I did indeed say that. And I cannot keep repeating myself but it's because not is unlike the status quo or also your first definition of conservatism quoted in my last response
You haven't answered that question, though. Is your view that the left is just anti-conservative--supporting change for change's sake regardless of the current status? That can't be it, can it?
First off to do such a thing would negate your very understanding of what conservatism even means in the first place. The tradition is almost literally set in stone (constitution) change that and you may have a case, otherwise what the monolithic block of voters does in contemporary politics does not change the status quo. This cannot be answered another time. You can either accept it or you cannot.
The status quo evolves over time. And you're again making the mistake of conflating conservatism with the right generally.
This is you changing the parameters of the conversation which I've cleared up numerous times. First off I'm talking about the political paradig in America being different and rightly labelling American rightism and not what you define as right wing voters, as American conservatism. It's a particular brand of conservatism that you do not find anywhere else in the world and following the proper definition of what conservatism is outs it squarely on the right.
OK, so to be clear, when you say "the American right," you're not referring to the actual right in America--Americans who vote for the more right-wing party, who consider themselves to be on the right, etc.--but an idealized "American right" philosophy with few if any real-world adherents. Is that correct?
To the right of literally everything. It's the conservative ideology of America. Ever wonder why they call it "alt-right" when they speak of shoe horning American rightism in with Nazism? Because it's a different thing entirely from the status quo.
This is not responsive to my question. I noted that classical liberals were the left of their time. They were able to create a constitution for a country. And on that day, you're saying that they suddenly became the right in that country, and the left became defined as anyone who wanted any change? Do you see how absurd that sounds?
And, yeah, the alt-right is an alternative to conservatism, with a more race-focused emphasis.
Laissez faire economies do not allow government intervention. The more involvement and intrusion in the market makes it more left than right.
Of course they allow gov't intervention. There needs to be gov't intervention to create and maintain that system. Gov'ts create markets in the first place so it makes no sense to talk about gov't involvement and intrusion into them. Wouldn't a gov't that refused to get involved in recognizing and defending property claims and contracts be less intrusive and involved in the market than one that does?
Not how the conversation was framed. Remember you intervened in a toxic exchange between me and another poster. The parameters you are setting currently are not accurate. What's currently being discussed beyond the original conversation is whether classical liberalism describes American rightism and not something unlike the status quo.
OK. Classical liberalism does not describe American rightism in a realistic sense. If you're changing the definition of "American rightism" to mean "classical liberalism," then it does describe it, by definition. But then you'd have to acknowledge that the left in America is more closely connected to your form of "American rightism" than the right in America.
If you want to assert that they are shifting to the left than ok I'm all for it because the only thing to the right of classical liberalism that I know is basically right wing anarchy.
Monarchy, aristocracy, fascism, and theocracy would all be to the right of classical liberalism.
What I have gathered and an hoping you do as well is that you are not willing to accept a fundamental disagreement we are having between not only the definition of conservatism but also my argument. I'm not associating contemporary American politics with the status quo. I actually believe what you are currently saying about authoritarianism and elements of it plaguing the right is debatable but that's another conversation entirely. What they currently do does not change the structure of your government and the constitution you people live under. Until that's changed it makes no difference how you perceive the right wing electorate.
Except, as I've pointed out many times, conservatism isn't the same as rightism. I understand that you're defining that way, but that's another private definition that isn't how the words have traditionally been used, and using them in that way just confuses, when ideally, we want to choose words to make our thoughts clear.
