Well, I'd say the current academic fad is defined by political correctness, so the imperative is to emphasize the positive aspects of each culture, and to paper over anything that could give our species a bad name.

I agree that the Enlightenment did the opposite and emphasized or exaggerated the downside of medieval societies, overlooking the progress that was made before the scientific revolution.

But when you say merely that the Middle Ages weren't "perfect," equating them with modern imperfections, that betrays to me the academic fad of political correctness. You're understating the different social norms and institutions.

My argument against conservatism here doesn't need the Enlightenment denigrations of medieval societies. All I need are the basic differences between monarchy, feudalism, patriarchy, imperialism, theocracy, and slavery, on the one hand, and democracy, capitalism, science, civil rights, and freedom of thought on the other. Which type of society does conservatism bring about or reinforce? Calling it "medieval" just drives home the point.

I agree that the modern, pseudo-genetic concept of race didn't exist in the medieval period. But the ancients and medievals were plenty prejudiced about foreigners since we all have that tribal instinct to fear the other. Modern humanism challenges that instinct head-on, whereas collectivist cultures might exacerbate it.

And there are lots of kinds of slavery. Medieval peasants were serfs, not chattel slaves, but serfdom still makes for a contrast with liberated individuals in the modern sense.

Do you think women in the Middle Ages were as free as men? And do you think conservatives want to protect women's freedoms or return us to something like the Middle Ages in that respect? Why not call conservatism "medieval," then?