“Likewise. If you think “conservatism” should be defined by the whims of voters, that’s a “you” problem.”
We live in a world that “is” regardless of what any of us think it “should be.”
I said “is” and you twisted that to mean “should be” and then go on to personally claim I have a problem.
What do you gain by calling me names? Or criticizing my view?
I have voted conservative for a long, long time.
I also know that the conservatism of Barry Goldwater (dubbed the father of modern conservatism) is different from the conservatism of Pat Robertson (influential in kindling the religious right); the combination of which was achieved to elect Reagan.
Conservatism is NOT static; the people involved change, the issues, situations, and environment change.
A google search for “political conservatism” yields 971,000 results, so I’m not persuaded you are the sole authority, or that your view is elevated above my own.
I don’t claim to have an elevated view of conservatism. I just think that stating “conservatism” is in part defined as an ideology on the whims of voters missed the mark, big time.
Also, please point out where I called you a name. I did not call you any names, and claiming so is false.
As for criticizing your opinion, isn’t that why sites like FR exist? You apparently feel that voters should shape what conservatism is and will be. I disagree. Big whoop.