Where is left-wing conservativism?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

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.

Actually I've just answered the OP's question.

Where is left-wing conservatism, defined as economic liberalism and social conservatism (in their American senses)? There is left-wing conservatism, in rural black counties. Sure, many voters there regardless support the Democratic party line and like Jesse Jackson have found themselves converts to the pro-choice cause, but there still exist those that don't. They skew older, those counties continue to shrink in population, but for a while yet it exists. There you go, OP. There you go, everyone who has criticised these people or has said that these people don't deserve solidarity themselves (yikes).

There's what you asked for. They're not communists, but they fit.

[Chan Island]

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.

Actually I've just answered the OP's question.

Where is left-wing conservatism, defined as economic liberalism and social conservatism (in their American senses)? There is left-wing conservatism, in rural black counties. Sure, many voters there regardless support the Democratic party line and like Jesse Jackson have found themselves converts to the pro-choice cause, but there still exist those that don't. They skew older, those counties continue to shrink in population, but for a while yet it exists. There you go, OP. There you go, everyone who has criticised these people or has said that these people don't deserve solidarity themselves (yikes).

There's what you asked for. They're not communists, but they fit.

So basically what you’re saying is that left-wing conservatism, in America, is actually an extremely popular ideology but only among the black community?

[The free romanians]

Doesn't liberal mean laissez-faire and economicaly right?

[Kerwa]

So basically what you’re saying is that left-wing conservatism, in America, is actually an extremely popular ideology but only among the black community?

A sizable number of Hispanics too.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Actually I've just answered the OP's question.

Where is left-wing conservatism, defined as economic liberalism and social conservatism (in their American senses)? There is left-wing conservatism, in rural black counties. Sure, many voters there regardless support the Democratic party line and like Jesse Jackson have found themselves converts to the pro-choice cause, but there still exist those that don't. They skew older, those counties continue to shrink in population, but for a while yet it exists. There you go, OP. There you go, everyone who has criticised these people or has said that these people don't deserve solidarity themselves (yikes).

There's what you asked for. They're not communists, but they fit.

So basically what you’re saying is that left-wing conservatism, in America, is actually an extremely popular ideology but only among the black community?

'extremely popular' is an exaggeration but yes, it's there, it exists, and the tendency would be more significant if not for the facts (a) many black Christian organisations have cosied up to/been co-opted by the Democratic establishment and (b) contemporary American political opinions largely boil down to This Is The Platform, Get With It-ism. I don't think it has much time left as the people who believe in it - who have never really made up an influential faction of the Democratic Party in their own right, just supporting others instead - pass on. Black Christianity will remain a significant force within Democratic politics, see Raphael Warnock, but it will be socially progressive in nature, see Raphael Warnock.

[Crylante]

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.

From what I understand the PSD is more just pork barreling and patronage than genuine social democrats in an ideological sense.

I suppose they, along with Smer-SD in Slovakia, PSRM in Moldova and Saskana in Latvia, could be considered to fit the idea of "left-wing conservatism" but there's differences in the circumstances.

[The Alma Mater]

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

From what I understand the PSD is more just pork barreling and patronage than genuine social democrats in an ideological sense.

I suppose they, along with Smer-SD in Slovakia, PSRM in Moldova and Saskana in Latvia, could be considered to fit the idea of "left-wing conservatism" but there's differences in the circumstances.

It all depends on what you call "leftist". Quite a few conservative christian parties are for instance "green"; due to believing in the "stewards of earth" concept. Quite a few conservatve christian parties support social security, universal healthcare etc -including actively opposing capitalist insurance based alternatives due to the "gambling" aspect of those.

But giving the means of production to the workers is not a common theme.

[The free romanians]

From what I understand the PSD is more just pork barreling and patronage than genuine social democrats in an ideological sense.

I suppose they, along with Smer-SD in Slovakia, PSRM in Moldova and Saskana in Latvia, could be considered to fit the idea of "left-wing conservatism" but there's differences in the circumstances.

It all depends on what you call "leftist". Quite a few conservative christian parties are for instance "green"; due to believing in the "stewards of earth" concept. Quite a few conservatve christian parties support social security, universal healthcare etc -including actively opposing capitalist insurance based alternatives due to the "gambling" aspect of those.

But giving the means of production to the workers is not a common theme.

Distribuists who quite a lot of christian democrats belong to supoort cooperatives and that might count

[Diopolis]

Actually I've just answered the OP's question.

Where is left-wing conservatism, defined as economic liberalism and social conservatism (in their American senses)? There is left-wing conservatism, in rural black counties. Sure, many voters there regardless support the Democratic party line and like Jesse Jackson have found themselves converts to the pro-choice cause, but there still exist those that don't. They skew older, those counties continue to shrink in population, but for a while yet it exists. There you go, OP. There you go, everyone who has criticised these people or has said that these people don't deserve solidarity themselves (yikes).

There's what you asked for. They're not communists, but they fit.

So basically what you’re saying is that left-wing conservatism, in America, is actually an extremely popular ideology but only among the black community?

The Tejanos(long term resident white hispanics) in South Texas and the West Virginia whites were the same way before economic leftism became strongly associated with a transition away from fossil fuels.

[Diopolis]

It all depends on what you call "leftist". Quite a few conservative christian parties are for instance "green"; due to believing in the "stewards of earth" concept. Quite a few conservatve christian parties support social security, universal healthcare etc -including actively opposing capitalist insurance based alternatives due to the "gambling" aspect of those.

But giving the means of production to the workers is not a common theme.

Distribuists who quite a lot of christian democrats belong to supoort cooperatives and that might count

Christian democrats are generally not distributists. In fact, to the point where distributists are represented at all in political parties, they're generally found in either 1) tiny political parties that splintered off from actual hardcore communists in the hammer and sickle sense or 2)(and this is more common these days with the cooption of the economic left by woke intersectionalists) strongly socially conservative pro-executive-monarchy parties.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

So basically what you’re saying is that left-wing conservatism, in America, is actually an extremely popular ideology but only among the black community?

The Tejanos(long term resident white hispanics) in South Texas and the West Virginia whites were the same way before economic leftism became strongly associated with a transition away from fossil fuels.

No, Democrat-voting whites in West Virginia were never socially conservative, attempts to rewrite the record aside. Guns and jobs are what mattered to them and caused their disillusionment with the Democrats, not abortion. Social conservatism is irrelevant to their shift.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Theoretically, conservatism means traditionalism.

But that leaves the question of what traditions you're conserving.

If they're economically leftist traditions, you're left-wing conservative, regardless of any attempt to "No True Scotsman" any version of either term. (And regardless of, as it appears to be in this thread, each side's attempts to use the two-party system to sell their more popular ideas by way of their less popular ideas.)

[Diopolis]

The Tejanos(long term resident white hispanics) in South Texas and the West Virginia whites were the same way before economic leftism became strongly associated with a transition away from fossil fuels.

No, Democrat-voting whites in West Virginia were never socially conservative, attempts to rewrite the record aside. Guns and jobs are what mattered to them and caused their disillusionment with the Democrats, not abortion. Social conservatism is irrelevant to their shift.

Democrat voting whites were very socially conservative(like "voted for segregationists in the 90's" socially conservative). WV democrats(that actually get elected) are still social conservatives(albeit more moderate than their GOP opponents).
Claiming social conservatism is the reason for their shift in the same way it plays a role in the ongoing shift of white hispanics towards the GOP is incorrect, true. But to claim that they were social progressives all along is just as incorrect- they simply elected socially conservative democrats up until it became difficult for democrats to support fossil fuels.

[Forsher]

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.

Okay... socially conservative would probably mean



As I have repeatedly stated, pretty much none of these have anything to do with the belief that economic structures cause social problems.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

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.

Okay... socially conservative would probably mean



As I have repeatedly stated, pretty much none of these have anything to do with the belief that economic structures cause social problems.

Nor with each other. The supposed common theme is "tradition" but depending on the tradition people are capable of separating these views. The Catholic Church would support some of these and oppose others, for instance.

The political spectrum is deeply flawed, but the political compass is only slightly better.

[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.

Okay... socially conservative would probably mean

Yeah, that's what I said, some kind of bigot.

As I have repeatedly stated, pretty much none of these have anything to do with the belief that economic structures cause social problems.

No political movement can really support the working class if it's carving out certain members of the working class to discriminate against.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

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.

Okay... socially conservative would probably mean



As I have repeatedly stated, pretty much none of these have anything to do with the belief that economic structures cause social problems.

This is incredibly West-centric, and the idea that "[thinking] hairy or short haired women = lesbian" is 'socially conservative' is plainly ridiculous.

[Diopolis]

Nor with each other. The supposed common theme is "tradition" but depending on the tradition people are capable of separating these views. The Catholic Church would support some of these and oppose others, for instance.

The political spectrum is deeply flawed, but the political compass is only slightly better.

I generally agree with your broader point re: the nuances inherent in trying to measure social conservatism, but the only actual parts of that chart that traditional religious morality of major christian denominations would maybe take issue with are the ones that are borderline on being social issues to begin with.

[Forsher]

This is incredibly West-centric,

It would be completely incoherent if it was otherwise.

and the idea that "[thinking] hairy or short haired women = lesbian" is 'socially conservative' is plainly ridiculous.

Not really. Or have you never encountered this idea?

Nor with each other.

A coherent conservatism wouldn't be conservative. The things conservatives should be trying to conserve should have functionally no logical relationship to each other being that they're each individual accidents of history.

As I have repeatedly stated, pretty much none of these have anything to do with the belief that economic structures cause social problems.

No political movement can really support the working class if it's carving out certain members of the working class to discriminate against.

Anyone who believes any five of those things would necessarily be carving out certain members of their favoured class. Whatever that class is.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

No, Democrat-voting whites in West Virginia were never socially conservative, attempts to rewrite the record aside. Guns and jobs are what mattered to them and caused their disillusionment with the Democrats, not abortion. Social conservatism is irrelevant to their shift.

Democrat voting whites were very socially conservative(like "voted for segregationists in the 90's" socially conservative). WV democrats(that actually get elected) are still social conservatives(albeit more moderate than their GOP opponents).
Claiming social conservatism is the reason for their shift in the same way it plays a role in the ongoing shift of white hispanics towards the GOP is incorrect, true. But to claim that they were social progressives all along is just as incorrect- they simply elected socially conservative democrats up until it became difficult for democrats to support fossil fuels.

It's deeply unfair to characterise Robert Byrd, a man who changed considerably over his time in public service, as a segregationist in the 1990s. He definitely wasn't socially conservative at the end of his career going by anything other than 2021 standards, he was a slightly progressive-leaning moderate. WV Democrats who still get elected are moderates, not conservatives: sure, Joe Manchin might be the rightmost Democrat, but he's still to the left of the leftmost Republicans.

It's not my opinion that they were social progressives all along, but rather that they just didn't care much for social issues.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

A coherent conservatism wouldn't be conservative. The things conservatives should be trying to conserve should have functionally no logical relationship to each other being that they're each individual accidents of history.

By that logic, you could also argue that a coherent leftism wouldn't be left-wing, since they're opposing conservatism on these "individual accidents of history."

[Diopolis]

Democrat voting whites were very socially conservative(like "voted for segregationists in the 90's" socially conservative). WV democrats(that actually get elected) are still social conservatives(albeit more moderate than their GOP opponents).
Claiming social conservatism is the reason for their shift in the same way it plays a role in the ongoing shift of white hispanics towards the GOP is incorrect, true. But to claim that they were social progressives all along is just as incorrect- they simply elected socially conservative democrats up until it became difficult for democrats to support fossil fuels.

It's deeply unfair to characterise Robert Byrd, a man who changed considerably over his time in public service, as a segregationist in the 1990s. He definitely wasn't socially conservative at the end of his career going by anything other than 2021 standards, he was a slightly progressive-leaning moderate. WV Democrats who still get elected are moderates, not conservatives: sure, Joe Manchin might be the rightmost Democrat, but he's still to the left of the leftmost Republicans.

It's not my opinion that they were social progressives all along, but rather that they just didn't care much for social issues.

Joe Manchin is to the right of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski(the most moderate republicans in the senate) on social issues. It's fair to point out that Robert Byrd was no longer a segregationist in the 90's, but he was clearly well to the right of other democrats- he supported initiating impeachment proceedings against Clinton, opposed allowing gays in the military, voted for cloture on a federal gay marriage ban, voted to ban partial birth abortion(although he'd also voted against a partial birth abortion ban), and his racial views were clearly more on the center-right side of moderate than liberal.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

It's deeply unfair to characterise Robert Byrd, a man who changed considerably over his time in public service, as a segregationist in the 1990s. He definitely wasn't socially conservative at the end of his career going by anything other than 2021 standards, he was a slightly progressive-leaning moderate. WV Democrats who still get elected are moderates, not conservatives: sure, Joe Manchin might be the rightmost Democrat, but he's still to the left of the leftmost Republicans.

It's not my opinion that they were social progressives all along, but rather that they just didn't care much for social issues.

Joe Manchin is to the right of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski(the most moderate republicans in the senate) on social issues. It's fair to point out that Robert Byrd was no longer a segregationist in the 90's, but he was clearly well to the right of other democrats- he supported initiating impeachment proceedings against Clinton, opposed allowing gays in the military, voted for cloture on a federal gay marriage ban, voted to ban partial birth abortion(although he'd also voted against a partial birth abortion ban), and his racial views were clearly more on the center-right side of moderate than liberal.

Where are you getting him being to their right from?

You're just quoting from his Wikipedia article so let's go over each one: he voted to censure but still voted against impeachment, and he tried to dismiss the charges; Byrd later voted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell to allow homosexuals to serve openly; he actually opposed the amendment but yes definitely wasn't supportive of same-sex marriage; the partial-birth abortion ban passed the Senate 64-33 and the House 282-139, with polling indicating two-thirds popular support, hardly a conservative litmus test; and he was quite firmly progressive on race by (and before) the 2000s.

I'd still describe him as a moderate, not a conservative.

[Prima Scriptura]

It's deeply unfair to characterise Robert Byrd, a man who changed considerably over his time in public service, as a segregationist in the 1990s. He definitely wasn't socially conservative at the end of his career going by anything other than 2021 standards, he was a slightly progressive-leaning moderate. WV Democrats who still get elected are moderates, not conservatives: sure, Joe Manchin might be the rightmost Democrat, but he's still to the left of the leftmost Republicans.

It's not my opinion that they were social progressives all along, but rather that they just didn't care much for social issues.

Joe Manchin is to the right of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski(the most moderate republicans in the senate) on social issues. It's fair to point out that Robert Byrd was no longer a segregationist in the 90's, but he was clearly well to the right of other democrats- he supported initiating impeachment proceedings against Clinton, opposed allowing gays in the military, voted for cloture on a federal gay marriage ban, voted to ban partial birth abortion(although he'd also voted against a partial birth abortion ban), and his racial views were clearly more on the center-right side of moderate than liberal.

Joe Manchin has a history of being socially conservative, but also has a history of supporting expanding the welfare state. His new found fiscal conservatism is purely for political expediency

[Forsher]

A coherent conservatism wouldn't be conservative. The things conservatives should be trying to conserve should have functionally no logical relationship to each other being that they're each individual accidents of history.

By that logic, you could also argue that a coherent leftism wouldn't be left-wing, since they're opposing conservatism on these "individual accidents of history."

If leftism was defined as "opposing conservatism" sure. But it's not.