An important difference between conservative and liberal movements

---

NOTE: this text was not written by me and is from user u/Iamtheonewhobawks. The only changes were minor formatting for readability. I would merely link to reddit if they had a way to highlight comments, but they do not.

The original post.

---

There’s an intrinsic advantage that conservative movements have in regards to messaging and campaigning: they do not need to demonstrate effectiveness. One of the main defining principles of conservatism is that there cannot be improvements beyond the current or previous social order. Problems that still exist and cannot be ignored are considered unsolvable inevitabilities, as inescapable as entropy itself.

Progressive movements, by contrast, have the opposite main defining principle; however things are or were, there is always something that can be improved. Problems that still exist and cannot be ignored are considered an intolerable oversight, in need of immediate attention.

This means, among other things, that conservatives don’t have to make an argument. They’ve got nothing to propose or explain, simply because the entire platform is whatever they’re already most familiar with. They need only cast doubt and sow fear, easy tasks in the face of new and unfamiliar ideas. An effective conservative propagandist doesn’t need and is in fact hampered by any depth of knowledge about any issue, since the message must always be a reassurance that there is nothing new to understand. All information and argument that doesn’t reinforce the established structure is rejected. The established structure is best defended tautologically without nuance or logical consistency.

Luckily, it’s pretty easy to point out that there has never once, in thousands of years, in all its millions of permutations, been a conservative movement that was proven right. Progressives should probably keep that front and center when engaging with conservative opposition.