Conservatives take a dim view of progress. They are not so foolish as to deny that great advances have been made in science, technology, medicine, communication, management, education, and so forth, and that they have changed human lives for the better. But they have also changed them for the worse. Advances have been both beneficial and harmful. They have certainly enlarged the stock of human possibilities, but the possibilities are for both good and evil, and new possibilities are seldom without new evils. Conservatives tend to be pessimistic because they doubt that more possibilities will make lives on the whole better. They believe that there are obstacles that stand in the way of the permanent overall improvement of the human condition.
There is common agreement that the conservative personality is one marked by a general resistance to change, and a more frequent need for closure on matters of almost any degree of complexity. When disagreements arise over matters of broader public significance, that characteristic is a frequent obstacle for progressives to deal with.
“AUTOMATIC” IS NOT ALWAYS A GOOD THING
As is true of many such psychological short-cuts and adaptations, there are both sound reasons for their usage and more than a few occasions when they do a great disservice. The more complex the issue, the greater the chance that the latter is a more likely outcome. A corresponding feature of these adaptations is that almost none of us are inclined to pause for a moment and consider the benefits or disadvantages of reliance on the tried and true.
We’ve developed these emotional and psychological shortcuts for any number of reasons. Of course some traits serve an individual better than others. But since none of us are perfect, we’re all subjected to the benefits and drawbacks of those characteristics which make us unique individuals, and of those more common traits we share with distinct groups of others. But knee-jerk reactions and opposition tend to have greater impact when groups of similarly-inclined individuals employ them on matters affecting the majority of fellow-citizens.
That we are to date unwilling or unable to hit that pause button and consider outcomes is simply one more contributor to our polarized political discussions—such as they are.
The John Kekes observation noted above is, upon just a moment’s reflection, consistent with the general conservative inclination to avoid change. How the trait is viewed as being advantageous or not depends both on the perspectives of those making assessments as well as the individual circumstances to which the attribute is being applied.
CONSIDERING OUTCOMES FIRST
The underlying proposition of that above quote is correct: great changes have occurred throughout our history, just as attempted great changes have failed miserably. Some would describe that as … life … happening. Most of us have experienced both successes and failures at all different levels, and we’ve also had experiences where either strong beliefs or serious doubts about an event or undertaking have turned out to be self-fulfilling prophecies. Life is funny that way.
So as someone who characterizes himself as a generally quite optimistic person, I have difficulties appreciating the instinctive reaction of expecting or fearing the worst as a first assessment in matters both great and small.
Waiting for guarantees first guarantees waiting for guarantees first, and not much else.
That’s not to say that we should each and all just plunge headfirst into a new situation or pursue a different path or urge a new/different policy or practice. Most would label that as foolish at the very least. But is it really that much of an imposition to consider modifications now and then, given the level of conflict we’re mired in on a daily basis?
THE PRO’s AND CON’s OF TRADITION
There’s no question that experience, history, conventions, norms, and traditions have served us all well, and in many different settings. There’s great value in relying on what has proven successful over a long period of time and/or in a wide range of experiences. But in this day and age, instinctive reliance on what has been done in simpler or less complicated circumstances shouldn’t necessarily be the go-to choice as a first response. There’s also something to be said for gathering information and different perspectives along with a bit of contemplation and analyses.
In these highly polarized battles progressives and conservatives seem engaged in regarding almost every issue of note, that proposition is easier to state than implement. We’ve all conditioned ourselves and our groups to first reject offerings and suggestions from the opposition, and then look for reasons why we’re justified in doing so. It’s easier, and even fun when we can dispense snark just for the hell of it, making it clear we’re vastly superior in every way than the idiots on the other side.
Not really helpful, though, is it? Does anyone else wonder just how far down the wrong paths we’ll continue to travel by ratcheting up the intensity of the conflicts before realities pop up to make it clear to most of us that foolish choices carry a hefty price tag eventually, if not sooner?
It might be a nice change for all of us if we tried different approaches to … you know … solve problems instead of making most of them worse. It’s a thought….
Adapted from a blog post of mine