Please reference the specific values you're invoking to make a coherent argument. Referencing people is a setup for a Motte and Bailey and talking past one another. This especially applies when the first two people on that list lived over a century ago, making it so that views that could appropriately be called conservative during their lifetimes are likely reactionary/revanchist in the modern day.

▲

Veen 4 days ago | parent [-]

I invite you to read them yourself — or their equivalents from your own country. Conservatives are by nature culturally specific. I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything. Just giving a counter example to the claim that conservative is synonymous with radical reactionary populism. It is not. Donald Trump is no conservative.

	▲	mindslight 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		It seems like we're mostly agreeing in a roundabout way. The original context was using the label "hard right" in 2025 and the comment I was responding to equated that with conservative. But if you're "hard right" in 2025 America but still continuing to call yourself a conservative, you're basically abusing the label as a dishonest cover for a radical agenda. I most certainly understand and respect there are political views that don't map well to the two party system. So with that context the last bit of my original comment is more like if you are actually conservative and trying to express yourself within our current two party system, you're voting Democrat. The whole party most certainly isn't conservative, but there is a large moderating establishment that makes its overall results align much more closely with conservatism than what's currently being offered by the Republicans.