Musings of a Patriot

A Fundamental Difference Between Conservatives and Progressives


photo credit: Marcin Porwit

Late in October a comment by Jason sparked my brain to recognize a subtle but fundamental difference between conservatives and progressives. Perhaps it should have been obvious simply by comparing the definitions for “conservative” and “progressive” but the implications seem to be  both subtle and profound.

The word “conservative” can be reduced to essentially seeking to maintain a static foundation. The word “progressive” can be reduced to essentially seeking to promote change from the status quo. Notice that, contrary to what some people believe, progressive and conservative are not antonyms. There are times when change from the status quo may be towards an earlier static foundation, but I think it is obvious why these two views would generally not be in harmony with each other.

When it comes to political goals these fundamental differences alter the approach to political calculus. For progressives, where change is a fundamental tenet of their philosophy, having a majority, or at least a minority large enough to have real influence on legislation would naturally tend to be more important than strict adherence to any single principle. For conservatives, where their foundation is fundamental to their philosophy, sticking to that foundation is generally more important than attaining a particular level of influence.

The differences between these philosophies have a natural implication that serves as a roadblock to conservatives. Those with a progressive philosophy are more inclined to compromise in order to make things happen because movement is an end, and not simply a means to an end in that philosophy. Because compromise is a political necessity progressives are more comfortable actively entering the fray than their conservative counterparts. Also, because conservatives are more concerned with maintaining their foundation than with  making a change, they are more likely to be satisfied (or complacent) with holding their ground even while they are outside the circles of real influence where their principles could have a positive impact on more people. After all, simply climbing the ladder so that your voice carries further means that you have to put something between your feet and your hallowed ground. (It also increases the chances that you could eventually fall outside that trusted position.)

Posted

in

by

David

Tags:

, , , ,

Comments

14 responses to “A Fundamental Difference Between Conservatives and Progressives”

  1. Ronald D. Hunt Avatar
    Ronald D. Hunt

    Conservative isn’t the polar opposite to Progressive, Conservative sites somewhere in between Progressive and Regressive beliefs. And I don’t mean Regressive in a negative way, Generally I would be referencing Libertarian, and Federalist beliefs when talking about a regressive position.

    Again I don’t mean that negatively. Libertarian’s seek to undue to the growth of government and increase liberty by the removal of government programs, lower tax’s and deregulation, And Federalists seek a return of states rights taken in amendments to the constitution and have a strong belief that the federal government needs to be kept in check by strong almost sovereign in their own right state’s as it was during the founding of this nation.

    These three beliefs that is Conservatism, Libertarianism, and Federalism have gotten all intertwined together and I would think generally make up the base of the republican party. The Tea Party’s showed that true conservatism is not nearly as strong as one would believe but in fact that Libertarianism and Federalism are much stronger then anyone gives admittance to. This can be seen in the deregulation and anti-tax nature of the republican party being confused as “Conservative” when in fact these policy’s are clearly regressive in nature(again not meant negatively) While at the same time the conservative side is preventing the republicans from shutting down programs that those tax’s and regulations covered. For example when glass steagall was repealed the republicans left the FDIC in place leaving the government on the hook for deposits that no longer had substantial protection from bad bank investment behavior.

    You can further see the effects of this limited regressive behavior in the legislation coming from democrats in their coming health care bill. The progressives in the party don’t trust a purely regulation based approach because they know full well that regulation is easy to kill while government programs are practically immortal.

    Reply
    1. David Avatar
      David

      I’m not quite sure what you would define as conservative. You have defined what you think it is not (libertarian, federalist, tea-party) but have not said what you think it is. What I had in mind as I wrote this was something that encompassed Federalism but did not quite swallow Libertarianism (where the tea-parties fit in there is anybody’s guess). Conservatism in my mind is not so much anti-regulation as cautious about becoming too dependent on regulation. It is not anti-tax so much as it is minimal tax (meaning taxes for the legitimate functions of government, admitting that there are legitimate functions that require revenue).

      I do think your example of glass steagall and the FDIC was very clear about how the programs can outlive the regulation they were meant to be coupled with and the dangers that go with that decoupling.

      Reply
  2. Ronald D. Hunt Avatar
    Ronald D. Hunt

    “Conservatism in my mind is not so much anti-regulation as cautious about becoming too dependent on regulation.”

    A true conservative would be just as cautious of removing regulation as to becoming dependent of regulation.

    “It is not anti-tax so much as it is minimal tax (meaning taxes for the legitimate functions of government, admitting that there are legitimate functions that require revenue)”

    True Conservatives are less likely to be in an argument over the legitimate functions of government, that is a libertarian/federalist idea. Altho I completely agree with the minimal tax position.

    I would say that I believe Conservatism to be to the left of both libertarianism and federalism rather then in between them. Furthering that line of thought I would peg federalism to be to the left of libertarianism which is left of fascism.

    A true conservative is out to protect the status quo and is far different from what America defines conservative to be.

    If I had to make a list of what their basic beliefs I would have to say,

    What you mentioned above,
    Minimal Tax (1994-1999 tax rates are a good example, however after 2000 libertarian tax policy toke over),

    Cautious regulator (as in willing to regulate something lesser to maintain a larger status quo(Medicare drug benefit for example designed to prevent drug re-importation from Canada)),

    And I would Add,
    Non-aggressive wars tend to upset the boat of the status quo so true conservatives while not being pacifists generally don’t provoke either.

    Strong solidarity (Generally they have lots of allies either from those to the left that are not ready for change or those to the right being out right opposed(example conservative blue dog democrats tend to side with republicans on many issues).

    Maintenance of local tradition (Often this means big into religion but not always this also contributes to the Strong solidarity “US vs. Them” attitude) This contributes somewhat to libertarian beliefs as well in that a conservative who has gone though big changes in the political system will see the way it was as being the correct status quo(republicans love to harken back to them Reagan years which is odd given the amount of change over those years but it is the Country they remember and want returned to them).

    Incrementalist Tho generally opposed to change if they have to change something doing it a piece at a time in a easy to swallow fashion is their preference.

    Reply
    1. David Avatar
      David

      While I agree about the non-aggressive wars and the cautious regulator, your definition of conservative seems to take the current status as the baseline regardless of how far left or right the status quo is. There I don’t agree – a conservative mindset would have a baseline that may or may not reflect the current situation. They would always be seeking to maintain or move toward whatever their baseline is. (Not all conservatives will necessarily have the same baseline.)

      Reply
      1. Ronald D. Hunt Avatar
        Ronald D. Hunt

        you said,

        “They would always be seeking to maintain or move toward whatever their baseline is. (Not all conservatives will necessarily have the same baseline.)”

        I said,

        “in that a conservative who has gone though big changes in the political system will see the way it was as being the correct status quo”

        So actually I think perhaps we agree on this one, but maybe see the same thing from difference angles.

        Reply
        1. David Avatar
          David

          It’s possible we’re seeing the same thing from two angles but tell me this – do you think that a person can have a conservative mindset which is to the left of Russ Feingold? (In other words, is your view of the mindset divorced from the left/right political spectrum?)

          Reply
          1. Ronald D. Hunt Avatar
            Ronald D. Hunt

            I don’t see any reason why not.

            It would be very easy to be a regressive socialist, or a progressive capitalist. You in fact could call Obama and Bill Clinton progressive capitalists. I must admit I can’t think of any regressive socialists off the top of my head tho, Bush maybe it’s not a complete stretch to call the bank bailouts a socialist policy.

          2. David Avatar
            David

            In that case I would say that you were probably right about us having essentially the same view from different perspectives.

  3. Charles D Avatar
    Charles D

    I’m not sure that labels like Conservative, Liberal and Progressive carry much meaning anymore. While the terms can be defined in the way you suggest, I don’t think this provides much of an insight into our current political climate.

    Aside from a few ideological purists like Ron Paul, our national politics is more defined by divergent attitudes about the role of government, and out-and-out corruption. For most inside-the-Beltway operatives, government’s responsibility is or should be quite limited except when it comes to military and law enforcement and those operations should be funded by cutting other government expenditures rather than raising revenue. There are a few Democrats who disagree publicly, but those willing to stand by those statements when the chips are down are a permanent minority.

    Corruption is the key factor however. Washington is awash with money, mostly from corporate special interests, with several lobbyists for every member of Congress working away to either use the resources of government to help their business or block any action by the government that would hurt their business. Ordinary taxpaying citizens are far down the list of priorities for Congressmen and they rely on the money provided by their benefactors to persuade voters to re-elect them in spite of their failure to be responsive to constituents. To take a couple of recent examples, prior to the media blitz of the summer, polls were showing that around 60% of Americans supported a single-payer health care system, but that idea was never on the table because, in the words of my Congressman, it was “not politically viable”. The Afghan War is another example. While at least half of Americans believe we should pull out now, Obama didn’t dare to even float a trial balloon about it and while a few Democrats in Congress talked about a pullout, we will see shortly that the number willing to actually vote against it are very, very few.

    We are no longer a government of, by and for the people – if we ever were. Can we restore democracy? I doubt it since we can’t even have civil discourse most of the time.

    Reply
    1. David Avatar
      David

      I was not thinking of providing any insight into our current political climate, I was trying to illuminate the differences between two generic mindsets. Understanding those differences helps to identify why people with one mindset see things in a fundamentally different way than those with the other mindset and why their completely different goals lead to completely different approaches to most issues.

      Reply
  4. Charles D Avatar
    Charles D

    I think we sometimes assume that politicians make decisions based on ideology when that is not the case. There are some in Congress who are ideologically driven and thus approach problems with a specific mindset, but my feeling is that the majority of politicians are more driven by the desire for personal power than ideology.

    Reply
    1. David Avatar
      David

      I’m not talking about ideology – I’m talking about personal philosophy. It’s possible to have a conservative mindset – in other words a principle/destination driven approach to life (including politics) – with a liberal/left/democratic baseline. People like to cite Ron Paul but Dennis Kucinich is equally principle-driven (as far as I have been able to see).

      That mindset of having a destination, and not simply a direction is sadly lacking among many politically active people on the right as well as the left.

      My description of conservative and progressive was not tied to the left/right, red/blue, or democrat/republican political continuum.

      Reply
  5. Charles D Avatar
    Charles D

    Ideally, all of us would share the same political destination – making America a better place for ourselves and our posterity. We certainly differ as to what methods are effective in reaching that destination, but if we don’t share some common vision of America then how can we continue? It doesn’t matter what label we prefer for our political views, if we share a common dream for America and a common desire for its future, and are grounded in reality, we can work together to realize our dreams.

    Reply
    1. David Avatar
      David

      “Ideally” yes. The trick is that we don’t live in an ideal world. Even where we do share a common desire for the future there are all too many who are not grounded in reality – on various sides of any issue. The trick for the majority who do share the common goal of wanting to make America a better place for ourselves and our posterity is to recognize those who are not grounded in reality and to help get their feet back on the unyielding ground of reality. Besides that, there are some people that do not share the same idea about what we want for the country. I think those people are a very small minority but if it turns out that I am wrong, or that we consistently cannot agree on what will bring about a better future then that is the time when talk of breaking up the nation might actually make more sense than trying to force people together who have no more in common than Sunnis and Shias do.

      Neither of those breakdowns (reality/non-reality, make America better/exploit others) is the same as the breakdown between a conservative mindset and a progressive mindset. I wholeheartedly agree that if we share a common dream for America and are grounded in reality we can always work together to realize our dreams.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *