First off, why shouldn’t small-c conservatives vote for people that talk about how we should keep what works and change what doesn’t?
We know what they do on actuality, so.theres no need to guess.
As to Thatcher, I’m not an expert on historical UK politics, but this gives good context to the phrase (It’s from the link): “What’s the alternative? To go on as we were before? All that leads to is higher spending. And that means more taxes, more borrowing, higher interest rates more inflation, more unemployment.” This is a conservative take saying that where they were then was not in keeping with the lessons of history
It’s a epistemically immodest, dogmatic take.
The left has made a ton of ‘gains’ in policy positions in the US over the decades. Any claim otherwise is a farce.
The claim that the left has made only gains, and not losses, is obviously false.
In a world where the left keeps trying to go further and further afield, they will always assume that conservative is the same thing as rightist
That doesn’t mean that there are no rightists.
Consider immigration in the US context. Openness to immigration is a US tradition. But rightists oppose it, so they are proposing a novelty, closed borders.
You seem to have straw-manned your ideological opponents. Your claims are neither factually accurate, nor charitable. They don’t point you in a useful direction either. Obviously, conservatives can be very wrong, but your assumptions seem unjustified.
And what are you going to claim your opponents do? In the US, rightists claim they will lower taxes, which they do. They claim they will reduce regulation, which they do. They claim they will turn back whatever they deem the latest outrage...which has mixed results. They explain why all of this is good by referencing the lessons of history, and by simply pointing out their opponents positions whenever those are unpopular. Politicians are politicians, and hardly trustworthy on such things, but (American) rightist one’s pay more attention to how ideas have failed in the past, at least in how they talk and the occasional policy.
Their politicians only put in moderate effort to be conservative...but their opponents won’t admit conservatism can ever be a good thing. Much like you’re doing here. These days, pretty much all centrism is considered too conservative to be considered on a national level by leftists, one of just two major parties. So obviously, conservatives will vote for rightists.
Why then, do you think you can simply take one person from a long time ago, from one country, in this case the UK, (when it has previously been pointed out that the manifestations clearly vary based on time and place), claim they are immodest, and that means much of anything against conservatism? Especially when they turned out to be clearly right by massively improving all those things with their policies. You never examined her evidence, reasoning, or results in any way, just threw stones.
Having strong beliefs is not immodest if the evidence is strong enough. Plus, you know, she was a politician. Sound-bites are a big thing for them.
Conservatism isn’t actually about politics. Conservatives vote for people whose policies and/or character are, in their personal belief, likely to do things supported by the weight of history and caution, not simply the people who are themselves the best incarnation of those things. In many cases, they use heuristics that lead to assuming untested things don’t work (which is usually right.). Leftists often want proof their latest thing won’t work before discarding it, and don’t provide significant evidence to these conservatives that they will work. Also, conservatives are just people, and they care about many things and have many inclinations that are unrelated to their conservatism.
We know what they do on actuality, so.theres no need to guess.
It’s a epistemically immodest, dogmatic take.
The claim that the left has made only gains, and not losses, is obviously false.
That doesn’t mean that there are no rightists.
Consider immigration in the US context. Openness to immigration is a US tradition. But rightists oppose it, so they are proposing a novelty, closed borders.
You seem to have straw-manned your ideological opponents. Your claims are neither factually accurate, nor charitable. They don’t point you in a useful direction either. Obviously, conservatives can be very wrong, but your assumptions seem unjustified.
And what are you going to claim your opponents do? In the US, rightists claim they will lower taxes, which they do. They claim they will reduce regulation, which they do. They claim they will turn back whatever they deem the latest outrage...which has mixed results. They explain why all of this is good by referencing the lessons of history, and by simply pointing out their opponents positions whenever those are unpopular. Politicians are politicians, and hardly trustworthy on such things, but (American) rightist one’s pay more attention to how ideas have failed in the past, at least in how they talk and the occasional policy.
Their politicians only put in moderate effort to be conservative...but their opponents won’t admit conservatism can ever be a good thing. Much like you’re doing here. These days, pretty much all centrism is considered too conservative to be considered on a national level by leftists, one of just two major parties. So obviously, conservatives will vote for rightists.
Why then, do you think you can simply take one person from a long time ago, from one country, in this case the UK, (when it has previously been pointed out that the manifestations clearly vary based on time and place), claim they are immodest, and that means much of anything against conservatism? Especially when they turned out to be clearly right by massively improving all those things with their policies. You never examined her evidence, reasoning, or results in any way, just threw stones.
Having strong beliefs is not immodest if the evidence is strong enough. Plus, you know, she was a politician. Sound-bites are a big thing for them.
Conservatism isn’t actually about politics. Conservatives vote for people whose policies and/or character are, in their personal belief, likely to do things supported by the weight of history and caution, not simply the people who are themselves the best incarnation of those things. In many cases, they use heuristics that lead to assuming untested things don’t work (which is usually right.). Leftists often want proof their latest thing won’t work before discarding it, and don’t provide significant evidence to these conservatives that they will work. Also, conservatives are just people, and they care about many things and have many inclinations that are unrelated to their conservatism.