Can one be both conservative *and* tolerant?

Post Reply New Topic

Well if we're going with the definitions of the "left", by which I'm assuming you mean the language of Progressives, it's all Newspeak. I thereby revise my answer to:

Pancake.

I understand the "present-day" definition of "left wing" and "right wing." And I understand its usage here.

But I don't think "progressives" like Teddy Roosevelt would have been considered "left wing" in their day.

To me, "the left" means someone who blatantly espouses socialist/communistic ideas. "The right" means somebody who espouses reactionary ideologies like Nazism, Fascism, ultra-nationalism. In most cases, both "the left" and "the right" by the "old" definition don't believe in representative government at all (except for something like a "council" hand-picked by a dictator).

I believe it is a rare Democrat who is a "leftist," and a rare Republican who is a "rightist."

Oxford makes a distinction between socially and fiscally conservative, which are the labels used in the US. The location also makes a difference. A social conservative from the Netherlands would likely be tolerant, since they have a tradition of tolerance. The US has a tradition of violent suppression of differences, so a social conservative in the US could not be tolerant.

A fiscal conservative would neither be tolerant nor intolerant, except as it affected their bottom line. No such person exists, to my knowledge. People have preconceptions and use heuristics, for the most part.

I figured that the context of the question was a cultural/political. If Tim meant this as a philosophic inquiry into the true nature of conservatism and tolerance I apologize for my hasty response.

The context of the question is certainly cultural/political, but establishes a false dichotomy between liberal and conservativism. Even were it "a liberal" and "a conservative", that would be the case.

But I digress. I don't believe any apology is necessary.

The people who'd be openly talking about tolerance, and his having it or not having it based on his conservatism, are these centrist intellectuals?

Oh, I quite agree that it's unlikely to be absent political agenda (though not impossible). However, I can only speak on behalf of myself and from my own perspective. I'm not especially interested in the genetic background of an argument, except where the argument is overtly dogmatic or partisan.

The point being, the likelihood is that this falls into that latter category, but it wasn't presented as such. It should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt and considered on its merits (of which there are scant few).