It's relative, but the thinking is that tradition should be respected more than liberals respect it (liberals are more respecting of reason than tradition).
This is misleading. First off liberalism isn't the difference between the left and right in Americas paradigm the status Quo in America is one of liberal though hence the term "classical liberalism" this is again why the paradigm is also not to be quantified by equality or inequality but statism and anti-statism, because it's not the differentiating factor anymore. Remember they broke away from the status quo themselves making them the ones who valued reason over tradition. Here we are today where it is now it's own established status quo.
OK, but conservatism isn't the only right-wing ideology. The "conservative" movement in America isn't actually conservative (note the radical change under Reagan, for example).
True American conservatism aka classical liberalism is on the far right of the spectrum. The further right one goes the further state and it's affairs on the individuals lives dissolve. Beyond that would be complete anarchy in the truest sense of the meaning and not what leftists believe comes after a communist state. How the current majority of the right in America votes makes no difference in negating that fact. Just like it doesn't negate the history and existence of communism if registered Democrats don't happen to vote in a communist. That reasoning is completely irrelevant.
I can't imagine that you have any familiarity with my thinking of you're saying this. And statism or collectivism aren't relevant to the political spectrum. Conservatism is very collectivist, and it's a right-wing ideology, for example. As is fascism. And monarchy. There are collectivist left-wing ideologies, as well. And anarchism is the most extreme left-wing ideology.
This is exactly the point I'm making. If you have taken the time to read into the philosophical under pinnings of American rightism you would know that it's a completely base in individualism and is completely unlike the status quo which it broke away from which, as you are now verifying for everyone, was collectivist. Fascism, monarchy and the "rule of one" has nothing to do with individualist anti-statist beginnings. To assert otherwise means you have either neglected history or are absolutely confused as to the meaning of the constitution.
pointed out examples of the thinking of Locke and Smith--key aspects to their approaches--that would put them utterly at odds with American "conservatives" and in line with American liberals (which makes sense, as that's the same tradition). Locke's views on property would be considered progressive today, and Smith's views on inheritance (among many other things) would put him on the far left in America--beyond where modern progressives are willing to go, in fact. There's little remaining of liberal traditions in the conservative movement in America.
American rightism is an amalgamation, a mish mash of many different people's thoughts. I'm sure you could pick specific passages that some how made them seem unlike the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that those people are the foundation they stand on. We already understand that we have a fundamental disagreement on what a conservative even is since you still think they want to maintain institutions they broke away from. That needs to be cleared up (even though it won't) to continue.
Again. Left and right in America isn't seperated by liberalism. This is why equality and Inequality is an outdated mode of quantifying it.
Locke was also a liberal with minimal influence on today's conservatives, and Smith's economic framework is rejected by the right in America.
How the right votes today or what the Republicans do is irrelevant to lockes influence on the constitution. Again I'm talking about the ideology.
That's not what's consistently being discussed, otherwise we'd have to note that the American conservative movement is not actually conservative. We can discuss conservatism as an ideology or we can say that the movement is as it does. I'd also recommend putting aside any "sides" (the "as a leftist" thing is out of a place in a serious attempt to clarify views and understand reality--don't think as a propagandist; think as someone who just wants the truth). Note that you said, "No one in their right mind thinks the right in America have anything to do with maniacal, totalitarian, authoritarian, theocratic, collectivist regimes." Most of the right in America disagrees with that.
What we are discussing is the political paradigm. How you view the right wing American base is irrelevant as I've said numerous times. Your last sentence "most of the right in America disagrees with that" is you not taking your own recommendations, keep this to ideological talk. People vote for all sorts of nonsense and yet it doesn't negate history and the terms associated.
