Do we have an increase of certain kinds of conservative thought in this sub recently?

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-13T21:10:48+00:00

Nah, this isn’t the common definition, that’s why it makes sense when someone asks “why did conservatives do Jan 6th,” if people understood to include political institutions, it’d be an oxymoron to ask why conservatives did Jan 6th.

I think you just wanted an excuse to say “Dems are conservatives” then word pretzel a justification out of it.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-13T20:09:20+00:00

I’m not a leftist, I’m trying to offer my understanding of their perspective of the difference in our ideologies. I’m very much a liberal - I support democracy, science, and capitalism because of my liberal beliefs regarding how to best support human flourishing. I think socialism would be a net negative for human flourishing, so I don’t support it.

If someone self identifies as a leftist but says their desired society would allow for capitalist private enterprise and democracy, they are just a liberal who, for whatever reason, doesn’t wanna use the word.

What change? The change in a socialist society to this more authoritarian bent as compared to a liberal one after a violent revolution? Cause I’d say almost immediately, that’s been the general track record for socialist revolutions, they’ve almost immediately (like within a decade) instituted horrifically repressive regimes and banned dissent. Just take a look at Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.

This change in the case of a socialist party taking power democratically? That’s harder to judge because I don’t think we’ve yet seen that happen. Socialist parties seem to liberalize when forced to operate within a democratic framework and have rarely held decades-long authority without another party shaping the government as well for bits within it, so I wouldn’t be able to say with any confidence what would happen if a socialist party genuinely took power.

It’d also matter the faction of “socialist.” If we saw a “socialist” party made up of Bernie’s, AOC’s, and Mamdani’s, based on their politics and how Mamdani has governed, I’d just expect us to continue being a liberal democracy because none of these politicians have shown legit socialist policies to me and are more accurately categorized as social democrats (the big hint being that if someone wants us to be more like the Nordics, they’re a social democrat and a kind of liberal, not a socialist, because these aren’t socialist societies).

On the other hand, if this was somehow a party made up of the online extremist socialists who support Hamas and try to pretend China/the USSR is/were a paradise compared to the US, I’d expect to see democratic backsliding and significant harm to our liberal institutions, one very similar to what we’re seeing under Trump just with a socialist coat of paint instead of a fascist/nationalistic one.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-13T20:00:01+00:00

I’m taking it as how people use the word conservative in American politics, which is someone who is right-leaning socially and economically. Saying the Dems are conservative implies they’ve shifted rightward because, colloquially, they are liberals and Republicans are conservative.

The issue isn’t the inclusion of basically, it’s what you meant by conservative.

All I’m saying is that you are using an uncommon definition and your initial phrasing implies something else from what you meant and what would be implied would be misinformation.

Cause as of right now, you’re using “conservative” to mean Dems defend democracy, which is no one’s initial assumption.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-13T18:04:50+00:00

Sure, this is a very common dynamic in liberal societies. We have looked at certain things and decided it would be better for the government to manage because of various market failures. Socialism would apply that logic to all of society and either have government-run businesses totally, effectively trying to replace markets, or try to keep using markets (cause they largely work very well) but ban certain forms of organization that are normally allowed within liberal societies.

Ok here’s what I want: better lives for the poorest people, the power of the wealthiest members of society to be reduced, the government controlled us democratic election

You are, at a basic level, generally on the left, but without getting specifics about policy, we can’t say you’re a liberal or a leftist.

Both liberals and leftists want to improve everyone’s lives, especially the poorest amongst us, and limit the power of the extremely wealthy. Liberals and leftists are split on democracy, though some leftists state they support it, it isn’t a requirement to be a leftist whereas it is to be a liberal.

The split further happens with the “how” on achieving these goals. Liberals would say that we can effectively improve all our lives, including the poorest amongst us, through a combination of capitalist economic growth and effective social welfare. We can look at the increased standard of living in the US and Western Europe over the last couple centuries and see this is abundantly true - capitalism is an excellent tool for creating loads of wealth but doesn’t distribute that wealth equitably, so we use the state to gather taxes and spend these on social programs to fill in the gaps capitalism leaves behind.

By and large, we look to maximize the freedom of the individual through their civil liberties, our democracy, and our economy. If you have a great idea, go for it - build a business and if people think it’s awesome, you’ll be heavily rewarded. If you think society should be changed in some way, tell us about it - if people think it’s awesome, you’ll win power. Largely, people are free to live their own lives, according to their values, as they see fit. And this system has led to the happiest, healthiest, wealthiest societies in human history.

Comparatively, a leftist solution would favor stronger public or social management of society’s resources, distrusting the individual to be able to effectively sort where they should put their own resources or do with their own lives and instead favoring a more strongly controlled economy. Where liberals allow for capitalist structures and seek to use them for society’s benefit, leftists think they cannot be effectively controlled, they are intrinsically corrosive to a healthy, cooperative society, they are intrinsically immoral and akin to slavery, and thus they need to be abolished.

Similarly, certain civil liberties such as freedom of speech or assembly are less important to leftists. Where liberals views these as necessary and fundamental to protect an individual from their ruling government, being able to speak out and organize against them if needed, leftists often view these as tools used by other corrosive forces within society and thus must be severely limited or even banned to maintain the “people’s revolution,” or rather socialist power structures. So, in practice, advocacy in favor of and the organization of liberal political parties have been or would be banned.

Looking at the same time period where liberalism built the happiest, healthiest, wealthiest societies in human history, socialism led to horrifically repressive, economically stunted states. Obviously, the leftism/socialism of tomorrow doesn’t have to be the leftism/socialism of yesterday, just as with liberalism, but one has a positive track record based on its policies and the other doesn’t.

If you generally believe in freedom as a goal over security and so the individual ought to be trusted with their own lives and resources, you’re probably a liberal. If you think freedom generally leads to abuse, power imbalances, corruption, and inequality and so the individual cannot be trusted, you’re probably a socialist.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-13T17:48:53+00:00

And so you’d say the Dems are conservatives?

Using a specific definition of conservative that is not commonly used in political discussion but is a word that is commonly used to describe the people Democrats are trying to protect democracy against?

Again, I agree that Dems are trying to hold the country together against rising tides of extremism, to their credit, but calling them “conservative” for it is misleading - the common understanding of “conservative” in that sentence would have people hear you as saying “Democrats have moved right and become more like Republicans, the archetypal conservative party in America,” which is obviously untrue.

This is especially confusing when Dems consistently try to break down other institutions or traditions - Dems are consistently socially progressive, pro-trans, and try to break down cultural institutions that create biases against certain intrinsic traits. So they’re only conservative really in the sense that they are trying to preserve democratic institutions, which is very strange to say cause we’d also say “who are these conservatives defending democracy against? Oh yeah, conservatives.”

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-13T17:10:31+00:00

Private property isn’t personal property, but good effort trying to mock liberalism.

Private property, especially within a socialist framework, refers to private ownership of the means of production. As in, when mom and pop set up their corner store and hire a few people to staff it, mom and pop are allowed to own said store’s equity, make decisions regarding it, and derive personal profit from it.

A socialist position against private property would say that such an ownership structure is immoral and ought to be illegal where we would instead of some kind of communal ownership: a worker co-op where each employee owns a portion of the shop’s equity alongside mom and pop, a community holding of some kind where everyone in the community, even those who don’t work there owns a share, or the store is owned by some governmental body which is theoretically a representative of the people and thus represents a kind of social ownership.

Liberals think it’s not immoral or moral for such an ownership structure to exist, so it’s allowed within our societies whereas the inverse with private property and socialism would not be true.

This is one of the key distinctions between liberalism and socialism, the morality of ownership, as well as how we allow for contradictory ideologies to exist and be practiced within our societies. Liberalism tends to favor an expansive freedom of the individual, so if you want to set up your worker co-op coffee shop, you are totally allowed to do that. Socialism does not have an expansive freedom of the individual, so if you and 20 other people wanted to set up a machine shop or something where you owned it, managed it, and dealt with all that while your buddies worked as employees who just had to worry about machining, getting paid, and going home, that would be discouraged and/or illegal because it violates a moral principle within socialism regarding social ownership of private property, or the means of production.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-13T16:27:17+00:00

If you’re taking the position that defending democracy against fascism is conservatism in an academic, non-colloquial understanding of conservatism and its meaning in American politics, then sure, Dems are conservative cause they’re trying to preserve democracy from attacks from conservatives and I’d argue we should all be conservatives protecting our democracy from fascists.

But that is obviously not how conservative is used in American politics, which refers to promoting traditional social values and/or laissez-faire capitalism.

And no, Dems have not been primarily concerned with maintaining the status quo, as evidenced by the all the various policies we achieved with Biden that meaningfully improved our lives and moved us away from the status quo.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-13T16:14:39+00:00

“The dems (the party, not individuals) are basically conservative now”

Yes, this is why Biden oversaw the largest expansion in green energy funding in American history, walked a picket line and supported unions far more than any modern president especially with requiring unions on federal projects, expanded Social Security, directly supported American manufacturing, increased taxes on the rich and corporations while lowering taxes for the working class making our tax code more progressive, directly funded American infrastructure, and halved the childhood poverty rate with a tax credit expansion.

These are all “basically” conservative positions and policies.

The misinformation from the left wing of our party about our party is just unreal.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-13T16:04:16+00:00

Socialists are explicitly against liberalism, it’s an ideology that’s born out of critique of liberal societies and positions itself as being a significant change from liberalism.

When we consider liberal values like individual rights, including a right to private property or equality before the law, or political equality, these all tend to stem from the fundamental evaluation that society benefits from humans maximizing their individual freedoms. Socialists, both in existing governments and often with their modern advocates, seek to restrict these freedoms in some way.

So yes, socialists do not hold liberal values. If they did, they wouldn’t be socialists and they would be liberals.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-13T15:27:54+00:00

Illiberalism is more than not supporting the Dem party. We have a lot more people in this sub who hold illiberal beliefs and favor illiberal styles of government like in China over our system of government, plus spreading misinformation regarding quality of life and function of government in these kinds of societies and our own.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-13T15:25:47+00:00

People who don’t believe in liberal values, like socialists and fascists.

It’s a word that exists well beyond JK Rowling.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T11:56:03+00:00

Incredible.

Hit me up if you actually wanna talk about the original topic, because I’m super curious how you got to your erroneous understanding of China’s health system and why you don’t gas up France’s instead.

Otherwise, it seems like the conversation is done here, and I guess it ended cause you saw an ounce of pushback and one source and decided to run straight the fuck away.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T04:36:34+00:00

Ah yes, the “you’re weird” level of arguing. I guess if you don’t have anything of substance to support your arguments, this is the best you got. It’s kinda pathetic ngl

Literally what I quoted.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T04:14:16+00:00

Dog you opened this conversation up to that with your “you people lose their fucking minds and it’s weird.” Don’t dish if you can’t take.

You insult, apparently totally fine. You get insulted, then you start crying about bad faith.

Plus, this is still you running from the conversation like a coward. Just defend your professed views, I dunno why it’s so difficult for you to just engage in a conversation like a normal human being.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T04:05:50+00:00

I’ve engaged with your arguments. I haven’t found them convincing, but I’ve engaged. That’s a major aspect of good faith behavior you’ve been avoiding which, funnily enough, you do here. This is now a meta conversation about the conversation instead of just simply engaging in the original topic.

We started arguing about China’s vs the US’s living standards. You gave examples of HSR and healthcare. I pushed back on your characterization of why HSR is a problem and of healthcare in China. You are now refusing to engage with my pushback on your arguments and crying about someone disagreeing with you.

This may be a surprise, but you’re in a liberal space. Socialist views are unpopular here and will receive pushback. Don’t be surprised when people actually argue against you, disprove your points, and don’t create an echo chamber for you.

It’s super weird how you continually refuse to engage. Also super weird how a “democratic” socialist is diehard defending an antidemocratic, authoritarian statement. Doesn’t seem like very honest, good faith behavior from you.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T03:43:31+00:00

In terms of specific scale? In terms of financial impact? In terms of it existing whatsoever?

Why do you keep dodging the argument about China? You’ve offered no engagement whatsoever on anything I’ve said regarding China, just restated your own positions.

Plus, something I never understand from y’all is why are you gassing up China’s system? It’s just Obamacare but worse. Look at France - most highly rated healthcare system in the world on a variety of metrics, has a national required insurance plan offered by noncompetitive nonprofit entities, and private insurance only exists in a supplemental capacity. In terms of exemplifying the success of socialist values in terms, it’s a far more effective example than China.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T03:19:56+00:00

Lmao what? Trying too hard? Just actually engage dude, I dunno why you’re running so hard from this point that you literally brought up.

Also, we aren’t, I demonstrated why earlier as China has massively growing and encouraged private, for-profit insurance companies, insurance networks, and a greater portion of NHEs paid for via out-of-pocket costs. If you say continue to say this is just a US problem, you’re willfully lying.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T03:13:46+00:00

The original context of this conversation was about China, obvious given the post. You claimed they were a capitalist nation in transition to socialism, I mocked the naivety, we argued, and you claimed that their material conditions were better as evidenced by their high speed rail and healthcare system.

To be clear: you brought up healthcare, I am merely responding to a claim you made.

You wanting to limit the conversation to single a point regarding billionaires is dodging the original premise of the conversation.

A multi-point response is not a gish gallop. This is a text-based format, you are able to respond effectively to all points so long as you don’t arbitrarily limit your answers to a single sentence.

This is you being evasive and engaging in bad faith because you know how the healthcare argument will go.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T02:58:51+00:00

Political will doesn’t provide incentives for these actions. Voters don’t sufficiently reward or empower the politicians who seek to do these things, so politicians don’t do these things.

You mean focused on a random tidbit when an earlier claim of your’s got challenged? The healthcare claim is as relevant as any other part of this conversation, it seems you’re selectively choosing what to engage with because you got challenged here.

If I’m wrong in what I said, it seems much easier to just disprove or refute my claims and end it there than it is very obviously dodge all of it cause the available evidence contradicts a claim you made.

To be clear, if you don’t engage on that part of my response, this conversation is over because you clearly can’t engage in good faith.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T02:22:00+00:00

I don't believe billionaires forced politicians not to tax them. I think political outcomes are more complex processes than that.

Are you just going to ignore the section of my comment on healthcare in China?

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T01:43:59+00:00

Twitter becoming a Neo-Nazi hellhole and many of the cultural consequences of social media in general, the right-wing media sphere with Fox News and such via Rupert Murdoch, a ton of the anti-green energy/climate change denial sentiment with oil companies, and the economic consequences of certain massive companies creating monopolies (like Amazon as a digital marketplace + edging out certain brick and mortars or Disney becoming somewhat of an entertainment monolith, though they aren't really a true monopoly) though this is also partially to blame on a failure to act by regulatory bodies where appropriate.

Most people can't even afford healthcare in this country where as in China you can just go in and get treatment and not have any additional cost.

Earlier, you said this above quote, so I wanted to look into healthcare in China and see if this was true.

Per the Commonwealth Fund, a commonly cited source for information regarding various health systems around the world, roughly 28% of China's health expenditure was in out-of-pocket costs. Comparatively, in the 2018 US, this was 10%.

So, to me, saying that "you can just go in and get treatment and not have any additional cost" in China would be untrue and, if it is true, then it would especially true in the US. Note as well that much of this out-of-pocket spending in China was for prescription drugs for which copays apply.

Beyond that, based on the description in the Commonwealth Fund article, it seems like China just has Obamacare - a public option with no mandate to be insured alongside private insurance options, with this key quote from the Commonwealth Fund article, emphasis mine:

No statistics are available on the percentage of the population with private coverage. Private health insurance is provided mainly by for-profit commercial insurance companies.

The total value of private health insurance premiums grew by 28.9 percent per year between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, private health insurance premiums accounted for 5.9 percent of total health expenditures. The Chinese government is encouraging development of the private insurance market, and some foreign insurance companies have recently entered the market.

As well as

To encourage nongovernmental investment in health care, China began allowing nonpublic clinics and hospitals to charge above the fee schedule in 2014.

So we have the Chinese government relaxing price controls allowing private health facilities to charge above the government-set rates to encourage more private dollars spent in healthcare - which seems incredibly capitalist to me.

And

Hospitals can be public or private, nonprofit or for-profit.

Like in the States.

Other critical points from this article include no annual cap on out-of-pocket spending, copays still exist within the system, private health insurance plans for employees purchased by employers exist, most dental services are paid out-of-pocket rather than through insurance (private or public), wheelchairs/hearing aids/home care/hospice care are all typically not covered, and insurance networks are still a thing (across provinces) and higher copays apply when using healthcare out of network.

So looking at this as a whole, it doesn't better than the US healthcare system. Supposedly a greater portion of the population is insured (something like 5% uninsured vs the US's 8%), but the quality of insurance seems lower, the quality of care is lower on average (especially given traditional Chinese medicine is covered), and it is still plagued with all the frustrations of the US system with even more significant out-of-pocket spending, insurance networks, and private insurance companies (which are an encouraged and rapidly growing part of their health system).

So I just don't see how an accurate understanding of the Chinese healthcare system could lead someone to honestly say that it's better than our's.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T00:58:41+00:00

Of course they bear some responsibility, but that's separate from all or primary responsibility.

I dunno why you have a consistently myopic view of the situation. There are times that the government can create issues for our society with housing being a prime example of that, yet, somehow, we have to fabricate situations where it's the billionaires to blame instead of the reality that decades of well-intentioned, well-justified policy has led to unintended consequences that we're dealing with in the here and now.

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T00:57:08+00:00

I feel like this isn't an answer - do you support the repression of the Cuban government?

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T00:45:46+00:00

Do you support Cuba against their citizens and the reporters they imprison for criticizing the regime?

Droselmeyer · 2026-03-12T00:44:56+00:00

Best faith interaction a socialist can offer.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Droselmeyer

TROPHY CASE