Decades ago we considered S&H as leaning conservative. They had discovered a mechanism which created what was best in America and advocated the cycles and in particular the crisis as how kings, slavery and isolationism were rejected. Then I pointed out how these were progressive ideas at the time, how they were all done to solve the major problems confronting the culture, that those who wished to continue the existing power structure unchanged lost. At least Strauss then started emphasizing the perils and problems of a crisis. Finding themselves siding with the progressive faction, with change, was unnatural.Cool Breeze wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:21 pmWhen I read your response I busted out laughing, that sounds so typical - a friend had watched it and told me he covered all the bases ("it might turn out ok, but it might turn out awful"), yet didn't tell me what you just said, which is the ultimate cover. John has weighed in on those guys and confirmed they are really just leftist oriented weaklings and it just seems to be confirmed over and over again. As they say, no surprise, physiognomy does turn out to be quite informative in nearly all cases.
To be conservative would mean advocating against solving today's problems, not necessarily being in favor of the kings, slavery and isolationism of the far past. S&H applauded the progressive ideas of the past, but did not clearly side with solving the culture's present problems. Even on this site, there is little to no advocating kings, being on the colonial side of colonial imperialism, slavery, and isolationism.
Over the years I did encounter one true cross crisis conservative. He favored the Stuart Dynasty as being the rightful leaders of civilization. Experimental newer theories such as democracy, human rights, communism, capitalism and colonial imperialism were all bad. To some degree he had a point.
