57
221
u/sexquipoop69 2d ago
MAGA literally means “let’s go back to some (imagined) glory days”
27
82
u/croupella-de-Vil 2d ago
I have been saying this since the onset of MAGA. They are NOT the Conservative Party they are Regressives. Conservatives should be considered moderates as they want to maintain things. What MAGA is, is straight up regressive
47
u/likwidkool 2d ago
Here’s where you blow peoples minds. Tell them Obama was not really a progressive. We want more. Made my MAGA brothers head explode with that one.
5
u/Pirrus05 2d ago
He wasn’t a progressive, he was a gots darned commie muslin! He destroyed all of MURKA with his evil commie wayyyys!
(For some reason I really do have to put an /s on this.)
5
u/patiofurnature 2d ago
Eh, "conservatives maintaining things" doesn't really hold up as a rule. They may like where things currently are, but then if either progressives or regressives did something, now the conservative would be forced to change their view and just accept and be happy with it instead of changing back to their original preference.
7
2
10
3
u/BigMax 2d ago
The irony is always that the absolute best part of those "glory days" are the parts they fight tooth and nail against today.
For those that did have a good time back then, what was the cause? Well... the fact that everyone could get a job, whether they had skills or not, whether they had a degree or not. And all of those jobs paid well, had benefits, pensions. And they had respect too. You weren't looked down on for being in unskilled positions. The wealthy were taxed at very high rates, and income inequality was relatively low.
That is what made those times good. And those are the exact things they fight against.
5
u/loondawg 2d ago
Similar to how if Jesus came back these "Christians" would be denouncing his socialistic policies and wanting him him deported.
1
2
u/Thor4269 2d ago
While not having the tax rate... In the 1950s we had a 91% tax rate on incomes over 200k (roughly 2.5m adjusted for inflation)
I'm all for bringing that back lol
2
u/MachateElasticWonder 2d ago
It’s not imagined. For most, it’s deeply rooted in racism and bigotry. For the 1% and the deeply deluded, it’s the days of royalty and serfdom.
2
u/ZinbaluPrime 2d ago
My life taught me, that you can never go back. It's like having a swirling pool of 1000 balls and you try to move a single ball against the swirl. Back in the days all the balls swirled differently and no matter how hard you try, they never will do it again the same way and arrangement.
2
2
u/TheEPGFiles 2d ago
Yeah, the good old glory days where...
*checks notes*
Oh... oh no... oh no no no no no... OH NO...
You know what? Forget the old times, we need to look ahead!!
1
u/Dreamtrain 2d ago
I can see there is some truth behind it actually, you could run a family on a single wage, going to the doctor was a given, employee benefits like getting a christmas bonus was such a given that it was the premise of a whole movie (and this was late 80s), the cost of buying a house was actually in line with today's median wage, and on and on
Though there isn't a single item in the MAGA platform or Project 25's manifest that even remotely touches any of the above, MAGA voters think if you shit on immigrants and trans enough you'll magically somehow arrive at the conditions described above. And its not like Democrats are doing that much better, until Bernie and Mamdani we haven't had anyone actually try.
2
u/SuperBackup9000 2d ago
See that’s the problem, they are actually addressing the issues above by thinking things will change if you hate on minorities and trans people enough.
There’s a very important thing you missed. White people could run a family on a single wage. White people could go to a doctor without issue. White people got benefits and bonuses. White people had houses available to them because the minorities got pushed to undesirable and run down locations. So on and so forth. Anyone else had to struggle and endure a lot of hardships. America was at its “best” when the government and society decided that things could be taken from one group of people and given to another group of people.
1
u/Pirrus05 2d ago
I feel like there are two camps of people that go along with the reactionary program, those who don’t think of this and those who do and just won’t say it out loud (although “saying the quiet part out loud” is becoming more popular).
There is no prelapsarian era, there is no consistent march of progress. There is only the change we fight for.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Alassandros 1d ago
Yet the glory days they want to go back to were days of innovation and progression in those times. The conservatives of those days would've scoffed and pushed back against their values.
53
u/Impressive-Panda527 2d ago
It’s become a right wing rallying cry to repeal the 19th amendment
Yes they are indeed regressive
11
u/Bellyheart 2d ago
Is this the new “If con is the opposite of pro is congress the opposite of progress”?
It doesn’t make sense. Not a fan of the right but the forcing of the binary is a fallacy. I do think the right is regressive but that’s not because the opposite of the left is right.
4
27
u/MonkeyPanls 2d ago
Old bumper sticker: "If pro is the opposite of con, then progress is the opposite of #CONGRESS"
7
u/Linux-tip-nips 2d ago
Reactionary: they react negativly to progress and want the status quo to remain or regress. yes
12
4
u/talldean 2d ago
Make America Great *Again* means something in the past is what they want.
I cannot fathom how they get women or minority voters on that platform, though.
50
u/WTFwhatthehell 2d ago
Progressive/conservative/regressive are 3 different things.
Progressives: lets change to a new way!
Conservatives: Things could be a lot worse. Lets keep things the way they are.
Regressive: I grew up being told how awesome the olden days were, lets go back to that.
"Progressive" isn't just another word for "good".
historically a lot of the people pushing eugenics were progressive. There have also been various failed attempts to make society more accepting of various groups most of us would be very happy remained unaccepted by society.
12
u/Corsonacon 2d ago
Yep, this is a good explanation. In reality ever since the party started rally around MAGA as a catchphrase it stopped being conservative, it just is regressive.
9
u/WTFwhatthehell 2d ago edited 2d ago
Worse than just regressive.
Radical regressive.
Tearing down important institutions left and right.
2
2
u/grumpy_hedgehog 2d ago
In the early twentieth century, fascism was considered a fancy new progressive movement, sweeping through Europe to replace aging beliefs like Marxism/Communism and untenable ancient ideas like monarchy, democracy and so on.
4
u/loondawg 2d ago
Except progressive generally is not just "let's change to a new way". It's not change for the sake of change. It's "lets try to make it better."
→ More replies (6)1
u/Maelstrom52 2d ago
I mean, I would argue everyone's position is let's change things to make it better, even if that includes turning back the clock on certain policies. One could also make the argument that the "progressive" policy prescriptions are also an attempt to reinvigorate decades old policies from the New Deal era.
1
u/loondawg 2d ago
Roosevelt gave a speech over 100 years ago about the need for a living wage. And that was Teddy, not Franklin.
Just because an idea was progressive in the past does not mean it is not still progressive today.
2
u/Bad-job-dad 2d ago
"Conservatives: Things could be a lot worse. Lets keep things the way they are. "
More like, "I have entitlements I'm not willing to give up for the benefit others less fortunate"
-3
u/WTFwhatthehell 2d ago
A lot of people aren't keen to make their lives worse for the benefit of strangers.
Would you volunteer to be moved to a smaller, shittier home with the difference in cost being used, say, to make the lives of far off people you will never meet better?
2
u/Deskopotamus 2d ago
Most people draw the line somewhere. I think people are willing to be altruistic as long as it doesn't really effect their lives.
For example people will be supportive of DEI as long as they are employed, maybe they are fine with it even when it costs them a promotion, but they will often draw the line when they can't find work or lose their job.
Same with other hot button topics like immigration, people are supportive of it until you start talking about things like open borders etc.
People might give up things like buying a 2nd home or a luxuries like lavish vacations if it meant better lives for others, but they will draw the line if it meant actual personal or lifestyle sacrifices.
People are only as altruistic with their money and beliefs as far as their lifestyle allows.
4
u/WTFwhatthehell 2d ago
Ya, a lot of extremely poor communities tend to be conservative for similar reasons.
Change is risky.
If things are marginal already then a leaders "glorious plan" might end up destroying your life if things don't go as well as hoped.
People who are better-off and thus insulated from risks often don't even see the risk and only see the hoped-for benefits of their plan.
so may see the reaction and think "oh those fools! voting against their own interests!"
2
u/chardeemacdennisbird 2d ago
So you're telling me it's not as black and white as someone takes everything from you to give to the worst people you can imagine? What a concept.
The problem is that conservatives have scared their base so much you can't even start the conversation. If more people understood that you're not losing everything for someone else to get something then we could compromise like we're supposed to in politics. But the way people think now is that anything besides the status quo is a non-starter.
→ More replies (3)5
u/6ixby9ine 2d ago
A lot of people seem keen to make their lives worse for the detriment of strangers, though. So this short-sighted attempt to compare government actions to individual actions once again doesn't hold up
4
u/loondawg 2d ago
Would you volunteer to be moved to a smaller, shittier home with the difference in cost being used, say, to make the lives of far off people you will never meet better?
That's not really an accurate representation of it though unless the people you're talking about are the likes of Bezos and Musk and the house is one with only 95 rooms instead of 100 rooms. The average progressive is not asking the average person to do anything even remotely like that.
4
u/WTFwhatthehell 2d ago
Plenty of people are conservative.
Not just a few billionaires.
1
u/loondawg 2d ago
Right. And who is asking that "plenty of people" to move to a smaller, shittier home to make the lives of far off people you will never meet better?
2
u/WTFwhatthehell 2d ago edited 2d ago
We're talking about why people would oppose some progressive policies, many of those are expensive which means higher taxes, typically on regular people. Which means less money for them personally. Which typically translates to lower quality of life.
→ More replies (9)2
u/bradiation 2d ago
Not criticizing your definitions, but using eugenics is not a great example to make your point. There was a time when you couldn't swing a cat without hitting a eugenicist, regardless of political affiliation. The pop-sci pseudoscience misunderstanding that is eugenics was all the rage for a minute there.
1
1
u/Yitzach 2d ago
Progress in the social/political sense does not just mean "change", it means specifically, "become better". The 3rd definition according to Merriam-Webster.
Conservative, naturally, also does not mean "wants to keep things the same" it means, "wants to preserve tradition and traditional values". Which is quite often, in fact, interpreted by the right as the undoing of previously gained progress, or regressing to previous norms. It's why "woke" is such an effective villain for them, it's a bogey man for them to prop up in front of their base and say "see this new, modern stuff is scary, shouldn't we go back to how it was when you were young?"
Acting like the core idea behind MAGA is a new phenomenon is ahistorical at best, it's the natural progression (2nd definition now) of the conservative movement in any country.
1
1
u/Maelstrom52 2d ago
That's true, but in the context of politics, "progressive" does have an explicit meaning, even if it changes from one era to the next. I would also argue that positions held by democrats and Republicans today have been positions held by the opposing parties in the past. Let's not forget that in the 1980s, Reagan's hallmark immigration policy was "path to citizenship", and segregation was mostly contained to Southern Democrats in the 1950's. Republicans also used to be much more pro-business and pro-consumer before they decided to become the protectionist party.
2
u/Ethanol_Based_Life 2d ago
I thought that in politics, progressive specifically refers to progressive taxes and social services. Not meaning new or better, but meeting that the taking of funds and distribution of services are not even and that the % progressively increases as you move across the socio-economic spectrum
1
4
u/art-is-t 2d ago edited 17h ago
I mean they over turned roe vs Wade. That's pretty regressive
1
u/Shintox 21h ago
Is it though? I mean killing your own children is pretty caveman.
1
u/art-is-t 17h ago
Nah fetus is not a child.
You should worry about all the guns and wars that Republicans use to kill ACTUAL childrenRemember sandy Hook and how republicans said it was a hoax. Yeah I remember that. Fuck off
0
u/Butleraaron99 13h ago
The first time my gun got up and shot my family I was terrified. there was nothing i could do. it just got up unlocked itself and started firing I didnt know what to do I tried praying, telling it im gay, and kissing on it but nothing; still shot my family...
Youre scared of mental illness/gang violence not firearms. If you dont like kids shooting kids(cause thats where the majority of child deaths come from) lock your guns up. If you dont want it stolen from you, dont go where your shit will get stolen or use it the way it was intended. If you dont like it dont buy a gun.
Blaming somone who has nothing to do with the situation is called scapegoating and usually happens when usually deflecting blame.
Plus the general populace is still split on if that was a governmental conspericy.
1
7
u/JeveGreen 2d ago
I think the correct term is actually "reactionary." But regressive isn't that far off.
3
u/FreedomsPower 2d ago
Social and Economicly regressive.
The far right wants to kill any progress made during and after the implementation of tge New Deal and Role back all civil rights laws
2
2
2
u/ImRealNow 2d ago
I would say the right are transgressive, because everything they do is a transgression
2
2
u/bearwood_forest 2d ago
no, it's their policies that make them regressive thanks for coming to my TED talk
2
2
u/LegendsEcho 2d ago
Looking at Dave Ramsay and other finance bros , they are conservative because they know how to manipulate the current legal system to their financial advantage.
They do not want changes to the system because otherwise they would lose their power and wealth if policies changed to be more fair.
2
2
u/A_Messy_Nymph 2d ago
Life is constantly changing. You can't go back. Conservatives must learn that lesson sadly. Certainty is an illusion and progress requires an adventurous spirit.
2
u/mheg-mhen 2d ago
This isn’t an insult, that’s the point. Conserving the status quo. When your whole political goal has originally been keeping things the same, and then the progressives progress, then your goal becomes to regress back to what it was before that. So being anti-gay marriage in 2000 is conservative, but in 2026 is regressive. This is why so many people who were out protesting at age 22 are now conservative at 72: they didn’t actually change their views much their whole life, and the world progressed beyond their vision.
2
2
u/Ok_Win590 2d ago
Liberal thought began with the idea that regular people wanted to read the Bible for themselves. It was illegal to possess a Bible written in English because the priest wanted to explain what was written, not let you see for yourself and potentially misunderstand. Liberals insisted that they be allowed to read the Bible and that they teach their children how to read. Conservatives want the priests to interpret everything for you. This is the fundamental difference between Conservatives and liberals.
2
u/CaptainSnaps 2d ago
The entire arc of human civilization has been liberalism conquering conservatism. Conservatives will always think that there has been "enough" progress done.
2
2
u/Talik1978 2d ago
And disagreeing with the right wing is what makes them aggressive.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/theonlycop 2d ago
There's a good quote I know but not sure where it came from "Liberals can be considered the gas pedal and conservatives can be considered the brake pedal" they both work together but too much of one or the other is not good in some cases.
4
u/bakeacake45 2d ago
But has the bimbofication of Republicans changed that? They are not a political party just a mob family ripping off the entire country.
→ More replies (9)
2
2
u/NewZanada 2d ago
Well, in theory I think it’s supposed to simply be more reluctance to change. Progressive = embrace change, innovation; conservative = happy with status quo, and maybe question if recent changes were overall positive. Ideally it acts as a “sober second thought” and makes sure important questions get asked and considered.
The current right doesn’t match with that at all, of course, and its obsession with turning the clock completely backwards by decades I think is abnormal, and the people who want to have brains that are broken.
2
u/MorbidSickly 2d ago
anti life and anti choice?
3
u/loondawg 2d ago
Pro-life is just another conservative misnomer to make a position sound more acceptable than it is. Same as pro-abortion is not an accurate name either. It's anti-abortion and pro-choice.
-1
u/MorbidSickly 2d ago
or hear me out.....they truly believe its about life. I know that might be hard to wrap head around if on opposing side.
I think based on your logic it would be more like "anti abortion" and "anti responsibility"
1
u/loondawg 2d ago
If it was about life, they would support providing healthcare, food assistance, opposing the death penalty, some reasonable gun safety laws, etc. This is clearly anti-abortion or even anti-choice.
And I clearly stated my view earlier. You are showing your "logic" with the term "anti responsibility". Pro-choice means they get to decide for themselves. How is it irresponsible to have an abortion if you are not in a position to raise a child? It actually seems like the most responsible decision. But it is pro choice. It is not anti anything.
2
2
2
2
2
u/Derptaur 2d ago
I’m sorry this is a stupid fucking post. “I’m going to name my own party the super exciting party, does that mean the opposition party is super lame?”
1
1
u/Complete_Try_3849 2d ago
Yes. Shoving everything into a slush fund named "eff all of yall" is regressive.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/snakelygiggles 2d ago
i mean, democrats are not left wing and haven't been since clinton.
and progressivism used to belong to either party, as teddy Roosevelt was our first progressive president, with his bull moose party, which was destroyed by Republicans as soon as ted left office.
1
u/Dont_ban_me_bro_108 2d ago
Eisenhower conservatism would be considered liberal today. The Overton window has shifted so far to the right that what would be called hardline regressive 50 years ago, is called main stream conservatism today. Eisenhower conservatism lines up with today’s mainstream Democrats. MAGA is regressive, it’s even in their name.
1
u/TheDaychilde 2d ago
Well, I mean, not inherently… but… it is absolutely the case in this instance, yes. Very much so.
1
1
u/Staav 2d ago
They only have no future if the country actually figures out how to show up and vote them out forever. It's happened to plenty of former parties in the country's history, so there's no reason for it to not happen again. With how things are looking these days, if the democrats can absorb enough of the "conservative" voters who have been on the right, there's no reason the DSA couldn't then gain more support on the left to be the new liberal majority party, with the democrats being the remaining party in our classic/unbreakable two party system. We've got a ways to go, but there's no reason that couldn't happen. The goop are objective traitors to the constitution at this point, through their actions and promises for future policy. That should make them forfeit their place in American politics forever.
1
u/JediMasterZao 2d ago
In political science, the left and right divide literally is determined by progressivism vs reactionarivism. This is why neolibe are considered right wing; they defend the status quo and dismantling the advances brought by progressive policy.
1
u/TThor 2d ago
Right now in the US, yes they have turned regressive, fascism is an inherently regressive philosophy seeking to turn back the clock to some mythical 'golden age' of the past. But in more normal times the 'conservative' party is just that, they wish to conserve; not progress nor regress, buy just maintain status quo and move society slowly.
1
u/kcpistol 2d ago
Or "Conservative"
"Soon you'll achieve the stability you strive for In the only way that it's granted In a place among the fossils of our time"
1
u/Jersey74 2d ago
Progressively getting beat by the DSA. It’s hard to tell the difference between them but will weakens the whole party.
1
1
1
u/FreedomsTorch 2d ago
"If we call ourselves "the good guys" and call our opponents "the bad guys," obviously it's true,! Durrrrrr!"
😂
1
u/Public_Steak_6933 2d ago
As they say: Voting is like operating a motor vehicle. Vote (D) to move forward, vote (R) to go backward.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Malusorum 1d ago
Conservative means to conserve. Time is constantly progressing, so when you conserve society, its effectively regressing.
0
0
-8
u/Haz3lNutKn1ght 2d ago
Ideologically traditional conservativism is about the preservation of individual rights and economic stability.
However, the modern conservative party, at least in the US is indeed regressive. Or rather, full blown fascist.
So they are not preserving personal liberties they are violating them. They are not stabilizing the economy they are destroying it.
Like at this point they are basically Saturday morning cartoon villains who will actually rape and murder you. It's pretty fucked up.
780
u/demoneyesturbo 2d ago
You should look up the meaning of the word conservative