Political parties and movements come and go. They evolve and adapt. They may be characterized by moderate positions or extreme, populist or establishment. But, there is always, in any civilization or society, a struggle between conservative and progressive forces. The current political climate in the US is so characterized by divisive party politics, pitting democrat against republican, that I feel it worth exploring the underlying characterization of these political groups, in terms that are independent of the histories of the parties themselves and more descriptive of the roles each currently embody in our political discourse.
Conservatism is most characterized by resistance to change, often to the point of advocating for regression to a previous state of affairs, essentially reversing progressive gains. Progressivism, in contrast, favors change. The political discourse at any point in a society is a tug of war between these forces.
What predisposes one to be conservative? Conservatism is generally opposed to change, save for regressive change that seeks to revert to an earlier state. This favors the status quo, as defined over the long term history of the political system. Absent significant and transformative progressive change to a system, and often even despite significant progressive change, political systems tend to favor those that were responsible for their creation. The founders of a system tend to be ossified into a position of power and privilege. Despite China’s current system of government bearing little resemblance to Marxism, the communist party retains power and, despite reforms, the government proves resistant to progressive change that threatens that dominance. While the monarch of England wields little power today, the institution remains, and the English aristocracy continues to be a powerful and privileged political and economic force. In the US, despite emancipation and universal suffrage, the halls of power remain dominated by white men. Those that benefit most from the current and/or historical system are most benefited by conservative policy and most threatened by progressive change. Those that already enjoy wealth and power are therefore likely to be conservative in their views, as are those most like the founders (white property owners primarily and males secondarily, in the US specifically and the western developed world in general).
Conservatism is also typically dominated by the older generation for several reasons. Older people tend to be more economically comfortable but are also less tolerant of economic risk as they get older. Change and experimentation are risky, and progressivism tends to favor the disenfranchised over the economic establishment. Older people are also more predisposed to nostalgia for the time of their youth. Nostalgia is inherently a biased recollection of the past, a selective remembering that glorifies the good and minimizes the bad.
The youth, contrarily, are more likely to be idealistic and desire to remake the system according to their values. In contrast to nostalgic elders, they magnify the shortcomings of the past. They are often still struggling economically and thus seek change that will benefit them in achieving economic success.
So, we should expect most conservatives to: 1) hold economic and social/political power, 2) have the most characteristics in common with the founders of the political system, and 3) be members of the older generation. It is not difficult to verify that this is largely the case for the conservative Republican party in the US, the membership of which is primarily old, wealthy, white, and male. While this characterizes the core of the GOP, I will later address the not at all insignificant numbers of conservatives that do not share all of those characteristics. For now, it will suffice to say that any one such characteristic can be sufficient for an individual to see their self interest as being best aligned with conservatism. Others may lean conservative, despite conservatism not being in their self interest, as a result of convincing propaganda and/or simply out of an overriding opposition to the current progressive alternative(s).
Insofar as conservatism favors stasis or regression, progressivism is, of course, fundamentally a movement of change. It bears noting that change is not always synonymous with progress, but its advocates at least always believe the change for which they advocate is positive, progressive change. Even the most extreme and destructive of progressives who advocate for total dismantling of the current system do so with the ultimate goal of a better replacement. However, both sides, particularly at the extreme, may favor policy that is better only for some, at the expense of others.
If conservatism is the politics of, broadly, the establishment then progressivism is the politics of the underclass, the disenfranchised, the economically disadvantaged, the counterculture. Regarding the ideas of establishment and culture, when applied broadly to the whole system, over the longer term, the establishment and dominant culture are protected best by conservatism. Progressivism better represents the advancement of the counterculture and the anti-establishment. Sub-groups though have their own localized culture and establishment. In the US presidential election of 2016, both Trump and Bernie Sanders rode a tide of populist sentiment against the establishment within, respectively, the conservative and progressive political parties. When two political parties trade power for a long time, the trend will be toward conservatism, which, as I’ve noted, favors the existing power structure. At some point a newer, more progressive counter movement will naturally emerge. What was once the progressive party may become the conservative, and the former conservative party, having drifted to extreme positions, no longer represents the views of enough of the populace to remain relevant. Periods of, often extreme, backlash notwithstanding, the overwhelming trend of history is progress.
Thus neither conservatism or progressivism are, at their core, about any particular values or policies, so much as they are about which segment of the population they most represent. Some values and policies are generally associated with one or the other--social welfare aims to benefit the disadvantaged and is almost always a progressive goal, whereas nationalism is inherently a celebration of the dominant national culture and is, as such, usually associated with conservatism. However, all politicians will tout their patriotism and love for country, and even conservatives are beholden to the preservation of entrenched entitlements that benefit their constituents significantly. Other abstract ideals, like ‘freedom’, are much more buzzwords than any core characteristic of policy--conservatives have no issue restricting the growing freedoms of individuals to engage in activity that was considered taboo in bygone days, and progressives are happy to restrict the freedoms of individuals and businesses seen to infringe on universal rights.
If conservatism and progressivism are then most defined not by what they represent but by whom they represent, then how to explain those conservatives and progressives who do not match the expected demographic?
While progressive politics largely favor the disenfranchised, often at the expense of the establishment, not all progressives are themselves disenfranchised, just as not all conservatives are themselves members of the established power structure. Many within the establishment act altruistically in their politics, believing the moral obligation to fairness and equality outweighs any harm to them that might result from progressive change. Moderate progressives, particularly, often believe that policy benefiting the disadvantaged will create a stronger society overall, which will in turn benefit them with greater economic growth and social stability. For example, progressive policy positions on things like universal healthcare and equal access to education are touted by progressives as being universally beneficial to the greater society. This ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ principle that President Obama was fond of referencing is a compelling argument for even those most comfortable members of the current system to believe that their station, and that of their progeny, could benefit from progressive policy. Thus, many progressives who favor change despite benefiting from the current system do so out of a symbiotic combination of altruism and self-interest.
Thus, it is not difficult to understand why a person privileged under the status quo might lean progressive, but it is a bit more perplexing to consider why someone underprivileged would align with conservatism, when progressive policy would materially benefit them. Even if progressive policy were to negatively impact an individual who benefits in the current system, such an individual has enough to spare, whereas someone with little means can less afford to support politics that negatively impact them. There are a number of, usually interrelated, factors that explain this apparent paradox.
As noted earlier, conservatives in the US are overwhelmingly old, wealthy, white, and male, but, for a given individual, any one or several of those can take primacy. While I do not hold that all conservatives are white supremacists (although the current GOP is trending more and more alarmingly in that direction), if one is actually a white supremacist, they would certainly be aligned with conservatism, in a system founded upon white supremacist notions.
Wealth is another powerful determina for conservative politics. For many, economics is far more important than any other individual characteristic, and conservatism most directly favors the wealthy.
Age, along with the achievement of success despite the impediments of the dominant power structure, can also play a role. Despite the association with white supremacy, an older black male could identify with conservative opposition to change and a negative view of youth culture associated with progressivism. While most young black americans are engaged in the struggle against the racism that continues to impact their lives, an older black person who experienced desegregation and the gains in equality won by the Civil Rights movement might feel the youth are simply lazy and casting themselves as victims. A naturalized citizen, likewise, might be negatively disposed towards undocumented immigrants. There are many variations on the ‘I did it; why can’t you’ theme that brings people into alignment with conservatism who would otherwise be expected to lean progressive.
Another powerful motivator on both sides relates to single issue focus. If a person’s chief concern is taxation, abortion, healthcare, gun control or gun rights, or any other number of controversial issues, they will have little choice but to pick the party that supports their position on that one issue.
Finally, all of these factors are amplified and exacerbated by the use of sensationalized fear tactics in the media and electoral politics. Particularly in a wealthy country like the US, where only a minority subset are truly uncomfortable enough to devote a great deal of energy to promoting change, inspirational calls for progressive change are not nearly as effective for rallying the populace as fear of the allegedly disastorous effects of the opposition’s policy on their comfort. We may all want more, but, at least in American culture, there is an individualistic tendency to believe we can achieve our goals on our own, so we are more easily motivated politically by the threat of government taking something away from us, whether that be our firearms, our access to reproductive health, the health of our planet, our ability to accumulate and retain wealth, our identity or heritage, or what have you. Fear is a great motivator, and both sides use it heavily. The media also is happy to abet the political player in this gambit, since fear is compelling and easiest to sensationalize, and sensationalism attracts viewers, clicks, or subscribers.
While both ends of the spectrum capitalize on the motivating, galvanizing power of fear, conservatism is the most naturally positioned to do so. Conservatism is most often the politics of opposition. It makes sense; what would the politics of the status quo be but opposition to change? Even when conservatives hold power, they are most concerned not with pro-active policy initiatives but with undoing progressive changes to revert to an earlier state. Fear of change is an easier sell than fear of not changing. Progressives most effective use of fear is in selling fear of losing progressive progress, along with fear of the cost of doing nothing. The american Republican party has capitalized on fear masterfully. Through talk radio and Fox news, and web media/social networks, it has sustained a constant stream of fear-inducing media to its consumers. Its co-opting of the Christian faithful since the 1980s, largely on singular social issues, at least initially, have swelled the ranks of poorer conservatives tremendously. What may have begun as an alignment on cultural division between socially conservative Christians and secular progressives has, with the help of right wing media, blossomed into broader policy alignment, with significant swaths of Christians and churches favoring policies that seem the antithesis of traditional Christian ideals.
Fear is perhaps the most prevalent political motivator in current US politics. Fear fosters division; division fosters fear. Politicians and the media benefit from both, so they in turn stoke it further. This, in turn, feeds into the general disillusionment of the populace with politicians who offer scant hope or inspiration, relying on the safer course of fear mongering to gain votes. Thus most voters find themselves voting against the opposition as opposed to for any candidate. Always the lesser evil, never the greater good. This increasingly predisposes the populace to support for populist movements on either side and enmity for the establishment on both sides. Disillusionment can reach a point for many such that policy becomes less important than the desire for a populist leader (see Bernie supporters that voted for his policy antithesis Donald Trump).
Up to this point, while you may have inferred some (and I admittedly may have implied some), I have not made any value judgements regarding conservatism or progressivism. I’ll hit that now. Not only are, as history amply demonstrates, conservatism and progressivism both inevitable divisions in the political discourse, they are both necessary. While both claim to best represent the interests of all, they, in reality, and certainly when unchecked by an opposing force, represent certain sectors of the populace more. While I, as a progressive, might see some justice in an extreme victory of racially progressive politics that deprived whites of power and property, accumulated with the aid of a system crafted to benefit whites often at the expense, to varying degrees over American history, of those of African descent, and redistributed property and power to non-whites, that would greatly harm me and other whites almost certainly to the detriment of the larger social system, including the directly benefited black Americans. Conservatives may espouse a desire to return to the policies of 1788, but many would find themselves rapidly among the homeless without Social Security or Medicare. Resumption of slavery would likely also go poorly for everyone. Triumphs of the most extreme ends of the spectrum are rarely beneficial to the health of the system. As noted earlier, conservatism functions most naturally as a force of opposition. Since progressivism seeks change and is often characterized by idealism, this makes for a potentially harmonious struggle of ideals, with conservatism acting as an anchor around the legs of progressivism, a skeptical check on its idealism, forcing progressives to refine policy goals and make them more inclusive of the interests of all. After all, while the targets of progressive policy are the disenfranchised, when their plight is alleviated at too great an expense to the establishment, the greater system can be destabilized, to the detriment of all. While conservatives should understand that correcting injustice and promoting equality of opportunity is not necessarily fostering a culture of victimhood or weakness, progressives must also bear in mind that possession of wealth and power is not synonymous with any sort of malevolence.
The most glaring problem we currently face in the US is that of extreme polarization that continues to be fed and exacerbated by politicians and media capitalizing on fear and division, rather than seeking common ground and unity and a give and take exchange resulting in tempered progress. The solution is clear: we must all arm ourselves to the teeth and fight it out. Kidding. I believe the actual solution will require some fundamental changes to the way we deliver and process information and the way we manifest democratic government. That is another project I am at work on, to be expounded upon another day. In the meantime, we should, at minimum, recognize that we are being deliberately manipulated towards fear and division. It is often appropriate to be fearful and to be angry. It is right to speak out against harm and injustice. However, it is rarely ever counterproductive to seek consensus. It does not require a betrayal of one’s ideals or values to seek better understanding of those that disagree. Fear and anger may often be righteous, but they are much more rarely useful. I am a reasonably successful white male from an relatively affluent and privileged background. That my level of success is not much greater is due entirely to my own personal shortcomings and in no part to any sort of social disadvantage, so it is very easy for me to call for unity and understanding. However, I do believe sincerely that we must strive for greater common understanding, which leads hopefully to greater unity. The alternative of continued increasing division leads to war, if not violent conflict than a war of ideas in which ultimately one side must win. Where there are losers, there remains the potential for backlash, for insurgency. It is not realistic to think we will ever achieve unanimity, but we must reduce the current state of animosity to realize a healthy society. Again, I am not advocating for apologist centrist thinking that makes allowances for immoral positions, simply to recognize each other’s basic humanity. Few arrived at their positions out of a real desire for harm to others. By better understanding those that disagree with us, we pave the way for progress instead of vitriolic gridlock.