Where is left-wing conservativism?

[Dakini]

I mean, there's a whole international league of religious socialists with members in another of countries.

Being religious isn't the same thing as social conservatism no?

Not really. The OP was asking about Christian socialism and all that though and some Christian socialist parties are socially conservative.

[Radiatia]

It depends on how far left you mean by "left-wing".

If you mean communism then it's pretty much impossible as conservatism stands opposed to radicalism and revolutionary-ism.

However if you're talking about social democracy, or even democratic socialism then it's a fair point and actually not far from my own political views which on the economic axis are centrist if not centre-left. One-nation Toryism is, I suspect, a fairly near neighbour of Christian socialism.

Given that most blue collar workers and working class people tend to be more socially conservative than the more affluent middle class, it is something of a wonder that so few left-leaning political parties are also socially conservative and to a certain extent this may explain the recent rise of the far right - it's something of a cliche, but working class voters are overwhelmingly alienated by 'woke' politics that the modern left seem so eager to espouse.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

TBH the whole thing about 'socially conservative, economically liberal' in an American context makes zero sense when you look at the history. Eastern Kentucky didn't stop voting for Democrats over abortion, it stopped voting for Democrats because they became an urban/Northeast suburban . Cultural issues, not social ones, are the ones that mattered.

Except, cultural issues ARE social ones, and abortion is one of the BIGGEST issues for conservative voters, and this is undeniably one of the issues that people switched from Democrat to Republican for. Like, its unambiguous fact, and only the severely misinformed and the dangerously out of touch would disagree with it.

No they aren't. Guns aren't a social issue they're a cultural one. Even opposition to immigration isn't a social issue in the American sense, because social issues in the American sense are really nothing more than (opposition to) the agenda of the Christian right. But even if you ignore that and do consider immigration a social issue guns are still a cultural one.

And next to nobody switched from the Democrats to Republicans over abortion. But please explain to me how the idea that they did is "unambiguous fact" to the point "only the severely misinformed and the dangerously out of touch would disagree".

You want to know why these people are anti-abortion now? Because partisans adopt the positions of their adopted party (except for stuff that directly affects them, which is why the Republicans will likely become more pro-spending/economic intervention for their voters over the next two decades as their new voters filter in, but tbh that's not really anything new because even principled conservative hero Barry Goldwater loved the federal government when it came to pork for Arizona).

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

You dare to associate conservatism with leftism!!!!?????!?!?!?!!

Yes. I think it’s possible to be culturally conservative with leftist economics.

"Eh, those trans people are a bit weird, but I'll still use my tax money to fund the helplines, therapists, and hospitals", if my (rough) understanding is correct about 'left-wing conservatism'

[Prima Scriptura]

I think this describes me pretty good

[Nationalist Northumbria]

In France the PCF was staunchly anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion.

Before either position was the norm in the West. They've supported same sex marriage since 1998, before most western countries legalized it

It's complicated. True, they became more progressive later on, but they held these positions even when they weren't the norm for the French centre and left.

[The free romanians]

I don't understand why people say it doesn't exist
I feel most people who say this don't want to exist...

[Orostan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-VcitUskYw

The title of this thread reminded me of this wonderful video.

[RiderSyl]

I think this describes me pretty good

In America, those are called RINOs.

[The free romanians]

I think this describes me pretty good

In America, those are called RINOs.

What does that stand for

[Prima Scriptura]

I think this describes me pretty good

In America, those are called RINOs.

*shrugs*

[Dakini]

I don't understand why people say it doesn't exist
I feel most people who say this don't want to exist...

Because if something doesn't exist in the USA, then clearly it doesn't exist anywhere.

[Forsher]

I mean, there's a whole international league of religious socialists with members in another of countries.

Being religious isn't the same thing as social conservatism no?

That's exactly what a religionist would say

In America, those are called RINOs.

*shrugs*

Republican in Name Only.

[Prima Scriptura]

Being religious isn't the same thing as social conservatism no?

That's exactly what a religionist would say

*shrugs*

Republican in Name Only.

I feel the necessity to keep a biblical worldview, just not in terms of sexuality and cultural morality. For it’s the libertarian and individualist culture that the American right wing has embraced is one of the contributing factors of why we don’t have a God fearing populace anymore.

[Wizlandia]

Christian Socialism, Islamic Socialism, or just "economically communist, socially conservative". Where are they? If I have to make a prediction in, say, early 1800s, I'd predict that some form of Christian Socialism (not that socialism was well discussed yet at that era) would be the main revolutionary ideology of the future.

Consider the vast majority of "oppressed lower-class people", whether the peasants of Tsarist Russia, slave labor in Brazil's sugar plantations, or even blue collar workers in today's developing countries. Almost universally they have two things in common:

1. They live under the control of an exploitative ruling elite. (It's important to note that the left vs right economic dicothomy is mainly a privilege of developed countries; most other countries follow the political ideology of "corruptly steal as much as possible using all possible means of power").
2. They are immensely religious.

You can kinda see why an ideology that combines the two might be incredibly popular, at least in theory. Sure, workers seizing the means of production sounds nice. But what if Jesus also supports the idea of overthrowing the bourgeois class? Christianity can be easily reinterpreted into supporting socialism, whether the decentralized anarchist version or the Soviet bureaucratic version. Indeed the Puritan cultists who first came to America practiced many tenets of the former. Other religions, given enough reinterpretation efforts, are also similar. And unlike the atheist commies who just die if they get shot during the revolution, you have God to pray into during hardships and if you are killed, you actually go to heaven. One would imagine revolutionary populist churches, demagogues, and imams appearing, declaring the capitalist elite to be the greedy enemy of the Lord that must be vanquished, trying to overthrow older religious establishments or institutions in favor of newer, more red interpretation.

Suffice to say that such ideology will, as is the case with all revolution, turn into its most extreme version before it either reforms or degenerates. This means that one would expect the emergence of terrorist or revolutionary groups that is the combination of Wahabbi-level religious fundamentalism of "throw the gays off the roof" with Maoist-level communist zealousy. Certainly, the moderates will be far more popular - imagine a populist Trump-AOC incarnate that simultaneously promises universal free healthcare and a ban on abortion. Instead, we rarely see either. Where are they?

In China there's strong correlation between leftist economic beliefs, cultural conservatism and Chinese nationalism.

In fact, looking from a more worldwide perspective, a Cambridge study (Malka, Lelkes, Soto, 2017) using the World Values Survey found

Our findings suggest that: (1) it is not typical for cultural and economic attitudes to be aligned on the right–left dimension, (2) it is more common for right-wing cultural views to be coupled with left-wing economic views (and vice versa) – an attitude organization that reflects a contrast between desires for cultural and economic protection vs. freedom (3) protection–freedom attitude organization typically outweighs right–left attitude organization within post-communist nations, within socially traditional and low-development nations, and among low-political-engagement individuals and (4) data are consistent with key background characteristics – specifically, social class and needs for security and certainty – exerting opposite right–left ideological influences across the cultural and economic domains, potentially underlying protection–freedom attitude organization.

Also found in the study is that the correlation is strongest in post-communist countries, and that it is primarily amongst the highly politically engaged in culturally progressive nations that economic and cultural views are correlated along the standard left-right spectrum (i.e. market economics and cultural conservatism, and left-wing economics with cultural progressivism).

[Suriyanakhon]

That's exactly what a religionist would say



Republican in Name Only.

I feel the necessity to keep a biblical worldview, just not in terms of sexuality and cultural morality. For it’s the libertarian and individualist culture that the American right wing has embraced is one of the contributing factors of why we don’t have a God fearing populace anymore.

You realize that back when we supposedly had this, marital rape was legal, minorities couldn't use the same water fountains as the majority or sit in the front of the bus, and the age of consent was much lower than it is today?

[Dakini]

That's exactly what a religionist would say



Republican in Name Only.

I feel the necessity to keep a biblical worldview, just not in terms of sexuality and cultural morality.

So you think it's okay to own slaves and to force women to marry their rapists?

[Dumb Ideologies]

I think this describes me pretty good

In America, those are called RINOs.

It doesn't bother them. They have thick skin.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Christian Socialism, Islamic Socialism, or just "economically communist, socially conservative". Where are they? If I have to make a prediction in, say, early 1800s, I'd predict that some form of Christian Socialism (not that socialism was well discussed yet at that era) would be the main revolutionary ideology of the future.

Consider the vast majority of "oppressed lower-class people", whether the peasants of Tsarist Russia, slave labor in Brazil's sugar plantations, or even blue collar workers in today's developing countries. Almost universally they have two things in common:

1. They live under the control of an exploitative ruling elite. (It's important to note that the left vs right economic dicothomy is mainly a privilege of developed countries; most other countries follow the political ideology of "corruptly steal as much as possible using all possible means of power").
2. They are immensely religious.

You can kinda see why an ideology that combines the two might be incredibly popular, at least in theory. Sure, workers seizing the means of production sounds nice. But what if Jesus also supports the idea of overthrowing the bourgeois class? Christianity can be easily reinterpreted into supporting socialism, whether the decentralized anarchist version or the Soviet bureaucratic version. Indeed the Puritan cultists who first came to America practiced many tenets of the former. Other religions, given enough reinterpretation efforts, are also similar. And unlike the atheist commies who just die if they get shot during the revolution, you have God to pray into during hardships and if you are killed, you actually go to heaven. One would imagine revolutionary populist churches, demagogues, and imams appearing, declaring the capitalist elite to be the greedy enemy of the Lord that must be vanquished, trying to overthrow older religious establishments or institutions in favor of newer, more red interpretation.

Suffice to say that such ideology will, as is the case with all revolution, turn into its most extreme version before it either reforms or degenerates. This means that one would expect the emergence of terrorist or revolutionary groups that is the combination of Wahabbi-level religious fundamentalism of "throw the gays off the roof" with Maoist-level communist zealousy. Certainly, the moderates will be far more popular - imagine a populist Trump-AOC incarnate that simultaneously promises universal free healthcare and a ban on abortion. Instead, we rarely see either. Where are they?

In China there's strong correlation between leftist economic beliefs, cultural conservatism and Chinese nationalism.

In fact, looking from a more worldwide perspective, a Cambridge study (Malka, Lelkes, Soto, 2017) using the World Values Survey found

Our findings suggest that: (1) it is not typical for cultural and economic attitudes to be aligned on the right–left dimension, (2) it is more common for right-wing cultural views to be coupled with left-wing economic views (and vice versa) – an attitude organization that reflects a contrast between desires for cultural and economic protection vs. freedom (3) protection–freedom attitude organization typically outweighs right–left attitude organization within post-communist nations, within socially traditional and low-development nations, and among low-political-engagement individuals and (4) data are consistent with key background characteristics – specifically, social class and needs for security and certainty – exerting opposite right–left ideological influences across the cultural and economic domains, potentially underlying protection–freedom attitude organization.

Also found in the study is that the correlation is strongest in post-communist countries, and that it is primarily amongst the highly politically engaged in culturally progressive nations that economic and cultural views are correlated along the standard left-right spectrum (i.e. market economics and cultural conservatism, and left-wing economics with cultural progressivism).

From that study: "Secondly, the degree to which culturally and economically conservative attitudes are structured together on the right–left dimension has increased over time in the United States, as the context of political discourse has changed" which makes a lot of sense because American politics is increasingly less and less about political beliefs and more about what group you belong to (Brahmins vs Amerikaners, to borrow the terminology of a man who I will clarify I do not agree with). Like how American news outlets will comment on African politics and do the whole "as you know, ethnic voting..." thing as though that's unique to Africa when that accurately describes most of American political history.

While the "not highly politically engaged = does not/more likely to not fit neatly into the left/right paradigm" is true, in the United States it's really no longer the case, and hence to the specifically American focus of this thread (see: "populist Trump-AOC incarnate that simultaneously promises universal free healthcare and a ban on abortion", didn't know Premier Donya Tesoro posted here) is irrelevant.

[Wizlandia]

In China there's strong correlation between leftist economic beliefs, cultural conservatism and Chinese nationalism.

In fact, looking from a more worldwide perspective, a Cambridge study (Malka, Lelkes, Soto, 2017) using the World Values Survey found

Also found in the study is that the correlation is strongest in post-communist countries, and that it is primarily amongst the highly politically engaged in culturally progressive nations that economic and cultural views are correlated along the standard left-right spectrum (i.e. market economics and cultural conservatism, and left-wing economics with cultural progressivism).

From that study: "Secondly, the degree to which culturally and economically conservative attitudes are structured together on the right–left dimension has increased over time in the United States, as the context of political discourse has changed" which makes a lot of sense because American politics is increasingly less and less about political beliefs and more about what group you belong to (Brahmins vs Amerikaners, to borrow the terminology of a man who I will clarify I do not agree with). Like how American news outlets will comment on African politics and do the whole "as you know, ethnic voting..." thing as though that's unique to Africa when that accurately describes most of American political history.

While the "not highly politically engaged = does not/more likely to not fit neatly into the left/right paradigm" is true, in the United States it's really no longer the case, and hence to the specifically American focus of this thread (see: "populist Trump-AOC incarnate that simultaneously promises universal free healthcare and a ban on abortion", didn't know Premier Donya Tesoro posted here) is irrelevant.

Could be based on group identity. Or could be a composition-effect, specifically that more people are becoming politically engaged. But left-economics and cultural conservative voters still exist in significant numbers in the U.S., as do market and cultural liberal voters. See Pew (2006) and FiveThirtyEight (2012). Echelon Insights has more recent data on this (iirc 2016), though right now I don't have the link.

As for why we don't see a Trump-AOC type, I'd hypothesise its likely because your highly politically engaged partisans are far more active in primary voting and in political fundraising. The Trump-AOC could conceivably be popular amongst the general population, but they will never get through the primaries.

Edit: Here's a 2021 one from Echelon Insights, not the same as the 2016 one which I don't have the link rn.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

From that study: "Secondly, the degree to which culturally and economically conservative attitudes are structured together on the right–left dimension has increased over time in the United States, as the context of political discourse has changed" which makes a lot of sense because American politics is increasingly less and less about political beliefs and more about what group you belong to (Brahmins vs Amerikaners, to borrow the terminology of a man who I will clarify I do not agree with). Like how American news outlets will comment on African politics and do the whole "as you know, ethnic voting..." thing as though that's unique to Africa when that accurately describes most of American political history.

While the "not highly politically engaged = does not/more likely to not fit neatly into the left/right paradigm" is true, in the United States it's really no longer the case, and hence to the specifically American focus of this thread (see: "populist Trump-AOC incarnate that simultaneously promises universal free healthcare and a ban on abortion", didn't know Premier Donya Tesoro posted here) is irrelevant.

Could be based on group identity. Or could be a composition-effect, specifically that more people are becoming politically engaged. But left-economics and cultural conservative voters still exist in significant numbers in the U.S., as do market and cultural liberal voters. See Pew (2006) and FiveThirtyEight (2012). Echelon Insights has more recent data on this (iirc 2016), though right now I don't have the link.

As for why we don't see a Trump-AOC type, I'd hypothesise its likely because your highly politically engaged partisans are far more active in primary voting and in political fundraising. The Trump-AOC could conceivably be popular amongst the general population, but they will never get through the primaries.

2006 and 2012 is not "still". Also the Trump-AOC was from the OP not me.

[Wizlandia]

Could be based on group identity. Or could be a composition-effect, specifically that more people are becoming politically engaged. But left-economics and cultural conservative voters still exist in significant numbers in the U.S., as do market and cultural liberal voters. See Pew (2006) and FiveThirtyEight (2012). Echelon Insights has more recent data on this (iirc 2016), though right now I don't have the link.

As for why we don't see a Trump-AOC type, I'd hypothesise its likely because your highly politically engaged partisans are far more active in primary voting and in political fundraising. The Trump-AOC could conceivably be popular amongst the general population, but they will never get through the primaries.

2006 and 2012 is not "still". Also the Trump-AOC was from the OP not me.

Here's a 2021 one from Echelon Insights, not the same as the 2016 one which I don't have the link rn.

[Ifreann]

When people call themselves "socially conservative" without specifying further, what do we all tend to take that to mean? Personally I think that someone who says that is essentially admitting to being some kind of bigot, to believing that there is some group in society which is striving for equality which they want to see pushed back into inequality and oppression. And I'm no great scholar of political philosophy, but that seems to me to be incompatible with left wing politics.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

2006 and 2012 is not "still". Also the Trump-AOC was from the OP not me.

Here's a 2021 one from Echelon Insights, not the same as the 2016 one which I don't have the link rn.

Oh I remember that one, it had hypothetical political parties. But all that shows is that lower-left and upper-right voters make up 80% of the population, and the slides themselves say that strong conservatives and strong liberals individually make up the same percentage of voters as the entire populist quadrant. While nearly all of the populists, and even more of the libertarians, are just barely in those quadrants.

Not going by the subsamples (which do support me but honestly we're dealing with such small numbers that those numbers should treated with extreme caution) but by logic, a lot of populists by how Echelon Insights defines them are black people and a lot of black people are populists. They're sort of anomalous; rural, poor African-Americans have long been more consistently religious than their white counterparts, their church is the centre of their life and usually quite socially conservative (this is why Mississippi voted 86-14 to ban same-sex marriage). Like Jesse Jackson was anti-abortion before he realised that would play as poorly as his opinions on New York with the Democrats he was trying to ingratiate himself with.

It's this part of the Democratic coalition, not (formerly) Democratic-voting rural whites (both while they were in the party and outside of it), who are the fabled 'socially conservative, economically left' rural voters.

[Chan Island]

It's possible but requires a level of cognitive dissonance that is hard to maintain. Left wing ideas tend to be about establishing equality, while right wing ones tend to be about preserving existing hierarchy, so it's a tough balancing act to argue that everyone should be equal economically but not socially. And when it does slip the direction it goes is often towards fascism, so that's not fantastic.

Edit: and to be honest I don't see this 8dea very charitably at all. If we look at it from a hierarchy framework, left wing conservatism is essentially arguing that society should remain exactly the same but that you shouldn't be poor. That's all it really is, and I dunno, there's something deeply unpleasant about a selfish bastard.