“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins....." - G.K. Chesterton
This post seeks to clarify and expound on my earlier piece about removing emotion and vitriol from discourse while also addressing some differences in the views and strategies of conservatives/progressives.
Why is it that conservatives and progressives seem to so fundamentally disagree? Is it a true philosophical disagreement or a lack of mutual understanding? In trying to unpack the root of the issues between those of conservative views and those of a more progressive lean I want to try to define what those differences are by looking a bit closer at their core values and how we can try to come to a common understanding to attempt to put an end to the violent nature of discourse today.
"Conservative: ...holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion."
Conservatives are much more interested in NOT progressing (or certainly in maintaining a much slower rate of progress) as a society, while maintaining a black and white view of right/wrong and good/evil. That disinterest has been unfortunately borne out over the years in the form of maintaining subjugation over other peoples, in conquest (manifest destiny!), discrimination, and in exclusionary isolationism – among the many charges against them. This is perhaps based on religious core principles but also based on a desire to not change what they believe is fundamentally true. This view lacks empathy in many cases but is based in principle and staying true to a belief system. There are certainly opportunities to change for this philosophy but some to be commended as well. They seem to be interested in being faithful to documentation they believe is right and true and in staying logically and morally consistent. I am not saying they are victorious or hold the high ground in this endeavor (in many areas of debate they do not, in my opinion), but I do believe it's what they attempt.
"Progressive: a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas."
Progressives are, as is to be expected, the near opposite of this. They are fundamentally interested in a movement and change forward, regardless of what that looks like sometimes. That often manifests itself as the latest "social justice" iteration, bewildering many who come across it. It’s a view that seems to be rooted in an attempt to be fair and empathetic, although that sometimes backfires in its application. It often comes across as authoritarian and anti-freedom - quite the opposite of what I hope is the core intent. It’s a view and ethos that lacks consistency and rigidity and attempts to ignore the fundamental base nature of, well, nature, but there is much to be admired about it in its desire to – most times – lift people up. I admire the interest in seeking to improve the lot of those less fortunate and in equality.
Both sides seek to discredit the other by mud slinging, self-victimization, or other appeals to emotion. What neither "get" and what only occurred to me recently was that unless you can boil down the opposing debate points to singular words and their definitions and attempt to find common ground you will never make progress convincing either side of anything. An argument deeply rooted in powerful emotion will not carry the day if you haven't agreed on core principle definitions. The most finely crafted wordsmithing will not succeed if your underlying view and assumption is either not understood and/or disagreed with. If charged words like communism, fascism, sexism, and racism are not clearly defined they cannot be applied with any success. If "capitalism" is not properly understood and defined you will not be able to make lofty arguments about its merits that will stick. This is why the echo chambers we are all prone to creating for ourselves don't work except to craft these emotional and/or intricately considered debate points, which then fall apart when utilized. It's not that they aren't well considered and well intentioned, but that they were not crafted with the intent on reaching your "opponent" where they already are but on browbeating them with perceived intellectualism. It can be hard to reach a conservative with empathetic pleas - often times falling apart with fallacies and platitudes at best. It can be very challenging to speak calm reason to a progressive deploying emotion while seeking your emotion - this often devolves into ad-homs and frustration. This is not to say that one is calm and the other isn't, but an example of how either side is in many cases. A progressive can often easily cause an emotional response in a conservative by asserting an opposing view regarding religion, for example. What, then, is the answer?
Remaining calm is the first and major key. Begin with a pact that it will REMAIN calm and without ad-hominem attacks. Then, discuss the scope of your debate, what will you be covering? It's possible you agree in principle on more than you suspect - find points of AGREEMENT as you define the terms of your discussion. Find the emotional or charged words and define them or discard them. If you cannot agree on a definition turn to agreed to sources of definitions and try again. This is vitally important as you may find yourself in agreement if you simply broke concepts down and started from scratch first rather than when tempers are high and likely too late for reason. In all debates/discussions it's best to find and eagerly search for things to AGREE on rather than things to disagree on; this allows for a more fruitful and intellectually honest dialogue. Devolving into reductive terms, identity politics, name calling, and fallacies is not the way to "win" an argument or convince another person to reconsider their views - this is the result of finding points of disagreement in order to grand stand and play the victim. It may get you pity points from your fellows, but it will not succeed in causing the other person to consider well your position. Isn't that REALLY the goal? I genuinely hope so.
I think ultimately, these core definition disagreements are the bulk of the problems among people who approach debates very differently, but who AREN'T really that different. I want to believe that for the most part we agree on many things, and the distraction is the media and miscommunication on social media. Let's try to find the positives in people, try to find the things we can AGREE on first and foremost. Build relationships on mutual respect and baseline agreements instead of tearing down what we twist into monsters (likely undeserving).
Until next time.
-Ronin