a few thoughts on conservatism and progressivism

In an essay on the political ideology of conservatism, Anthony Quinton writes that "a conservative will not be an absolutist, except to the extent that the tradition of his society is an absolute one. But absolutism, the idea that the sovereign is free from all constraints of the law, perhaps by reason of a supposed divine right to rule, is at odds with conservative respect for the interpersonal wisdom embodied in laws and the constitution." (Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy). Conservatism, if a rejection of theory is, for Quinton, a "disposition" against change rather than a philosophical theory or ideology aspiring to universal political principles. As such, however, it is "more reductively, an expression of the self-interest of those who benefit from the status quo" which, of course, plays back into the resistance to change. That is, conservatism's fundamental position regards the quality of change where significant change may indeed occur, but is qualitatively acceptable to the extent that the interests of the status quo are preserved.

If one takes a more libertarian strain, the best defender was Robert Nozick. But even Nozick admitted the philosophical limitations to the theory he laid out in his classic Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

There is no philosophical basis for conservatism. Not that the world of American politics cares about philosophical consistency or coherence, but conservatism's lack of strong intellectual grounds should provide a resource for those committed to progressive ideas. Personally, I'm a philosophical and sometimes political pragmatist, so I have no interest in foundationalisms or absolutisms of any sort. But the present administration's positions are radically relativistic, the very thing they supposedly disdain. Its "philosophy" is inconsistent, incoherent, and, as we know well, dangerous. The more theoretical engagement, however, is largely lacking from current debates. As such, what we tend to have are screeds on the progressive side of American politics, and a religious-ideological coup on the right (the absolutism above). What progressives ought to be doing is re-explaining and defending - from the most practical and simple terms to the most theoretical and abstract - progressive principles and ideals and progressive policies. Really, there's very little of this. Let's get into a philosophical debate. We will win because genuine governance is about the population of a country or other political entity, not about defending the self-interest of a few. Nearly all indicators, exacerbated by this administration, point to the defense of the self-interest of a decreasing number of people and their apologists - the Iraq War, Social Security, education, tax policy, the deficits, religiously framed policy battles, etc. That simply has to be hammered into the heads of an electorate that is diverse, not unintelligent (but rather fooled into simplistic trickle-down, anti-bureaucracy formulations), and losing their future security. Show how it is indeed a matter of security, but rather than stimulate citizen's fears then pose as a savior, progressives need to show why the longer term can be made more secure by sound economic, military, and social policies. The trenches are certainly one place to do this. But the big picture has to be built and publicized, with real practical effects and theoretical depth. And it has to be communicated honestly and courageously - we know these latter two virtues are missing from this administration. And, frankly, it doesn't even draw upon the best that conservatism does have to offer such as the anti-absolutism regarding divine right and respect for law and constitution discussed above.