All those laws you listed are about maintained the status quo or the status quo of a few decades ago, i.e. conservatism.
This isn't creating solutions to problems, this is bringing back or upholding problems from some time ago so we can look at them and do nothing.
This is the fundamental difference between conservative ideology and progressive ideology. Progressives seek solutions to current-day perceived problems, and sometimes the solutions are bad. Conservatives seek to maintain problems, even across generations, sometimes bringing problems of long ago back into reality.
This is why, for example, conservatives brought Jim Crow during the reconstruction era. Is this not regulation? Yes, but it's also a return/continuation of the status quo. It's the opposite of a solution, it's a the problem extended and then actually PROTECTING the problem so it can't be solved. It's an anti-solution.
That's one, really old, example. But take your pick of any during American history and you will see this is always the case. Because that's what defines conservatism as conservatism.
You're not exactly wrong, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion because the status quo has shifted in each of these cases in ways that are unfavorable to a conservative, which means in practical terms they have to play the same game as the Democrats do. Neither one likes the status quo, which means both have to implement laws, and both currently choose to do so through administrative action rather than something more permanent.
"Stop Project 2025" implies what I'm saying: there is a status quo that the Democrats want to protect and the Republicans want to undo.
Kind of, but not really. Because Project 2025 is just a vessel.
You see, conservatives are so dedicated to maintaining problems they will go to the ends of the Earth.
Project 2025 is a power grab, so then that power can be used to maintain the status quo and prevent solutions even more effectively. Of course that will then target transgender individuals, women, gay people probably... whatever is new-ish and we should "go back" on.
So:
> there is a status quo that the Democrats want to protect and the Republicans want to undo
ehh... Republicans want to reverse our positioning and trajectory, and Project 2025 is how they do that. In that sense, republicans are still maintaining the status quo (or the status quo of a few decades ago).
> Which means in practical terms they have to play the same game as the Democrats do
I agree. Both "sides" have to pass laws and use "big government" to get what they want. And then there's libertarians, who don't really exist because even they themselves don't believe their beliefs. So this is what we have.
Yeah, I'm definitely filing this under "hasn't spent much time with conservatives". The equivalent comment from the other side is "liberals are so dedicated to destroying traditional family life they will go to the ends of the Earth".
I spend almost all my time around conservatives. I live in Texas.
What I'm telling you isn't the fringes of conservative belief. It is literally the core, the reason why conservatives are conservative.
To... conserve. That is not only their end goal, but also their ONLY goal. And in order to conserve, you must destroy what has the ability to change things.
If you don't believe me, go back and read Project 2025. It is a vessel, a means to an end. The end being conserving the status quo and strengthening it.
Conservatism is the goal of being something old, doing something old. Progressivism is doing something new.
Again, if you don't agree with that definition, look through the entirety of human history and come back. I mean, just look at gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage is something new, something not done before - the progressives advocated gay marriage. Not allowing gay marriage is old, it is the status quo. Conservatives opposed gay marriage (and still do).
I'm in a small town in rural America in a county that went 80% for Trump in 2020. I grew up in a conservative household steeped in conservative politics. I only stopped voting Republican in 2016.
I don't really care where you live—you don't understand mainstream conservatives, as proven by the fact that you cite Project 2025. Most mainstream conservatives wouldn't have a clue what that document is, and if they did they'd disagree with huge chunks of it. There's a reason Trump has tried to distance himself from it, and it's not to appeal to moderates—it's because it's fringe. Someone who actually listened to conservatives would know that.
I can agree to an extent, mainstream conservatives don't understand what really going on.
But my point stand. They look around, see things are changing, and don't like that. They never stop to examine the actual ground for that change. That's how your average conservative operates, and how your bottom-of-the-barrel conservative operates too.
In that sense, they are fundamentally anti-solution because they're anti-change (specifically, new change)
That, to you, is fringe? I know you don't actually believe that because I know I'm right. This is how conservatives operate, and I don't understand how anyone could debate it.
Yes, the METHOD of Project 2025 is fringe. The GOAL, which is CONSERVING, is not fringe. It's very simple to understand, I've explained it a few times now. The method is the part people are really scared of, because it's the closest the right-wing party in the US has gotten to fascism in a long time.
Where you're wrong is treating conserving as a binary, as though a conservative either wants to conserve everything or nothing and they all agree on the point of time where they want to conserve things.
That's a lazy liberal stereotype of a conservative. There's an equivalent stereotype that is very commonly cited by the other side: "a progressive wants to throw away everything and start from scratch without considering whether some things are worth keeping".
You recognize that statement as a false stereotype. If you don't recognize what you're saying as equally false then you haven't spent enough time around enough conservatives. You seem to have lived among them long enough to disdain them but never actually sought to understand them.
> conservative either wants to conserve everything or nothing
If they want to conserve some stuff but not others, they would be progressives. Because that's what progressives do. In fact, 99% of stuff is conserved with progressives because there's a lot of stuff. Like... a lot. Progressives target that 1% they feel needs change. The rest of human society? Stays.
It turns out people tend to disagree less than they think they do—kind of like we share 99% of our DNA with a chimp, a conservative agrees with a progressive on 99% of issues, both about the things that need to change and the things that need to stay.
We just don't talk about those because they're not controversial. When a conservative agrees something needs to be changed they're just stating the obvious. When they disagree, it's obviously because they're opposed to any change ever.
In actuality, a conservative is just someone who disagrees with the current batch of progressives in a particular place about a few specific things that the current progressives want to change in that moment of time. In nearly every case throughout history conservatives are on board with tens of thousands of other changes, there are just a few that spark more resistance for various reasons.
This isn't creating solutions to problems, this is bringing back or upholding problems from some time ago so we can look at them and do nothing.
This is the fundamental difference between conservative ideology and progressive ideology. Progressives seek solutions to current-day perceived problems, and sometimes the solutions are bad. Conservatives seek to maintain problems, even across generations, sometimes bringing problems of long ago back into reality.
This is why, for example, conservatives brought Jim Crow during the reconstruction era. Is this not regulation? Yes, but it's also a return/continuation of the status quo. It's the opposite of a solution, it's a the problem extended and then actually PROTECTING the problem so it can't be solved. It's an anti-solution.
That's one, really old, example. But take your pick of any during American history and you will see this is always the case. Because that's what defines conservatism as conservatism.