On Conservatives and Republicans

What It Comes To

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD08)↱ makes a brief semantic point:

… because the Gentlelady was making a grammatical error that I heard some of her colleagues make, before; I believe she referred to a "'Democrat' solution". I heard another member talk about a "'Democrat' member" and a "'Democrat' plan". I just wanted to educate our distinguished colleagues, that "Democrat" is the noun; when you use it as an adjective, you say the "Democratic" member, or the "Democratic" solution, or "Democratic" plan, and so I assume it's a good-faith grammatical error the first few times, but after people are corrected several times, and they continue to say it, it seems like it's an act of incivility, as if every time we mentioned the other party, it just came out with a kind of speech impediment like, oh, the Banana Republican Party. As if we were to say that every time we mentioned the Banana Republican member, or the Banana Republican plan, or the Banana Republican Conference.​

My version is actually savage, the Républican Party. Or perhaps I try too hard, compared to the "Repubican" juvenilia just hanging there like a pouting opportunity. In any case, like the Distinguished Gentleman from Maryland Eight explained, "But we don't do that." And that part really shouldn't need to be said.

Still, though, toss a coin: Heads, conservatives are just that ignorant. Tails, conservatives are just that petty. Oh, right, the latter does not preclude the former.

Either way, yeah, we kind of knew, already.

Seriously, they've been at it for years; we believe them.

And, yes, pretty much anyone can comprehend the desperate incination to pretend conservatives have nothing to do with the GOP Party¹ in the time of Trump², but the living experience just disagrees.
____________________

Notes:

¹ A local joke from over a decade ago, since we're having fun with party names. Note for the record, that was how Republicans wanted it. (Hint: That's why it's funny.)

² e.g., the Buckley line; see #3702939↗—

An interesting contrast in recent years is the idea that William F. Buckley Jr. would somehow be distressed by what conservatism has become, but if we consider what the proposition means, the actual point that would trouble him is the lack of subtlety.​

—which came up a few times over a period of weeks, last year; see also #3703059↗, 3703130↗; a variation is included in #3703854↗.​

@Acyn. "Raskin to Boebert: Democrat is the noun. When you use it as an adjective, you say Democratic.. As if every time we mentioned the other party it just came out with a kind of political speech impediment like, oh, the Banana Republican Party." Twitter. 28 February 2023. Twitter.com. 28 February 2023. https://bit.ly/3kIYNQW

 

In the United States, the parties are generally asserted to represent some sort of liberal/conservative divide, and while the Democratic Party has never really been so liberal, conservatives separate themselves from the Republican Party for one of two reasons, either the party is run by "rinos" who are too liberal to be properly conservative, or the party has gone so far right that some people start insisting that conservatism is a separate thing from the Republican Party¹. That is to say, the GOP that has appealed to conservatism and conservatives for generations: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, Christian conservatives, conservative values, &c.

Anyway, Canadian conservatives are their own question. Not all conservatives are American Republicans, but, it's curious watching people try to separate American conservatism from what it wants, seeks, and accomplishes. Meanwhile, yeah, the Canadian version is something special in its own right.
____________________

Notes:

¹ In our community, see, Seattle↗, "Nothing currently going on with Republicans and Trump has anything to do with Conservatism"; Billvon↗, "I think you are conflating modern republicans with conservatives", and also↗, "I think nowadays you really have to separate out three different groups - republicans, conservatives and Trump supporters. There is getting to be less and less overlap between them." Even Parmalee↗ will acknowledge the basic pretense, and Origin↗ worries about "painting ALL conservatives with too wide of a brush". Like I said↑, it came up a few times, last year. If I look back to over a decade ago↗ the question whether we were really supposed to take an argument seriously was answered tacitly↗, i.e., we can only conlcude, per that response, that yes, we were to take the argument seriously.

 

Compared to the idea that William F. Buckley Jr. would somehow be distressed by what conservatism has become, the actual point that would trouble him is the lack of subtlety.¹

It's like the difference between beliefs and behaviors. Liberals aren't shocked and offended to discover that there are other views; in fact, Buckley's claim makes no sense, given how compared to his traditionalist conservative, liberalism was inherently "other views".

But Buckley's sort of conservatism was supposed to be smart enough to discern the difference between "views" and behavior. Yes, we hear those other views, and no, they cannot have what they want, because those views are functionally problematic. It's kind of like how conservatives are so often shocked and offended to discover that equality means equality.

Even now, they think they're being oppressed and silenced if they're not allowed to silence and oppress others.

I suppose the easiest way to put it is that it's not the views that are shocking or offensive, but the idea that we are supposed to take them seriously.
____________________

Notes:

¹ A reminder↗, since you missed it↗ last time.​