This blog post will not be a manifesto; I will not just spout political ideology. I'm sure we've all become somewhat weary of that.
This blog is about something that's been bothering me for awhile as I've “come of age” politically, so to say. A short time ago, I saw in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times a column by Bob Herbert which lampooned conservatives. Obviously, that's not my issue here; criticism of other people's political ideas is of paramount importance in a democracy. My problem with Herbert's column was his attempt to link conservatism with past evils of America, such as segregation or denying women the right to vote.
Herbert has it all wrong. He's mischaracterizing current conservatives based upon the actions of other "conservatives" generations ago. Yes, those who opposed integration in American society in the 1960s were called "conservatives." Governor George Wallace, the fiery segregationalist, even ran for president as a conservative. Herbert, however, has forgotten that "conservative" is just a word, an outdated label used out of convenience. It does not mean that conservatives today are the spawn of the regressive people who just happened to be called conservatives or Republicans back then.
What I'm getting at here is that a "conservative" in the 1960s is not the same as a conservative today, and any attempt to link the two is misleading and blatantly dishonest.
Traditionally, conservatives have stood for the status quo. Often they were even reactionary. But, for the vast majority of conservatives today, this is not the case. Politically and philosophically, conservatives have grown out of the original meaning of the term- "regressive" and "reactionary" are no longer accurate descriptions of conservatism today. Today's conservatives are progressive.
Tell me how conservatives could be considered "pro status quo,” or not progressive, when they are actively fighting to reform our government? They want to shrink it down and return liberty to the American people, just as the Founding Fathers envisioned. If Republicans were pro status quo, they would accept long-standing government policies and decisions like Roe v. Wade- but they don't. They want to change that- conservatives are really activists. The same passion that motivated the many activists of the 1960s motivates me and many other conservatives now. Yes, in this way, conservatives are comparable to those '60s hippies, anarchists, and radicals.
Conservatism is a visionary political ideology based upon intellectualism; it is not merely a bitter recalcitrance to change or reform. That, as I've stated, is a mischaracterization.
But, I need to acknowledge that all mischaracterizations and stereotypes come from somewhere. They are based upon a grain of truth. So, I admit, it is true that there are racists and misogynists out there who call themselves conservatives. Also, some conservatives are afraid of rationalism. This, however, is confined to the extremist far right of the ideology. One could fairly characterize Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh as examples of these extremists. All schools of thought are home to overly zealous radicals. But it is simply not fair to judge the majority of progressively thinking conservatives using the extremist right as the measuring stick, just like it is not fair to use Lenin or Marx to characterize and demonize what we call liberals.
I was further frustrated by the letters the New York Times received lauding Herbert's article. The letters demonstrate the writers' total lack of comprehension of contemporary conservatism, which is wholly distinct from the "conservatism" of the past.
One of the letters also demonstrates a pet peeve I have with some critics of conservatism. Basically, this critic, who was a liberal, approaches conservatism from a contrived stance of total objectivity. Since he claims that liberalism is the only correct way to go, all other ways of thinking (i.e. conservatism) are automatically wrong. It is ironic that he cannot see the prejudice and closed-mindedness (inherently un-liberal attributes) of his own statement.
Here's a friendly reminder for Mr. Herbert, and all those who may happen to think like him: conservatism is progressive. It is also intellectual and reformist. Conservatism, in the political sense of the word, does not mean what it used to mean. The dictionary definition describes "conservative" as "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." On the other hand, it defines "liberal" as "favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs."
I am a conservative. But according to these dictionary definitions, I'm actually extremely liberal. Remember that- "conservatism" is just a word, which has become an inadequate description of what conservatism really is today.
Thanks for reading my blog. Enjoy the rest of ProgressiveU- or, as I'd rather (totally accurately) call it, ConservativeU.
Politically and philosophically, conservatives have grown out of the original meaning of the term- "regressive" and "reactionary" are no longer accurate descriptions of conservatism today. Today's conservatives are progressive.
Your political philosophy is regressive - it seeks things of the past, BEFORE Roe vs. Wade and BEFORE strong central govt. Setting aside whether it is a good philosophy, I think this disqualifies your view from being 'progressive' or 'liberal'. You said yourself that the dictionary definition of 'conservative' is "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." That is exactly what you are advocating: restoring the old ways - some of them, at any rate - and then preserving them (limiting change). That is regress, not progress.
Governor George Wallace, the fiery segregationalist, even ran for president under the Republican Party. Herbert, however, has forgotten that "conservative" is just a word, an outdated label used out of convenience. It does not mean that conservatives today are the spawn of the regressive people who just happened to be called conservatives or Republicans back then.
What I'm getting at here is that a "conservative" in the 1960s is not the same as a conservative today, and any attempt to link the two is misleading and blatantly dishonest.
According to Wikipedia you are mistaken about George Wallace's party: he ran for president once as a (conservative) Democrat and thrice as a (conservative) Independent, but never as a Republican. But that's beside the point because as political parties have drastically changed, political philosophies have remained amazingly stagnant. Conservatives like you have always tried to use anti-federalism to undermine progressive utilitarian victories (Roe vs. Wade) and to suppress education (about drugs, sex, and evolution; and of blacks) that would lead to progress. I quote:
We shall continue to maintain segregation in Alabama completely and absolutely without violence or ill-will. ... I advocate hatred of no man, because hate will only compound the problems facing the South. ... We ask for patience and tolerance and make an earnest request that we be allowed to handle state and local affairs without outside interference.
Sound familiar? Of course you are not exactly the same as 1960's conservatives; we as a society have overcome certain traditions (uniformly monoracial education and marriage) and begun questioning others (uniformly heterosexual marriage). But conservatives have been fighting many of the same battles (federalism, evolution, drugs, contraception) for well over 50 years and have the same hankering after the past that defines conservatism in all ages. I doubt that today's conservatives are any more intellectual than conservatives throughout history *compared to liberals of the same period*. MLK is glorified and Wallace vilified not because MLK was more intellectual, but because he advocated new ideas (progress) while Wallace argued for traditions even after they were overcome (regress). What makes you think this pattern will or ought to change?
First, thanks for pointing out my factual error about George Wallace- I'll have to fix that.
"Progress" is not absolute- it's totally relative. What's progressive to you is going to be regressive for someone else. In fact, any attempt to regulate or absolutely define "progress" is itself regressive. Some time ago, I wrote a blog about the nature of progressivism, and though it's the shortest blog I've ever written, it sufficiently gets my point across, and is very relevant to what we're talking about.
Restoring old institutions can certainly be progressive. As I noted in the blog I linked above, progress is not just generic "advancement." For example, secularists in Iran are surely more progressive than the Islamic theocrats, but the secularists are the ones who want to return (or maybe you'd call it regress?) to the (relatively more) secular Iranian state of the '70s.
My overall point here, and of this entire blog, is that conservatism can be and often is progressive, because a return to previous institutions, while "conservative," can also be "progressive." The past is not necessarily always bad, and change is not necessarily always good. That's a dangerously simple approach.
The fact that you insist upon calling the Roe v. Wade decision a "progressive victory" betrays the same mindset of liberals I bemoaned in by blog- liberals will often assume a contrived stance of total objectivity, so that opposition to their ideas can be deemed "regressive," subjective, "suppressive," and just all-around wrong. Like I said, that itself is an amazingly closed-minded and not liberal mindset.
Conservatives today are, at their core, anti-government. They prefer personal freedom to federal hegemony. George Bush, and, for example, his PATRIOT Act, are in fact remarkably un-conservative. Most conservatives want to overhaul our tax system. They seek solutions that work without continuous government maintenance- thus their opposition to the welfare state and regulatory economics.
I think we're getting hung up on the fact that "conservatism" and "liberalism" are actually two-pronged. On the one hand, conservatives are socially conservative, like you've been emphasizing, but progressive in other areas, which I have been emphasizing. Liberals, on the other hand, are socially liberal, and therefore perhaps "progressive," but also advocate a more powerful government, and that is hardly progressive. Interestingly, both schools of thought have strongly conservative and liberal elements.
Words like "conservative" and "liberal" are just that- words. The actual people behind them have nuanced and complicated beliefs which cannot be adequately summed up by these terms. So, it is entirely possible for "conservatives" to be advocates of reform and "progress."
You're right to note that 'progress' basically means 'good change' which is inherently subjective. When you claim that modern conservatives are progressive, I can't argue with that unless we delve into the moral implications of modern conservatism. If we want to use neutral language I suppose we should stick to 'conservative' and 'liberal' to summarize positions.
I hinted at the moral aspect of progress when I called Roe v. Wade a utilitarian victory: it greatly increases the sum of human happiness. If God exists and abortion pisses Him off, then perhaps there are other factors to consider. But we can't deny certain patterns in our social evolution - in particular that social conservatives use antifederalism to stave off reforms which later become widely acknowledged as 'progress'. From a purely historic standpoint it would be exceptional for modern conservatives to be the first 'correct' ones while conservatives for the rest of human history have been stupid or delusional.
Perhaps that's another one of our sticking points- I am far from a Utilitarian. I feel it marginalizes minorities and tramples on individuals' rights (in the case of abortion, the unborn are both a minority and have their individual rights jeopardized due to Roe v. Wade, but this is not the place to discuss Roe v. Wade; it'll distract us). I also think that morality is religiously inspired, but I recognize that as all people are not religious, this is not a fair nor legitimate standpoint when dealing with government.
So, to answer your question of the moral aspects of progressivism, I think that anything which advocates an individual's own liberty is progressive. According to this, racial integration or the repeal of the income tax are progressive. Affirmative action or universal healthcare are not. Of course, there are limits to an individual's freedom, which is why Locke explains societal liberty as doing as you please as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else’s life, property, or liberties. It's no wonder we were having a conflict regarding progressivism, since Lockean individualism is on the opposite end of the moral spectrum from Benthamic collectivism.
I hate to bring up abortion again, since that is not the point of this blog, but I wanted to preemptively explain my justification for opposing it, since I’m sure you would have brought up the fact that illegalizing abortion infringes upon a woman’s right to choose- her liberty. Whether or not you agree, I think that the unborn have rights as living entities, and therefore it is no one’s right- including a woman’s- to choose to deprive them of life. This fits with my Lockean approach that an individual’s rights are paramount, but cannot be taken away by someone else.
This is turning into an interesting discussion, so I guess I’m appreciative that you’re making me think about this way deeper than I had initially.
I fully admit that from an historic standpoint, conservatives have not been very progressive folk. That was basically why I was miffed when Herbert, the NYT columnist, equated past conservatives to present conservatives. But, I do not necessarily see modern conservatives as exceptional. I see them as not really being conservatives in the historic sense at all- that's just the term they inherited.
To reiterate something I stated in my blog, there are conservatives out there who are the heirs of the conservatives of old. They are usually somewhat bigoted and anti-intellectual. But, it is not fair to broadly characterize all modern conservatives as thus.
One of these days I'll make a topic on utilitarianism where we can debate our little hearts out. For now, I'll focus on your claim that modern conservatism is progressive.
We seem to have different ideas of what 'modern conservatism' is. I see it as a bundle of social, political, and economic beliefs motivated by a backwards-looking (to avoid calling it 'regressive') political philosophy. Conservatives by definition are upset at recent trends and want to revert back to certain social, political, and economic structures of the past (or preserve traditional ones). In the US these 3 different varieties of conservatism are embodied in the Republican party and to a large extent in its politicians. While not every conservative politician or voter agrees with all the pieces, Republican politicians are accountable to many groups that support each piece. So it is not surprising that the presidential candidates rarely deviate from the party agenda (same can be said of Democrats).
My point is that this entire agenda is what is actually getting promoted by the Republican party, and I find it convenient to call that 'modern conservatism'. What you call 'modern conservatives' I see as the small minority of modern conservatives who care primarily about political power structures. Do you deny that social and economic conservatives are trying to conserve present and past institutions? Do you deny that they are modern? Why are they less worthy of the title 'modern conservative'? How is modern conservatism substantially different from 1960's era conservatism - were conservatives 50 years ago any less politically (or any more socially) focused than modern ones?
Well, we've established that looking to the past for solutions, while not "progressive" in the chronological sense of the term, can be "progressive" in the sense of the term we've agreed to use- "progress" means changing society for the better. If preserving current social institutions, like the family, benefits society, which I certainly think it does, then that is progressive. Obviously we're coming from differing perspectives, as _Meke notes below, so to you, perhaps preservation of the family is not progressive. It all harkens back to when I said that progressivism is relative: it's different for different people.
You identify three pillars of conservatism- social, political, and economic issues. I've already given an example of a "progressive" (from my point of view) conservative stance on a social issue, so I'll present progressive political and economic positions of conservatives, too.
In the realm of politics, conservatives are advocates for states' rights and oppose the centralization and bureaucratization of government. At its core, this is motivated by anti-authoritarian and pro-efficiency sentiments, and is therefore good for society; aka progressive. It appears from looking at your earlier comments that you disagree this is progressive. Again, it comes down to one's point of view.
In the case of economics, I think this is where conservatives are most progressive when compared to liberals. Tax cuts and free market policies are advocated by conservatives, which contribute to the personal liberty of each American citizen. I simply cannot, in my mind, reconcile government interference and economic control with real liberal and progressive ideas. Perhaps you would argue that using the government to force banks to make loans to under qualified customers is progressive because it increases home ownership, especially among minorities. In this case, our opinions of progressivism come down to what we prioritize- and we form priorities based our subjective points of view.
Conservatives in the '60s were often, for example, segregationalists. They are not today. And yet, I think there is a stereotype among liberals that conservatives are "anti-minority." This is far from the truth, but I think liberals unfairly rely on the "old version" of conservative ideas to (mis)characterize conservatives today.
So, to conclude: "conservatism" in the political sense of the word, as in wanting to preserve existing institutions, can be good for society, and therefore "progressive." Hence, the title of this blog. Modern conservatives, while being similar to past conservatives in the political sense of the word, do not hold racist, misogynistic, or prejudiced views, and to suggest they do, as Herbert and his readers did, is misleading.
When you say that what I've been calling "modern conservatives" are actually a minority, I disagree. Yes, I know there is an extremist right, which I suspect you believe actually makes up the majority of conservatives, but this is simply not true. The religious and anti-intellectual right is a minority among conservatives, but they are loudly spoken and receive disproportional media coverage, so it's understandable to mistaken their ideas for mainstream, modern, intellectual conservatism.
I understand that you want conservatism to be linked to progressivism because "progressive" has a positive connotation, but it is not progressive. There is nothing progressive about either wanting to keep things the way they are or make things like they used to be. What you have described in this blog is regressive.
If Republicans were pro status quo, they would accept long-standing government policies and decisions like Roe v. Wade- but they don't.
Exactly. Conservatives (as you describe them) want to REVERSE that decision, meaning go back to when abortion was not legal. Again, that's not progress, that's regress.
afungus amongus pretty much said what I was thinking.
McKinney 08
Who says valuing current institutions and practices is automatically not progressive? If anything can be deemed "regressive," it's any type of narrow minded attempt to define progressivism.
Well, let me back up for a second. What is progressivism? I do not think it can be fully and fairly defined, like I just said, but I think we can all agree that something which is progressive is beneficial to society. So, progress is not dependent upon going backwards or forwards in time, it is doing what is the most beneficial to society. Often, what is beneficial lies in repealing some of our current laws. If keeping things the way they are is beneficial (which I know is certainly not always the case), then that means that keeping things the way they are is also progressive.
Since you pretty much agree with comment posted above, you can also refer to my reply there.
You can't just give a word your own definition to make it fit your political ideology. Like I said, "progressive" has a good connotation (unless you're Bill O') but that does not mean it can be applied to anything a person deems "good for society." Your definition of conservative is not progressive. I agree that progress is not always good, and in the same way, good is not always progress.
McKinney 08
I'm confused with your statement "good is not always progress." If I understand your thinking correctly, progress to you means "going forward," regardless of whether or not going forward is good.
I'm the opposite. To me, something which is good is progressive. To repeat yet again, I do not define "progress" as merely "going forward in time." I'll admit, that is correct when speaking chronologically, but I believe the word "progressive" also has meanings far beyond that, particularly in the political sphere.
It's interesting that you said I was giving "progress" my own definition. That wasn't my intent; you can find plenty of dictionary entries which do not define "progressive" in strictly chronological terms.
I'll concede with your definition because I understand the intent of your blog. But even using that definition, I still disagree that conservative is progressive. That's completely subjective.
McKinney 08
I live in an extremely "liberal" area, and this would be a great start: Your blog was well written, as both democrats and republicans incorporate both liberal and conservative solutions, as whatever suits a situation best. Wasn't anyone taught the "political" circle in high school government? Sometimes changing an institution results in disaster, as keeping it the way it is or reverting to older, more stable solutions in the midst of chaos would be wise.
Anyways, there is a reason some older systems have lasted so long: because time after time, they have proven to WORK! I am for both trying new things, as well as sticking to things that have proven to work for me. Not to say that I am completely open-minded, as there is nobody who is. But I do realize that closing my mind to either one of these ways would hinder me, and limit great possibilities which is something that liberals often cannot admit to. Not everything needs to be changed, in the same way that not everything should stay the same! Sounds like common sense, but so many close-minded individuals will not even consider something if it isn't "new". Wanting to change everything around you doesn't make you open minded, nor does only considering certain forms of change that are labeled "liberal", nor does labeling yourself a "liberal" make you open-minded: being open-minded involves the willingness to change your personal stubborn views and methods, if the situation requires, as well as being open to when you are wrong, and such methods of change have failed, as well as being wise over if something is worth keeping the same!
Oh:
"Go Green: CONSERVE the environment!"
Technically, conservative old methods of reusing bags when shopping or reusing bottles when repeatedly buying the same products, popular till around the 1950's, was a great method that people are just now strongly suggesting we should revert back to with more environmental concerns. This would be an example of a conservative method of progress.
Don't conflate liberalism with anarchism - liberals want to move certain institutions in new directions. When you say "so many close-minded individuals will not even consider something if it isn't 'new' ", that's a lot like saying "so many close-minded individuals will not even consider something if it isn't 'old' ". And just as cosmic defended modern conservatives, I'll defend modern liberals. I seriously doubt that you will find any sizable group of people who are close-minded in the way that you describe. Of course there are institutions and traditions worth preserving. You're making fun of a position that virtually nobody holds.
Despite the thread title, we all agree that nothing about the philosophy of conservatism is inherently progressive: it includes backwards change (which is progress only if the change is good) and resistance to change (which cannot be progress, but can be good). The really interesting questions are all about what changes are good and why, but they are outside the scope of this thread.
Of course I know that liberals are not necessarily anarchists, just because they push more towards liberal change: that would be as unfair to them as would be to conservatives if I catagorized all conservatives as backwards, simply because they often favor conservative change, or a lot of times are comfortable with some current ways! However, the notion that
"new" == "better", is wrong.
My point was that just because something is "new" doesn't mean it is necessarily better, just like something that is "old" is not necessarily the best way either. I assoiciate closed mindedness with only considering one of those two catagories, be it only applying old methods, or only applying new methods, as both should be used.
Conservatism can refer to old, established methods, liberalism can refer to new methods.
"we all agree that nothing about the philosophy of conservatism is inherently progressive"
Who is we? I don't agree, as I have explained that sometimes a well known method is better than anything anyone else has come up with yet. I emphasize the word YET. That doesn't mean it is the best way out of every possibility (because sometimes there are an infinate amount of possiblities), it just means that it is the best way proven to work so FAR. Old methods should not be associated with "backwards" because it was the old methods that have got us this far. Take a math book for example: it is built off of extremely old rules and methods, that if people constantly tried to re-write, would hinder the general overall advancement of engineering, mathematics, science and technology! If much of the older methods were not embraced, the breakthrough methods on the frontier would not be formulated. Sometimes, progressive conservative old methods lead to new liberal ways, which are built from certain "rules". They are both intertwined, and my point was that both can be ways for progressing the overall good of society, and if only one of the ways was considered, this society's overall advancement would be crippled.
Try not to think of liberalism and conservative as so much divided, as they are meshed together. "Conservative" methods were at one point or another, "liberal", as "liberal" methods could someday be labeled "conservative" if they are sucessful enough to catch on... ... and so called "liberal" methods may infact simply be conservative methods in disguise, wearing a new face, but the same structure underneath. The political circle is a good way to look at it.
Afungus Amongus is sorely mistaken. What's something good about conservatives? Conservatives don't jump on every bandwagon that comes their way. Like Marxism, even fascism. Make no mistake, fascists agressively wanted to change the status quo. They were not liberal (though conservatives and liberals are not true opposites) but they were certainly "progressive". As for war, yes Bush got us into the Iraq mistake. But let me ask you this. Who got us into Vietnam? Korea? Both World Wars? In all but one of those war, (World War II, of course), our involvement was questionable. Now I will say this. I think some words are being mixed up. Conservatives cannot be progressive. However, liberal does not belong to the left. They are progressive. Conservative and progressive are opposites. However conservative and liberal are not. Now progressive is an amazingly self-congratulatory term. So I can see why you want to say conservatives can be progressive. However, progressive is not necessarily good. In my view, liberalism is. Liberalism means individual freedom and protection of your basic rights. Now, I am a libertarian, so in my view, neither the left nor the right is liberal enough. I am a liberal. I am also a conservative. I am suspicious of new laws and programs. I am against an expansion of the federal government. Afungus Amongus has no right to attack anyone for being close-minded, because his/her assurance of his/her view's own superiority is as close-minded as you can get. America needs both liberals and conservatives to keep it going.
Let me rephrase what I said because you misunderstand me. We all agree that as philosophies, both conservatism (promoting tradition and opposing new change) and liberalism (promoting new change and opposing tradition) are NOT inherently progressive because they aren't always good. If your own own moral code tends to align with one or the other philosophy, its convenient to call yourself conservative or liberal (I call myself a liberal because I support most of the changes modern liberals do). To support the claim that (modern) conservatism is (mostly) progressive, cosmic would have to prove two important points:
(A) Modern conservatism is (mostly) about advocating change.
(B) The changes that modern conservatives advocate are (mostly) good.
He has rebutted specific claims by some liberal author but made no attempt to defend his main point. At best he showed that some modern conservatives advocate changes that he thinks are good. Part of his problem is that the claim he made is impossible to defend, even after you add qualifiers like 'modern' and 'mostly'. A solid defense would require, at the very least:
(A1) clear, concise, intuitive definitions of important terms,
(A2) reliable statistical evidence about the beliefs of modern conservatives,
(B1) an argument for a certain kind of moral code, and
(B2) an argument that this moral code supports the changes in question
Each of these could fill an entire blog.
In light of your statement that no one can truly be fully progressive, I'll concede that, and my blog may have implied that conservatives are the progressive party, which isn't true. But conservatives can be and often are progressive- as you said, no one political philosophy has a monopoly on progressivism.
In response to your two requests, I think conservatism fulfils the requirements of both point A and B. If conservatives didn't want to change anything, they'd have no reason to exist as a political school of thought. They do want to change things, and I've given numerous examples. Secondly, both you and donttreadonme seem to be ignoring my definition of progressivism as being advocating the good of society. I’ve noticed that donttreadonme explicitly stated he doesn’t agree with my definition, but we’ve already debated that ad nauseum so I’ll leave that. Obviously, conservatives genuinely believe that their ideas are better for America than liberal ideas, and so they are progressive. Just because their ideas don't mesh with your own doesn't make them regressive- you're (once again) arguing from a stance of contrived objectivity.
Now for your outline of a solid defense.
A1: The only term I haven't defined so far is "progressive,” which I suppose is the most important one here. Being progressive means "favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters." That definition is only slightly helpful, since an idea like "improvement" is subjective. You should also recall that I've already said that the term "conservative" does not adequately describe that political group anymore (it does not mean "wishing to maintain things as they are,” that is a broad and often false generalization). So, it would be impossible for you or anyone else to try to refute my claims by solely relying on the definition of "conservative" and how it is the opposite of the term "progressive." We need to examine conservative ideas, many of which are also quite "liberal," as dontreadonme and I noted in previous comments (just as a reminder: the shrinking of the government and the increase of personal liberties).
A2: Short of conducting a nationwide poll, I can't provide statistical evidence. That's an unrealistic request. Besides, we're arguing political theory here, and the point of the blog is that conservatism can be progressive.
B1 & B2: The moral code that guides conservatism advocates individual liberty, also something I've outlined in a previous comment.
Perhaps we should move these arguments to another blog, as you suggested, since it will be difficult to keep track of them in back and forth comment and replies. Such topics could definitely fill up pages of blogs on their own.
I do agree that the words "conservative" and "liberal" are just convenient terms for grouping together similarly thinking folk. Not everyone in a group believes in the exact same things.
I don't understand what you mean when you say "Conservative and progressive are opposites. "
but then end up with your conclusion that " America needs both liberals and conservatives to keep it going."
If America needs both liberals AND conservatives to keep it going, then America needs liberals to keep it going.
America needs conservatives to keep it going.
Can I associate "keep it going" with "progressing", or simply "continue forward"?
If I need something to "keep me going", then I also need it to "progress", because I would need to be able to "keep on going" (aka: "continue forward", "carry on" ect) in order to "progress". So America needs conservatives to "progress", since the action of "progressing," although including more, at least requires "carrying on" or "keep on going".
I don't understand your logic?
Well, I suppose INHERENTLY would make a difference. No government theory of structure/ layout can be defined as "inherently progressive" can it? But I think the point was that it can be progressive, while not being "inherently progressive".