Conservatives in the 1850s

>Leftists in the 1850s
The people who own the factories don't actually contribute anything we should kick them to the curb and use the factories to produce things that are needed for our societies as a whole. We should structure society to maximally benefit the average worker instead of a small elite who own all of the factories.

>Leftists now
Ummm 'scuse me? You're a fucking white male and I'm a pangender demiqueer PoC xir person who recently cut off my dick and YOU need to check your privilege! You have white privilege and I suffer from institutionalized racism. Fuck you kill whitey!

Christian monarchism was internationalist.

Politics are not going forward, they are going in circles.

It wasn't internationalist at all, there was a clear respect of government, borders and culture.

>many people don't get why westerners are so helplessly tolerant

it would help if you rice farmers picked up a history book

That seem to be flip-flopped in the US.

t. Non-American

As much as I find this question to be interesting, it'll only attract /pol/ answers and oversimplification.

>Revolution is a pile of liberal leftist bullshit. We need to go back to our traditional ways, to the Crown and Britain!

>Nationalism is a pile of liberal leftist bullshit. We need to go back to our traditional ways, to Christian monarchism!
Because religion is in a second plane and monarchy is death in the west. Nationalism is the only real way to keep people traditions and cultures.By the way most conservatives just opposed centralization and civic nationalism.They were usually patriotic.

>traditional globalism

This will be a thing in my lifetime.

We really should go back to monarchism.

This. One of the biggest benefits, yet also the biggest downside to Veeky Forums is how the userbase oversimplifies everything, usually with food analogies.

>civic nationalism
This term is such an oxymoron, it's like "statist anarchism". The only form of nationalism is ethnic nationalism, "civic nationalism" is just patriotism.

Because conservatism is characterised as wanting to go back or staying the same.
So it doesn't as much collect people based on what their personality matching their actual views as much as it groups them through wheter they want to go back or not.
For instance, if we had anarchy before then anarchists would be conservatives.

And there are still monarchists out there.

You do realise terms often have different use in common language than they do in Academia right?

Conservatism is conserving what we already have. "Wanting to go back" is reaction.

This is where the difference lies between Burke (conservative) and de Maistre (reactionary).

This

Because conservatism is not an ideology, at least not for majority of them.

Because American conservatism is fundamentally different from European traditional conservatism. It doesn't even have the same intellectual base.

pros and cons... they are still corruptible

shit changes... for instance the conservative party fought against the democrat slavers... hence why the KKK is democrat in origin.

They use red for the Conservative party and blue for the Republican Party as well, they also have a 2 party system

This thread is a pile of bullshit.
Conservatives in 1850 were nationalist.

Would you say Otto von Bismarck was not a nationalist?

not all of us are actually "nationalistic"
the word "nation" in this context refers to ethnic race or a "nation of people"

many of us are monarchists, christians, and don't care much for nationalism as defined by the modern era (fuckign france)

This to tbqh senpai

>many of us are monarchists

come on man, there are only like a couple of us who really think that

No, but I would say that he wasn't a conservative.

A conservative wants to conserve the current order
A progressive wants to progress beyond the current order
A reactionary wants o go back to an older order
Progressive->conservative->Reactionary