I wish more people acted like you - looking for a compatible frame, rather than getting mad at the other side. For my part I feel there is something about “keep government off my back” that would resonate with “civil liberties”.

It’s ironic, in a sad way, that the liberal intelligencia, that very group of people who dedicated their lives to studying the use of language, rethorics, logic, psychology, history of philosophy, journalism, could not come together and form a cohesive argument in a way that speaks to the values of their opponents.

There is research about reframing arguments for a given topic in terms of values that are highly important to a given political ideology[1]. In short, there are priors of deeply-held values that can reliably predict a political stance. With this you can potentially convince those opposed to an action on grounds of some aspect of it (be it perceived masculinity of actor, or religious reasons) to reconsider the action from a familiar perspective by reframing the argument in terms of the audience's most deeply-respected values (e.g. purity, masculinity, patriotism).

[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425143307.h...

See also Prof Robb Willer, whose research at Stanford shows similar results.

https://www.ted.com/talks/robb_willer_how_to_have_better_pol...

Similarly, the moral values of the left (especially the social justice movement) aligns deeply with the teachings of Jesus.

The question is wether they want to make the world better or just push certain agendas.

A great example would be Cassie Jaye and her film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY

"Conservatism and masculinity are deeply intertwined"

Why do you say conservatism is intertwined with masculinity but not femininity? Does one make sense without the other?

Some branches of Christianity believe strongly identify with a tight social hierarchy. God->Man->Woman. Married women are to submit to their husbands. Unmarried women are subjects of their fathers.

That’s why traditionally Kings were always coronated by bishops and linked to the church. There was an implicit endorsement by god. Today, churches with these types of philosophies are a key part of republican get out the vote movements. That’s why politicians kowtow to people like Falwell.

One of the things that sucks about the battle against global warming is that it is the world's largest collective action problem. In order to realistically stop it we have to cooperate on a massive scale. And there is a massive amount of evidence that we are not going to cooperate effectively on this.

So anyone past a certain point on the individualist/collectivist spectrum might see their non-cooperation toward global warming as pure virtue signalling, without any realistic chance of their individual action having a measurable effect on the world.

Individualism is a conservative/masculine virtue to a greater degree than collectivism. So it is easy to see why someone may prefer to choose a non-cooperative stance on global warming as a pure virtue signalling move.

God gave us the Earth to be good stewards of. It is sinful to abuse the planet. At least as far as Catholics and Mormons view things.

The conservative movement was engineered in its current state to meet the needs of western resource owners, who wanted to maximize their return on resource extraction and socially conservative folks who were hesitant about the scope of social change.

That, and the excesses of the environmental movement created this weird environment we have today. The gun culture people I grew up with were deeply concerned about waterfowl and loss of wildlife habitat, as they felt a duty to be stewards to it. Now, that’s devolved into this sort of gun porn.

Do you think if environmentalism were rebranded as Patriotic or Nationalist that men previously averse to environmentalism would become environmentalists and vice versa, current environmentalists who may lean left might rebel and become eco-careless?

Let's take a nationalistic country like Brazil. Do you think macho Brazilians would become more receptive to environmentalism if it were associated more vigorously with manliness, for example? I'm curious what you think the result would be.