>Being reactionary in America amounts to being a edgy classical

File: 20170511_205931.jpg (67KB, 400x452px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 400x452px

>>2796160

>>2796162
I'm stealing this.

You lost your way go to >>>/pol/ or >>>/bant/

>>2796160
You could be a monarchist.

>>2796229
Your right, I'll take this to /int/

America never experienced feudalism. It's also part of the reason why socialism never really took root in the US. It's an entirely bourgeois, liberal state in every sense.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/l/lipset-here.html

>>2796160
You hate America because you hate yourself.

File: BillBuck.jpg (43KB, 600x330px)

43KB, 600x330px

>>2796160
Because our established order is built on the principles of liberalism? The only conservatism it has anything in common with is the Burkean sort.

We do not have an established church, an aristocracy, a really dominant ethnicity, or much anything tying this whole country together aside from the English language and the liberal sensibilities in our founding documents.

The only "status quo ante" in America before that would be living like the native americans did

>>2796160
What's wrong with that? Reactionarism is as idiotic as leftism. Classical liberalism, by the way, is the greatest practicable political philosophy yet conceptualized. Neither leftist nor reactionary, it is deserves whatever hype it gets.