OP talks about the economic distribution scale of politics (for capitalism to be relevant), where (fiscal) conservatism stands in opposition to socialism.
There are plenty other ways to divide ideologies, but capitalism is irrelevant to most of them, including the one you’re proposing (power distribution?)
Conservatism is a very specific political philosophy. Liberalism is a very specific political philosophy.
“Conservative” the adjective that is not about politics is about reducing risk. “Liberal” the adjective that is not about politics is about reducing restraint.
Conservatism the political philosophy emerged as a response the development of Liberalism the political philosophy. Liberalism’s position was that the source of political power should be private property. Conservatism’s position was that the source of political power should be heritage/lineage.
Separating economics from politics makes very little sense conceptually and it results in mass confusion, like we have in the USA today. There are no (or very very few) Conservatives in the USA today. The USA is split between two factions of Liberalism. On the one hand you have Liberals who wish to reduce restraint on individuals with wealth and power. These would be classical Liberals. On the other hand you have Liberals who wish to restrain individuals with wealth just a little bit as a concession to the masses and to offer the masses a few concessions, most of which are symbolic and not pragmatic, to ensure that the masses do not revolt.
There are no fiscal conservatives in US politics. Republicans have almost never reduced spending when they take office. They shift where the budget goes, but they don’t spend less. That’s not fiscally conservative, it’s factional priorities. Democrats do not spend more than Republicans when in office. That’s not meaningfully different. They prioritize other allocations. Again, factional priorities.
Fiscal conservatism does not stand in opposition to socialism. Liberalism stands in opposition to socialism, because Liberalism situates the source of power in private property and socialism is a private property abolitionist movement.
Capitalism is not irrelevant to the separation of ideologies. How could it be when literally the feudal economic system literally could not manage the economies of states sufficiently which gave rise to the capitalist mode which needed a political power system that allowed it to function which monarchy could never do? Capitalism and Liberalism are fundamentally interconnected.
In the US political landscape there is de facto a group identifying themselves as conservative, in contrast to other groups identifying as liberal, libertarian, socialist, among others.
Your models and perspectives might be self satisfying, but are for this context irrelevant — reality doesn’t agree with you.
Missing the forest for the trees means missing the bigger picture for the smaller specifics. In this case that applies to you, not me.
The history of Liberalism is older than the US and spans more countries. The forest here is political philosophy. The USA is a tree.
To assume that the USA, which is only 250 years old, and it’s local use of the word “Conservative” which has not even been for 200 years, is “the forest” in this metaphor is exactly the sort of skewed perspective Americans have on the world.
The USA’s usage of the terms Liberal and Conservative are local, short term aberrations. It is the US that is missing the forest for the trees. And this is important. It’s why people in the US who are fighting the Republicans think they are “on the left” and why they get so confused when actual leftists won’t make common cause with them.
In this context you’re wrong.
OP talks about the economic distribution scale of politics (for capitalism to be relevant), where (fiscal) conservatism stands in opposition to socialism.
There are plenty other ways to divide ideologies, but capitalism is irrelevant to most of them, including the one you’re proposing (power distribution?)
Conservatism is a very specific political philosophy. Liberalism is a very specific political philosophy.
“Conservative” the adjective that is not about politics is about reducing risk. “Liberal” the adjective that is not about politics is about reducing restraint.
Conservatism the political philosophy emerged as a response the development of Liberalism the political philosophy. Liberalism’s position was that the source of political power should be private property. Conservatism’s position was that the source of political power should be heritage/lineage.
Separating economics from politics makes very little sense conceptually and it results in mass confusion, like we have in the USA today. There are no (or very very few) Conservatives in the USA today. The USA is split between two factions of Liberalism. On the one hand you have Liberals who wish to reduce restraint on individuals with wealth and power. These would be classical Liberals. On the other hand you have Liberals who wish to restrain individuals with wealth just a little bit as a concession to the masses and to offer the masses a few concessions, most of which are symbolic and not pragmatic, to ensure that the masses do not revolt.
There are no fiscal conservatives in US politics. Republicans have almost never reduced spending when they take office. They shift where the budget goes, but they don’t spend less. That’s not fiscally conservative, it’s factional priorities. Democrats do not spend more than Republicans when in office. That’s not meaningfully different. They prioritize other allocations. Again, factional priorities.
Fiscal conservatism does not stand in opposition to socialism. Liberalism stands in opposition to socialism, because Liberalism situates the source of power in private property and socialism is a private property abolitionist movement.
Capitalism is not irrelevant to the separation of ideologies. How could it be when literally the feudal economic system literally could not manage the economies of states sufficiently which gave rise to the capitalist mode which needed a political power system that allowed it to function which monarchy could never do? Capitalism and Liberalism are fundamentally interconnected.
You are missing the forest for the trees.
In the US political landscape there is de facto a group identifying themselves as conservative, in contrast to other groups identifying as liberal, libertarian, socialist, among others.
Your models and perspectives might be self satisfying, but are for this context irrelevant — reality doesn’t agree with you.
Missing the forest for the trees means missing the bigger picture for the smaller specifics. In this case that applies to you, not me.
The history of Liberalism is older than the US and spans more countries. The forest here is political philosophy. The USA is a tree.
To assume that the USA, which is only 250 years old, and it’s local use of the word “Conservative” which has not even been for 200 years, is “the forest” in this metaphor is exactly the sort of skewed perspective Americans have on the world.
The USA’s usage of the terms Liberal and Conservative are local, short term aberrations. It is the US that is missing the forest for the trees. And this is important. It’s why people in the US who are fighting the Republicans think they are “on the left” and why they get so confused when actual leftists won’t make common cause with them.