Towards a more practical conservatism There’s been something going on within conservatism (or at the very least, certain strains of conservatism) that’s been bugging me a bit lately. Of course, what I’m about to describe isn’t exclusive to conservatism worldwide, nor are the points I’ll be making 100% exclusive to it either, but I’ll address it from within conservatism itself. “But what is it?”, one may ask, and I’d say, that it’s a certain culture of idealism that seems to have pervaded at least certain strains/strands of it, whether recently, or along a longer time frame. And yes, I’ll repeat, this is not exclusive to conservatism, but it’s definitely rather annoying to see as someone who’d probably describe himself as being rather on the conservative side of things, especially when I’ve seen so many conservatives essentially preach that they’re rather more rational, and that conservatism has truth and rationality behind it, all while denigrating ideologies like progressivism or “liberalism” (actually leftism) for their lack of truth and rationality. Of course, it is important to note that some idealism is OK, and to be expected. After all, how else would we form ideologies? There is one very large “but” here, however, and that “but” is when idealism goes too far, especially when it runs up against everyday lived reality, and dissent, not only within the broad ideological family of conservatism, and from outside it. One massive thing I’ve noticed is just how intolerant some conservatives have become over the past few months, quite honestly, just like progressives in the early to mid-2010s and early-2020s. I’ve seen it far too often, especially from certain groups of American conservatives, come down on conservative opponents of, for example, Trump’s tariffs, who have rightly pointed out the problems with them, such as how they raise prices for consumers, and actually won’t lead to more low value industries such as clothing manufacturing coming back to the US, at least not if one wants the clothing made in middle income countries in East, South and South-East Asia to be made in American factories and sold in American stores at the same or similar price points to what they’re sold at now. But one thing that stands out to me is the rationale, or lack of it. Why target the entire world (including your allies), when you have a stated goal of going after China, an emerging adversary? How can this make any sense at all? And of course, we can’t forget just how incoherent Trump’s tariff “policy” has been, with tariffs being announced, then raised, then lowered, then raised again, and so on and so forth. How can this be in any way a useful or indeed competent way of levying tariffs, when it makes it so difficult for companies to plan ahead on material purchases and the like? And wonder why even the cost of American-made goods rose as well? Maybe it could be due to many of these goods using materials and parts made overseas, since it wouldn’t be cost effective to make them in the US. And when Trump’s tariffs rise and fall within hours, it makes it extremely difficult for businesses that make those goods to plan out their expected profits, and how much material, etc., they’ll need to produce those goods, since when the price of those goods rises, in turn, the demand for them falls. It’s just basic economic reality, especially for non-food consumer goods, that I’d quite honestly expect conservatives to understand. Some, however, seem to have wiped that knowledge from their brains, washed it maybe, all in the service of Trump, and his desires (a behaviour I quite frankly see as un-conservative, let alone the dogmatic attacks on opponents). Maybe Trump’s tariffs could be but one example of power used for the sake of power. Another example of this could be the recent ICE raids, driven by quotas from inside the White House, against illegal immigrants in and around Los Angeles, using bands of armed, masked, men, who refuse to identify themselves, before dragging their targets into the backs of plain SUVs, a policy that falls in rather broadly with the wider policy the Trump administration has enacted, which has involved such things as renditioning hundreds to what is well known to be a brutal torture camp in El Salvador (named as being a place to confine “terrorists”, mainly gang members), without as much as a hearing for their deportation from the United States, or their placement in said camp. This has been widely condemned on the left and centre, along with the more libertarian chunks of the right, and with good reason. Trump stated that he’d be going after “the worst of the worst”, especially cartel members and the like, but instead, his administration has used what can best be described as underhanded tactics, maybe even downright illegal to target low hanging fruit, who apart from entering the country illegally, have done nothing else illegal. Also caught up within the use of these tactics have been American citizens and legal residents, who have attempted to prove their status as being legally in the country, but to little avail, all because they “looked like illegals”. In response to this being pointed out, some rather idealistic conservatives have simply said “have some papers with you”, but one must ask why citizens and legal residents should be forced to have papers with them proving citizenship or legal status just to go about their daily lives, something that so many of these same idealistic conservatives have rightly seen it as tyrannical in other contexts, such as the mandatory Propiska in the Soviet Union, or the Chinese Social Credit system, as well as the vaccine passport mandates in many countries around the world only a few years ago. It is one thing to combat illegal immigration, which as a conservative, I would say is one thing governments should by all means tackle. It is totally another to do so by underhanded or illegal means, and then denigrate the courts when they rule against such methods. And to top it all off, in the case of the raids in the Los Angeles area, Trump federalised the National Guard, a step that local officials (quite rightly) deemed as unhelpful, no doubt due to how inflammatory it was. I quite honestly doubt any significant thinking exercises were carried out on how this would be perceived by moderates and swing voters, let alone the other side of the aisle. It’s also telling that in the wake of the lawsuits against the administration’s actions such as the renditions to said torture camp, conservatives filed a bill to make it harder to win against the government in a judicial review, effectively tilting the playing field, as well as denigrating judges who ruled against the administration as “radical leftists” or “Marxists”, something that has no rational basis what so ever. Again, this can only be described as being power used for the sake of power, something that I would say is very much un-conservative, especially when the United States is not a dictatorship, and the voters decide every few years who gets to hold the office of President. Instead of taking on board the various criticisms posed rationally, so many conservatives have instead responded with insults and the like, including the false “diagnosis” of “TDS”, which does not exist in the ICD, and will not, no matter how much they’d love it to. I’d like to think that many conservatives would have at least read up to a limited degree on how the Soviets misused psychiatry to maintain the power of the Communist Party, but it seems as though a good number have taken that on as if it were an instruction manual on how to deal with political opposition, and not a warning on how not to do it. Personally, I’ve had it thrown at me multiple times, including by people who know full well what I believe in, all because I’ve criticised Trump for governing rather more like an authoritarian leftist than an even slightly unconventional conservative. And this begs the question: how will those outside conservatism view this? Will they see conservatism as being more rational than, say, progressivism, or not? Quite honestly I’d say not, given how so many conservatives treat their own over ideological disagreements, however mild, and however tepid their criticisms are. Sometimes it’s as if a chunk of conservatives have taken the “SJW compilations” of 2016-2019, and how those featured in them reacted to ideological disagreement, as gospel on how to deal with ideological disagreement. As another example of what I’m talking about, I have been put on numerous twitter lists, with titles like “MH referrals” (where the header picture was of a straitjacket), or various slurs like “cucks” or “r****ds”, ironically like SJWs. It’s as if a chunk of conservatives are using them to signal who’s made even the most tepid criticism of something (or really, an entire list of things) the producer of said list sees as being almost mandatory for conservatives to support, and since he does not, he is therefore an enemy, and should be treated as such, despite being fellow conservatives. I’m sorry, but this is simply not a sustainable way, or really a way at all, for advancing conservatism. If anything, it will cause conservatism to shred itself to tiny, fractured, pieces, just like what progressivism has done for a good few years now. Perhaps as another example of this, take Trump’s frequent attacks on the media as “fake news”, and frequent screeds on “Truth Social”. While this might look and sound good for certain conservative-leaning types, it quite frankly isn’t. They’re little more than soundbites that do nothing to advance the conservative cause, especially when they demean the media for doing one of its jobs, which is questioning the government to at least try to better inform its readers, viewers or listeners. And when the more fervent followers of these strands of conservatism aren’t demeaning the media, among a multitude of other institutions that are there to act as checks and balances on power, they’re demeaning their fellow countrymen, simply for voting the wrong way. Again, does this help the conservative cause? It does not, not one bit, instead harming the cause by driving centrists and swing voters away, voters who’ll be needed to win seats and offices. But what could be most egregious, however, is the notion that Trump should serve another term, or be a king, in the form of an absolute monarch, in a nation founded on the very notion of not having a king, with American historiography holding that George III was a tyrant who wielded his power essentially for the sake of power. To top it all off, criticism of this is simply met with “oh, he’s trolling! Aren’t you triggered?” and things to that effect, as if that can be in any way a reasonable response to such transparent trampling on the American Constitution, and really, American values themselves. So, what do I think conservatism should do? Well, instead of dogmatic, idealistic conservatism, the wider movement should move towards a more practical conservatism. One that holds true to conservative values, but uses reason, evidence and rationality to uphold such values, instead of pure dogmatism. To develop this, let’s exemplify it. Take for example, trans women in women’s toilets. For probably about a decade now, rather more idealist conservatives have been insisting that trans women should simply use the men’s, but this does not take into account at all the very reason why they’re in the women’s in the first place, and what it means to actually be trans. The more practical in the conservative movement can quite easily see how those who aren’t actually trans in any meaningful way (i.e. diagnosed with gender dysphoria, or seeking a diagnosis thereof, and therefore changing appearance, clothing, etc., and undergoing medical care such as hormone replacement therapy and surgeries to be as close to the opposite sex as is reasonably possible) can misuse the women’s toilets for their own ends. The idealists seem to think that simply by banning trans women from using women’s toilets, they can simply solve this issue, but far from doing that, it only creates more issues, such as threats to trans women’s safety should they be found using the men’s, as the “bathroom bills” passed by rather idealistic types expect them to. The practical types understand this, and instead insist on enforcing existing criminal law such as laws against voyeurism and other illegal acts those misusing women’s toilets are breaking. To create an example of this, how reasonable would it be to equate a very feminine Gen-Z trans woman who came out in her late teens, and is now in her mid-to-late 20s, all 5’4” of her, to someone who committed a petty larceny, all because she went into the women’s, did her business, washed her hands, and left? To me, this doesn’t seem reasonable at all, especially when that’s all she’s doing, nothing else. Another thing that is just preposterous is the idea that she, despite her looks, mannerisms and the like, is a “man”, when she simply doesn’t perform the social role of a man. Yes, she is natally male, but a man she is not. Of course, I don’t have the answer on what causes someone to be trans (my best bets are on either hormonal exposure in utero, or de novo genetic alterations or alterations in their expression in utero, but I may be 100% wrong, and indeed I think I likely am). It’s stuck me just how often I’ve seen conservatives call someone who is so obviously feminine, and wouldn’t be distinguished from a natal female unless she told you that she’s trans a “man”, because she’s trans, and quite honestly, it’s really rather jarring at best. To put a photo of her and “man” together makes no sense at all. Of course, as the idealist types will readily point out, there are real issues with trans women in public changing rooms, and on women’s sports, but on the changing rooms front, the practical types can quite easily see potential solutions in offering trans women a more private space within a changing room environment, such as a cubicle rather than a simple open-plan changing room, that ensures dignity for both trans women and natal women alike. Before moving onto something else other than LGBT politics, let’s consider the recent banning of pride marches in Hungary. I’ve seen a few conservatives celebrate this, but I don’t see how this is a practical thing to do at all, especially when coupled with the stated reasoning behind the ban. In my mind at least, the practical conservative thing to do would be to still have the march take place, but to simply enforce existing laws on public nudity, public sex acts and the like, instead of alienating moderates and swing voters, who’d otherwise be on board with you culturally, but seeing this would make them reconsider their vote in any immediately upcoming elections, and any elections after that. Moving on a little from the culture wars, let’s look at policy in another area I’ve seen crop up from time to time, that policy area being urbanism and urban development. I’ve seen for ages now so many conservatives butt up against more libertarian and liberal voices on this policy area, defending American suburban development patterns, even against the evidence of their being a fiscal drag on cities, requiring more expense to be spared upon them than revenue they bring in, such as is evidenced by the work of organisations like “Strong Towns” and the Congress for a New Urbanism. Alongside this, I’ve seen far too often the immediate dismissal of things like bike lanes, new metro and high speed rail lines, and the like, despite all the evidence provided by their supporters of their economic, social, socio-economic and health benefits, including academic papers studying such benefits. They seemingly insist that the car must be, and remain, king, despite all the problems cars (even electric ones) cause, such as congestion, noise and pollution, all while consistently complaining about the high cost of running cars. When anyone advocates for improved public transport, all I’ve seen is a multitude of idealist conservatives respond with retorts like “well, we’ve got cars!”, as if that is somehow a reasonable answer to such advocacy, as well as other retorts like “just grow up and get a car!”, as if maturity depends on owning a car. And then to top it all off, I see so many conservatives decrying subsidies for things like public transport, all the while ignoring the fact that their car-dependent lifestyle is itself subsidised. Unlike what many will say, you don’t pay for the roads through car taxes and petrol taxes. The construction, reconstruction, upkeep and maintenance of roads all require a lot of extra funding, all of which (barring toll roads) comes from general taxation. I also see a lot of opposition from conservatives to things like charging for parking or congestion charging in big cities. Personally, I see opposition to these as rather strange, especially since, as the late Donald Shoup pointed out, free parking has a high cost. Parking spaces don’t just come from nowhere. They must be built, maintained, etc., all of which incur costs, so it is only reasonable that the owners and operators of those parking spaces recoup some of the cost of doing just that. Likewise, it is only reasonable that those who choose to drive into the centres of big cities (and therefore cause congestion, pollution, etc.) in those areas contribute a little to the cost of mitigating those negative effects that they themselves have contributed to, such as through the provision of bus and bike lanes, metro lines and the like. Instead of being so dogmatically against them, as the idealist conservative is, the practical conservative understands that these are tools in a toolbox to deal with the negative effects of traffic, alongside public transport, and advocates for their sensible use, with funding and the like done in a transparent, competent and efficient manner. This idealistic view of the suburban detached home being the optimal form of housing I’ve seen is quite simply divorced from reality, especially when different people and families require different solutions to meet their need for housing. A single person or even a young couple would be simply unable to afford a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom detached home in the suburbs, but that’s seemingly what so many conservatives (among other groups by the way), seem to think should be the overwhelming majority of homes built, or even the only type of homes built, instead of, as a practical conservative would, seeing various types of homes as being ideal for varying needs. I’ve seen many from my generation (Gen-Z) complain about the high cost of housing, only to be met with replies such as “well move further out”, replies that are deeply unhelpful as they refuse to account for realities such as the increased commute times that moving further out causes, as well as the inferior services provided as one moves further and further out into the suburbs, such as shopping and leisure opportunities, inferior public transport, and the inferior urban environment in general, with wide “stroads” that are dangerous even for the most able-bodied person to cross. The practical among the conservative lot understand this, and advocate for improved suburban design, more walkable than the idealists’ idea of a suburb, with better public transport, better urban design, and better integration into the wider urban fabric. Another area in which I see far too much dogmatism is in the area of healthcare policy, and perhaps social welfare policy in general. I see plenty of idealist conservatives lambast the NHS here in my home country as an inefficient, lumbering mass, and of course, it is a rather inefficient system, that quite frankly, doesn’t deliver on what it should, and I’ve criticised it before for that, advocating for various different systems that have better results than the NHS, such as the Bismarck model, as used in countries like Germany and the Netherlands. It’s often pointed out just how many in the US do not hold insurance, and I wouldn’t be surprised that many who hold insurance, even with it, can’t afford to seek medical help due to the high co-pays they’d incur if they did, something that I see so many idealist conservatives simply refusing to acknowledge, or if they do, just brushing it off as part and parcel of the US’ healthcare system, which often disturbs conservatives from other nations, with a disparate array of healthcare systems unlike that of the US, as well as tons of Americans, such as moderates and swing voters, alongside liberals and more pragmatic progressives. Of course, I don’t see “Medicare for all”, as pushed by the progressives, to be the most practical healthcare system for America, even if it is close to systems like that of Taiwan or the Nordic states. Maybe instead a practical conservative solution is to build up a Social Health Insurance system, where it’s mandatory to take out insurance with one of a multitude of insurers (whether public, non-profit or for-profit), who are required by law to accept you, regardless of age, sex, risk etc, with premiums scaled by wealth and heavily subsidised for the poor, then make it mandatory for all healthcare providers (again, whether public, non-profit or for-profit) to take on all who wish to use the services they provide, regardless of sex, age, risk, subject only to capacity and clinical suitability for the services they provide, and the fees they charge for their services heavily regulated and at least partially subsidised by the government, such that your total healthcare cost, all in, is no more than 10% of your annual income. Perhaps in this system, I’d also add a mandatory medical savings account (5% maximum of yearly income), with contributions scaled by wealth and heavily subsidised for the poor, alongside wealth-indexed government top-ups, and a mandatory advanced treatments and chronic conditions fund that all insurers are mandated to pool a certain percentage into, as well as it being mandatory for anyone entering the US to have health insurance for the duration of his stay in the country, with both residents and foreign visitors who do not have health insurance attracting a penalty that pays for coverage, minus, say the medical savings account. Of course, I doubt this system would go down well with the idealist conservatives, but it would be a somewhat decent middle ground between the status quo, and Medicare for all, both of which, to me, are just unsustainable. Perhaps more broadly, I’d say the practical conservative looks into such systems, even if he doesn’t strictly favour it himself, especially with the very real grievances that many Americans have with their healthcare system, with how much of the US’ GDP goes into it, and what little comes out, and for a broader social policy, look into concepts like Catholic Social Teaching, as well as Jewish or Sikh social teachings, which may appear to be in some cases rather in conflict with conservatism, but when coupled with the reasoning behind its individual parts, may start to make sense within a wider practical conservatism and the inherence of human dignity, even if the religious aspect can be unusual or hostile And on said religious aspect, one thing I’ve (disturbingly) noticed, especially in the past few months to year, is the rise in what can only be described as open hostility, or worse, to those of different religions and cultures, as well as different races, to a good number of rather idealistic conservatives. Such examples include calling Sikh prayer “demonic”, and calling for all non-white people in the US to be deported, regardless of citizenship (which would be likely unconstitutional), seemingly for no other reasons than them being different to said idealistic conservative. (Quite frankly, I see it as rather a stretch at best to call such behaviour conservative). The practical conservative understands that both a Sikh American and a black American are his fellow Americans, and fully deserving of the same Constitutional rights as he is, without exception. This, in my view, is such a basic tenet of conservatism, that I doubt anyone who insists that Sikh prayer is “demonic”, and therefore should be restricted, or that someone with a different skin colour to himself should be deported, can be called a conservative at all. Perhaps it’s fortunate that within the more mainstream versions of conservatism, such behaviour is minimal, but in far too many online conservative spaces, it has almost become a given that at least a handful will spout such at best wildly distasteful rhetoric. Perhaps it shouldn’t have to be asked how moderates and swing voters will react to seeing such rhetoric in conservative spaces. Personally, I’d like to think that a practical conservative rebuffs such deeply unhelpful rhetoric...

Apparently, suggesting this is enough to get me called “thick” and blocked Wow

So funny how some in the anti-bike lane crowd will so flatly deny getting triggered at the sight of a bike lane, someone suggesting bike lanes, or even the sight of a bike, even when it’s so obvious they are (But really, what would we expect out of a crypto account?)

Why do anti-bike lane types get so triggered at them or someone suggesting them?

Amazing how mad some are getting at a very reasonable suggestion (to put bike lanes down all of Oxford Street) Honestly so amazing how triggered some get at the suggestion of 2x6-8ft. strips of red tarmac down it

Wouldn’t it be great if there was a thing on Wikipedia, where once you’ve created an article one whatever language Wikipedia you’ve created it on, you can then have it translated and put onto (almost) every other language Wikipedia there is? Say for example, this article, on the GTxN/M/S tram: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTxN/M… This one is in German, with it also being available in English, Japanese, Dutch, Polish, Norwegian Bokmål, and Croatian, but not every article about it in the languages the page is available in contains the same information, and the Japanese version has pages about specific operators (Berlin, Bremen, Munich, Nuremberg, the Japanese operators), that other versions don’t (like this page for Berlin’s GT6N/GT6N-ZR sets: ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83…) And as another example, the German Wikipedia has an article for the Bombardier Flexity Swift (de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombar…), but it doesn’t have one about the K4000, K4500 or K5000 sets, that the Japanese Wikipedia has, like this one on the K4000s (ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82…) Maybe it’d be so great for all the Wikipedias to essentially have article parity, and especially if it had a way in which once you’ve edited one language’s Wikipedia page on something, you can have it translated to all the other languages that have a Wikipedia, maybe after it’s been checked by a human to make sure it’s grammatically correct and whatever else it might need checking for