Wow!

I wasn’t going to write an answer since I’m not “right” wing, but reading these
answers, from what I presume to be left-wingers, describe the conservative movement
as racists who support “white supremacy” really irritated me.

Not because I want to defend conservatism, but because I’m tired of my country being
divided by these self-righteous mountebanks.

First things first:

“American conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United

States that is characterized by respect for American traditions,
republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values, moral universalism,
business (which lead them to support free trade when it is good for
business), anti-communism, individualism, advocacy of American
exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived
threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral
relativism.” Conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia
Spare me the Wikipedia ad hominem. Everyone and their grandmother knows you use it
too.

Now compare that to American liberalism:

“Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on

what many see as the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental
liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of
religion for all belief systems, and the separation of church and state, right
to due process, and equality under the law are widely accepted as common
foundation across the spectrum of liberal thought.” Liberalism in the United
States - Wikipedia
I recommend, at the LEAST, reading both of these Wikipedia web pages to get a better
idea of the history and the differences of the two main systems of political thought in the
United States.

Political parties like the Republicans (associated with the color red, an elephant, and the
right-wing) or the Democrats (associated with the color blue, a donkey, and the left-
wing ) want the average citizen of the United States (you can’t even call
yourself American without triggering half the world nowadays) to believe they are static
creatures that can go up and down the political spectrum.

The reality is we are multifaceted individuals that can swing to either side
depending on the situation.

These situations are based on self-interest and self-preservation.

Two terms you should be familiar with to understand each end of this spectrum is radical
and reactionary.

A radical, in the politically minded sense of the word, is someone who wants to change
society in a fundamental, perhaps extreme way.

Maybe toppling a current political power or creating a new party. American abolitionism
is a radical shift from laissez-faire, let do, keep all the slaves because it is good for the
economy mindset.
Let’s put our Wikipedia scholar hats back on for a more textbook definition of the word:

“The term political radicalism (in political science known as radicalism

denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through
revolutionary or other means and changing value systems in fundamental
ways.” Political radicalism - Wikipedia
Ending slavery in the United States is a textbook definition of radicalism because not
only did it fuel a civil war, but it altered social structures that still exist today with Jim
Crow Laws that “enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States,” indentured
servitude, and perhaps even the Great Northward Migration when “six million African-
Americans” moved out of “rural Southern United States to the urban Northeast,
Midwest, and West that occurred between 1916 and 1970.”[1]

The origin story of the Republican party is a radical movement to stop the spread of
slavery, to promote abolitionism in the United States.

“The Republican Party began as a coalition of anti-slavery Conscience Whigs

such as Zachariah Chandler and Free Soil Democrats such as Salmon P.
Chase, who were opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act…The act opened
Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as
slave states, thus implicitly repealing the prohibition on slavery in territory
north of 36°, 30′ latitude which had been part of the Missouri
Compromise.” History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia
Check out this map and notice the green line indicating the 36°, 30′ latitude; all that
land above the green line would be opened to slavery if the people in those territories
wanted it.

Figure 1. “Map of the United States c. 1849 (modern state borders), with the parallel
36°30′ north – slave states in red, free states in blue” [2]

This put the new Republicans in direct opposition to those on the other side of the
spectrum—the reactionaries.
A reactionary, again in the politically minded sense, is an individual who wants to return
to the good ol’ days, the status quo.

The Kansas-Nebraska act is an example of a reactionary policy that returns to a previous

political mindset by overthrowing the radical policy of The Missouri Compromise.

Here’s another Wiki definition for your reading pleasure:

“In political science, a reactionary is a person who holds political views that
favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society,
which they believe possessed characteristics (economic prosperity, justice,
individual ownership, discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are
negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a
society.” Reactionary - Wikipedia
Do you want to ban abortion in America? Then you can consider yourself a reactionary
because you want to go back to a previous political policy that made terminating
unwanted fetuses illegal.

Do you support presidential candidate Andrew Yang on his Freedom Dividend of giving
one-thousand U.S. dollars to all American citizens? Then you can consider yourself a
radical because you want to alter a social structure in a fundamental way.

Now you understand the two spectrums of the American political system: radical on the
left, reactionary on the right.

Figure 2: French Revolution Political Spectrum It says French because Americans take
everything from the French: Statues of Liberty, French fries, and Political Spectrums ;)

An easy way to remember which R is on which side is by reminding yourself of Radicals

are blue because they want to change you and Reactionaries are red because they can’t
make their beds. Stupid but it works for me.

Some argue that this is a simplistic view of politics and that it doesn’t include for all the
“existing variations.”
“Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left-right axis is
insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and often
include other axes.” Political spectrum - Wikipedia
I don’t know. I’m not a political scientist. I just know it is easier to understand
complicated material by simplifying it first then complicating it to scale to develop a
further understanding that encompasses all the nitty-gritty bits.

Are you going to study female biology before you ask the cute girl out? No! So let’s move
on.

With the abortion and Freedom Dividend examples above, you might think if you fall on
one side of the spectrum for one issue you’ll keep falling for the same side for other
issues.

Let’s see.

Do you believe universities should create areas where a person or a “category of people”
don’t have to worry about being emotionally or physically harmed?

“A place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel

confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism,
harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm.” Google Feedback
If you think yes, then you’re a radical on the issue of safe spaces.

Do you believe the United States should have a responsibility to open their borders to
allow less privileged citizens from other countries in?

If you think yes, then you might be considered a reactionary wanting to go back before
the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 that limited immigrants, mainly Jews, in the U.S.

“The Emergency Quota Act, also known as the Emergency Immigration Act
of 1921… was actually formulated mainly in response to the large influx of
Jews fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe and thus successfully restricted
their immigration and that of other ‘undesirables’ into the United States….
it added two new features to American immigration law: numerical limits
on immigration and the use of a quota system for establishing those
limits.” Emergency Quota Act - Wikipedia
Now a right-winger is someone with a static political ideology cemented in conservatism.

Perhaps they want to go back to defining marriage between a man and a woman and
make abortion illegal again. But for the most part, they want to preserve the status quo
not revert back to a previous status quo.

Alt-righters are people with a political ideology cemented in reactionary policies: re-
establishing a “whites” only nation, closed borders, zero intervention in other countries
disputes, and racial purity except for Asians.

The big take away is that alt-righters want to make their own country for only white
people, similar to the black nationalist that want a country for only the descendants of
former slaves with the difference being the black nationalist calling for a radical policy
and white nationalists asking to go back to a previous reactionary one.

Which brings us to the left and their tactics of polarizing political rivals to gain the upper
hand.
The United States is 60.7 % White out of a population of 327,167, 434 according to the
2018 United States Census Bureau.

Figure 3: U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: UNITED STATES

For white liberals to gain an upper hand they have to convince the rest of the population
that the white conservatives are these racist, sexist, horrible people.

Don’t believe me? Look below this post and read for yourself some of the comments.

“The Alt-Right says aloud what the Right-Wing is afraid to say, but more than willing to
support.”

Notice how this attack has no concrete examples only superfluous virtue signaling meant
to demonize conservative people.

Here’s a quote Richard Spencer said in July of 2014 at the Metrapolitics of America, “We
hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created unequal.”

This popular Quoran should be ashamed of himself for trying to link conservatives who
don’t want to be made to feel ashamed of their American culture to this man holding
racist thoughts.

Answer me this if other countries can be proud of their culture, then why can’t
Americans feel proud of theirs without triggering those who feel a constant need to
remind us that Canadians and Latinos are American too?

What racist systemic policies are Republicans passing? Tight border patrol policies that
detain parents crossing the country separating them from children? Okay, maybe
insensitive, but most liberals AND conservatives didn’t agree with Trump hence,
“President Trump signed an executive order reversing his policy of separating families —
and replacing it with a policy of detaining entire families together, including children,
but ignoring legal time limits on the detention of minors.”[3]

But here’s a racist systemic policy left-wingers at Harvard passed to limit the amount of
Asians at their institution.

“The basic claim by the plaintiffs, a group representing Asian-American

students rejected by Harvard, is that the university has systematically
discriminated against Asian-Americans by holding them to a higher
standard than other applicants. Harvard argues that in trying to compose a
diverse class, it considers each applicant as an individual and does not
discriminate.” The Harvard Bias Suit by Asian-Americans: 5 Key Issues
All fair in love and diversity, right left-wingers? Keep in mind that Asians make up 5.8%
of the population in America. Talk about attacking a tiny minority group.
Left-wingers like the popular Quorans attacking popular right-winging Quorans
completely ignore Blacks and Hispanics that either identify as Republican or lean
towards Republican, convincing themselves that only white “racist” men voted for
Trump. The reality is left-wingers only care about “minorities” in so much as they can get
them to vote for their liberal amigos into office.

How about Homophobic? Liberals accuse conservatives all the time of fearing members
of the LGTBQ+, for example, Trump banning transgenders from serving in the military.

They forget to mention many Republicans were against this decision including “John
McCain, Susan Collins and Orrin Hatch have criticized the policy and more than 50
retired generals and admirals signed a letter saying the ban would degrade military
readiness.”[4]

Not to mention this passed the Supreme Court 5–4, so plenty of opposition to it. But is
the issue hatred for a group or is Trump banning trans people from serving because he
doesn’t want to spend money on trans-inclusive medical services?
“Trump would effectively return to the pre-2016 era in which trans troops
could not serve openly. It would also ban the military from paying for
gender-affirming surgeries, with some exceptions to ‘protect the health’ of
someone who had already begun transitioning.” Trump’s ban on
transgender troops, explained
This reactionary policy seems, to me, to be about paying for the medical cost of trans
people, not some inherent hatred for them. But let’s see what Big Red has to say for
himself:

Do those 366 thousand people who liked his tweets all hate trans-people or do they
simply not want to spend their tax dollars on gender-affirming care?

Hey, I don’t agree with it and I think if we can spend more than a half a trillion dollars
each year on the Department of Defense then surely we can spend a meager “$2.4
million and $8.4 million annually”[5] for gender-affirming surgeries.

Call Trump and those who support his decision cheap bastards if you like but
demonizing him as a bigot against trans because he doesn’t want the taxpayer to pay for
their transitioning is a different issue altogether.
You don’t turn those you disagree with into villains unless you’re looking for someone to
fight.

And let us not forget which side passed The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA):

“The Defense of Marriage Act enacted September 21, 1996 was a United
States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined
marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and
allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the
laws of other states… Initially introduced in May 1996, DOMA passed both
houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities and was signed into law
by President Bill Clinton in September 1996.” Defense of Marriage Act -
Wikipedia
Denying homosexuals the right to marry seems to me more indicative of prejudice.

Perhaps you say that Republicans had a house majority and it didn’t matter if Bill signed
it because it would have passed anyway. But I would argue that even if the Dems held the
house it would still pass since 118 Dems supported the bill with only 65 against.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/...

But no, only the right-wingers are capable of discrimination.

Here’s another quote demonizing the right by another popular Quoran:

“The American right embraces neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Popular

conservatives on Quora and elsewhere may say they aren’t racist, but they
still vote for white supremacists, defend white supremacists, openly
embrace white supremacists as part of their political party, and advocate for
people who promote white supremacist ideology.”
No, sir, the only bigot is you who is generalizing an entire group of people based on their
ideology.

This is what the left, or better yet said, the left with a platform to express their views, do
to those they disagree with: a sweeping statement without facts to back them up.

How long have I been writing this answer with quotes supporting what I’m saying and
footnotes to point where I got my material from? It’s already been 12 hours composing
this post! Why? Because radical leaning individuals can’t stop objectifying the opposing
side into their symbols of hate the left love fetishizing over.

Excuse me, mister, and I only call you mister out of respect for civility, something
ideologues like you know nothing about—conservatives have real fears, okay. They are
not Islamophobes. They’re scared of bringing people from a culture into their country
that have a track record of forcing their women into symbols of oppression called a hijab,
burka, niqab, chador, shayla, Al-Amira, and Khimar.
And I say symbol of oppression because women don’t have a choice.

“Although the Taliban regime ended in 2001, some women continue to wear
it out of security concerns or as a cultural practice.” Hijab by country -
Wikipedia
How can you have peace in the world when women are afraid to show their hair in
public? That’s not being an Islamophobe. It’s called loving your sisters from other
misters.

I, and a lot of conservatives, don’t want any American, regardless of race or ethnicity, to
be forced into marriage by an Imam leader thinking he’s quoting the Prophet.

“Among some Muslim faith communities, early marriage is sometimes

justified by citing the example of the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon
him) marriage to his youngest wife Ayesha bint Abu Bakr. This is despite the
fact that her exact age at the time of marriage is unknown and Islam
requires that all males and females reach puberty before they are
married.”https://www.islamic-relief.org/w...
I criticize the Catholic church for not turning over evidence of their priests and nuns
molesting little boys and I criticize Islam leaders forcing girls into marriage. Neither is
bashing or speaking badly about the religion as a whole but condemning evil practices.

Guess what, I DESPISE the cultural practice of slashing a girl’s clitoris. It’s disgusting
and should be outlawed, but here we go again with one more example of religion-
inspired customs spreading evil.

“The decision, in the first federal case to involve FGM [female genital
multilage], dismissed the main charges in a case against Jumiana
Nargarwala, a doctor who performed the procedure on nine girls, aged 7–
13, from Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota at another doctor’s clinic in
Livonia, on the outskirts of Detroit. The prosecution said she may have
performed the procedure on as many as 100 girls. Four of the eight
defendants, including three of the four mothers accused of subjecting their
daughters to the procedure, were dismissed in the case. The defendants are
members of a small Muslim Dawoodi Bohra community.” ‘US is moving
backwards’: female genital mutilation ruling a blow to girls at risk
While the left are concerned about microaggressions, manspreading, and creating
enough space spaces for the hypersensitive, little girls around the world in Muslim
communities are having their clitorises mutilated.

Wave your virtue signaling flag again. Let the world see how righteous you are by calling
conservatives who speak against these atrocities Islamophobes because they don’t want
to bring these crimes to their neighborhoods.

Conservatives are tough on immigration not because they hate other countries but they
hate certain evil practices that those countries practice like forced marriages, FGM, bride
prices, machismo (aggressive masculine pride), censorship (not believing in freedom of
speech), and the list goes on.

When you bring people to your country, they bring their country with them, the good
and the bad. It’s the responsibility of those in power to protect us from the bad that put
their citizens in jeopardy, not sell their citizens well-being for a couple million cheap
votes masquerading as righteousness. It’s not about bashing other countries, something
you and your ad hominem team of logical fallacies love feigning ignorance about.
Right-wingers worry about their daughters walking home and encountering an
immigrant male from an Islamic country used to seeing women fully clothed in a burka
or other attire.

You call right-wingers racist and prejudice, completely dismissing their fears since you’re
rich off book sales that let you live in a posh neighborhood.

Here’s what they are afraid of that your rich gated community protects you against:

“Authorities now think that on New Year’s Eve, more than 1,200 women
were sexually assaulted in various German cities, including more than 600
in Cologne and about 400 in Hamburg. More than 2,000 men were allegedly
involved, and 120 suspects — about half of them foreign nationals who had
only recently arrived in Germany — have been identified.”[6]
They don’t want this to happen to their hometowns. It’s not hate. It’s called protecting
your daughters, something you probably don’t know anything about with your lifestyle.

It’s incidences like these that made mothers and fathers vote Trump in over Hillary, not
being racist, sexist, bigoted, or any other popular buzz words you want to use to
overinflate your gigantic self-righteous ego.

Leftist like you condemn girls [7]for embracing other cultures by labeling something
beautiful as ugly. It is the racist individuals that want nothing to do with other cultures.

The truth is when you visit another country the people of that country want to dress you
up in their clothes, they want to feed you their food, they want you to speak their
language, they want to share their traditions and cultures with you because they want to
welcome you into their world. That’s how you create peace and harmony.

So far I’ve been to 16 countries and what I just said proved true in all of them except the
United States of America.