On the Subject of Progressivism and Conservatism

[New Bremerton]

If I believe that liberal traditions should be defended at all costs, what does that make me? Liberal or conservative?

Progressivism doesn’t really have traditions. It’s kind of inherent to the movement.

If you’re talking about actual liberalism, that’s more concerned with economic freedom or universal rights than traditions.

I'm not progressive and I believe progressives in the West have lost their way, but I remain steadfastly liberal. Just as conservatism stands for preserving or restoring age-old traditions and customs, no matter how regressive, at all costs, progressivism stands for change, no matter how reckless, at all costs. Both ideologies are dogmatic and absolutist, and I subscribe to neither.

I personally don't think I qualify as a conservative, partly because I've always identified as a liberal since I was a teenager, partly because I disagree with actual conservatives on many issues and reject the idea of "Judeo-Christian" values, partly because I'm not entirely averse to change so long as it's the right kind of change and for the right reasons and I don't believe in upholding traditions at all costs, and partly because there are many different strands of conservatism. Iran and Saudi Arabia are deeply conservative, for instance, but no mainstream conservative in the West would ever support stoning homosexuals and adulterers to death, keeping women covered and at home, or curtailing the free speech rights of those who criticize Islam by murdering them.

As a self-identified defender of "liberal traditions", I identify as a liberal, but I'm aware that other defenders of classical liberal values identify as conservative, and I suspect this has to do with more than just semantics. There are other underlying differences between liberal and conservative defenders of classical liberalism.The term "libertarianism" is often subject to similar treatment, with right- and left-leaning libertarians differing on issues such as abortion and immigration, or in my case, the death penalty.

Say these liberal universal rights and freedoms have been around in my country for centuries, and one day, an illiberal, authoritarian ideology comes along and threatens to shatter all of the freedoms we hold dear and implement communism, fascism, sharia or some other Orwellian nightmare. Would defending these centuries-old, classical liberal values from illiberal-minded folks make me a conservative, even though I'm not averse to change, or is the term "liberal traditions" an oxymoron?

[True Refuge]

Progressivism doesn’t really have traditions. It’s kind of inherent to the movement.

If you’re talking about actual liberalism, that’s more concerned with economic freedom or universal rights than traditions.

I'm not progressive and I believe progressives in the West have lost their way, but I remain steadfastly liberal. Just as conservatism stands for preserving or restoring age-old traditions and customs, no matter how regressive, at all costs, progressivism stands for change, no matter how reckless, at all costs. Both ideologies are dogmatic and absolutist, and I subscribe to neither.

I personally don't think I qualify as a conservative, partly because I've always identified as a liberal since I was a teenager, partly because I disagree with actual conservatives on many issues and reject the idea of "Judeo-Christian" values, partly because I'm not entirely averse to change so long as it's the right kind of change and for the right reasons and I don't believe in upholding traditions at all costs, and partly because there are many different strands of conservatism. Iran and Saudi Arabia are deeply conservative, for instance, but no mainstream conservative in the West would ever support stoning homosexuals and adulterers to death, keeping women covered and at home, or curtailing the free speech rights of those who criticize Islam by murdering them.

As a self-identified defender of "liberal traditions", I identify as a liberal, but I'm aware that other defenders of classical liberal values identify as conservative, and I suspect this has to do with more than just semantics. There are other underlying differences between liberal and conservative defenders of classical liberalism.The term "libertarianism" is often subject to similar treatment, with right- and left-leaning libertarians differing on issues such as abortion and immigration, or in my case, the death penalty.

Say these liberal universal rights and freedoms have been around in my country for centuries, and one day, an illiberal, authoritarian ideology comes along and threatens to shatter all of the freedoms we hold dear and implement communism, fascism, sharia or some other Orwellian nightmare. Would defending these centuries-old, classical liberal values from illiberal-minded folks make me a conservative, even though I'm not averse to change, or is the term "liberal traditions" an oxymoron?

Your perspectives on mainstream progressivism and conservatism are a little warped. Cultural beliefs are on a spectrum. The public’s perception of wha both ideologies actually stand for and the breadth of people included under each label has been considerably warped by quite a few things, media being a prominent one.

The cultural axis of progressivism-traditionalism is separate from the economic and freedom axes. Classical liberalism doesn’t really deal with that axis beyond “let people do what they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on others’ rights”, which has a non-insignificant place on the cultural axis but is really more concerned with the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum.

[Emulation White]

I can't speak for your first question, but I can offer this; there is no such thing as (Western) Traditionalism. The current perception of Western Traditionalism is illusory and a construction. Let's get into it...

•The illusion of Nobility associated with Monarchism: Instead of the rosy view currently propagated; Monarchism is the result of political and economic exploitation, deception, nepotism and force. Monarchism is not the result of Divine and Just leaders assuming their rightful throne; it is the result of ambition and cunning, like organized crime.

•The way you and most others percieve Traditionalism is not accurate because social mores have constantly changed: "Traditionalists" support Law and Order, but have conveniently turned their backs on their ancestors who survived through brutal murder, stealing, raiding and cannibalism after stepping out of the primordial soup. "Traditionalists" support family values, yet do not practice the time honored tradition of honor killing. How about dueling? When a man disrespects you, do you believe in the right in fighting him to the death? If not, once again, where is the tradition? What about bride kidnapping? Where is its renaissance? Human sacrifice, ritual scarring, prostitution, hello, are you there?

So, what masquerades as "Traditionalism" today is merely moral posturing born from the West's obsession with humanism and comfort. Natural Law? More like cherry picked conveniences expediant to one's world view...

You are not incorrect, but I think you misunderstand the concept of a traditionalist ideal in relation to a traditionalist reality. It is true, that in its worst form modern traditionalism is, as you said, simply moral posturing from the high ground provided by modern extreme material well-being. But likewise, there can be heard (less on the internet) a more calm and reserved traditionalism, that has respect for modern plentitude as the fruits of a noble tree, but which knows that without its healthy roots, the tree will wither and die.

And when traditionalism is specified as opposed to a tradition what is not meant is a singular practise, traditional or not, such as dueling, stoning or human sacrifice. What is meant is thinking that is subject to a timeless ideal. It is from men that have held such high ideals that all the fruits of modernity have originated.

There has not existed in history a civilization which neglected the importance of maintaining healthy traditions, as such civilizations die off relatively quickly. To truly progress, and not regress, a civilization needs to orient itself towards a timeless, or eternal, ideal.

Sure, I think that's been dubbed "perenialism" by Julius Evola or Rene Guenon. So, if we're just talking about common sense or pragmatism, why try to dress it up in fanciful semantics? I'm a bit sceptical about any given ideal having an immortal lifespan in which it is eternally beneficial; context can be vital. I'd be curious of any ideals you have to share that you consider to fit the bill.

[Nakena]

Progressivism doesn’t really have traditions.

Actually it does. Modern progressivism as ideological movement has its own traditions, has its own landmark events and much more.

[True Refuge]

Progressivism doesn’t really have traditions.

Actually it does. Modern progressivism as ideological movement has its own traditions, has its own landmark events and much more.

I don’t see how a movement based on accelerating social and cultural reform has traditions as an inherent component, as opposed to current progressive individuals creating tradition based on progressivism’s success.

[The Noviaskiet]

Liberalism and conservativism don’t really have solid ideological bounds. They constantly change based on the socioeconomic, geopolitical, and social climates of the world around (i.e paleo conservativism being an adaptation of traditional values to the modern day, and neoliberalism being profit progress capitalism).

[Nakena]

I don’t see how a movement based on accelerating social and cultural reform has traditions as an inherent component, as opposed to current progressive individuals creating tradition based on progressivism’s success.

Thats what I mean. Like for example the Stonewall Riots are often cited as a formative landmark event in progressive history, specifically the LGBT movement.

Liberalism and conservativism don’t really have solid ideological bounds. They constantly change based on the socioeconomic, geopolitical, and social climates of the world around (i.e paleo conservativism being an adaptation of traditional values to the modern day, and neoliberalism being profit progress capitalism).

Yes. Things are existing within their contemporary environment.

[Neu Leonstein]

Progressives, Democrats, Socialists (National and Marxist), Populists, and Liberals alike. Share with me this, why do you uphold the beliefs that you do? To what end do they serve you individually, or satisfy your basic human needs?

I would say that underneath my support for many "progressive" and liberal causes is an underlying lack of belief in a higher goal or purpose to life. The universe isn't sentient, nor do I believe it was created by a sentient being to serve a particular purpose that has anything to do with us.

The only thing we can be reasonably sure is sentient (for all practical purposes) is us. To the extent that there is any thinking about the best way to spend our time on this earth to be done, we're the only ones able to do it.

That can be hard. Some people described the need to make these sorts of judgements as "anguish" inherent to our existence.

But it is what it is. We have to make these decisions, and each of us carries that as their own burden. No one else is inherently better placed to carry that burden for us.

When it comes to both social and political issues then, the default stance here is a strong tendency towards individualism. I can tell you what I think constitutes a good life, but you're the only one who can either agree or disagree.

Our societies ought to be organised in a way that respects this basic principle. Maybe you think a good life for a woman consists of getting married at 16 and having 7 kids. Maybe you think it consists of getting really really drunk every night while watching reality TV on your couch. I can judge those choices for myself. I can argue against your view. But again, without some sort of objective truth outside my or your head, it's hard to be definitive.

That's not to say that it's impossible. It's always worth investigating facts or building logical arguments that hold regardless of opinion. It is possible to show that some life choices are inherently contradictory. And obviously there are plenty of choices that take away choices that others would have been able to make.

But what is not a good argument is one that's based on precedent. There are only two arguments for socially illiberal systems. One is some version of "god said so". That argument is not terribly interesting to me - even if God exists, no religion has demonstrated a superior ability to identify what exactly we should therefore do. The other is "look, this has worked in the past". But that's a claim that depends entirely on what we know about the past. And in truth, what we know about the past is limited. We know about the deeds of various leaders within certain societies, or at least what their immediate successors cared to record about them. But we know very little about the impact of social rules and expectations on people's happiness.

So conservatism is sometimes argued for from an outcomes-based perspective. But that argument is invariably circular. It's down version of "mediaeval peasant girls were happier than today's teenage girls because the social environment didn't give them choice X". And the evidence for the claim is that the conservative thinks that choice X leads to unhappiness, or is wrong in some other way.

Which leaves the principles-based justification for conservatism as an outlook. And that invariably requires a belief in an absolute set of principles by which to judge what a good life is. By all means, let me know when you've found evidence of it. But until then, giving individuals the freedom to make that decision for themselves is the only reasonable course of action.

[Deacarsia]

A simple question has been on my mind for some time now, and I feel a great need to understand the rationale behind it. The forum may not be the best place to seek such understanding, but it is the most relevant nevertheless.

Progressives, Democrats, Socialists (National and Marxist), Populists, and Liberals alike. Share with me this, why do you uphold the beliefs that you do? To what end do they serve you individually, or satisfy your basic human needs?

Fellow Monarchists, Republicans, Traditionalists and advocates of all that is tried, true, and of the Natural Law and Heavenly Order. What are your individual reasons for standing with the foundation of Western society? Elaborate, if you will, on what draws you to the morals and virtues that have stood true for centuries, and how you feel we could benefit best by returning to such noble principles.

A simple answer comes to my mind now.

I stand for the foundation of Western society, because it is the greatest civilization in the history of the world. No other civilization has been so free, so morally just, and so blessed by God, Who saw fit to place the head and heart of His Church in the belly of the decadent Roman Empire; and in so doing He transformed it into the model and crux of all that is good, true, and beautiful in this poor world of sin and sorrow.

It is for this I live, for this I fight, and for this I shall die.

GLORIA·IN·EXCELSIS·DEO·AVE·CHRISTVS·REX

[West Leas Oros 2]

I'm a communist, and as far as I'm concerned, I don't know where I lie on the whole "progressive v. conservative" thing, because it never really seemed to matter to me. If you consider the idea of universal and natural rights to be on one side or the other, then I suppose i'm on that side. If you consider the philosophy of "do as you will and let others do the same, unless it actively harms people or keeps them from exercising this same principle" to be on one side or the other, then I suppose i'm on that side.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Of the Scandinavian/Nordic model countries, only Norway was actually socialist at any point (that being the period of Labour Party majority in the 40s, 50s, and early 60s. Even then, it wasnt not really a planned economy, since the Labour Party prioritized Keynesian economics over the pursuit of a completely socialist system, and the party distanced itself from the more radical communists of the time.


How so?



Do you oppose discrimination based on the parts of a person's identity that person cannot choose or change (e.g sex, race, etc.)?

Definitions? What definitions?

How would it confuse the populace?

1. Interesting. It still caused a significant drop in their economy, however, so my point still stands.

Actually it didn't. Norway was the richest country in Europe by per capita GDP even before they discovered oil, as the below article shows, and Sweden had a post-war boom during the so-called "Record Years", which wasn't negatively affected by social democratic policies (The event that did end the boom was the 1973 oil crisis caused by Saudi Arabia's embargo on the west, which affected every economy, leftwing and rightwing). Denmark also experienced high levels of economic growth during the post-war boom when social democratic parties dominated. Here are the relevant articles:
https://medium.com/@Jernfrost/no-norway ... b58dd365e5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(1945–1967)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... rk#History

[Walrusvylon]

Conservatism, as a principle is the foundation of a healthy society, and can never be defeated. Much as we will never be rid of self-absorbed cynics who lose faith in Heaven, in family, and in the Natural Law. Nothing ever changes, it always has been, and ever will be, a perpetual war between those who accept reality, so seeking to conserve a stable way of life, and those tempted to pointlessy chase after fantasies that the nature of Man can ever be changed.

Could I assume that you don't believe that 8 year olds should be working in coal mines? That you aren't opposed to a woman having her own bank account? That you don't think there should be separate drinking fountains for whites and non-whites?

Because if I am right in making those assumptions, then the conservatives of the last century would not think of you as a conservative at all, and they would certainly have to admit defeat if they saw the modern world.

There is nothing wrong with #1; however safety standards are of course important. #2 depends on her marital status; that is, I am an in favor of coverture. As for #3, the Federal government has no business caring. Although I wouldn't call myself a conservative for this reason; as you deftly pointed out, conservatives conserve nothing. Conservatism is nothing. This is why I am a reactionary. A little late to the party, I know.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Could I assume that you don't believe that 8 year olds should be working in coal mines? That you aren't opposed to a woman having her own bank account? That you don't think there should be separate drinking fountains for whites and non-whites?

Because if I am right in making those assumptions, then the conservatives of the last century would not think of you as a conservative at all, and they would certainly have to admit defeat if they saw the modern world.

There is nothing wrong with #1; however safety standards are of course important.

As a matter of fact it is wrong, especially in hazardous environments such as coal mines:
https://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/WorstFor ... /index.htm
https://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/lang--en/index.htm