American "conservatism" is about classical liberalism and defending enlightenment ideals

>this moron thinks that republicans-democrats was always conservatives-liberals

There is no hope for you.

Where did I say that?

The terms right and left wing are relative. They tie in very much with what's considered traditional and most supportive of the country. Since America was founded on the principles of John Locke, naturally American conservatives will defend those principles, while they'll combat the principles of socialism, and ideology emerging in the early 20th century. I don't understand what's difficult about this.

Then again, sometimes I think people in general are mentally weak. You see this on right and left. On the right, they're too mentally weak to break from the left-wing frame that not agreeing with the left is immoral. The mainstream right mainly thrives today due to conservative economics, which has pragmatism trumping morality. Because economics is something more measurable, it can withstand the virtue-signaling a moral posturing from the left, as well as defending fundamental secular principles. On the left, people are too mentally weak to actually be open minded and entertain opposing views. They see their cause as a moral ones, making them feel righteous and thus making them fundamentalist.

>because those principles can and should be critiqued from the right?
True, but someone critiquing enlightenment ideals from the right would not be a conservative in America because that sort of critique has no basis in American history/tradition. Opposing classical liberalism is far more of a fringe idea in American culture than elsewhere and really only works within the framework of a fully reactionary worldview.

>Republicans ended slavery, meanwhile Southern so-called Democrats were for it

That implicitly claims that democrats in the 1860s were the 'liberal' party and that republicans were the 'conservative' party. Which is wrong in several respects, the most egregious being that ideological parties didn't really exist until the advent of the 5th party system in the '60s. Prior to that parties were regional entities that had liberal and conservative factions within them.

Not really true unless you mean historical American conservatism like the conservative factions of the Federalists and Whigs.

Modern America is would he do unrecognizable to the Founders it's quite useless to even compare the two. For example the power of the federal government and the military has increased a million fold. The idea of social safety nets would have been foreign to them. The idea of a secular society would have been repulsive to some and acceptable to others, much as is the case today. The degree of taxation would be incredible to them. They would probably be repulsed by all the colored people everywhere and the fact that senators and presidents are popularly elected.

Basically I think the Founders would be Republicans for the most part with some of them breaking Democratic on a few cultural issues and on corporate cronyism, climate change denial, and foreign policy.

"Conservative" simply means "wants to keep things more or less are they are". In America, that means the Constitution, and the Constitution was written by Whigs and is radically Liberal in just about every regard. So much so in fact that every American political party and POTUS has been some flavor of Liberal, to the extent that they have had to redefine "liberal" to mean "social liberal", because otherwise it would mean nothing.

uuuh yeah, that's pretty much it. Then you sell the vegetables to people that want it and everyone is happy.

But no, basic understanding of ownership doesn't seem to register in all peoples' minds. What is with all the Socialists on Veeky Forums right now?

What you've described is something called neoconservatism

I'm afraid those people are just called conservatives in the US. If we wanted to be really theoretical it's technically the classical liberals that are conservative. But no one recognizes them as such.

Then what should be conservatism in America? Monarchism? Theocracy?

Hierarchy: ending equality as a state program, disavowing popular notions of sovereignty in favour of limited aristocracy (i.e. fighting against universal suffrage).

Conservation: conserving the American WASP people and culture, as well as America's physical and natural heritage.

Religious traditionalism: fighting against state secularism and secularism in state institutions.

Economic nationalism: fighting against globalization and neoliberal economics

communism is retarded
>good wholesome capitalism builds a business without exploiting anyone
>lol it belongs to "the people" now, tough luck pal

American conservatism can't really be tied up as being about any one thing. The GOP was always known as the big tent party. It remains true, and has even somewhat become so for Democrats as ideologies have evolved. I mean, think about it, even 100 years ago you had guys like Teddy Roosevelt who ran Republican, and then ten years later you have Calvin Coolidge running under the same party affiliation. Today you have Donald Trump in the same party as Dick Cheney and Ron Paul. It's more complicated than being able to fix a complete ideology to either party, which is an inevitable result of a two party system.

>Sarah Palin
>Enlightened

>Why has no parallel movement on the right developed?
There has. Nobody listens to them. They continually get thrown off the conservative/Republican bus because elections.

who are you referring to? Goldwater?

Republicans were the liberal party of the US till the populist movement happened.

>Hierarchy: ending equality as a state program, disavowing popular notions of sovereignty in favour of limited aristocracy (i.e. fighting against universal suffrage).

In the early days the right to vote was in many places in the US based on land ownership. In the late 1820's land prices go rather low, especially in the more western states. At that point both parties gave up on the idea.

>Conservation: conserving the American WASP people and culture, as well as America's physical and natural heritage.

Both parties toyed with that idea from the 1870s to the 1930s. They slowly gave up on it as the Irish american and Italian american communities became more respectable.

>Religious traditionalism: fighting against state secularism and secularism in state institutions.

The republican party does in fact do that.

>Economic nationalism: fighting against globalization and neoliberal economics

That only became fashionable in the US in the last 5 or so years. The US has been the biggest pusher of free trade in the world for a long time now.

Americucks basically censored any southern ideology and thinking after their Civil War. That left any sort of development of actual conservatism(the reactionary kind that grew in continental Europe) to the dust.