Hacker News Reader

Comment by roundandround | Hacker News Reader

I don't think we are agreeing on terminology.. AFAIK radicals and social conservatives are opposites. One wants changes to match new ideas the other a freeze or return.

The masons and quakers are examples of groups with tolerance that make them compatible with other ideas, mixes, radicalism and a republic. Other groups may coexist in a republic because the republic was designed for compatibility but they are really social conservatives and a super majority of them makes them persecutors instead of persecuted. I.e. people who would impose Sharia law as soon as they got 2/3rds are perfectly fine as a minority in a tolerant republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party

View on HN

> I don't think we are agreeing on terminology.. AFAIK radicals and social conservatives are opposites. One wants changes to match new ideas the other a freeze or return.

That’s not a sensible definition of “social conservative” because by that logic radical islamists aren’t also social conservatives.

> The masons and quakers are examples of groups with tolerance that make them compatible with other ideas, mixes, radicalism and a republic

Social conservatism doesn’t necessarily preclude pluralism. Quakers and Puritans may have been fine living in adjacent colonies, but that doesn’t mean they were “tolerant” of departures from behavioral norms within their own communities: https://worldspirituality.org/quaker-discipline-html/

That’s a good analogy to what America was like at the founding. American pluralism arose from multiple socially conservative and religious groups agreeing to share a country while leaving each other alone.

Yeah.. I would put the Islamic fundamentalists under social conservative they want to resume a system from ~820 AD. AFAIK these kinds of uses of radical are poor metaphors and certainly weren't relevant in the 18th or 19th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_radicalism

I generally view most of that explanation of the US as propaganda. The founders of the republic were 2nd generation+ congregationalists who were more going through the motions than puritans like their socially conservative forefathers. Shay's rebellion really highlights more about the nature of the actual inhabitants of the young nation, the way they influenced the republic and the fact that they were entirely foreign to Washington. I also don't think many of them could vote until Jackson.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com