It does make sense if you're going to take it all four values to call it a 2 dimensional continuum with change / left wing on one side, tradition/ right-wing on the other side, authoritarianism as the one side of the other axis, and liberalism as the other side of that axis.
That's where you can have conservative liberalism, and conservative authoritarianism, or you can have progressive liberalism, and progressive authoritarianism.
I'd be the first to admit that the words are a little bit broken at this point, because just because something is new does not mean it is progress. Some of the moral calculus that is new and different over the last few years has a striking resemblance to religious forms of slavery that were outlawed in Ghana in the late 90s. Similarly, take a look at the rhetoric out of chairman xi in china, and even though it's a left-wing authoritarian regime it sounds intensely conservative: "we really got to get back to the communism, we need to go back to the way things used to be"
That's where you can have conservative liberalism, and conservative authoritarianism, or you can have progressive liberalism, and progressive authoritarianism.
I'd be the first to admit that the words are a little bit broken at this point, because just because something is new does not mean it is progress. Some of the moral calculus that is new and different over the last few years has a striking resemblance to religious forms of slavery that were outlawed in Ghana in the late 90s. Similarly, take a look at the rhetoric out of chairman xi in china, and even though it's a left-wing authoritarian regime it sounds intensely conservative: "we really got to get back to the communism, we need to go back to the way things used to be"
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1