Home

Progressivism vs. Conservatism II | Navigating the terrain of change together

by David G. January 18, 2024 written by David G. 0 comment 0 views

Introduction

Hello friends! Several weeks ago, we published a blog post entitled “Progressivism vs. Conservatism: Unlocking the Ideological Puzzle”. The post delved into the etymological and lexical origins of the two labels, “progressive” and “conservative”. Specifically, “Progressive” is derived from the root word “progress” suggesting movement towards a better, more modern state. In contrast, “conservative” comes from the word “conserve” implying preservation and maintenance of the status quo. The key bullet points we intended from this post included:

• The lexical origin of the word “Progressive” relates to advancing towards a better state, while the lexical origin of the word “conservative” signifies preserving the status quo.
• A growing number of Americans identify as liberal or conservative, moving away from the traditional party affiliations of “Democrat” and “Republican”, and notwithstanding all this,
• A significant portion of Americans (76%) are deeply concerned about the nation’s future, regardless of their political ideology.

In conclusion, we posed a fundamental question to our readers: when it comes to our future, do we prefer change or conservation? Can one ever “go back to the future?”

It is profoundly clear the post touched a profound nerve, as evidenced by the huge number of comments to the post. As a follow up, this post explores further how conservatives and progressives react to, and embrace.

There is no doubt change is needed. Based on the tone of the conservative responses to our post, everyone seems to agree on this point. But change is hard; change makes many, if not most, very uncomfortable and because of this, agreeing on what to change and how to change is very difficult. But change we must. An overwhelming majority believe America is not heading in the right direction!

The Progressive View on Change

Progressivism, as a social and political philosophy, embraces change as a fundamental component for improving the human condition.

• Sociologically and psychologically, progressives often believe that systemic reforms are necessary to address deep-rooted societal issues, advocating for changes that promote social justice, equality, and the empowerment of marginalized groups. This viewpoint is supported by research in fields like sociology, where scholars like Erik Olin Wright emphasize the need for transformative changes in social structures to address inequalities (Wright, “Envisioning Real Utopias”).
• Psychologically, this perspective is aligned with theories that stress the importance of societal context in individual development and mental health, as seen in the work of psychologists like Urie Bronfenbrenner, who developed the ecological systems theory, suggesting that individual well-being is deeply interconnected with larger social systems (Bronfenbrenner, “The Ecology of Human Development”).
• Economically, progressivism often advocates for policies that promote economic fairness, such as progressive taxation, robust social welfare programs, and government intervention in the economy to regulate and mitigate the excesses of capitalism. This approach is grounded in economic theories that criticize unchecked market forces, as espoused by economists like John Maynard Keynes, who argued for government intervention as a necessary tool for stabilizing economies (Keynes, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money”).
• Politically, progressives typically support democratic governance and extensive civil liberties, arguing for political systems that are responsive and accountable to the people, especially the marginalized and underprivileged. This is in line with political theorists like Carole Pateman, who advocates for participatory democracy as a means of realizing true political equality and empowerment (Pateman, “Participation and Democratic Theory”)

In summary, progressivism views change not just as inevitable but as essential for the progress and well-being of society, advocating for multi-dimensional reforms across social, psychological, economic, and political domains.

The Conservative Stance on Change

Conservatism as a philosophical and political ideology emphasizes the preservation of traditional institutions, practices, and norms, advocating for a cautious and pragmatic approach to change. Sociologically and psychologically, conservatives often value the stability and continuity provided by established social structures and traditions. This perspective is grounded in the belief that such structures have been shaped by collective wisdom over time, thus embodying valuable lessons and stability. Sociologist Robert Nisbet, in his work “The Quest for Community,” argues for the importance of social bonds and traditional institutions in providing a sense of belonging and stability, reflecting a conservative view on the role of societal structures. Psychologically, this aligns with theories like those of Jordan Peterson, who emphasizes the significance of traditional values in providing psychological stability and meaning in individuals’ lives (Peterson, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos”).

 

Economically, conservatism often advocates for free-market principles, limited government intervention, and fiscal responsibility. Economists like Milton Friedman have been influential in shaping conservative economic thought, particularly his advocacy for minimal state intervention in the economy (Friedman, “Capitalism and Freedom”). Politically, conservatives typically support a limited government, emphasizing individual responsibility and freedom, and are cautious about rapid political changes that may undermine established institutions and practices. Political theorists like Edmund Burke, often regarded as the philosophical founder of modern conservatism, have argued for the preservation of established traditions and institutions, cautioning against radical changes and revolutions (Burke, “Reflections on the Revolution in France”). In essence, conservatism views change as something to be approached with caution, respecting the accumulated wisdom embedded in traditions and established ways of life, and emphasizing the stability and c*ontinuity of social, economic, and political systems.Section 3: Key Differences in Approaches

Comparing and contrasting progressive and conservative views on change:

Similarities

• Belief in the Importance of Societal Systems: Both ideologies acknowledge the significant role societal structures play in shaping individual and collective lives.
• Focus on Social Well-being: Each, in its own way, focuses on improving or maintaining the well-being of society.
• Influence of Historical Perspectives: Historical contexts and interpretations play a crucial role in shaping both ideologies.
• Role in Political Discourse: Progressivism and conservatism represent fundamental and contrasting viewpoints in political and social discourse.

Differences

Typically, progressives:

• Embrace Change: Sees change as essential for societal progress and improvement.

• Adopt a Social Justice Orientation: Prioritizes social justice, equality, and empowerment of marginalized groups.

• Support Economic Intervention to level the playing field: Supports progressive taxation, robust welfare programs, and government regulation of the economy.

• Embrace True Democratic Governance: Advocates for responsive, participatory democracy.

On the other hand Conservatives are typically:

• Cautious of Change: Prefers preserving traditional institutions and norms, cautious about the pace and nature of change.
• Value Tradition: Emphasizes the importance of established traditions and social structures, viewing them as tried and tested.
• Focus on Stability and Continuity: Prioritizes societal stability and continuity over rapid or radical change.
• Free-Market Economy: Favors free-market principles, limited government intervention, and fiscal responsibility.
• Limited Government: Supports a limited role for government, emphasizing individual responsibility and traditional values.
• Systemic Reform: Advocates for transformative changes in social, economic, and political structures.

Conclusions

Comparing and contrasting the progressive and conservative views on change is vitally important for several key reasons:

• Enhanced Understanding of Ideologies: It provides a clearer understanding of each ideology’s principles, values, and approach to social, economic, and political issues. This understanding is crucial for informed discussions and debates on public policy and governance.
• Informed Decision Making: Individuals and policymakers can make more informed decisions when they understand the different perspectives on change. It helps voters to align their choices with their own values and beliefs, and it aids policymakers in crafting legislation that considers various viewpoints.
• Promotes Healthy Democratic Discourse: Democracy thrives on the exchange of diverse opinions. By comparing and contrasting these views, a platform is created for open dialogue, which is essential for a healthy democratic society. It encourages tolerance and understanding of opposing views.
• Aids in Conflict Resolution: Understanding the core beliefs of different ideologies can facilitate conflict resolution and compromise. Recognizing the underlying values and fears of each side can lead to more empathetic and effective negotiations and solutions.
• Highlights Societal Progress and Challenges: This comparison helps to map out how societies have evolved and what challenges they face. Progressives often push for changes that address current societal issues, while conservatives might caution against unintended consequences, ensuring a balanced evolution.
• Educational Value: For students and learners, understanding these contrasting views is essential for a well-rounded education in political science, sociology, and history, providing insights into how societal changes have been shaped by ideology.
• Policy Development and Analysis: For analysts and policymakers, understanding these viewpoints is crucial for developing policies that are effective, sustainable, and acceptable to a broad section of society.
• Predicting Future Trends: By analyzing how each ideology approaches change, it’s possible to predict how different groups might respond to future societal challenges or technological advancements.

In summary, comparing and contrasting progressive and conservative views on change is vital for deepening our understanding of political ideologies, enhancing democratic discourse, aiding in decision-making and policy development, and promoting societal understanding and cohesion.

 

One More Thought… Understanding the Impact of Tribalism on Political Collaboration

I would like to offer some additional musings on how tribalism –  which I define as a strong sense of loyalty to one’s own social or political group –  can significantly impede the ability of progressives and conservatives to navigate change together. Here’s how:

• Erosion of Common Ground: Tribalism often leads to an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, where the focus is on differences rather than similarities. This polarization makes it challenging to identify and work on shared goals or mutual interests, which are essential for collaborative change.
• Communication Barriers: Tribalism can create echo chambers where individuals only listen to information from their group, leading to a lack of understanding and misinterpretation of the other side’s perspectives. This hinders constructive dialogue and the development of joint solutions.
• Compromise is Viewed as Weakness: In a tribalistic environment, compromise can be seen as a betrayal of one’s own group, leading to rigid stances and an unwillingness to collaborate. This all-or-nothing approach is counterproductive when navigating complex changes that require nuanced solutions.
• Increased Hostility and Distrust: Tribalism often breeds hostility and distrust between groups. This emotional charge can overshadow rational policy discussions, making it difficult to work together on change, as each side is more focused on defeating the other rather than finding common solutions.
• Oversimplification of Complex Issues: Tribalism can lead to the oversimplification of complex issues, as group loyalty often demands a uniform, simplistic viewpoint. This hinders the ability to appreciate the complexity of change and the need for diverse perspectives in crafting effective responses.
• Inhibition of Innovation: When loyalty to the group becomes paramount, it can stifle creativity and innovation. New ideas or solutions that don’t align perfectly with the established group narrative might be dismissed, even if they could be beneficial in navigating change.
• Fear of Social Sanction: Individuals may fear backlash or ostracism from their group if they advocate for collaboration or viewpoints that differ from the tribal norm. This fear can prevent open-minded discussions and the exploration of joint paths forward.
• Policy Paralysis: Tribalism can lead to political gridlock, where each side blocks the other’s initiatives regardless of their merits. This standstill hinders the ability to implement changes necessary for societal progress or adaptation.

In essence, tribalism exacerbates divisions and hinders the cooperative, empathetic, and innovative approaches necessary for progressives and conservatives to work together effectively in navigating change. Overcoming tribalism requires conscious efforts to foster open dialogue, mutual respect, and a focus on shared human values and goals.