The Push of the Progressive

A characteristic difference between a progressive and a conservative is how each views change. By ‘change’ I mean a novel alteration that is done on a societal level which effectually compels a given generation to move in a new direction because of it. Is change on such a large scale to be rejected outright, accepted cautiously, or something to be applauded as a break from the traditional worldview of the past?

We are "dwarves on the shoulders of giants," as Bernard of Chartres put it in the 12^th century. That is, we are in a sense quite small compared to the great mass of humanity that has preceded us. Therefore, any vision we might have of the present world around us is largely shaped by the views, insights, and wisdom of the past. A conservative's opinion of the giant upon which he stands is one of admiration, esteem, and respect. It is with an appreciative gaze that the conservative regards these giants he clings to as generally wise, possessing a seasoned authority worthy of man’s attention. Hence, to the conservative mind, any form of adapting the acquired knowledge of the past to the present must be done with utmost care lest the lessons learned in the yesterday of history be ignored in the today of the present.

President Abraham Lincoln articulated well this type of relationship to the past and to change when he spoke at his Cooper Union Address:

"If we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so on evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand."[1]

Thus, the conservative thinker does not deny the potential benefits that could come from change (he does not reject change absolutely). Rather, he argues that in order for it to be beneficial for society, it must be built on solid ground more firm than the sands of contemporary common opinion. Considerable weight must be given to the past consensus of peoples in areas such as morality, law, religion, and philosophy because their very consensus in these matters could point to existent truths that overarch across the broad span of the centuries.

To demonstrate one facet of this perspective, let us take as an example a person who believes in democracy. He believes that the majority vote always rests on the side with greater numbers. It just so happens that, in the grand scheme of things, the majority vote of humanity mathematically rests with those who have gone before us, that is, with the deceased. Chesterton's notion of the "democracy of the dead" precisely calls for us, we who are among the living- we who are in the minority- to give ear to the majority and not audaciously silence the input of the dead.[2] Because of this, a conservative does not typically seek novel change for his society unless that same society has veered so far away from the direction in which his forefathers had set it in.

Oftentimes the conservative will focus on improving himself at the individual level by aiming to better shape his life by the standard previously set by the determining voice of the virtuous who have gone before him. Since he is preoccupied with this task, if any large-scale, conservative-driven change does occur in society through his efforts, it is an organic change that grows from the bottom up. It begins to sprout from within, thus possessing the stability and depth to survive indefinitely.

However, as a result of such sharp focus on change at the individual level (what we Christians call ‘conversion’), any form of conservative change in society will inevitably be slow. This is because as individuals increasingly become better themselves- which those familiar with human nature and habit will admit is unfortunately no quick process- children will be shaped with an orientation to imitate the virtues of their parents and mentors. The family then, as the foundation of society, will next help determine the trajectory in which a local community will go. Finally, the community itself will subsequently influence the wider society that develops when its people come together to live and work. Indeed, the shaping of a more conservative society is a very slow and gradual process; but the fruits that emerge from it will inevitably endure because they are rooted in imitating the wisdom and virtues of those who have gone before.

Differing from this perspective, a progressive outlook tends to bring about superficial change that has no root because it originates not from within the individual who is inspired by the past but from without as the individual is suffocated by the mob of the moment. The progressive person simply attempts to skip over the hard work of individual conversion. Instead, he legislates change from the top down, and this is why his change happens abruptly and frequently.

I think the reason for this is that progressivism has a very low confidence in man's ability to become better freely; hence, it relies more on the force of compulsion to bring about what it perceives as “necessary” change. The problem with this is evident though: progressivism takes away man's liberty by submitting it to the majority of the present crowd. Any change that is affected in this way will last only until the next shift in common opinion occurs. It is shallow, without depth, and not backed by the same intellectual muscle with which Lincoln argued change ought to be introduced into society to begin with. It is a type of change that is susceptible to being continually overthrown by the ever-changing spirit of the age. Sure, it may be implemented by force, but it will most certainly be ousted by force as well! "Fashion is during its brief reign omnipotent,"[3] for it is the bully that pushes others around, forcing them through its overpowering influence to bend the knee. No one can say or do anything contrary to the fad of the day, even though the past (and perhaps the future?) would have thought that fad lamentable. However, its day is quick, and it will shortly be supplanted by another- for there is always a bigger bully.

It is noteworthy that a society that seriously honors its dead tends to also be a society that values conservatism. The ancestor worship of the Orient, the mos maiorum of the Romans, the communion of the saints of Christendom- all these beliefs with the customs and practices that arose from them, direct the living's attention in these cultures to those who have gone before; and correspondingly, these cultures have historically been recognized as leaning conservative in their varied traditions. Their veneration for the dead thus enabled their ears to be opened to the voices of the past and their minds docile to receive their wisdom.

On the contrary, it is typical of an atheistic society to see itself as the end-all-be-all of history. Consequently, it hunkers down into a narrow, myopic view of reality that is limited to the present moment. A society without God is certainly a society without a story; hence, it is also without history for there is no rationale for interpretating the passage of time. Because of this, progressivism is universally embraced by atheism precisely because progressive change always leads away from what was into what is- and, unfortunately, all the atheist has is what is, all he has is the here and now. This is why progressivism enacts such frequent and chaotic change at the societal level. It is as fleeting as the passage of the moment. It is not anchored by the story of the past, by the wisdom of its ancestors, by the overwhelming consensus of humanity that has recognized objective truth, innate goodness, sound thinking and right action. In the progressive milieu, these concepts are not tolerated and, resultingly, revolution has been made into a perpetual institution,[4] where society's connection to the past- its link to stability- is perennially rejected. Hence, for the atheistic progressive, all that is not valued by the present determining number can be burned to the ground and substituted with something else.

But the conservative does not care to burn things to the ground; he does not have the time to affect such frequent change on a grand scale; he does not have the energy to virtue-signal. He is too occupied trying to change the manner of his own life by avoiding vice and practicing virtue; he is too engaged in trying to care for his family and contribute to society by his work; he is too busy looking forward to joining that deceased majority of wise men and holy saints who have gone before him and found God not by submitting to the zeitgeist of their age but to the law "written on their hearts" (Rm 2:15).

In the end then, the progressive is simply a rebel against common humanity, crying out for change, as the vast majority of the past sit back and yawn at his hysterical cries, themselves sharing the sentiment of Kierkegaard that "change is what all who are bored cry out for."[5]

[1] As quoted in Jesse Norman, Edmund Burke: The First Conservative (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2013), 235.

[2] c.f. G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1995), 53.

[3] Hilaire Belloc, The Crisis of Civilization (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1992), 157.

[4] c.f. Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World: A Search for Orientation, trans. Joseph Theman and Herbert Burke (New York, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1956), 43.

[5] Soren Kierkegaard, Either/or.