Multiple conflicting definitions for "Conservative", for 1 thing..
WHEN you tolerate the:
- moneyarchists
- legalists
- class-position worshippers / monarchists
- authority-worshippers
to claim that they define conservatism,
& us who're committed to conserving
- G-D given LivingValidity
- G-D given LivingWorth
- G-D given LivingPotential
- G-D offered LivingOpportunity
.. people are therefore defined to be not "conservative"..
then the framing has been highjacked.
Integrity-conservatives are conservatives.
LivingPotential conservatives are conservatives, who're interested in competent education for all, instead of accommodating the obliteration of LivingPotential through shit "education"..
LivingOpportunity conservatives are conservatives, who want wastefulness-of-LivingOpportunity to be eradicated, so that we can be inhabiting it, instead of allowint it to be eradicated/wasted..
etc.
I'd begin with the correct qualification of the version of "conservative" that a person is claiming.
Corrupt privilege-conservatives ought be called such, & not let get-away-with claiming that the're the rightful definers of "conservative".
This should go for all "conservative" & "liberal" identifications:
Let people claim whatever variant they want, and then enforce accountability through matching their actual-behavior against their claims, with indestructible public accountability.
_ /\ _