Conservatism is a lot more expansive than just "fiscal conservatism." The Republican Party as originally constituted wasn't even fiscally conservative.
Most center-left people and center-right people just don't meaningfully disagree on, e.g., whether we should still have Social Security. Social and political conservatism are the flashpoints.
For examples consider the 1619 Project. It freaks out social and political conservatives because veneration of society's history and institutions is a basic precept. This is not something unique to American Republicans. I once had a Japanese acquaintance go through several hundred years of history to explain to me why Japanese culture is less susceptible to political corruption than Chinese culture. Conservatives internalize the saying that "90% of everything is crap." They believe that our current prosperity is the product of a set of societal choices, and we need to install respect for those choices because if we try something new, there is a 90% probability it will be bad and harmful.
Liberals are, by their nature, don't venerate history, and are optimistic about new ideas. It doesn't matter to them that there are almost no examples of successful countries that cast an intensely critical eye on their own history. They don't think we need to venerate Jefferson, the Constitution, etc., to preserve our democracy. They're optimistic that we can replace reliance on history and tradition with new frameworks and new ideas. And they're confident that those things will turn out well.
If your dividing line is "who venerates history?" Then there are no differences between the lefties and the righties. It's just my observation, but the issues lefties and righties have with each other spring mainly from which aspects of history they venerate?
Do you beleive the most important thing about the Civil War is the Confederacy and their right to self determination even on matters of slavery? Or do you think the most important thing about the Civil War is the defeat of said Confederacy and the abolition of slavery in every land under our dominion, no matter the determination level of its people?
"Both may be, but one must be, wrong."
Is the Trail of Tears important? Or is the defeat of the Nazis important? If it's the defeat of the Nazis, do we tolerate the people hoisting Nazi flags? Lefties and righties differ on these issues.
Believe it or not, we have a mechanism to handle all these contradictions. The US Constitution. Which brings us to the second major issue that lefties and righties make in society.
Their selective interpretation of the Constitution. Again, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment that these people respect the Constitution. Neither lefties, nor righties, really respect the US Constitution. If they did, we wouldn't have people frothing at the mouth at the sight of the nazis/confederates/whatever-they-ares with their flags. Nor would Colin Kaepernick and other black athletes have people frothing at the mouth when they kneel. Nor would "stop and frisk" have ever even been conceived. Nor would privacy violations be done by the state at such scale in the name of security. Nor would minorities be discriminated against. Etc etc etc and on and on and on.
The issue with lefties and righties is precisely that they don't believe in the Constitutional rights of whatever group it is they don't like. That, more than anything, is what has caused all of the problems in our society lately.
Politics and political people have simply changed considerably over the years. Very little is what it was like 50 years ago. But again, as long as these people represent the beliefs of their supporters, what can you do? That's how it's supposed to work.
You’ve missed my argument. Almost all cultures venerate their history in the sense of socializing the idea that their country is basically good, and founded in ideals that are basically good. That’s very important to conservatives, because they believe 90% of everything is bad. If your society is successful, then you have to teach each generation to respect what came before, because whatever prosperity you enjoy is a product of those things. Moreover, teaching people that their country is basically good gives disparate groups common ground to stand on.
The traditional American approach (my education in Virginia) reflects that. We learned about slavery, the trail of tears, etc., as bad things that happened in the process of living up to fundamentally good ideals.
Calling the US a “slaveocracy” or the Constitution a “racist document” (as the 1619 Project does) is a radical departure from that.
To a conservative, its obvious you can’t build a functional society on the notion that the country and its shared history is fundamentally bad, and by reframing shared traditions ranging from Independence Day to Thanksgiving as “racist.” Maybe that’s wrong and liberals are right. But that’s why stuff like the 1619 Project causes conservatives to flip out.
I think you may have missed my point. Whatever people you disagree with believe, is the business of people you disagree with. There is no need to "flip out" about it. Someone wants to take a knee, that's his decision. Someone wants to fly a nazi flag at his own home, that's his decision.
If a group wants to believe that America is fundamentally "good", that is the decision, and the right, of the people in that group. If a group wants to believe that America is "bad", that is the decision, and the right, of the people in that group.
For instance, I believe the fundamental "goodness" of America is this ability to believe what you please so long as you don't bother anyone else and play well with others. As an example, people are free to dislike black people. That is what is "good" about the US. However, people should not be free to stop and frisk every black kid that comes along due to a bias stemming from that dislike. Why? Because that infringes on the rights of the black kid. Who, in turn, should be free to like or dislike you.
It's a "circle of like" kind of thing. Or a "circle of dislike" if you prefer. It can be whichever! That's the beauty of America.
I explained all that so that maybe you might have a better idea of where my belief that lefties and righties are problematic is coming from. You can believe that America is "good". You can believe that America is "bad". Where I part company with you is if you "flip out" and attack people who believe the opposite. As that is as clear an indication as any that you don't really believe in America as envisioned in the Constitution.
I understand the point of view, but it's one that makes no sense to conservatives. How can you have a democracy and agree to respect each other's votes if you don't have a shared view of the goodness of your basic institutions?
Put differently, I tend to agree with you that this vision of extreme pluralism is closer to how America was intended to function, and I agree that would be preferable. But if you're going to force my kids to school where you're going to teach them A or B, and if people in California and New York are going to have so much federal power over people in Iowa, that makes that sort of radical pluralism hard to achieve.
Most center-left people and center-right people just don't meaningfully disagree on, e.g., whether we should still have Social Security. Social and political conservatism are the flashpoints.
For examples consider the 1619 Project. It freaks out social and political conservatives because veneration of society's history and institutions is a basic precept. This is not something unique to American Republicans. I once had a Japanese acquaintance go through several hundred years of history to explain to me why Japanese culture is less susceptible to political corruption than Chinese culture. Conservatives internalize the saying that "90% of everything is crap." They believe that our current prosperity is the product of a set of societal choices, and we need to install respect for those choices because if we try something new, there is a 90% probability it will be bad and harmful.
Liberals are, by their nature, don't venerate history, and are optimistic about new ideas. It doesn't matter to them that there are almost no examples of successful countries that cast an intensely critical eye on their own history. They don't think we need to venerate Jefferson, the Constitution, etc., to preserve our democracy. They're optimistic that we can replace reliance on history and tradition with new frameworks and new ideas. And they're confident that those things will turn out well.