News

Yeah. I generally like Innuendo Studios a lot. I think the video is a pretty solid breakdown of some things that are important to understand (definitely superior to "conservatives = terrible people" which was generally the left's view, I think, even before it started taking on some strong reality as of about 10 years ago). My only gripe is that it gives way too much credit for intellectual consistency. I actually agree with 100% of the how it breaks down the intellectual foundations of conservatism, and for that reason I actually think classical conservatism in the pre-Reagan sense is fine. Just like the balancing acts of liberalism and conservatism he talks about near the end, I think a good society builds on a balancing act of hierarchical conservatism vs. egalitarian democracy. I don't think that's why modern conservatives are conservatives, though. Around Reagan-time, it started to stem more from propaganda from rich people, engineering very deliberate propaganda with which people get inundated, which tells them that rich people deserve their wealth and need more handouts. And, in the modern generation of MAGA-style conservatives, they don't even care about that stuff. It's pure emotion. Conservatism can be a mass movement to overthrow the government (made of white men), conservatism can be social security for me because I earned it, conservatism can be subsidies for farmers because that's what our country needs in order to be strong. It literally just doesn't matter anymore. Their systems of critical thought have been so atrophied and their understanding of the world is so badly askew that you can present literally almost anything to them, from the right authority and with the right emotional content, and they'll get behind it.

In my view, the intellectual hierarchical conservatism it talks about is fine, as long as it's moderated with a strong democracy that can keep it in check. Going too far in either direction is bad. But, unfortunately, that has very little to do with any political question in our current reality (in the US at least, definitely), because the "conservatives" have so little to do with intellectually-consistent conservatism (whether you agree with that version or not) that it doesn't really matter what that version is about. Modern "conservatism" just means a tribe that'll kill you if you get in their way. For example I don't think the conservative from the beginning example, in the modern day, would be arriving at what he's saying in his argument based on what he believes. He's just going to be echoing stuff he heard from his authorities, which may have some passing resemblance to the foundations, or it may just be emotionally-laden nonsense which he's been programmed to emit at you under the right circumstances.