How can anyone with AS be a conservative?

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't say that you were the one who stirred up a hornet's nest; I was only making an observation.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That is very amusing. I basically agree with your interpretation of the OP in some sense.

The issue is that the Christian right has some pronounced theocratic impulses. While they may not take them all the way, they do take them somewhat far making them hard to understand. So, I don't see this as a failure of reasoning, or inane reasoning, but rather the reasoning stems from their cultural-religious tendencies. If anybody wants elaboration, I can give some, but... I don't think it's simply what Dox47 gave(although he gives a good generic explanation), but rather there are certain strains of theological thinking that are dominionist.

The 'christian right' is using religion as a social and political tool. Many of the key players(read EVANGELISTS) are ultimately after 2 things: money and power. For them, religion is basically a business and the more converts they get, the more money they can extract and the more influence they have.

Futhermore Awesomelyglorious, both you and I and a few others ITT live in the USofA.....Which is NOT a cooperative society, it is a competitive society where people are seeking to get ahead by pursuing personal gain and self-interest; even at the expense of others and of society as a whole. For instance, an economic downturn provides an opportunity for those who already have property to acquire even more of it. I suppose that the reason why there are conservative aspies is the same reason why there are conservative african-americans. Some are inherently submissive and are willing to accept their lot in life while working for the greater good; others believe that if they work hard and sacrifice enough they'll get a stake in the status quo.

Nonetheless, the best example of an aspie conservative by far was the late great H P Lovecraft.

Thank you for the compliment, it almost makes me regret having to break it to you that I'm not conservative. It's an easy mistake to make because the board leans towards liberal and I stick out of that, but my personal ideology is actually a non orthodox brand of libertarianism. I'm an educated atheist in an interracial marriage who's skeptical of the police and justice system, strongly supports civil liberties and gay rights, believe in having a social safety net, and voted for Obama in the last election; pretty liberal sounding, huh? Then you have to toss in that I'm against virtually all forms of gun control, distrust the government and consider it wasteful and inefficient, prefer as close to a free market as can be achieved, and tend to go for privatization in most cases. That's just a sample set of positions, but if you're only seeing one side or the other it can be very easy to mistake me for something I'm not. Throw in the ideological mix here which pretty much dictates that there are going to be more liberal targets to take issue with than conservative ones, and it's easy to draw a false conclusion based on who I seem to be taking issue with.

Yep he speaks the truth as usual

It's funny how libertarianism can be confused with conservatism. I mean libertarianism is basically socially liberal and economically conservative. I'm pretty much on the same boat as you though I wouldn't call myself a libertarian anyone because I tend to either lean heavily left or right on issues.

The classical liberal belief is that people are basically good(at heart) and they deserve to be free. Some American conservatives subscribe to this idea too.

The paleo-conservative belief is that people are inherently "bad" and they need to be controlled by a strong, central authority.

I tend to agree with paleo-conservatives about this.

Another possibility being that conservative Aspies are unaware of their self-interests or falsely think a extra few pecentile points on the upper income bracket is going to drastically affect them.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 14 Aug 2011, 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's what I said, buddy. Conservative aspies believe they have a chance to get a stake in the status quo and make it to the top and when they do they want to enjoy their privilege.

You're projecting again. Why not quit making asinine assumptions that anyone who points out that something is wrong in the world is only expressing their own self-pity? You are the one who talks about how unfortunate your life has been in order to brag about how you've overcome it all "completely on your own". You're the one who is always comparing your struggles to other people's struggles as a way to diminish other people. Why is that crap necessary? Why must you pound your damn chest and look down on others? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

For your information I do not b***h about my own circumstances. I look at the world and realize I am more fortunate than others in many ways. In general I've had access to proper healthcare and treatment for my ailments for the most part. I have friends who haven't. I know people who have been completely screwed over by the system. Why do you ASSUME all my feelings of anger must be about ME alone and not about principles in general.

My apologies! Goes to show you, even I can succumb to stereotypes - just because you're pro-gun rights and suspicious of government, I just assumed you were a conservative. Well, ya live and learn.
I did know you were in an interracial marriage, from your avatar. You are indeed a lucky man. And good for you, for voting for Obama.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Actually, if you read all of the biographical information on Lovecraft, you'll find that he reassessed his whole political thinking with the Great Depression, particularly when the economic strain had destroyed his marriage, and left him destitute while living in New York. He in fact became a New Dealer, and a mild socialist. The young, socially isolated Lovecraft was a far cry from the older, more world wise Lovecraft in regard to his political, social, and even racial views.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I've known people who classify themselves as "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". They tend to be blue Liberals who support drug liberalization, same-sex marriages, but also back "balanced budgets", targeted cuts to some departments, and reducing corporate taxes. Most self-identified (property rights) libertarians seem utterly different, tend the emphasize to an absolutist degree the economic issues (they want to cut government with an axe and wantoly privatize various services, while holding a strong sense of contempt towards labour unions), like to partake in some culture war issues (i.e. labelling liberals "egg-headed", "bleeding hearts", hard emphasis on guns and chastise the possibility that people would take them away) while making the occasional nod to being "ultra-liberal" on the social issue of drug liberalization (while most seem to take the "third option" on same-sex marriage and abortion - with same-sex marriage, disbanding civil recognition of marriage altogether and letting private entities do whatever they like - and with abortion, the they want to "leave it up to the states").

The reason property rights libertarians can be easily confused with conservatives is simple: their rhetoric is, in many cases, identical to that of rightwing populists. Internet libertarian evangelists perfected the tactic of calling people "socialists" wantonly well before the Republicans adopted that, there's the same sense of "the govermit wants to STEAL your money through EVIL TAXES" arguments which deligitimize, and the same sort of demonization of people collecting social assistance as "welfare queens" exists.

Further reason for the conflation of property rights libertarians with conservatives is that a lot of prominent libertarian politicians are Republicans or ex-Republicans. 2008 Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton in the 1990s and Ron Paul is a Republican and many like to label him a "true conservative" or "traditional conservative", thus conflating conservatism with libertarianism.* Ron Paul's campaigns have, in the past, played up stereotypes of Mexian immigrants and dabled in conspiratorial, far-right themes (a newsletter written under his name was filled with the worst in far-right paranoia), and supports vetoing any bill with funding for Planned Parenthood. It's surprising how "Republican" or broadl associated with conservatism all the national "libertarian-ish" politicians are, given that the Democrats have two caucus full of fiscally conservative members (the "New Democrats" - completely different from the Canadian sense of the word - and the Blue Dog Democrats) from which prominent libertarian-leaning candidates could come from.

Libertarians had also identified themselves with the goals of the Tea Party and vigorously defended them. The problem is, while a lot of the national rallies aren't talking *that* much about "social issues", most of the Tea Partisans are definitely socially conservative by most measures. Backing what is essentially a conservative movement would reasonably lead people to confuse you with actual conservatives.

And while many libertarians opposed the Iraq War and are generally quite isolationist (something they share with "Old Right Paleoconservatives"), they generally go out of the way to single out the Military as one of the few "legitimate" government activities, something many conservatives also do.

Dox47, in particular, is easy to conflate with a conservative. Most of his posts are about counter-arguing against "liberals" so the forum doesn't become an "ecochamber". If someone has dozens of posts on how liberals are unfairly stereotyping conservatives, on how "statist" liberals are, on how liberals want to control your eating habits with evil taxes on unhealthy foods, on how wrong liberals are on first ammendment issues, on how bad liberals are when it comes to their views on the Tea Party, and how bad the liberal trust in government is, a few threads opposing privatized prisons, prosecutorial abuse, the death penalty shouldn't be used, and the drug war really isn't going to cut it when it comes to presenting oneself as "too idiosyncratic to categorize according to the conventional left-right spectrum".

*If I'm not mistaken, Ron Paul himself does this.

I never found that McCarthyism makes libertarians and conservatives indistinguisable. But I guess because McCarthyism is an American thing it can come across that way.

Well yeah the Tea Party is mostly focused on economics which is why the libertarians and conservatives are indistinguishable.

Well yeah national and domestic security are the bare minimum functions of the Government. And?

Too idiosyncratic to categorize according to the conventional left-right spectrum? What? I thought he has always made it clear that he's a libertarian.

M_P thinks that I'm secretly a far right extremist pretending to be reasonable, presumably so that I can fool a small AS politics forum into doing something or another, it breaks down around that point. Really though, he's my biggest fan, notice the encyclopaedic knowledge of my posts, right down to the phrasing, I mean it's been at least a few months since I called this place an echo chamber.

LOL yeah I noticed he obsessively keeps tabs on people. Like I remember he starts calling me out on being a "Rugged Individualist" when I made some comment about social engineering when I eased up on the hardcore individualism like half a year ago. I bet the dude has a burn book just for WP LOL. I mean seriously this is a Mean Girls level of pettiness. I'm still all about self-reliance first and asking for help second but when it comes to power within a society you are what you make of yourself according to your interaction with others. Basically no one inherently has power but it is given to you or revoked by others since power is a social dynamic. Power is basically a position of trust based on the assumption you will act in the self-interest of others.

Hell even back then when I was hardcore individualistic I always thought the masses are the most tyrannical aspect of any society. But I've extended this view from seeing the Government as the medium of mass tyranny to the entire structure of society. So even "Rugged Individualist" is somewhat misleading to describe my past views. It wasn't so much about bootstrapping as it was about minimizing Government to minimize mass tyranny.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 14 Aug 2011, 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.