corporations can & do declare bankruptcy, even after using massive amounts of taxpayer & federal dollars. The law is ONLY written this way for student loans. Government contractors, grants, and other programs are not held to ANYWHERE near the stringent requirements of an 18yro who is desperately trying to get away from a dysfunctional family.

        3) FAFSA standards are the most convoluted, backwards, ridiculous sets of regulations I’ve ever encountered—both when I was in school, & now as I’m prepping for my oldest to start in 4-5 years. They are almost surgically precise in how they keep students tethered to abusive families.


      • Q: Like, if we found a cure for cancer, would they say “We can’t cure anyone’s cancer, because that’s unfair to cancer patients who have died”?

        A: Yes, Americans likely would say that.


      • The utter disinterest in the social contract by conservatives never ceases to amaze me. It’s always about THEIR money, THEIR “rights” … the strawmen arguments are exhausting.


  1. Wow, put down the loaded questions strawmen and slowly back away, author.

    Funny how the author complains they want imaginary privileges enforced (by gunpoint by government) but doesn’t consider the rights of those individuals who must be stolen from in order to find what they want. Do they not have a right to their earnings? Oh, wait… You mean they only have a right to as much as you feel they’re allowed. Awfully decent of you.


      • Except what I wrote isn’t selfish, Chief. Rather, taking from another… Or more to the point, wanting to use the force of government to take from others to fund a service you want is selfish.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you for putting it so succinctly and 100% accurately. And the conservatives who’ve responded here truly have only proved your point, at least from what I could glean from the gibberish they wrote. Not big on actual history, are they? Keep up the excellent work.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Mr. Ventrella,
        How much of what you earn, belongs to me?
        why does it belong to me?
        when will you send it to me, so I can enjoy the benefits of your earnings belonging to me?


      • The article left out disabled rights too(like attacking the ADA). That was a huge one, or allowing those with pre-existing conditions to get healthcare. I feel those two are huge statements.


      • Have you ever read what Robert J. Ringer wrote about selfishness in his book, WINNING THROUGH INTIMIDATION? Here’s a quote from Ringer’s blog: “What I’m encouraging you to do is be selfish! Rationally selfish, that is — meaning, you’re not out to hurt anyone, you just want to make sure that you actually receive what you’ve earned. That said, it’s decidedly in your best interest to look in the mirror, because that is where the source of your problems resides.

        If you choose to live in a self-created world of delusions and see yourself as a victim, you become mentally impotent. After all, being a victim implies that you don’t have the power to change things in your own life — and nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the person who was responsible for putting you in this hole is the only person who can make you whole. And that person is you.”


    • Yours was a BS reply based on pure hubris and falsehood. You can’t even tell us what the “straw men” are, without risking ridicule. Pure hot air, or more likely a halitosis laden blast of discontent with the truth.


      • The article begins with a statement regarding modern conservstives, then snowballs into off topics which have nothing to do with the subject at hand, thereby “building the straw man”. Slavery, for instance, hasn’t been an issue in over a century and a half, and no one alive today was around to get involved in the discussion. More to the fact, the Republican party was the one that pushed for abolition. Not only is the author’s gripe off target, it’s grossly misplaced. Yet the author uses it because he knows halfwits like you will passively read and think the topic applies to the argument. In fact, the overwhelming majority of “examples” with bullet points next to them are close to or over a half century past and bringing them up has no relevance to arguing against people alive today.

        If you’re gonna participate, know what you’re talking about, kid. Better yet, try not being so obsessed with your side and learn to be critical of your side. Intellectual laziness isn’t helping you or them


      • “Know what you’re talking about” certainly applies. For instance, the Republican party at the time of slavery was the liberal party, as anyone who knows what they’re talking about is aware. Note I never used parties — I talked about liberal v. conservative.

        I am always willing to debate topics with anyone who knows what they’re talking about and who doesn’t insult everyone who disagrees with them. So if anyone like that shows up here, I’ll gladly respond. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Well kid, you add falsehood to your hubris. As an example, let’s just take up the matter of the Civil War era Democrats. History is valuable, of course, and history is a lot of my vocation. Yet, what is the issue today, is today. Who do all the racists, KKK, anti-immigrants, anti-government gun-nutters, etc. vote for today? It’s the pathology that tries to claim it’s a party, the YaDon’tSay-ers. Keep lying, it won’t make what you say any better. And for the record, and indicative of just how stereotypical and empty your silly judgements are, I am probably a lot older than you. I actually did something you probably never did, and worked for 50 years (and still do). The key is, I am actually educated, where you are not. (We can compare pedigrees on that to, if you like.) I don’t watch Faux Spews liars, I am not addicted to the yens of my own ego, I don’t sit for hours watching hate TV, and my arteries have not hardened to the point that I can’t think my way out of a bag. And since I actually have to say this, unlike yourself.


      • I responded to this because a reply icon isn’t below your last comment

        The question isn’t the KKK. The author is claiming Republicans had nothing to do with abolition, even worked against it. That’s the Democrats, baby. And the KKK was the militant wing of the Democrat party… Back when they had hundreds of thousands of members, held public office, and held their racist beliefs without concern. Today the KKK are homeless. Sure, people like you sure do like to attach them to the Republicans. But they want nothing to do with them, their ideas, or supoort.

        That being said, you’re moving the goalpost. The argument was about SLAVERY, which the democrats supported and Republicans fought. That’s the end of the story. The author didn’t mention the KKK. He mentioned civil rights… Which again was fought by southern democrats, many of them KKK members. You said you’re old? Do you remember George Wallace? Or do you blot out inconvenient memories?

        After that all you managed was creating more straw men, claiming things you do not know as if you convinced yourself everyone who isn’t part of your party must hold these beliefs because not only must they be wrong, but evil. It’s hilarious. You’ve convinced yourself you’re arguing with someone you don’t even know exists… You just really want it to be that way.

        God help anyone who learned history by you. You’re about as good at that as debate


      • Man, you guys really have reading comprehension problems, don’t you? Does it hurt?

        I’ll say it again, although clearly you have difficulty, so I’ll try to use short, small words.


        Liberals were the ones fighting for all those things in my post.

        That was the exact word I used.

        Not “Democrats.”

        Democrats back in the old days were the conservatives.

        Even in the 60s, there were lots of conservative Democrats. And there were liberal Republicans.

        Liberals were against slavery. Democrats at the time were not liberals.

        Any high school government teacher could tell you that.

        Here’s an article I wrote about this many years ago, but I warn you: It has difficult concepts, such as facts.

        As I said above, I am more than willing to debate with someone who has a basic understanding of what they’re talking about, so if you learn, you can come back. After all, ignorance can be cured with education. Stupidity is all on you.

        Liked by 8 people

    • Voting rights are an imaginary privilege? And these these calls for justice or equality are somehow stealing your rights? You need to go back and learn the definition of ‘strawman,’ and maybe learn why opposing the rights of others in the name of liberty is a self-contradictory hypothesis. At least you tried, I guess. But ultimately, all you said was ‘blah blah blah, I don’t like paying taxes.’ And you said it literally as a rebuttal to an article that outlined the entrenched selfishness of conservative ideology. You’re adorable.

      Liked by 1 person

    • So who’s rights will be stolen? I think you’re talking about privilege not rights. No, people who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars exploiting other people don’t have a right to 100% of their earnings, they need to pay the appropriate taxes. Do they use public roads, schools, law enforcement, etc? Well, they have to pay their fair share. And yes, it should be more than their minimum wage workers.

      Liked by 1 person

    • But when the conservative loses a job or insurance or wants a small biz loan or government bailout or help for the child, it’s gimme gimme time.
      Liberals want a fair society, where everyone has a chance to succeed. If you fall down, you get a hand to get back up.
      If you are successful and imagine you did it all by yourself, without help from the community or (god forbid) our government, you are blind.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lovely generalities you created there. I’ve met plenty on either side of the aisle who support bailouts. I’ve met plenty on either side who oppose them too. I fall in the latter. I don’t see what your point is regarding employment insurance. It was taken from you by government for that reason. Granted, it could have been better utilized at the time it was earned, but it doesn’t change that it’s my money. Don’t know what you mean about insurance, or a small business loan for that matter. It’s based on credit and gotten from a bank.

        If the individual wasn’t successful, everyone else would have attained the same thing. They would have saved, taken loans, organized, dealt with the inefficiency of government over permits, regulations, and forms before even opening the doors. Then remaining within the nebulous area if “compliance” after the fact. Budgeting, paying suppliers, paying labor, paying taxes. If the collective could do it, they wouldn’t be riding the coattails of those who do.

        “Liberals want a fair society, where everyone has a chance to succeed. If you fall down you get a hand to get back up“

        Yet again, more generalities. I’d love to meet all these “liberals” who just want a chance to succeed. I’ve met progressives in liberal clothing demanding a handout. If you want a fairer society, gut regulations standing in the way of creating and operating a business. Cut taxes.


    • My earnings is such an illusion. Most of what it takes for us to be alive and enabled to earn anything is given to us. What it takes includes laws of universe, laws of nature, life, wisdom of ancestors, help of those alive today. None of us can accomplish anything without these types of support which are mostly freely given. This is true no matter how much was paid for education, supplies or how many hours worked. We don’t drive a car, we steer it. Similarly, we don’t drive our vehicle of success, we steer it.


    • See? A selfish answer assuming that somebody wants something…or, in your case, everything that you have. Therefore, you justify your selfishness. By your own rear of things imagined. Or worse, programmed into your mindset. So, you rely on a fallacy argument known as “strawman”. What if it doesn’t hold after an explaination. Does this immediately cause a programmed angst, or do you actually have a life experience memory from which it arises? Like Mitch McConnell, a wealthy senator, wanting to take your Social Security away the very year after you retired?
      Do not be scared, share with us.


  2. Conservative=holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion. . It seems to me that today’s so called conservatives are not conservative at all. Traditional attitudes would be things like truth, democracy, responsibility, fair play. honouring the separation of powers. Modern day conservatives who identify as republicans seem A-OK with trumps constant lying, the republican parties gerrymandering of the voting districts, the libertarian refusal to be responsible for the general welfare of the society, Mitch McConnel’s refusal to do his job and process the appointment of Merrick Garland or conduct a fair trial during trumps impeachment. True conservatives do not admire Machiavelli they admire honor, moral backbone and honesty even it means they will occasionally be beaten by the opposition. They are few and far between.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. John Kenneth Galbraith observed back in the 1960’s: “Modern conservatives are engaged in one of mankind’s oldest philosophical exercises: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

    That was 60-odd years ago. These days, conservatives sEem to have concluded that selfishness is its own justification.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Ya Don’t Say, you think that the KKK is homeless, really? The Klan’s newpaper has endorsed your president as has David Duke. Wake up. trump only cares about his family and his bank account. He is the most incompetent president we have ever had and probably the most racist besides Andrew Jackson, whom he loves. Supporting trump isnt an act of patriotisim, its a vote for fascism.


  5. Mr. Ventrella–The problem with this identity blame game is that “all” is always wrong. You imply by your rant that you wish to impose your positions on anyone who does not believe in your positions. You immediately presume any thing contradictory to your position is proof of it. I guess you are just frustrated trying to jam you position down others throats. You certainly have inspired me to think about the issues. Just don’t buy “all” your conclusions.


    • lol if you don’t like what he has to say, don’t read his blog. You came here, willingly, and willingly read it. That’s not jamming anything down anyone’s throat, you just want to complain because what he said made you mad in your fee-fees
      Don’t like it? Don’t come here, read it, then whine about having willingly read it.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Don’t forget global warming/climate change. Conservative “scientists” say it doesn’t exist. Truth is: solar and wind energy affect the bottom dollar of the oil barons. Majority of scientists say climate change is here. Minority is bought by Koch bros.,, et al.


  7. “You are of no consequence to me.”
    ~ from a reply I read today in a FB comment thread, on our Lt. Gov. Dan’s press release calling out Gov. Roy over the plan (or lack there of) to re-open NC schools. We have elected individuals in both offices, so there is an R & a D duking it out over what to do next. I’ll let ya’ll figure out who is who… My comment is purposely vague. 😉


    • Too bad you didn’t read the article then, which talks about liberals and conservatives, and not Democrats and Republicans. Liberals abolished slavery. Republicans were the liberals then.

      I swear, the inability of conservatives to understand that very simple concept astounds me, but their ability to ignore facts is well-documented.


    • Nobody is denying that the Civil War-era Republicans were the slightly less racist national party for a while, up to about 1877. Then it was a toss-up all the way to the 1960s when the Republicans took the crown as most racist national party, a title they’ve worn proudly and enthusiastically ever since.


      • Always amusing when people dishonestly ignore the sins of the group with which they identify, throwing it all at their opponent.

        After 1877 the republicans were more racist? It ignores the KKK being primarily Democrat operated. And don’t forget the Dixiecrats were the source of segregation and Jim Crow in the south. Woodrow Wilson And FDR were actively racist during their careers.

        I’m not about to claim the republicans are scot free. But pushing responsibility completely off one group because you happen to like that group only serves to advertise that your opinion isn’t worth listening to


      • I love it when idiots argue things no one has said. Did you even read the article? Did you notice that nowhere in there did I talk about Republicans and Democrats but only about liberals and conservatives?

        I don’t know why I even try to talk to people who don’t care or don’t read.


      • Replying to Hoosier because Michael doesn’t have a reply option to his comment.

        It’s evident you didn’t refer to parties overtly. You spoke of liberals and conservatives, Considering you’re the type who abides by the “pArTiEs sWiTcHeD pLAtFoRmS” thereby absolving the Democrats of sins they committed with slavery, the creation of the KKK, and fighting desegregation, in your mind, and dumping them onto the lap of the party you hate

        I’ve mentioned this in other replies. Aldo, I’m not conservative, or even Republican for that matter. And thank you, Mikey, yet again for sinking to insults. It’s convenient when an author negates their own POV by not only disingenuously referring to political affiliation but also sinking to adhom and abusive language during its discussion


      • Well, if you had not tried to put words in my mouth and imply that I had said things I never said, maybe we wouldn’t be having this debate now. I have never defended racist, conservative Democrats at any time. Your implication otherwise tells me you don’t care about facts, and only want to misinterpret what I have written in order to make a point that has nothing to do with my original post.

        Nowhere in my post do I talk about parties. Your straw man doesn’t belong here.

        You want to respond to what I actually wrote? You are welcome to do so.


      • Replying to Hoosier because Michael doesn’t have a reply option to his comment

        Sure, Mikey, “words in your mouth.”. Your article frames itself by bringing up present day conservatives, and libertarians as well. You then move on by stating how much better liberals are. Then list all the great accomplishments they’ve made.

        You already began with an us and them comparison. Conservatives and libertarians. Libertarians are a party, therefore conservatives is referring to Republicans. By extension, you’re reference to liberals refers to Democrats. Yet you don’t make the distinction that while Democrats may be liberal today, the party fought tooth and nail against abolition and desegregation. Whether one believes “tHe pArTiEs cHANGED pLAtFoRmS”, the suns of your party don’t transfer to the other. There was no meeting where hands were shaken and Democrats were absolved of their misdeeds of the past.

        You believing others are putting words in your mouth doesn’t justify logical fallacies and insults. Any instruction on discourse, debate, argument, etc instructs the first person to sink to insults and adhom loses. I doubt you were never taught that. I fully believe you ignored it. All the while you ham-fistedly attempt to allocate social advancements to “liberals” without explaining that Democrats weren’t liberals for a large chunk of that timeline. And in fact they were the party who fought many of them. Your obtuse argument is Fan service for Democrats to feel warm and fuzzy about while demonizing those to the right of them. You make a wildly myopic virtue signal for Democrat true believers.


    • After President Johnson signed act about civil rights, the parties switched sides on slavery. David Duke lost as Democrat, but on later as Republican.


  8. It’s like these idiots who are arguing “but Democrats started the KKK!” never studied history. Yes, 100-150 years ago, Republicans were the party of science and environmentalism and progressivism. (See Teddy Roosevelt.) And Democrats were the party of superstition and prejudice. But starting in the 1940s, liberal Dems started embracing civil rights. The death knell for progressive Repugs was when Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and became the GOP nominee. Nixon continued it with the Southern Strategy. Then all the racist Dixiecrats changed parties to the GOP (Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, etc.) Then came Reagan kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, Miss. And then Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that the GOP is the home of racism today is a moron or a liar.


  9. I have spent all morning on this! Reading the well-written article and the comments, as well as clicking relevant links, it has been quite time-consuming. I note that the author didn’t bother to obliterate the license plate: CONNECTICUT – GERM-K !!! The owner might find himself/herself the object of much harassment. 😀


  10. Thank you for articulating these thoughts. Of course, the audience that needs to understand what you’ve conveyed are too brain challenged to comprehend they have these selfish traits. And this will continue to the end of time. Such people by virtue of their privilege or circumstances in life are never inclined naturally towards compassion. Only an incident that becomes a seminal moment can potentially change them. And then too sadly, only a few really change.


  11. About the whole “How is that fair to the people who didn’t have the right” thing – I’m pretty sure when my grandmother marched for women’s voting rights, she was thinking of some then unknown daughters and granddaughters and working, as well as to be able to vote, herself, for us to be able to. I consider voting a sacred duty more for that reason than anything else. I would say that’s how it’s fair.


  12. “I should have the liberty to discriminate and take away everyone else’s liberty” is what a lot of their argument boils down to.

    Is untrue for most concervatives I know esp Vets, we stand the line to protect your right to disagree. I believe enough in freedom, that I will defend your rights as I defend mine. When any voice is forced silent by the mob of opion, we all loose.

    Be well,


    • Well, keep in mind this was a very short article and I was speaking in generalities.

      What I meant by that was that many conservatives think that “freedom” means things like “I get to decide that gays and black people can’t visit my business” — in other words, they only think about their own personal freedom and not the freedom of the rest of us to be able to enjoy life without being discriminated against.

      When your freedom involves taking away other people’s freedom over things they have no control over — well, that’s just selfish, isn’t it?

      We see that now with the whole coronavirus mask thing. The conservatives are arguing against science again (that’s a topic for another day) but are saying their “freedom” not to wear a mask is more important than showing the slightest bit of care for their fellow Americans. It is the height of selfishness.


  13. That’s why many Red states have mandated or strongly encourage facemasks, social distancing, maximum occupancies lowered in stores, bars(if allowed to open) and restaurants, oh and my favourite HYGIENE!


  14. The Haves want to keep what they have- understandable. The problem is they stack the deck against the Have-nots so that they never get the chance to become Haves, too.


  15. Well said, especially about parties. I don’t like the label “liberal” though. The improvements you vote are the result of work by progressives. Liberal is not the same kettle of fish, and is easy shorthand for the right to attack. BTW, here’s a fun exercise: Ask a conservative why they’re called “right” and the people they hate are called “left” and watch his head spin around like Linda Blair’s did in the Exorcist.


  16. What could possibly be more selfish than having an abortion? Don’t even pretend there’s a case where the child would be better off never existing. That’s the most weasel argument of all.


    • What could be more selfish than deciding that your opinion on when life begins is more important than the mother’s? Or the doctor’s? Or medical science’s? And then selfishly forcing them to abide only by YOUR definition? Talk about selfish.


  17. Student loan forgiveness is a bail out for the upper class? The upper class can pay for their children’s education. Student loans are in place as a way of giving those deserving of a college education whose parents can’t afford to Send them and don’t have a scholarship, a chance to further their education: something which ultimately gives them more opportunity to be a successful adult and citizen. Student loans are not available to those students whose parents earn enough to pay, which generally means the lower classes benefit, so I am struggling to understand how it nails out the upper class.


  18. I’d argue conservatism at its root is pessimism, liberalism at its root is optimism.

    Liberals believe the world can be better Tomorrow.
    Conservatives believe the world was better Yesterday.

    Liberals believe that people are generally good, but individuals can be evil.
    Conservatives believe that people are generally evil, but individuals can be good.

    ETC. ETC.

    Liberals would view conservative thoughts as selfish. for example a conservative thought “why would I help all people with my taxes? (who on the whole are evil)”, conservatives would view liberal behavior as naive. for example “why wouldn’t you help all people through taxes? (who on the whole are good)”. The unsaid mental state I believe is the root of the classical misunderstanding.

    Why I don’t think the root of conservatism is selfishness is that Conservatives are more generous with their giving.


  19. Conservatism is about:

    Selfishness: I can do or say whatever I want; if you don’t like it, go elsewhere.

    Cruelty: favors policies that make life harder and more unpleasant for immigrants, the poor, etc., apparently on the theory that this will motivate them to improve themselves.

    Ignorance: dismisses education and experts.

    Punishment: favors harsh sentences for just about any crime; police can beat or kill suspected lawbreakers.

    Indifference: utter lack of empathy for anyone they don’t personally know or who isn’t just like them.


  20. “”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…”

    — Francis M. Wilhoit


  21. Conservatives v Liberals:

    Conservatives say “It hasn’t happened to ME, so I don’t care.”

    Liberals say “It shouldn’t happen to anyone, so I have to care.”


  22. This article represents the aggressively lazy, corner-cutting state of modern discourse.

    The author posits essentially this: arguments made by conservatives for the salience of their positions can be dismissed, as the motivations behind their arguments are intrinsically selfish. How does the author support this claim? It’s somewhat hard to tell. He compiles a list (of serious brevity and inexactitude) of good things our society has accomplished, all of which he contributes to liberalism. Does the author explain his reasoning? Does he explain why liberalism, as opposed to conservatism, is the ideology responsible for manufacturing those things? No, he doesn’t. The author could give you a definition of liberalism and conservatism, such that it becomes clear how something like “worker’s rights” is definitionally, and therefore inherently, liberal, rather than conservative. But the author does not.

    I won’t speculate as to why the author refuses to write a substantive article, so I’ll just do this instead. Here’s two links: These are long reads, but they’re worth it. I won’t sum them up (because you should do the work yourself), I’ll only tell you that there are those in academia who are willing to put in the work to actually define terms, rather than scribble soundbites for small audiences. They aren’t cut and dry, as you might expect. If you want to be lazy and just take the author’s incoherent ramblings as truth, then, well, don’t expect to do much more than convince your Facebook friends that “conservatives bad, liberals good”.

    Oh and if you aren’t yet convinced of the author’s laziness, let me break down a few bits here:

    1) “’I should have the liberty to discriminate and take away everyone else’s liberty” is what a lot of their argument boils down to.’” Which argument? Or did you mean arguments, and if so, which ones? All of them? Does that strike any reasonable person as even remotely charitable?

    2) “But let’s be honest here — it’s not just about them personally but their group. “’Our religion needs to have its religious laws forced upon everyone else, but your religion should be banned.’” I assume by “our religion” he means Christianity, and by “your religion” he means…what, Islam? Why don’t I know? Because the author doesn’t delineate anything. Does the author even attempt to substantiate this claim with a link to any evidence, evidence in the form of, say, conservative politicians pushing explicitly Christian legislation, or explicitly anti-Islamic legislation, or anti-any religious legislation for that matter? No, so why should I take the author’s word for it?

    3) What is the common thread of all of these movements in America?:
    • Abolishing slavery
    • Giving women the right to vote
    • Abolishing child labor
    • Establishing a minimum wage
    • Worker’s rights
    • Civil rights
    • Environmental protection
    • Gay rights

    Mike, a list of things is not a common thread. Common threads are found within a list of things. Nitpicky, sure, but again my whole point is that this article is lazy and not particularly worth the read.

    4) “Yes, that’s correct. Liberals supported all of this, and conservatives opposed them, because they didn’t benefit them and in fact, removed many of them from having the power they once held.”
    First, “remove many of them from having the power they once held” is grammatically nonsensical. You don’t remove someone from having something. Just say “removed the power many of them once held”. English is hard though, I guess, so I forgive you. Second, I don’t know what else to say other than “citation needed”. Or hell, even “argument needed”. Again, the author expects you to just take your word for it. Why does the author presume to know that the intent, historically speaking, of all conservatives for any of the aforementioned items boils down to “because [those policies] didn’t benefit them”? Is he being charitable? Is this author intellectually honest? Is he rigorously attempting to get to the roots of these issues? Again, I won’t assume his intent. Nevertheless, it’s clear that no…no he’s not particularly trying. So why read it? For catharsis? Is it productive and/or satisfying to just get all mad about conservatives? Hell, what do I know. Maybe it is for some of you.

    Anyway, I probably shouldn’t spend more time on a comment to an article than the actual article took to write. In any case, this article is lazy and a perfect example of why modern discourse is declining into a morass of half-assed soundbites and tweets. Well done Mike, well done. #twitterculture

    Also ten bucks says this gets deleted. Liberals love their censorship (joke) 😉


  23. Pingback: The mask is only about “freedom” if you’re a selfish bastard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s