I have family that would claim they are pro-labor, keyword claim. One family member was in a union for his entire working career. Him and his spouse vote conservative (afaik) everytime. I’ve tried to explain that they are voting against what helped them get to the point they are at currently but they just can’t see it. It has helped some that now I’m in a union but even when agreeing with me that corporations only care about profits and will cut you and your benefits the first chance they get, they will still side with R. It’s crazy! We even had an interesting conversation about trickle down economics and how it hasn’t worled or trickled down at all. I was surprised they agreed with me on that.
It’s because it stopped being about representation and starter being about identity and being in the in group. Whenever that happens they don’t mind being ruled as long as they stay in the in group and by the time they are in the out group. It’s already too late.
My country has strong pro-labor laws and I strongly want them conserved, what does that make me?
A conservative because you probably don’t live in a communist country which means that workers are being stolen from which means that the laws aren’t as pro labour as you describe them to be.
Certainly they could be better, but the fight now is with the “right” trying to make them worse, which is what I wish wouldn’t happen.
I guess my intention was to point that “Conservative” is a relative position.
Sure, it’s a term relative to time and place. Are people that want to preserve labour rights called conservatives in your country?
In most places in the West conservatives don’t really want to preserve the status quo, they’re often reactionary and want to go ‘back’ to a previous (or imaginary) status quo
You are completely right, but in these cases the proper name, I think, would be Reactionary, as you said, or Retrograde.
And Stagnantive should also be a separate category.
This seems more like an article taking issue with how O’Brien referenced something by Hawley that resonates with the GOP when calling them out for not supporting labor.
While there were some cathartic moments in O’Brien’s speech, where he lambasts Republicans for not supporting workers, it seems like a part of a larger project of his to try to create some sort of “pro-labor conservative.”
I think the first part is accurate and the only part that mattered. If there is a ‘pro-labor conservative’ that speech was about how it is not in the GOP right now.
How different is this from supporting a small-govermnent dictator?
