I would disagree that "conservatives" are a reaction to what is the current leftist position is, but rather that conservatives are progressives who are simply lagging behind the even more progressive faction.
Honestly, this is a tomayto/tomahto argument in that it ultimately doesn't matter what their specific function is, because it all ends the same way. Are they reactionaries? Are they actually progressives? Are they overwhelmingly controlled opposition? None of it matters because the end result is unified: they allow progressive ideas at a slow enough pace to prevent pushback.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no such thing as "too far", only too fast. Change shit slow enough and normies will accept it.
FYI for clarity's sake I am defining "reactionary" as someone who explicitly rejects specific liberal/progressive core values, not someone who is merely responding to the latest liberal/progressive platform.
I think that's the issue. It's a mismatch of definitions.
Honestly, this is a tomayto/tomahto argument in that it ultimately doesn't matter what their specific function is, because it all ends the same way. Are they reactionaries? Are they actually progressives? Are they overwhelmingly controlled opposition? None of it matters because the end result is unified: they allow progressive ideas at a slow enough pace to prevent pushback.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no such thing as "too far", only too fast. Change shit slow enough and normies will accept it.
I think that's the issue. It's a mismatch of definitions.