When solving a crime, investigators look at three major factors: means, motive, and opportunity. The first indicates whether the individual was capable of committing the crime, the second to the benefit they derive from it, and the third to their presence at the time it was committed.
Means factors in the least, mostly excluding small people from physically violent crimes. Motive often unlocks the case, since if someone gains money, power, sex, revenge, or status from an act, they are more inclined to do it. Opportunity means a timeline of those who could be at the location of the crime.
In the same way, when we look at politics, we should stare most closely at the interplay between motive and opportunity. Politicians, bureaucrats, media, teachers, scientists, and others have the opportunity to exploit certain situations, and this creates the basis for motive.
Originally few had a motive because their crimes were likely to be detected. In diversity societies, that likelihood goes down… way down. Suddenly doing the right thing so you become trusted and can have a long career is less of a sure bet than the quick score and flight to a non-extradition area.
Let us look at the motivation of the conservative politician. He needs to make claims that both interest and fool a wide group of people into thinking that these are “real action” and not just another distraction from the Big Issues, although they are of course that.
If he tackles big questions, he will face all sorts of adversity and be mobbed out of office by the media and other public figures wailing about him. If he ignores a problem, he can lose elections. If he creates a non-solution and doubles down when it fails, he seems like a real man of action.
For this reason, you find conservatives tackling symbolic issues that leave the actual problems untouched. This fools enough of the voters that it wins out, and those who know better become marginalized because the other voters do not want to feel like the fools that they are.
Over the last decade, social conservatism — the part that focuses on human behaviors that contribute to culture and thus civilization — has risen over fiscal conservatism, mostly because the latter had caused conservatives to retreat from public life and pursue “personal” values.
Conservatives focusing on social conservatism however tend to choose symbolic issues over practical ones, which allows those in power to keep claiming to be men and women of action while doing nothing more than collecting donations for the good fight and then handing power to the Left.
In every one of these cases, it was clear that thanks to existing law, these battles would never be won, only temporarily occupied before the Left overturned them in the next court case, executive order, or legislative act:
This is not to say that social conservatism is nonsense, only that if you allow it to become a product, it will pander to the lowest common denominator among special interests on the committee formed of all conservative voters, and therefore will skip big problems and focus on symbolic activities.
Of course, looking into actual causes will never be popular because it requires waging war against some of the bigger problems in our modern world, and these are central enough to modernity itself to debunk it and imply that we need systemic change of the largest scale.
This upsets normies, who are defined entirely by their pathology of rationalizing whatever happens as good so that they can continue their pursuit of bourgeois individualism, which requires ignoring the consequences of actions in order to focus on profit and popularity.
Conservatives are not immune to the normie psychology and, because so many want any excuse to believe that our system can keep working with just a few tweaks, lots of people have gotten very rich selling conservatives inaction disguised as righteous outrage and patriotism.
Tags: abortion, flag-burning, normies, prayer in schools, satanic panic, social conservatism