What ties all conservative issues together? What do they all share? What is the central, but hidden, theme of conservatism? What is it that they are really "conserving?" This is it!
What exactly is this "Dominator Hierarchy?"
Most people are clueless as to the common theme of all conservative ideology. It is not liberty, or small government, or strong military, or low taxes. Liberals also believe in these same things. There are few liberals who do not want the maximum amount of liberty that the "common good" can withstand, or a larger government than is necessary to operate a huge, complex and powerful state, or a military that is less strong than needed for defense of our county and to assist our allies in times of need, or taxes that are any higher than necessary for the operation of that very large governmental entity and its full responsibilities.
Then what is the common theme? To many, including some very erudite conservatives, there is none. They like to believe that conservatism carefully ponders each issue, turning it this way and that to examine its characteristics and qualities, or lack thereof, before making a reasoned judgment and staking a position. Balderdash! The definition of conservative is one who "conserves" traditional beliefs, customs and institutions. Well, the longest-running institution in human history is the Dominator Hierarchy (DH). Behind every conservative position, on every issue, lurks its support for the maintenance of one or more of the strands of the Dominator Hierarchy.
The Dominator Hierarchy is a socioeconomic ranking system, a continuum or scale, based upon innate and relatively arbitrary individual characteristics, that advantages those with higher ranking and disadvantages, and actually dominates, those with lower ranking... including all animals and the rest of the planetary biosphere which are at the lowest rank. The rewards are substantial: greater socioeconomic privilege, better opportunity and higher self-esteem, advantages which can be parlayed into climbing higher on the scale. Yet this system is also oppressive, exploitative, unjust, undemocratic, un-American, and contrary to some of the basic principles of every religious system. It seemingly endures forever (so far) because it very effectively manipulates the primal emotions of fear, greed and prejudice... and because so many people find it extremely helpful to their own sense of self-worth and that of their clan or "in-group."
The whole Dominator Hierarchy is comprised of at least nine separate strands of hierarchical domination. Everyone is familiar with these categories, but may never have thought of them as a hierarchy of individual worth. Any particular individual can rank relatively high on one strand and rather low on another.
The primary categories are:
1. A gender hierarchy (male above female, cisgender above transgender)
2. A skin tone hierarchy (lighter skin generally valued higher)
3. A wealth hierarchy (the richer the better)
4. A beauty hierarchy (beauty above lesser beauty)
5. A language hierarchy (local language is privileged)
6. A religious hierarchy (the local religion is dominant)
7. A sexual orientation hierarchy (hetero over anything different)
8. An ability hierarchy (physically or mentally abled over less abled)
and, of course, the biggest and saddest of all,
9. The matricidal anthropocentric hierarchy of man over nature.
Sometimes other dominating hierarchical strands emerge sporadically that involve age, or some other asset of leverage or advantage, but these are less consistent or pervasive as the Big Eight (human vs. human) plus One (human vs. nature), all of which blend into the whole, overarching socioeconomic Dominator Hierarchy.
Racism, misogyny and sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, bullying, religious intolerance, shaming or unkindness toward someone for things they cannot control... all of these arise from the Dominator Hierarchy and serve to perpetuate it. Just with this assembly we have created an amoral mess. Then stir in the overpowering advantage and privilege of wealth. Finally, ladle in a big batch of humanity's self-assumed right of "dominion" over the Earth and everything that stands on it, and you have a recipe for, well, the End Times, but before that a whole lot of pain and anguish and sin and misery.
The Dominator Hierarchy morphs from country to country, culture to culture, to accommodate localized bias, such as when Islam replaces Christianity as the advantaged and dominant religion, or French replaces English as the priviliged language. The localized DH may be a stronger or weaker brew depending upon societal orientations. Otherwise it remains remarkably intact, with all the very same categorical advantages in evidence in virtually every culture. Even in countries where dark brown or black skin prevails, it is quite often the case that the lighter version of these tones is culturally advantaged, such skin color being assumed, rightly or wrongly, to accompany higher class and power. Such lighter skin tone bias is quite evident in cultures such as India and much of Latin America. The Indian caste system may have started as a skin tone hierarchy and then morphed into a ranking system that encompassed virtually all ways of life. The word varna is used in the oldest Hindu texts to detail such a social stratification system; varna means "color." It is certainly a Dominator Hierarchy, indeed, one of the most onerous and demented hierarchical systems ever developed by humanity, again, elevating or castigating a person based purely upon birth circumstance. Upon arrival in the world, individuals are assigned to one of five broad caterories: Brahmins (priests and teachers), Kshatriyas (rulers and warriors), Vaishyas (farmers, traders, merchants), Shudras (laborers), and just for bad measure a lowest class, Dalits (outcasts, "untouchables") who do the dirtiest work. India has tried hard to dismantle this rigid and counter-productive, banning discrimination based upon caste, but it lingers on, perpetuated by those dutiful protectors of bad tradition: conservatives.
An Indian "Dalit," or "untouchable," sweeps the street, and earns public reprehension as his rank within the Dominator Hierarchy of the Indian caste system. Before he took his first breath, his future was shackled by an evil tradition.
The Indian caste system nicely keeps those at the top, well, at the top, safe and secure and enjoying all manner of things that the lower ranks will never experience. In this way it is not very different from the hierarchies in almost every other society. To be sure, many individuals with higher rank did not ask for it, don't need it or want it, and may even actively oppose the very concept of such unfair hierarchies, including those upon which they rank higher. Such selfless persons would usually be liberals. Yet, whether they want the hierarchical advantage or not, they still get it... because it is not up to the individual where they rank, it is up to society as a whole. So long as culture accepts as reasonable these gross disparities in personal worth, then the hierarchical system continues happily along, dealing a better hand of cards to certain infants right out of the womb and/or largely on the basis of happenstance, while doling out a doleful, pre-determined, disadvantaged struggle for many more others.
Why is it conservative?
The Dominator Hierarchy is not itself inherently conservative or liberal. It goes way back thousands of years. It's based on emotion, primarily the emotions of selfishness and fear. So you can certainly say it's traditional. And guess who is enamored of tradition for tradition's sake? That's right, the conservatives.
It is conservatives who are the force behind the enduring power of the Dominator Hierarchy. The "father of modern conservatism," Edmund Burke, did not call it a Dominator Hierarchy, his term was a "Chain of Subordination." This chain of domination turns out to be an extremely important precept of conservative ideology. Conservatives find this system ideal for their chronic selfishness, greed and fear. Unmasked, this is the "tradition" that they place at the very center of their mindset and worldview, whether they are consciously aware of it or not. Of course, most are as blind about their support of the Dominator Hierarchy as a fish is of being in water. Such blind fish conservatives would be those who actually rank lower on the Dominator Hierarchy, ignorantly supporting it even though the vast majority of them are penalized, themselves, by the Dominator Hierarchy in one way or another. Meanwhile, those higher up on the rankings know exactly what is going on, at least with the strands they rank high upon, and have no interest in loosening its power.
Liberals, however, even if they also don't comprehend the full scope of this damning hierarchy, are continually chipping away at its various strands, hoping to at least loosen the bindings. They have done a good job of raising the socioeconomic status of many different groups of people: the poor, women, people of color, workers, LGBT people, the disabled (physically and mentally), prisoners, as well as animals and the environment itself. Liberals have sought protections and assistance programs for each of these traditionally lower members of the Dominator Hierarchy. They have cracked the Dominator Hierarchy, but not yet seen it crumble.
We also clearly see the Dominator Hierarchy weakened or softened in more liberal countries and cultures, while it hardens and strengthens in conservative cultures. Thanks to liberal democratic principles, the Swedish and Dutch Dominator Hierarchies are far fairer than that of the conservative regimes of North Korea or Saudi Arabia or Somalia. But this does not mean that any modern culture is totally without a Dominator Hierarchy. It may be more pliable, equitable and lax in some places, but it is still there... ever being "conserved" by the local conservatives.
Are these hierarchies "natural?"
No. Certainly not on the scale they exist in human culture. Now this does not stop the people who love the Dominator Hierarchy from claiming that it is natural. Every single discrimination in the world has been justified because it is the "natural order." But they are wrong. There is nothing remotely as unfair as the human Dominator Hierarchy in nature.
Don't get your hierarchies confused. It is important to understand that not all hierarchies are dominator hierarchies. Animals that live in groups need a social order. The more intelligent those animals, the more complex that social order may become. Often a Cooperative Hierarchy (CH) will emerge. These are organizational structures that are helpful to the group as a whole, and usually based upon some sort of meritocracy. We see Cooperative Hierarchies in such social animals as whales, elephants, wolves, horses, elk, parrots, crows and in our closest animal kin, chimpanzees and gorillas. The exact structure of the group can vary between species and even between individual groups. These are hierarchies based on qualities such as competency, talent, skill, leadership. In such hierarchies, though someone may be the "alpha" or "boss," the purpose is not domination but cooperation; everyone within the hierarchy shares the group's common goal of flourishing, and therefore are all (theoretically) pulling for each other. Though there can be some relatively minor amount of "domination" and "subordination" involved in such a Cooperative Hierarchy, the rankings and positions upon the hierarchy are quite malleable depending upon merit. Upward movement is quite possible, often expected. The runt of a wolf litter can grow to become alpha male or female of the pack.
With each member having a rank within the group, a wolf pack is a hierarchy, but a Cooperative Hierarchy not a Dominator Hierarchy. Every member is beloved and cared for, they all share the same objective, spoils are shared relatively equitably, rankings are flexible, and the omega (last, lowest) can become the alpha (highest).
Cooperative Hierarchies are common in the animal world, and Homo sapiens simply expanded upon the concept through our cultural evolution. Our societies are riddled with hierarchies. Almost every business and governmental enterprise involves a Cooperative Hierarchy. A position on the hierarchy is (theoretically) earned by merit, not by some innate characteristic such as gender or skin color, or possibly totally arbitrary trait such as wealth or religion or language or disability. That's why it can be a shock when someone unqualified somehow breaks through, say the CEO appoints his stupid son as vice-president, or Donald Trump nominates Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA; everyone understands that the meritocracy has been punctured, and substandard performance and damage to the enterprise is likely. The inferred fairness of a business Cooperative Hierarchy is also seriously called into question when those at the top begin drawing far more than any reasonable merit-based share of reward from the enterprise. In extreme cases, a supposed Cooperative Hierarchy can actually shade into a Dominator Hierarchy-like shop of misery and unhappiness among most of the workers while doltish managers, some with lesser skill and humanity than those they lord over, cavort and splurge on themselves. Yet in a well-run organization there is an expectation within its culture that merit is rewarded and demerit is not; fairness and respect prevails from bottom to top. One may reasonably expect to move up the CH through skillful merit or other aspects of character, and not be held back because of non-goal-related attributes. A buck private can rise to become a general in the military. The mailroom clerk can ascend to become CEO of a company. Someone born black can become President of the United States.
The Dominator Hierarchy is totally different. It has no common purpose or goal that all the members of the hierarchy share. In fact, from top to bottom its members have directly conflicting goals. It ranks individuals according to traits which, for the most part, they had little or no choice or control over. It seeks to reward those at the top while punishing those at the bottom. Although upward movement becomes easier as one manages to scratch or scramble to a higher rung. Those who rank higher find it easier to advance, or at least maintain, their rank by using their leverage over those below. But below the higher tiers, the impulse of the Dominator Hierarchy is to fix the worth of the individual permanently. Thus, while the CH unites, the DH aspires to segment and divide. This serves to offer a head-start and continual lesser resistance for those with higher ranking while interjecting obstacle and actual subjugation of those below.
The Dominator Hierarchy emerged as human culture became more complex. The first strand to become evident was Man vs. Nature. This is the oldest and worst strand of the DH. After fashioning stone spearpoints and taming fire, our ancient ancestors were ready to start bullying other animals. They occasionally would set the forest and grasslands ablaze to flush out game. They would sometimes send entire herds of animals to their deaths. Staunch ecologists these people were not. They had determined that their own worth was superior to all other forms of life. This belief absolved them of any guilt over their domination of the rest of nature. Sometime later, quite conveniently, their newly invented God confirmed this presupposed truism. Humanity has rarely wavered on that long-ago conviction.
Hunter-gatherer social order is a Cooperative Hierarchy, not a Dominator Hierarchy.
The basic early human group of around 50 individuals or less was likely rather egalitarian in social structure, not terribly dissimilar to those of hunter-gatherer bands living today. Females often have more rights in these groups than they do in modern democracies, much less in the conservative theocracies of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Things were mostly peaceful within the group. There may well have been strife between distinct groups. Somehow the other species of Homo went extinct. Was this because sapiens killed them, out-competed them, or wiped them out through disease? No one knows. There is little evidence for warfare among early human groups or even involving the first small towns. Indeed, there is much evidence that they traded with each other. Of course, they were all still busy wiping out animals species, while capturing and enslaving some others. The Dominator Hierarchy comes fully into its human domination component during the Agricultural Revolution. Suddenly, instead of small bands where everyone is more or less equal in most ways, human social order morphs to include hundreds, even thousands or tens of thousands of individuals, now separated into specific task-groups, the vast majority being assigned the job of manual labor. Although these planters of seed and laborers of the pyramids were ostensibly entangled in the same cultural goal, principally its survival, they were infinitely less privileged than those lucky ones at the top of hierarchy, utterly oppressed, abused, stolen from and quickly sacrificed if need be by their "superiors." They had become pawns and chattel that the old hunter-gatherer clans could not have imagined. The Cooperative Hierarchy between members of the same clan had been contorted into the Dominator Hierarchy of the age of "civilization." It is from this starkly divided cultural "tradition" that the Dominator Hierarchy became so omnipresent and pervasive in almost every human society.
Just as with those peasants and pharaohs of the Agricultural Revolution, the Dominator Hierarchy is based on no real virtue, just happenstance for the most part. Even in America, supposedly the land of the free and equal, if you are born female, black, poor, gay or transgender, ugly, handicapped, of the wrong religion, or can't speak English, the Dominator Hierarchy will assign you to a lower rank on these specific scales. Every other culture has a similar Dominator Hierarchy scheme, some looser, some tighter. In many countries, God help you if you are a poor, black, gay, ugly, handicapped, female of the wrong religion and unable to speak the local language. You are screwed! While if you are born male, light skinned, handsome, wealthy, straight, believe in the dominant religion, speak the privileged language and are able-bodied, why you just won your ticket to the tippy-top of the Dominator Hierarchy. Don't waste the grand privilege, son. Start dominating!
Every human being in the world today is enmeshed in these various dominator hierarchies, whether they want to be or not. It's not simply tyranny of the majority: often a smaller minority dominates a larger majority, as with wealth over lesser wealth, beauty over lesser beauty or even male over female. There are more women in the world than men, but that doesn't stop men from trying to dominate them. It's everywhere. It's inescapable. It's unfair. It's uncivilized. And it's downright mean. Even as a spindly, naked ape, if you are of lower rank on the scales of the human Dominator Hierarchy, you would be safer and more equal in that wolf pack... by far.
"I Earned My Prestige and Privilege!"
Now wealthy people may immediately object and claim they weren't given this advantage and prestige, they earned it. Actually, most them didn't. The majority of wealthy people inherit their wealth, and with their money most if not all of their power and prestige. Sure, they may add to their fortune and fame, as Mitt Romney and Donald Trump have, but they received advantages all along that the average person can only dream of. You've probably heard the baseball analogy: "that rich guy was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." It's largely true. If not third base, then perhaps they were born on second or first base, or thanks to Daddy's influence all the players in the field are playing ultra-soft, letting little junior think he got a hit with a slowly rolling grounder that the shortstop somehow muffs (wink-wink). That was George W. Bush, as, with Daddy's pulling of strings, he squeaked into Yale and then Harvard, cut in line to get into the Texas Air National guard and thus skip out on going to the Vietnam War, and was continually rewarded as he bankrupted three different oil companies. Meanwhile, the folks who get no help from the trust fund or other familial connections, must stand at the home plate in the game of "success" and face the 100-mile per hour fastballs and wicked curveballs coming at them from capricious culture. It's a rigged game, and the wealthier you or your family is the easier it is to play.
A recent study by United for a Fair Economy did some research into this and found that just 35 percent of the Forbes 400 (all billionaires) came from a background where they had to face the heat. Sixty percent of them enjoyed "substantial privilege" from childhood. It broke down to about 22 percent of these richest people were born on first base, around 11.5 percent opened their eyes on second base, and seven percent came out with their thumb in their mouth on third base. Wait, that leaves over 20 percent of these billionaires unaccounted for. What is their background? Oh right... these people were born on home base, not up to bat... but scoring bigtime as they came out bloody and screaming into the world! They each inherited over a billion dollars!.
So much for the "It's my money; I earned it," mantra we hear from so many filthy rich people.
But, hey, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say Mr. Rich really did lift himself up by his bootstraps. Good for him. Now he's ready to be a dominator, himself. Getting into the rich club not just gives you more money, it gives you more benefits all around, it gives you more prestige; it gives you ever-increasing advantage over competitor and partner alike. You would not believe how much free stuff these millionaires and billionaires get. You may be able to imagine the slavish attention and adoration they receive. They have beautiful women (or sometimes men) throwing themselves at them, they have bankers begging them to take more money, they have tony clubs ofering them free membership, fancy restaurants offer them prime tables and, often, complimentary dinner and drinks, they get free stuff like cars, clothes and gadgets from companies interested in the publicity their promotion may generate. They love being acknowledged as a V.I.P. - "Very Important person," the subtext of which is that most of us are wholly unimportant. Then, of course, we all know wealth comes with power... power over individual people, and power within society. Indeed, the wealthy do not belong to the society we do; they belong to an alternative society, the society of the beautiful people, the society of privilege. They waltz through culture as if they were a Mughal raja. They skip to the head of the TSA line at the airport, and then board their own planes; they disregard misdemeanor laws because the fines are nothing to them, take full advantage of a legal system that tilts very favorably to the rich, they pay far less percentage tax than you do - in fact they quite likely pay no taxes at all - and, of course, if they want they can buy off a politician, or two, or three, or a whole political party. Now Mr. Rich can say he's a self-made man, but he would never have the kind of wealth and privilege without the entire structure of society itself... and now that he's made it, if he's indulging in all of these many privileges unavailable to the common man, then he is a full player in the Dominator Hierarchy. It is the very rare wealthy bird who can turn away from the temptation to luxuriate in this panoply of privilege.
The top level of any strand of the Dominator Hierarchy percolates in its own privilege and presumed superiority. This entire region becomes an echo-chamber, a feedback loop, of belief and behavior. It's very remindful of the cliques of middle or high school, which often feature vicious little Dominator Hierarchies. The wealthy keep to themselves and calculate their worth. The beautiful people keep to themselves and contemplate their gorgeousness. Males dominate females, or at least try to... their self-esteem in the making. "Thank you, God, for not making me a woman," the old Jewish prayer, could serve as the mantra for every man who revels in his dominator status. Whites congregate together with a knowing wink concerning their superiority, even if they would be abashed to openly discuss such closely held beliefs. Religions confirm their superiority to rival religions, while sects within a religion bicker about their own proclaimed righteousness.
What Are Some Real World Examples?
Pick an issue that conservatives are adamant about. Go ahead. Any issue.
Civil Rights? The conservative stance on civil rights, i.e. equal rights for African Americans, Native Americans and other racial or ethnic minorities, is that they are against them. This is conserving primarily the skin tone strand of the Dominator Hierarchy, but may also include the religion and language strands.
Equal Rights for Women? The conservative stance on equal rights for women is that they are against it. Here they are conserving the gender strand of the Dominator Hierarchy.
Gun control? The conservative stance on gun control is conserving all the strands of the Dominator Hierarchy, and their ranking upon it, from external threat. Conservatives are very fearful people, at odds with the world because of their Dominator Hierarchy. How are they going to defend their "way of life" (i.e. the Dominator Hierarchy) without serious weaponry? Plus they are conserving the man over nature strand of the Dominator Hierarchy. They don't want anything interfering with their "sport" of killing any animal that wanders into their sights.
Taxes? The conservative stance on taxes is that they don't want to pay them. They support other people paying taxes, just not them. This is true of SoCon and CorpCon. Here they are conserving the wealth strand of the Dominator Hierarchy. You've heard them say, "It's my money; I earned it; why should the government take it." No matter how much, or how little wealth they actually have, they know that someone wants to take it... probably the government... and they are determined to resist. Another reason they love their guns.
Environmental Protections? The conservative stance on environmental protections is that they are against them. Here they are conserving the man over nature strand and the wealth strand in the belief that environmental protections harm business.
Deregulation? The conservative stance on deregulation of Big Business is that they are for it. Government should put no constraints on business or industry. Here they are conserving the wealth strand of the Dominator Hierarchy, even though only a tiny percentage of CorpCons will benefit from such deregulation while the bulk of conservatives will actually be harmed by it. But whatever position liberals take on any issue, SoCons will fall in line with their CorpCons superiors in solidarity to conserve the Dominator Hierarchy. This is one of the most stupid, self-defeating things they could possibly do... but that's the appeal of the Dominator Hierarchy.
Legal Abortion? The conservative stance on legal abortion is that they are against it. Here they flip-flop on their opposition to Big Government, wanting it to impose a tenet of their dominant religious system upon all of society. Here they are conserving both the Male over Female gender strand of the Dominator Hierarchy, as well as the dominant religion strand.
Healthcare? The conservative stance on healthcare is that the government should not be involved with it, and that it should be managed entirely by for-profit corporations, including Big Pharma and Big Insurance. Here they are conserving the wealth strand of the Dominator Hierarchy, again, which benefits only the CorpCon and will end up sending many SoCons into bankruptcy and/or an early grave. If you can't afford the sky-high insurance rates for a decent policy or the spiraling costs of healthcare paid out of pocket, well, to quote Herman Cain, "Blame yourself."
Gays? The conservative stance on homosexuality is that it is a sin. This supposedly comes from the Bible, even though Jesus considered the subject so unimportant he didn't mention it. Here conservatives are conserving both the sexual orientation strand and the dominant religion strand of the Dominator Hierarchy, determined to impose their religious views on this long-oppressed minority.
Transgender Rights? The conservative stance on transgender rights is that they are against them. Here they are conserving the gender strand of the Dominator Hierarchy, and some believe that transgender people are also transgressing God's will, so they would also be conserving the dominant religion strand.
The Americans with Disabilities Act? Conservatives are opposed to any governmental interference with the free market and individual liberties. Here they are conserving both the wealth strand and the ability strand of the Dominator Hierarchy. Why should a business have to put in costly ramps and elevators to accommodate those in wheelchairs and otherwise disabled? Of course, these costs will simply be passed on to the consumer, and why would they want to pay for this either? Disabled people should simply take responsibility for their disability and stay away from dominant culture.
War? The conservative stance on war is that they are for it... except, perhaps, if the liberals want it... then they will very reluctantly oppose it because they cannot support anything that the would-be destroyers of the Dominator Hierarchy support. But normally they are, literally, gun-ho! (pun intended) for war. Depending upon the particular circumstance of the war, such wars may involve the wealth strand of the profiteers (almost invariably conservative corporations such as Halliburton, General Electric, Raytheon, Blackwater, etc.), with potential mixing of skin tone, religious, language and even beauty (because the enemy is invariably ugly) strands into a toxic mix of sicko patriotic conservation of the Dominator Hierarchy. And, of course, nature always takes a beating in war, so that's an added bonus for the conservative mind.
See? Every issue, no matter how dissimilar it may be from some other issue, dovetails right back into conservation of some aspect of the Dominator Hierarchy, if not defense of the entire DH itself.
"Why Doesn't the Dominator Hierarchy Crash and Burn?"
It may someday, but not yet. The resilience of the Dominator Hierarchy is largely explained by how well it works for a very large percentage of people. It's not just the toppermost of each strand who benefit. Many of those far lower in the rankings still perceive they are superior to someone, and that makes the hierarchy itself valuable to them. First off, if they are male, they have already won one Dominator Hierarchy strand's lottery. What male in their right mind would willingly give up innate superiority over more than half of the world's population? Well, OK, any male with "right mind" would do this, but that leaves out all greedy and needy men, which accounts for most of them. So the male over female strand of the Dominator Hierarchy is still going strong well into the 21st Century. Who with greater wealth would not want it to count for more than those with lesser wealth? I don't need a billion dollars; if I have 100,000 and you have 50,000, hey, I'm the more successful, i.e. superior, person. The beautiful people know who they are, because everyone tells them, and thoroughly enjoy the wealth of prestige and privilege this brings them. Two people of the same gender interview for a job; all things else being equal, the more attractive person gets the job. White people have advantages, well, everywhere, all the time. Such people have every selfish reason for wanting such privilege to continue unabated.
You can can rank lower on one strand but higher on another, and thus be a fan of the overall Dominator Hierarchy. If you are a woman, but you are rich and/or beautiful... you have a place of superiority. If you are a woman and poor and brown, but you are of the right religion, you still may find a position of some superiority somewhere in a society where that religion has some built-in advantages. And so it goes.
So we see that the Dominator Hierarchy is self-reinforcing. Even individuals well below the halfway mark on some strands find it useful because they are still way above many others. And even if you are disadvantaged in one strand, you may be privileged in another. Only if you score lower across all strands will you find that society continually attempts to thwart your progress. But hey, you still have nature to dominate. And isn't that fun?
It is certainly not just conservatives who actively support and are advantaged by the Dominator Hierarchy. What differentiates liberals is that they at least sometimes, on some issues, break with the DH and even constrain their own advantage by opposing its ranking system. It is liberal ideology that stands up to defend women, racial and ethnic minorities, the disabled, the freedom to worship or not worship as you see fit. It is liberal ideology that seeks to nurture and defend nature. And it is only liberal ideology that has ever been interested in taming wealth and power.
What we can say is that when liberals support any aspect of the Dominator Hierarchy they have become conservative in that regard. They are no longer liberals because liberality does not accept the basic inequality and subjugation of the Dominator Hierarchy.
But conservatism does. Sure enough, conservatives are far more adamant about supporting every single strand of the Dominator Hierarchy. Indeed, it is the Dominator Hierarchy that gives conservatives their name. They are conservatives. What is it they are conserving? It is the Dominator Hierarchy. In almost every case of their passion, every issue, if you peel back the outer covering you will find a strand, or several strands entwined, of the Dominator Hierarchy smiling back at you that conservatives wish to conserve.
So this is the one essential "traditional value" that conservatives desperately wish to conserve. They take their one great idea - that Some Things Need to Be Conserved - and squander it on preserving - at all costs - the Dominator Hierarchy... and anything that goes along with it, while opposing anything that might threaten it.
Unfortunately, for them, the opposing force is commonly known as "progress." What we see through the long lens of history is that the Dominator Hierarchy, itself, has to evolve with the changes. Since the Enlightenment, in particular, the DH has been hit hard. Science has pummeled it into begrudging admission that many of its most precious tenets are based on nothing but myth. Meanwhile the rise of democracy has provided a multi-front governmental and legal attack that has rendered it much less poisonous than it used to be. Alas, this has not helped the millions who still live in totalitarian dictatorships or theocracies around the world, still enmeshed in the Dominator Hierarchy's full decadence.
Even in liberal democracies, however, the Dominator Hierarchy is still defiantly hurtful. But as "universal values" slowly but surely replace "traditional values" in human culture, the DH will continue to soften and shrink in power. And so the dream is that today's still harsh and strict disparity of opportunity, justice, compassion, and ability to pursue happiness, will continue to contract, and just like the kings and lords of old, the dominators of today will find themselves melded back into a far more egalitarian culture in the not-too-distant future.
Now you are alert to the Dominator Hierarchy. You are in better position to not just witness how conservatives rally to its defense time and again, and how liberals continually push to limit its wrath, but also how you and your family and friends benefit, or are punished, by the great Dominator Hierarchy, a hurtful relic of "traditional values." What are you going to do about it, yourself?
Just remember, any time you support the Dominator Hierarchy, you are a conservative. Anytime you oppose the Dominator Hierarchy, you are a liberal.