Freedom

 Because I prefer not to cede control of my ability to respond to anyone else, I'll deal with this here.  

 

 "Unlike you all, I'm glad to answer questions, fully, clearly, directly."

Starting off with a false statement isn't the best idea you've ever had, but...

"From what I hear from Republicans, they want the nation to be great "again," like it was in earlier times. Am I mistaken?"

Whether or not you are wrong would hinge entirely on what their measurement of greatness is.   As you haven't demonstrated any objective proof of what these "conservatives" you claim to be listening to mean by "great", it's difficult to answer completely.  However, in the sense that many conservatives would prefer to bring back a stronger economy anchored by manufacturing, less polarization, less crime, and the like, sure.   I'm not sure what is inherently wrong with wanting to recapture some of the best aspects of our history.  

"In earlier times, white Christian conservative types held the most power. They don't like that white Christian conservatives are no longer a majority stronghold view like it was, say, prior to 1970. Am I mistaken?"

As you've offered absolutely zero objective evidence of this bizarre claim, I am forced to conclude that it is impossible to determine if you are mistaken or not.   However, there may be some outliers who believe that, although they don't represent some large amount of people.   

"They don't like that gay folks can marry or adopt children. They couldn't do that back before the 90s and they want to go back to that time. Am I mistaken?"

You are not mistaken about the fact that some "conservatives" oppose "gay marriage", gay adoption, and the recent trend of gays essentially purchasing babies from surrogates.   However, you are wrong about the reasons for that opposition.  

"They want abortion to be illegal, like it was prior to 1970s. Am I mistaken?"

Again, some conservatives would prefer that abortion be illegal.  The reasons for that opposition vary to some degree as does the willingness to compromise, but I am aware of no one who cites the fact that abortion was "legal in the 1970's" as their primary reason.   Abortion ends a unique human life at it's earliest and most vulnerable stage of development, we have so much more information about human development than we did 50 years ago, inconsistent application of the law, and abortion for convenience are all good arguments that are being used.  Not your nonsense.  

"They want to see a return to a time when police officers automatically were considered to be trustworthy and that the military wasn't questioned, like before the 1970s. Am I mistaken?"

Yes, you are mistaken.  What is hilarious is that the proliferation of body cameras and the wide dissemination of body camera footage demonstrate that the vast majority of cops handle things properly and show great restraint.  The notion of "questioning" the military has been a part of life sine WW2.   

"Are you suggesting that conservative types - the Maga wing, especially - are not wanting to see a return to a time when white Christian conservative "values" were the dominant worldview?"

I'm suggesting that you have failed to prove your claim, because you haven't.  I'm not suggesting anything beyond pointing out your failure.  

"Am I mistaken?"

In the complete and total absence of objective proof of your claim, I have no way to judge whether or not you're mistaken.  Based on your vague, unsourced claims so far, it seems likely that you are at least partly mistaken"-? 

"I'm just telling you what I hear from conservatives. But maybe you're right. Maybe conservatives WANT to be the minority view and not have the Ten commandments posted and NOT have christian prayers in schools led by teachers, and NOT have any transgender people being recognized and celebrated. Is that what you think?"

 Even with this last bunch of distortions, you are only partially right.  While some hold some version of those positions, the reason for holding those positions has nothing do do with how things were in the 1970's.    In 2026, the push for prayer is schools is primarily coming from the left to allow Muslims greater access to prayer in schools than any other religion.   As far as "trans" it's about the science and the DATA, not nostalgia.   Virtually the entire continent of Europe has stopped most "transing", are you really going to claim the Europe is some hotbed of "White Christian MAGA" folx?   

 Your simplistic, inaccurate, hunches about the reasons why some conservatives hold some positions,  doesn't give me confidence that your original claim is factually accurate.  

 

 "Would you agree that, prior to ~1975 - and certainly prior to 1965 - the predominant worldview in the US, the primary political and social power that held the most sway was a traditionalist conservative worldview."

No.   But feel free to prove your claim.  

"A. They liked for parents to not get divorced;"

With rare exceptions, does anyone "like" parents to "get divorced"?   As we've seen the entire no fault divorce trend has not been particularly good for society.  As well, we've seen the havoc tha single parent households have wreaked in many communities.  

"B. for women to stay home and raise children;"

In a theoretical sense many people do believe that the above is the preferred model for the best outcomes for families.  However, it's not perfect and no one says it is.  There are multiple reasons why the "need" for both parents to work outside of the home, which go beyond some vague sense of nostalgia.  

 
"C. for gay people to NOT be accepted as role models;"

"Role models" for what? Simply being gay, ok.  Should anyone really be a role model based on who they have sex with?   "Role models" based on actual achievement, why not?   Who is suggesting that a gay gold medal winner not be applauded for their achievement?  Who is suggesting that Megan Rapino or other gay athletes not be given credit for what they've accomplished?  

"D. and really, they preferred "converting" gay folks to be good heterosexuals;"

If you mean forced conversion or punishment, that's Sharia.  If you mean allowing "gay folx" who want to live heterosexual lives to do so, sure.  Why would anyone prevent someone from living as they choose, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else?  Does it mean encouraging celibacy for Christians who struggle with sexual sin, sure.  But forcing, nah.  

"E. They wanted policeMEN to be respected (and to be men, see B.);"

What an insane idea.  Respecting people put in positions of authority in society, insanity.   Of course respecting the authority that people are invested with doesn't mean ignoring abuse of that authority.   As far as women cops (etc), the only serious objection I've ever heard is to lowering standards to the point that they can't do the job.  Of course, that applies to anyone who can't meet the standards needed to do the job, not just women.  But, again, these positions are based in reality not nostalgia.   

"F. They were wary of civil rights and equal opportunities for black people and immigrants;"

White Christians were the primary drivers for ending slavery, with the UK spending untold sums and risking the lives of their sailors to stop the slave trade.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans died to end slavery.  The GOP was the party that provided the votes to pass Civil Rights legislation in the '60, while LBJ cynically wanted to bind the black vote to the DFL for hundreds of years.  The conservative position is equal rights before the law for everyone, and equal opportunity for everyone based on merit not skin color.  

"G. They were wary of black people moving "into their" neighborhoods;"

Strange, liberal icon Franklin Rooseveldt was the one who codified redlining.  But, yeah, many white people across the political and religious spectrum didn't want blacks moving into their neighborhoods.  Redlining and exclusionary covenants have been outlawed, and this has gotten significantly better over the years.  It's certainly not a conservatives only problem, and we're now seeing the opposite as Muslims force non Muslims out of various cities or neighborhoods.  

"H. They didn't want to see/hear/read hints of sexuality or normalization of homosexuality on TV or the radio or in the media;"t

Yes, society has gotten significantly more accepting of all sorts of things in the media that society as a whole disapproved of back in the day.  Because our national life and culture is clearly better because of the lowering of those standards.   You're getting desperate with this one.  Like almost everything, the '50's restrictions were to far to one extreme, while the 2026 free for all is too far to the other extreme.  Part of the reason was that there were only a few broadcast stations and they were chartered to act in the public interest.   Now that we have many more options, it's not the same at all.  

"I. They wanted their politicians to be traditional, conservative churchgoers;"

Again, this was across the board and not restricted to one party or ideology.  Clearly there were liberal "churchgoers" elected throughout the history of the US, so  that might mitigate your complaint.  The fact that no one is demanding that we slavishly go back to exactly how things were in the past is another.  

 
"J. And for the most part, they were. You could hardly be elected if you weren't white, straight, conservative and evangelical/not Catholic..."

Again, this was an attitude that crossed party lines.  Of course, evangelicals weren't much of a factor at all until the '80s, prior to that people wanted mainline churchgoers.   Episcopalians were over represented in government for years.  Again, no one is clamoring to return to this, and certainly not to force such a return.

"Is ANY of that wrong?"

With exceptions, it's less about those things being right or wrong, and more about you disagreeing with them.  It's not wrong for a candidate to run on most of those things if they choose, and it's not wrong for people to vote for them if they freely choose to do so.  Is it wrong for Muslims to attempt to impose Sharia in cities where they control city government?   

"Is this NOT what maga types are wanting to see a return to?"

No, that I've heard.  

"If not, what/when does the AGAIN mean in maga, do you imagine?"

From what I've heard and seen it's more about economic issues.  Increasing manufacturing so the the US is not dependent on countries that are antagonistic to us for vital goods, meritocracy, lower crime, and the like.   In a very broad, general sense.  It's a vague, broad, general term which can mean lots of things to lots of people.  It's not the defined, monolithic, manifesto you seem to think it is.  What is wrong with making America great?  A great America literally saved Europe and Asia from being overrun in the '30s-'40s, was that somehow a bad thing?   Is having pride in American greatness somehow inherently negative?  

"Seems a strange thing to debate that conservatives want to see conservatives who agree with them and obey the president as the dominant political view. WHY would they be fighting so hard to "get america back" if they didn't want things to return to how they were?"

What's strange is  your desire to define for people with whom you vehemently disagree what the term means.  What's even stranger is that you've gone to all this trouble and spewed all this BS, and haven't actually provided the specific, objective, proof of your claim.   Maybe that would be a better option, instead of what you've done.  

As you've demonstrated by deleting Art's comments, I was correct to do this here.