These terms are ambiguous and have fluid meaning. But in general, anything on the Republican party platform, or supported by a substantial portion of Republicans or self-identified conservatives, is something I would consider part of mainstream conservatism. Quick examples include:
* That affirmative action should be illegal or more heavily restricted.
* That unlawful residents should be removed from the country, even if previous administrations chose not to enforce immigration law.
* That welfare programs should be cut back.
* That taxes should be reduced, even if they're reduced in such a way that the wealthy receive a greater tax cut than the non-wealthy.
* That restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership should be kept permissive, and that restrictive local laws (e.g. California's) are unlawful.
* That the US should be more restrictive in allowing foreigners to work in the country (e.g. raising the minimum salary for H1B workers)
* That inequalities in education, employment, and achievement should not be presumed to be indications of bias.
These are just quick examples. Personally, I advise anyone to conceal their political leanings if they agree with any of these statements in my current workplace if they wish to preserve their career prospects, and I think that's a shame. All of these are things that half to 30% of the voting population believes in, and are on the core platform of one of the two major US parties. Any workplace that claims to tolerate conservative views should tolerate these statements.
"Conservative", "liberal", "centrist", etc. are by no means monolithic attributes. I think these labels are better described as broad generalizations of individual positions on issues. For example, I agree with 70-80% of "liberal" positions (maybe closer to 60% if you include San Francisco local issues, but there's arguments to be made that's more "far-left" vs. "left" than liberal vs. conservative). I still consider myself a liberal. That said, I still do censor myself on any non-anonymous forums for the remaining 20-30%.
How is meritocracy conservative exactly? I worked in a big tech company in Bay Area, and it is empathized in my hiring training session heavily that we are not afraid to miss good people but we are afraid to end up with bad ones. Not agree with far-left opinion != Being conservative.
A lot of my colleagues who happily brand themselves as liberal, all think unregulated illegal immigration will cause problem, I don't think there is any chance they will self identify as conservative.
As an individual I might agree with some of the points, but disagree with the rest, like I all for more restrictive gun control and think it is due to an outdated law. It is indeed a problem itself to force people into two buckets and create a us-vs-the-world mentality.
Interesting that you say that. "Meritocracy" has become a bit of a bad word in Bay Area tech companies. [1]
And in case I didn't make this clear, that was just a quick dump of views that I think are generally considered conservative. Real life is much more nuanced than a list of bullet points. I fully agree that there are, for example, people who want tougher immigration laws but otherwise don't consider themselves conservative.
When you say conservatives support Meritocracy do you mean like how Ivanka and Jared got jobs with the White House? When people criticize the word "Meritocracy" they are not criticizing the concept but the usage.
>When people criticize the word "Meritocracy" they are not criticizing the concept but the usage.
I don't agree - there is a subset of people that criticize meritocracy as a concept because they believe the idea of 'merit' is inherently racist and classist - if you start at a different level, it becomes more difficult for you to accrue 'merit' and so that needs to be balanced and taken into account. Some people believe this is much more important than hiring or promoting on 'merit'
Most of mine are from conversations with people, but this is what I immediately thought of (though I know the definition has changed a little since) https://books.google.com/books?id=QelNAQAAQBAJ
The wordpress article says academic meritocracy doesn't exist because teachers are biased. The author is calling it a myth to say it exists in our society. Doesn't seem like they are against an actual meritocracy.
Though I suppose it's easier to dismiss complaints about bias when we pretend those complainers just hate our meritocracy.
The author is saying that a meritocracy is a dystopian nightmare. Literally, he coined the term meritocracy to describe his dystopian nightmare civilization.
I'm not sure how to parse your last sentence. Could you clarify what you mean?
Voicing such statements creates a hostile work environment for
1. your immigrant coworkers who entered the country on H1B or other visas;
2. coworkers who benefited from affirmative action to get into university;
3. friends/relatives of law-abiding-but-undocumented aliens.
You might think you are just making abstract policy statements. But to your listeners, you are making threats to destroy their livelihood and their families. Of course they react negatively!
How would you react if someone, in the name of abstract policy, argued that people belonging to your demographic group don't deserve jobs or should be kicked out of the country?
As a member of a representative democracy, I should be able to hold and express political opinions on things like immigration and affirmative action without risking career death. The fact that I can't do so is beyond just sad, it's dangerous to our democracy in general.
As a member of a representative democracy, you have the right to express whatever political opinion you please. But if you exercise that right in your workplace and announce to your coworkers that you want the government to destroy their lives and families - well, you ought to be prepared for an extremely negative reception.
Well, “never” would be wrong, but it's been a while since that was the common (and, when I say a while, I mean since the Democrats were the southern conservative party and the KKK was a major and overt influence in their candidate selection.)
> Welfare got repealed by Bill Clinton in the 90s.
AFDC got replaced with the more restrictive TANF as the primary federal-funded welfare program in the 1990s by the Republican Congress with Clinton’s support, but welfare was not repealed.
* That affirmative action should be illegal or more heavily restricted.
* That unlawful residents should be removed from the country, even if previous administrations chose not to enforce immigration law.
* That welfare programs should be cut back.
* That taxes should be reduced, even if they're reduced in such a way that the wealthy receive a greater tax cut than the non-wealthy.
* That restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership should be kept permissive, and that restrictive local laws (e.g. California's) are unlawful.
* That the US should be more restrictive in allowing foreigners to work in the country (e.g. raising the minimum salary for H1B workers)
* That inequalities in education, employment, and achievement should not be presumed to be indications of bias.
These are just quick examples. Personally, I advise anyone to conceal their political leanings if they agree with any of these statements in my current workplace if they wish to preserve their career prospects, and I think that's a shame. All of these are things that half to 30% of the voting population believes in, and are on the core platform of one of the two major US parties. Any workplace that claims to tolerate conservative views should tolerate these statements.
"Conservative", "liberal", "centrist", etc. are by no means monolithic attributes. I think these labels are better described as broad generalizations of individual positions on issues. For example, I agree with 70-80% of "liberal" positions (maybe closer to 60% if you include San Francisco local issues, but there's arguments to be made that's more "far-left" vs. "left" than liberal vs. conservative). I still consider myself a liberal. That said, I still do censor myself on any non-anonymous forums for the remaining 20-30%.