Maggoty , 4 hours ago (edited 4 hours ago)

Preservation of an existing thing and conservative political ideology aren’t actually linked. No matter how much conservatives try to tell you they are. Classic Conservatism was just how 17th and 18th century political philosophers referred to monarchies and top down systems that impose order on the masses. This was in opposition to Classical Liberalism which was a bottom up imposition of order. I.e. by the people, for the people.

In many ways the South came out of the revolution still subscribed to classical conservatism. They favored a heavy class system, different rules for the elite and workers, and were loathe to expand voting beyond the elite. Even after the civil war they made the antebellum period their golden age. It wasn’t until the post world war 2 era offered Neo-Liberalism that they really gave up trying to go back to the antebellum period. There were even slave-like conditions called peonage right up to the mid 1940s.

One of the biggest differences in classical conservatism and liberalism was what they called, the state of nature. Liberals saw all men as inherently good, but taught to be evil by oppression and stressful environmental factors. Conservatives saw all men as inherently evil and in need of strong control. Their theories followed pretty well from those base assumptions. Although there was also a healthy dose of Divine Rule in conservatism.

I’m mentioning this because I hope everyone reading this can realize the Republicans of the cold war, as racist and hateful as they were, were still inside classical liberalism. They still believed in democracy, rule by the people, for the people. Since the end of Bush’s presidency though they’ve increasingly decided classical conservatism is more attractive.