Philosophically I always start from the premise that something exists for a reason and if it exists it matters. I was thinking about two strains of Conservative thought that create friction for non-conservatives. The first is the departure from the idea of fact and expertise in argument, the second is the complaint that the media contains a left-wing bias.
Good discussion points.
On the first point I think there are many reasons that make sense for conservative minded people to feel okay with a departure from the idea of fact and expertise. As society gets more complex it gets more specialized. Specialization creates systems of greater dependence and reduces systemic redundancy thereby reducing resiliency. This is contrary to the notion of self-sufficiency and independence. Further, conservativism is at it's heart about maintaining the status quo. Arguments that challenge the status quo by there very nature are trying to promote change.
If the aversion to fact/expertise stands then all conservatism must end.
There absolutely cannot be any other basis for making decisions.
To do otherwise is to endorse irrationality and ignorance.
I don't see that a conservative position must be in opposition to evidence and expertise.
One can support fiscal probity, efficient spending, empowering people to help themselves, having a respect for the best of history has brought us; and appropriate caution about change.
These are the best, most core traits of conservatism in my opinion, and one can hold to them while valuing evidence and expertise on what policy choices will best deliver them.
I also disagree that conservatism is about stagnation.
When I look back at conservative philosophers from centuries gone by; I see a premium place on established institutions and resistance to rushed or impulsive change.
I would read it as being similar to a love of law and order; that change should be orderly, measured, justified and not dismissive of status quo, but positively altering so that institutions can survive into the future.
On the second point, I actually think the media can be construed as bias. Why? Not because of the number of pundits of one persuasion or the other but because of it's fundamentally architecture. Media is by it's nature obsessed with boundary conditions not the core, like a lawyer obsessed with the specifics of the law rather than the law's impact on society. The obsession of the boundary to the exclusion of the centre is a paradigm of change. For instance it's not that Trans rights aren't important but it is a boundary issue largely irrelevant to the core functioning of society because so few people are involved. People with a left-wing paradigm would argue that it's not a boundary issue, that the issue is a core issue because it fundamentally defines what kind of a society we are. Remember, these issue are not about right or wrong. I believe the core is tolerant of boundary issue obsession only to the point that core members feel their lives are decent so they just tune it out. The trouble today is that the balance between core complacency and media obsession with boundary issues is upset because the core is being torn apart through economic inequality.
While there is some element of truth to this argument. Certainly part of the role of the media is to speak truth to power. To question established practice, to ask whether better is not possible.
Any government or established institution may be resistant to change or to a confrontational tone.
But the media are almost as likely to question from the conservative perspective.
Media drove the deficit obsession in the 90s; media often question parole/release when an offender commits another serious crime, and media are certainly likely to question demo'ing a heritage building or laying waste to conservation lands.
The notion that media is solely or even mainly driven from a perspective of left-leaning views isn't substantiated to any great degree.
They do tend to disproportionately represent the views of the educated, the affluent and middle-classes, and those views are often more informed and nuanced than others.
But I don't accept that is intrinsically 'left. We're I to do so, I would end up classifying every myopic and ignorant view as conservative. I don't.
