My latest rant.
The main difference between conservatism and progressivism in my opinion.
Conservatism is staying static or moving backwards towards something, some idea or thought process of the past. Progressivism is moving forward adapting to new thoughts and ideas.
In today's America, people are far more inclined to vote for the other party or candidate rather than for their own party or candidate. For those that do vote FOR a candidate they usually end up regretting it. This is why republicans by and large have nothing to offer except criticism of democrats and vice versa. Let's put politics and politicians aside for a moment. After all we could spend all our time discussing why a certain party or politician is bad. Almost always that's the case in this forum as well as any forum of politics one would care to involve themselves in.
Conservatives lean heavily on arguments such as “We're not ready/prepared for that” or “It's before its time”. How has that argument fared throughout history? It's been nothing short of a colossal failure at all levels. Conservatism wants to take us backwards. How does that benefit mankind? It's like teaching a child to never grow up and instead lean on the past rather than move forward in life.
Society needs to move forward. We need better systems and processes in place for society to flourish rather than flounder. Yet we persist in the thought that arguing over this little point and that little point within a horribly flawed system will gain us freedom, liberty, self rule, preservation, advancement, etc. We need to look at the big picture and stop focusing on the little bullshit that our systems and processes and those that run them want us to focus on. It doesn't serve our purpose and only feeds those already in power who obviously don't have our best interests in mind.
"We need to look at the big picture and stop focusing on the little bullshit that our systems and processes and those that run them want us to focus on."
What a delightful thought to behold! Matters not to me from what ideological perspective it comes because one size fits all. My key word of choice in your statement is BIG. If big means merely larger than partisan frames of reference corralling their herds, its still an improvement. In fact, when it comes to frame size, 'the more the merrier'.
There are, however, many movements in a symphony or rhapsody. I see life and language similarly. One cannot hear a movement or two and know the whole piece or sense how the movements relate to one another.
Language is a chief tool of group overseers in keeping herds contained. New, group centric terms are devised and older terms are maladapted; thereby 'watering down' original meanings via tortured logic, all dictated within the frame. Its how re-education is achieved.
My effort in responding is to run with 'big'. Discovery that there's more to the music of life than simple jingles drummed into our heads in childhood, throughout 'education', then to be sung in choruses of approved rigid melodies. We're better than that as creatures! Our respective cores scream out *to make their own music**.
Self-government has been a charade for decades. Only recently, have all masses, caught a glimpse or two of OZ. I see only three primary areas of political influence. The strongest is from a centralized top; a place our founders tried to avoid ever existing by separating and balancing power. The other two? Left and Right, largely controlled from the top but the peek at Oz has distanced ideological/theological factions of late. Fortunately for our owners, (as planned) Progressive and Conservative groups despise one another. 'Strange bedfellows' takes on a whole new dimension here. Both factions are grasping their tickets for the self government train and are discovering that all they have is each other and an empty track.. This 'big' picture is, however, still quite small and sadly will remain so because fanaticism is self-blinding and who is more blind to the Right than the Socialists and Collectivists. or to the Left than worshipers of a god that doesn't exist and a Constitution they don't understand?
My big picture has been constantly expanding for decades, with hopes that it will continue.
It isn't extrinsic; about evil kings, emperors, dictators, tyrants, injustice, punishment and terror. Those elements are all present but it is intrinsic, long standing and just as blinding as Left and Right ideologies because nobody questions it. It's a 'take it or leave it' given.
Civilization's internalized ideal of family is a familiar, 'safe-zone', regardless of family actual compositions. It is our nascent orientation on the world, instilling an internal sense of rightness, love and security, to whatever extent it is realized. It's universal. It is our mass 'go to' place for feeling good theoretically; even if we didn't experience it individually. Beneath and beyond the superficiality of 'the state', longing for our ideal of what is 'home' will ever dominate consensus in troubled times. That ideal has been more solidly embossed on the individual mind than any theolretical forms of government our kind has contrived or chosen.
Why do our best attempts to 'self-govern' decay ultimately into centralized authoritarianism? Regardless of the empire, we progress only so far down the road to freedom. Then, we become like hungry riding horses who keep trying to turn back to the barn if given 'their head'.
It is said that the family is society's 'building block'; as though family is elemental and not molecular. Not to say that decay of family structures doesn't weaken higher strata. The elemental building block of societies and institutions is individual human character structure. Male character structure, to be specific, has been the DNA - lowest common denominator - of civilizations for at least the last 6 millennia. As a self-inflicted doom, it emerged as a hostile 'coup'. What it established was stratified, exclusive ownership of everything; literally omnipotent 'government' from the top down. Male gods and male despots who invented them provided the templates.
A civilization, I assert, can't be more free and self-governing than the 'stuff' from which it is fabricated. Family defined classically (regardless of recent inroads leading nowhere to remedy), is owned by a strong male who provides for and oversees everything and everyone comprising his household. It is the channel through which love and allowances are granted to subjects based on approved conduct. It is also a place wherein misconduct is clearly defined and, if violated, swiftly punished. Family is the hallowed institution within which human character structure is most severely damaged; the manufacturer of misery because Nature's order of things has no place within it.
Ironically, the familiar is a 'default' sanctuary that masses retreat to in times of fear and want. It is the birthplace of a concept called 'cycle of abuse'.. We do know who provides our necessary fears and wants don't we? If we rejected them, we wouldn't need a protector or saviour, now would we?
Plato told us about this and the founders of our erstwhile republic knew it well.
“This and no other is the root from
which a tyrant springs; when he
first appears he is a protector.”
If humanity can ever find away to foster natural development instead of inflicting damage and return women and children to valued parity in the human family the rest will take care of itself.
Don't expect to be around for it. Big pictures take a long time.
I agree that progressives are about moving forward (with the greater good in mind), but conservatives only only want to maintain the status quo insofar as it means them personally holding on to power and money. Ultimately they are not really "conservative" because they are willing to destroy anything and everything up to and including human civilization and all living species on Earth including our own in order to achieve their aims.
I do tend to vote FOR candidates, hoping that this time I will not be disappointed. But then my dear old dad didn't used to call me "Charlie Brown" for nothing.
Please don’t combine liberalism and progressivism.
Here in SF Bay Area, liberals may donate to progressive activists but their policy may be NIMBY, not in my back yard.
For decades, Dem fundraising mail let me check boxes for conservative, moderate or liberal. Because there was no box for progressive, I refused to donate.
I now get fundraising mail from the DCCC. I write “I support Dems via church/state separation organizations” on the form and return it.
and yet you persist in being part of the system that clearly is broken and flawed. Not to single you out, we are all complicit in it to one extent or another. The system is broke and needs to be completely torn down and rebuilt.
@yvilletom A third party does nothing in regards to tearing down processes and systems of society. What we need is to totally and fundamentally change these processes and systems. That will require the entire planet, not simply a third party in the US. Is that a pipe dream? Perhaps, perhaps not. As the reality of humankind's place in the larger scheme of life itself among all of space becomes more clear so to will man's perspective change. Many of the world's leading scientific minds see it this way. I'm more inclined to listen to them than anyone else.
I have always seen conservatives as basically selfish and progressives as being more generous towards others and more interested in the greater good than their own self interest.
I certainly see that argument yet there are many conservatives that are church going people that give tremendously to others without asking for anything in return. Therefore I wouldn't boil it down to that. To me it's about forwards or backwards, simply put.
@FvckY0u That may be true that many conservatives are church goers that are generous to strangers, etc., but at the same time, I bet those same conservatives vote for Repubs like Trump that are NOT generous or compassionate towards others, and to me that matters just as much or more than mission trips that conservatives go on or what they contribute to strangers. In other words, their individual acts of mercy and charity are more than undone by their political support of uncompassionate Repubs who want to dominate and oppress those who are different than them.
@TomMcGiverin My point being that it is more about what is in the mind, rather than what is in the heart. Many conservative "feel" compassionate but their minds say otherwise. I think, on this point we are in agreement.
@FvckY0u My attitude is that they can "feel" as compassionate as they want, in their own minds, or be as Christlike as they want in their individual acts, but as long as they support fascist Repubs, in my mind they are neither compassionate nor Christian. They have sold out their religion for political power and they are both hypocrites and their religion no longer has any moral legitimacy to me either.
@TomMcGiverin nor should it. I just wish people would think far beyond right, middle and left and realize the entire system is fucked. Unless the system is tore down and rebuilt it an equitable fashion we're simply a dog chasing our tail.
@FvckY0u Well you are certainly right about all that. It really is more about up and down, rather than left and right, like the Occupy Movement said so well, the 1% against the 99%. Everything else is mostly just a distraction. It is all about those with all the money and power against those who don't. With all the bought pols in DC in the middle working to keep the lid on things and serve the 1% while pretending to care about the 99% just long enough to get their votes and then forget about them in between elections.
I would say liberalism is for the status quo while progressiveism is for moving forward..
I see your point, although for the purposes of this particular post I would consider it splitting hairs. Yet, the use of the term "progressiveness" vs "liberalism" is likely more accurate as you point out.
Agreed, I don't see most liberals as much better than the conservatives these days. The liberals don't care about changing the status quo, as far as economic equality that would cost them or corporate America anything. Instead, they only seem to care about PC, identity politics, and preventing theocracy. Well it's their indifference to economic reform, and the working class, as well as their support for corporate Dems and the DNC, that have given us Trump and now the very real threat of theocracy coming here soon. They deserve as much blame for all that as the Repubs...
@TomMcGiverin If one is working within the system then by their own actions they are complicit in the system. Simple as that and unfortunately we are all guilty as charged.
@FvckY0u Some less than others. I vote third party every chance I get, so my hands are cleaner... and in primaries, I always vote for the most progressive Dem, which means I almost always lose, but I can have a cleaner conscience than most liberals, for sure...
@FvckY0u I agree. Both parties protect America’s ruling class.
A ruling class may support representative democracy, or oligarchy. They do not support democracy, which in America requires the direct initiative, referendum, and recall.
Fewer than twenty states have those. If you want to learn more about your state, visit [ballotpedia.org] and write your state’s name followed by “ballot measures” in the search box. Some state constitutions, esp. eastern, are hostile to democracy, as America’s founders were.
I'd rather reach for the sky than chase my own tail. I won't reach my goal but the journey will be far more rewarding than chasing my own tail around my entire life.