A telling point about today is that it is indeed different from the past.
It’s difficult for us not to argue this, if the argument needs to be made, although, there is a lot still present that speaks of our past.
There is a bit of a misnomer about trying to define things, as if more things need to be said.
It’s pretty clear what some believe by what they say, do, and, how they respond to what goes on.
After a while, their reactions become second nature, almost.
I am in no doubt how a developing story will affect the worldview – or narrative – of certain politicians; in absolutely no way, whatsoever. It’s not given to them to disagree with something that seems to affirm their worldview, or give in to a point that seems to contradict it, either,
This is the case also with conservatives, who tend to stick to what they know, and ignore whatever they find contradicts their worldview.
This is common in politics, when you’re trying to make an argument.
It may be a politician has a point to prove, to a committee, or to another politician, or even a book to sell, and so on. In fact, their contributions in private and public dialogue will reflect this because it’s their politics as a politician.
It’s not a case of a national debate, but ongoing point-scoring and rebuttal, that can make up the transitory career of someone trying to make a difference in life.
If they are successful, or not, is another matter.
I don’t think conservatism is ‘stuck in the past’, but it does have its own historic arguments to make, in response to overt triggering and point-scoring by leftists, who want to bring up all the old debates but without the lessons of the past.
It’s not that conservatism has all the right answers, either. Yet, it has a presence, here, particularly when these issues mattered last time around. It proves that longevity has its benefits, still.
While the ‘new’ and ‘improved’ struggles to fit in, other conservatives may look back in history for answers, as they too struggle over the same issues.
