Aaaaaaand,that’s a wrap. But, nonetheless, they won’t care much, because it’s not about logical consistency, post-modern conservativism is about group identity. That’s the most bafflin thing, and sadly, until the rest of the population catches on, why they’ll win. To post-modern conservatives, conservativism is just a happenstance coincidence, that the parties which have evolved into the movement ‘happened to be conservative’ but they actually no longer support any traditional conservative values. They aren’t ‘pandering’ or ‘selling out’ like Rachel Maddow and the likes accuse them of, they’re subscribing to a different type of morale altogether, namely, the concept of group identity at all costs. My theory is this: that this happens when an uneducated populace bands together and formulates a political movement, and I don’t mean ‘uneducated’ as in not going to college, but politically uneducated. They’re willing to believe any suggestion that serves to explain their anger, frustations, and most of all, personal failures. I’ve never met a conservative in America who actually understands the things they discuss, take Adam Smith or John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, none of these people have actually read these works (all three are top notch thinkers), but they parade whichever ideas serve the group identity and ascribe them to those thinkers as if they actually thought them — they didn’t. Jefferson was definitely a proto-Marxist, and Marx based the cornerstones of his economic theory on Locke and Smith, so, it all sort of began with the categorical rejection of the threat of Marxism (or at least alternative ideologies which would provide a more equitable society) about a century ago. They essentially have zero facts, zero reason, etc., because that’s not the purpose, the purpose of their non-ideology doesn’t subscribe to these values, the value is solidarity and by extension, personal gain at the expense of any and all out-groups. In my view, identity politics is always an indicator of an uneducated voter base. Educated populations don’t need to subscribe to oversimplified identities, and thereby become nothing more than a bunch of ‘isms’, with ‘isms’ serving as mere shortcuts in conversation rather than the actual substance of the thought.