Conservative vs Progressive

Posted by Ron

January 22, 2009

The never ending battle continues

By Ron McBride

There are two ways to try to problem-solve ethnicity-colored conflicts, approaches that have traditionally been pegged as right and left. Or conservative and progressive. There is no conservative solution anymore. There is no “winning” an ethnic conflict by force.

Conservative, by its very definition, values tradition, the way things were before, and prefers incremental change, if any. Progressives’ value change and radical change more, thinking a better society is ahead of us - they are less enamored of the way things were.

Changes in our environment - physical and sociopolitical - forces change and evolution on us, which means those who are more willing to adapt to new circumstances stand a better shot at surviving. We don’t live in a static world, and clinging to tradition or resisting change, can be deadly - for a species, a person, for an idea, for a movement. All nations were once kingdoms and aristocracies, and democracy and meritocracy would have been considered radical or progressive, not conservative ideas. A couple hundred years ago, saying a slave should be free would have been progressive, not conservative. Fifty years ago, opposing segregation would have been a progressive opinion, not a conservative one.

It seems conservatives keep on being on the losing side of history. There’s an arc of progress, and it moves inexorably in one direction.

A good chunk of what it means to be conservative is a suspicion of other groups, and a heightened sense of the worth of one’s own group. Which is why conservatives are usually seen as more jingoistic, patriotic, nationalistic, willing to use force, proud of their culture and its icons, militaristic, vengeful, harder on immigrants, guarded about nations that have a culture different than theirs, and assume that the world out there is an unfriendly place. That is essentially, tribal… It harkens back to when our ancestors were always fighting for survival, where other groups could raid them in the night and kill them. Where bloodlines mattered. The conservatives had primacy, especially when the tribe felt it was under existential threat. Oh how things haven’t changed!

Progressive is on the other side of that continuum. While there is still an instinctive distrust of other groups we are genetically wired with, progressives downplay that instinct and the other instincts mentioned above. They try to “understand” the other groups more, and are more willing to see value in their practices. I am not exactly sure how this trait became an advantage, but it must have been one in times between wars. Maybe it was the cooperation attitude (vs. the competitive one of the conservative tribe’s people). Maybe it was the ability to make alliances with other groups so that survival against larger aggressors would be possible. Maybe it was the ability to be open enough to other groups to inter-marry, resulting in alliances or cooperation. Maybe it was the curiosity to experiment with new things (stone tools, LSD, etc!) that helped the progressives demonstrate their value for survival.

Maybe both were needed - the conservative who was best at ensuring short-term physical security, and the progressive on whom cooperation, change and innovation depended. In other words, all progress.

However the march of civilization and checks and balances has made it so that physical security is a concern only in certain isolated hotspots around the world now. Only a minority of people live in existential fear of being snuffed out by members of another “tribe.” And some of that fear is not real - like people in Wyoming who feel physically at risk from Al Qaeda, because of what they watched on TV after Sept 11.

Hence, the need for conservatives is ebbing around the world, and the definition of what it is to be a conservative is constantly in retreat. What would have been considered conservative 100 years ago would be considered racist or KKK-territory now. Conservatives keep on getting more liberal over the decades, especially on the group/race issue.

Conquest, to change facts on the ground permanently through force does not work in most cases now. Saddam found that out in Kuwait, Israel will find that with the 1967 advance and annexation of East Jerusalem, and in a way, so have we in Iraq. Before the “underlying grievance” could be brutally suppressed. Now we live in an interconnected world that makes it harder to dominate that way.

The sun is not only setting continually on conservatives, but there are no “conservative solutions” possible in ethnic conflicts in this day and age, because of constraints that exist and will only get stronger.

Gone are the days that force alone could ensure a resolution by brutally killing and dominating a population until it gave up. Gone are the days of “victory.” Now an international system tamps down on such “crushing” victories. We, even as a hyper power, are too dependent on the rest of the world for our standard of living to do something so heinous that it stops working with us - like nuke a nation that didn’t nuke us. Israel, despite being joined at the hip of said power, recognizes even it cannot be completely immune to civilian death tolls of the other side. There are also internal, domestic pressures as well - as democracies, we can’t let our king go around butchering people we see on TV - it affects our own high opinion of our humanity. But there are exceptions - warlords in Africa can engineer genocides that are enabled by a paucity of visual evidence - but that domination does not always come without consequence or retribution. Justice comes slowly, but it does come in many places.

Structurally, when there is a substantial conflict and complete domination by one is not possible, the final, stable equilibrium resolution exists in the middle of the two positions. Now imagine each side has a progressive party and a conservative party. The final status solution lies closer to the positions of the progressive parties of each side. They have to climb-down much less than the conservative parties of each side. So the progressive parties have a better chance of resolving the conflict, as long as they have enough authority among their people. This is sometimes the problem progressive/moderate peacemakers have. Their chosen solution is the ultimate solution, but they can’t sell it. Sometimes they need a conservative/warrior to provide “cover” for the peace deal.

So “understanding” Islamic fascists, while anathema to some, might be an essential tool to bring peace - and security. They are human like you and I, and despite the superficial differences we instinctively notice (language, appearance, clothing, faith, mannerisms) and latch on to because of our tribal wiring, the reality is that we have far more in common with them than our instincts allow us to recognize. They were children once, played, had friends, crushes, love their family and children deeply; enjoy food, friends and laughter. They seek dignity, an absence of humiliation, and freedom from tyranny or racism. And the ability to protect and provide for those that depend on them. These are universal human traits, and they share them with us. Everyone in Hamas. Even the suicide bombers.

Part of the environmental changes we will face is increasing cross-pollination of cultures due to labor, production and capital mobility. Teamwork, collaboration and cooperation are everywhere. Inter-ethnic marriages are on the rise. Old cultures and languages are melding, diluting, ending. People who are better able to “understand” other groups are likely to be at an advantage. Being able to put ourselves in other people’s shoes, imagine that we were born into their culture and situation. These people will command a greater following and their power will rise. Obama is a sign of that change. He is not the kind of guy to think, like Bush, that the “Islamic fascist” in inherently “evil”, and end all thought there. He would ask why, and try to understand why that guy thinks the way he does. For everything has a reason, a rational one, and usually a reasonable one.

I am convinced that 100 years from now, people in Asia, the West and in Israel will look back on this West vs. Islam string of tensions and conflicts with a snobbish eye - kind of the way we now look at past brutes like Stalin. Jews in Tel Aviv will have books that look back on the Mideast conflict with embarrassment at what they engaged in, and some of the heroes now will be regarded as brutal men. The same will happen with the Palestinians. I know some of us doubt it, but let’s dial back our cultural/ethnic urges for a moment.

The acceptable range of what is considered humane will evolve to what we consider utopian today. Some will say - that’s fine, but we live now, in the present, and should do anything we can get away with in our fights with others.

I think we should act now in a way we want to be remembered a century from now, not what we can get away with at this moment. That’s not utopian; that’s self-respect.

[Editor's Note; This article came to me in an email, not sure of who the original author is, but will award credit when identified.]

Share This Article: