I often say that I am a nature lover. That I watch and learn from natue. There are times I say that I am a conservative in a certain sense.
The last is true as well, because I find that nature itself is the ultimate in conservation of resources.
No matter what that resource is, nature rarely ever wastes. This is most evident in the behaviors of most animals, even in apex predators like bears, lions and even carnivorous dogs.
What they do is best described as gleaning off the land in which they are living on and if what they need is not present in the area they live in they just simply leave. They go elsewhere looking for the very things they need to survive.
We as humans once did exactly this. Yet today is totally frowned upon. Once was called a bottom feeder by such a conservative. Doubt they ever confronted any kind of animal.
Some of republicans often say they are conservatives. Yet absolutely no way do I find they conservative most things. Not talking about those that do some minor conservation either because, yes, there are some that do conservative some things. Yet even they rarely behave in the way a true conservative should behave.
Often self proclaimed conservatives complain about immigration, or talking about taxes on the wealthy. That has little to do with any conservation of any other thing than greed for resources for themselves. Must say those very wealthy waste what they do not want. Much of that is true in nature yet not the way nature actually does it.
Those so called "conservative" republicans often take what they want, denying what is left to anything else. This can be found in the homeless or less fortunate or even in other animals that are simply attempting to survive.
I must stress again most "conservative" republicans. Yet it doesn't necessitate the very wealthy or even so called "conservative" republicans. The idea of denying such waste without leaving anything else to anything or anyone is prevalent even within the homeless.
This is the state in which we currently live. I have noticed many ask why must we tolerate such behaviors by even the most liberal of people.
Why indeed? It's because we have created a society of waste. I'll give some examples among such liberals below as evidence.
Because I currently live in such a liberal community and wouldn't have it any other way. I live off of this extreme waste. And so do those same homeless despite of the homelessness greed themselves.
Often the homeless show their own contempt for this society. I really don't agree with such contempt. Mostly because they are so destructive as well as becoming a health risk to society at large.
Yes, the homeless are often vandals, which is an interesting concept of itself. See the history of the polish "Vandal" kingdom who migrated into southern Italy and northern Africa in the BC era.
Yet even these so called "vandals" from Poland had in fact mirgrated. Conservatives today are no different though in their immigration policies.
Let's go back to nature for examples. What is migration in the animal kingdom? Everything migrates to some extent. There simply are no borders in nature. Where the lack of resources exist, even animals migrate.
So what are these so called "conservative" republicans doing? They block off the borders. This points once again to republicans as well as society at large being not conservative.
Tonight I glean off of where I live extremely successfully. This doesn't happen every night.
No I wasn't destructive, like many homeless are. No I didn't cause a big ugly mess, as so many homeless do. Actually I cleaned up a bit around where some of the things I found.
Nor did do a thousand other things that both the poor as well as the very wealthy do. I totally am not disrespectful to anyone around me: poor, in between or wealthy. I most certainly didn't tie up traffic or put myself in confrontation with anyone. A drug pusher did ask me if I wanted any drugs. I said "I'm just looking for food", which was a half truth. I actually look for anything that I can use without even bothering even the homeless.
Some of the perfectly good things I found tonight. I won't mention anything but food because that's what I mostly found tonight.
Still editable, a tiny bit ripe yet uncut in any way. Just washed it up some.
Completely sealed and still in the box. Had to take it out of the box to wash it a little bit. Still within expiration dates on the box and still slightly cool because some of the other items were completely frozen.
The biggest waste of all. Totally frozen and in this warm weather that's saying something.
Yes I smoke these. Yet these were still completely sealed and unbroken. Worth about 1.10 at the cheapest smoke shop.
Opened and one taken out.
Not shown.
1.2 pounds of ground sausage. Worth $4.99 on the package still good because it was totally frozen.
Six shortcakes. Completely sealed. Half a one pound bag of chopped lettuce, a fresh banana all in a sealed ziplock baggie.
All in addition to other things. Like two pounds of recycles. I really wasn't even trying for recycle stuff tonight yet that two pounds is worth about 3.50.
Such waste even among the poor. For they were all sleeping and I refuse to approach anywhere near anyone that is sleeping.
@DeWayfarer I accept and was aware of the definitions. I don't know you well enough to know where you stand; I was guessing. Your answer implies I guessed wrong. Getting back to the topic of your post - that Republicans are not true conservatives - some words have more than one meaning or develop multiple meanings over time. Politically "conservative" refers to anything "right" of centre. There, "right" is another word with many meanings depending on context. Think back to British history of politics. The Tories were the first and original conservative, the aristocrats (lords) in parliament who wanted a kind of democracy that maintained the status quo, ie, their own wealth, power and social privileges. The first Liberal party in the UK emerged around the time of the Industrial Revolution in response to the first union strike and the Tolpuddle Martyrs. The French Revolution had just toppled the monarchy and aristocracy in France, and the English liberals feared that, if something wasn't done to better the conditions of the working classes and the poor, there would be a revolution and they would lose everything. So the first liberal movement was actually a strategy for maintaining the status quo -- and actually, parties like the Democrats still operate with roughly the same reasoning. Liberals in the USA (where the term has a different meaning to elsewhere in the English speaking world) might be "left" of conservatives, but they are still very far right of socialism. The furthest left they go is high taxes to support a much wider social safety net; they don't take over the means of production, object to private business or attempt to radically change anything.
So, accepting that you're a conservative in the sense of not wanting to waste anything (which is very Green), where do you stand on the political spectrum?
@hartfire to the very last I truly am not of any political party.
I have stated a number of times the following:
I consider myself socially liberal, fiscal conservative, foreign policy libertarian. I will add to that by saying I am environmentally a natural conservative since you insist on making another distinction to conservative.
I disagree with that last though. Monarchy's have always been self serving therefore not really conservative at all.
Not wanting to waste or use more than I need is very conservative to me. It is a cost and resource stewardship that has been practiced in nature out of necessity forever.
Not wasting is what our grandparents did. It is sane, logical, and conservative to the core.
It's a cogent point. What are the conservative party trying to conserve? Certainly in part the myth of an earlier America when things were wonderful; that rings false in a nation born and raised on the backs of slaves.
They seek, in short, to conserve their way of life, and that means guarding against anything that might threaten their wealth, status, power or material goods and resources. For them conservatism isn't a political leaning, it's a whole ideology. They seek to conserve [i]themselves[/i].
And this is why it's a group of the fearful and unsure. One can't leap without ever leaving the ground, and those who see enemies, conspiracies and corruption everywhere will never even try to hop.
@Graylight very good points. I haven't gotten into evolution where whales migrate from the land into the sea back onto the land and once again back into the sea. Same with other sea based creatures (mammals).
I love this post. Doesn't dive into us against them politics, which is the only thing so many people know anymore. Looks at things the way they are. People have long forgotten they are a part of nature. They think they're above it.
I guess if in nature all can go where they want to go, you have an open house to anyone who wants to live in your home, and take all your resources. 🤦♀️ @DeWayfarer
Maybe you're more a conservationist than a conservative.
The word [i]conservationist[/i] seems to have fallen into disuse. In my parents' day it was a person who campaigned for the protection of natural ecosystems and who helped educate the public about nature.
They're the ones, like Rachel Carson and Vincent Serventy, who first alerted us to the ways we humans were polluting and destroying natural ecosystems and pushing so many species into extinction. They were the first to pick up on the science of greenhouse gases and spread the warnings about global warming. And they were the first to start living alternative and green lifestyles, build solar passive houses, grow their own veggies, compost and recycle, etc. They often had degrees in botany, biology, zoology and so on. They campaigned for national parks to protect biodiversity. They started wildlife rescue centres. They were before the days of hippies, and hippies picked up and ran with their legacy. Until hippiedom split into different strands and Greens parties emerged.
