Pretty sure DOGE actually ended up costing the government more money than it saved. The entire venture was a disaster to highlight a meme. It would be funny if it wasn't so depressing.
That is part of the problem your definition is not that snarky. I don't think supporting hierarchies is needed in the definition.
I would also say that honoring the status quo is a finer more nuanced definition.
The status quo is not that bad. Understanding one's actions might affect the status quo I think is a central conservative value.
The status quo sucks for a lot of people, and as far as I'm concerned conservatism's main defining goal is standing in the way of progress to make things better for everyone. Nothing else.
From my perspective the quote that we stand on the shoulders of giants is the positive side of conservatism. The negative side of conservatism may block some positive effects.
I'm not sure why you feel the notion of conservatism has a hierarchy of goals. I see it as a simple idea that can be applied to almost any effort. Like any tool it can be applied in detrimental ways.
I believe absolute opinions on conservatism probably miss a lot of nuance.
Finally I think that arguments that conservatism is dangerous are mostly based on the fact that many people are making bad decisions and they are paying lip service to conservatism.
What do you mean stand on the shoulders of giants?
I'll tell you what...you stand on the shoulders of people who literally instigated and fought for change, and certainly didn't fight or work to keep a status quo that still had so many problems.
> I'm not sure why you feel the notion of conservatism has a hierarchy of goals.
Where did you get that from?
> Finally I think that arguments that conservatism is dangerous are mostly based on the fact
Like it or lump it, in the US at least, it is linked to people that do have dangerous attitudes, not caring about climate change, arguing against socialized health care or welfare benefits, trying to take away rights from minorities...just a constant flood of immoral, uneducated hateful stuff that only ever hurts.
That the continuity that the human race has maintained is based on conservative values.
I think we disagree about some subtlety of how society builds on its efforts.
The hierarchy quote is actually about wredcoll comment.
I'm obviously a conservative person. That conservatism doesn't accept different variations for the same word. I don;'t accept the conservative has a special definition in the US.
All of the shmabolic things you mention as conservative failures are what I'm complaining about it. I don't see them as conservative values because they cost us all more money and waste resources. The examples you provide I don't accept as conservative.
> That the continuity that the human race has maintained is based on a conservative values.
Huh? The human race progresses because of the 10% that drag the other 90% out of the muck into a better future, screaming and resisting every step of the way.
> All of the shmabolic things you mention as conservative failures are what I'm complaining about it. I don't see them as conservative values because they cost us all more money and waste resources. The examples you provide I don't accept as conservative.
So defend conservatism. List some values you think you can defend. Not wishy washy abstract stuff, really practicable stuff you think should be implemented.
> Understanding proposed changes to a current working environment I consider a conservative value.
> Curiosity about long term costs and effects of decisions I consider a conservative value.
> Conservation of resources I consider conservative values
Those sound like good things to me.
They also don't sound like anything a republican politician has advocated for during my life time.
If you want to split the hair of republican vs conservative you are, of course, free to do so, but I doubt a whole lot of other people will really understand what you mean.
I think there's a lot to be said for asking why something should be changed and what will happen when you do, chesteron's fence style, but it's all too easy for that attitude to mask a position that's not actually willing to change.
Gay marriage is a pretty easy example. You certainly can, and probably should, ask why change it, but the vast, vast, vast majority of the people actually asking that type of question have no actual intention, or perhaps even ability, to change their opinion based on the answer they receive.
More the 'vaccines cause autism', 'evolution isn't real' and 'jewish space lasers' crowds, and for good reason. Not all conservatives believes those things, but the people that do are overwhelmingly conservatives. May as well add in all the "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats!" people as well.
[EDIT] Which is unsurprising since the whole flat earth deal requires some sort of vast lizard-person conspiracy or whatever, and that's the kind of thing Qanon is, too.
