CDZ Conservatives and Progressives need each other

[Some Guy]

First of all, put aside your pre-conceptions of the words "conservative" and "progressive" in a political context, and think of them this way:

Conservatives: want to conserve the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward history and tradition as a way of informing how to forge to the future.
Progressives: want to challenge the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward creativity and new, sometimes radical ideas as a way of informing how to forge the future

Jordan Peterson was talking about this in his address to the Oxford Union. He said that total conservative rule would be "pathological order" and total progressive rule would be "pathological chaos." Considering the definitions above, he's completely correct.

If not for progressive thinkers, you'd perhaps still have women being treated largely as second class citizens, perhaps without the right to vote. No gay rights, perhaps slavery is still around, etc. I'm basically referring to a literal interpretation of the bible here. Without someone(s) to challenge those notions and say "hey, this is wrong and here's why" then conservatives aren't really forced to think about it cause they'll tend to take solace in their traditions and institutions. That's total order.

On the flipside, if not for conservatives, you'd have no order. No way of figuring out how to structure things, how to organize things and get things done. In order to actually execute on something, you need a system in place, which requires a plan, generally a document or instruction manual of sorts or some sort of hierarchy where someone in charge is leading a handful of people who lead some more people to do what needs to be done. Progressives and their propensity to challenge norms, tradition and institutions aren't in a great position to establish those institutions let alone let them be long enough to be effective without challenging them again. That's total chaos.

No matter who you are, you tend toward one side or the other, which is ok. But more than anything, i think that's the biggest evidence for and the best justification for why people can't lock themselves up in their ideology and shut themselves off to other perspectives and other ideas. On the conservative side, the world will always be changing and you need to change with it or get left behind. On the progressive side, you need people who understand how to organize and get shit done or else your visions and ideas can't manifest into anything lasting and effective.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

This would be the case if Progressives were the same as . As it is, their economics have been tried, and have failed, numerous times around the world, in numerous builds.

Though, they're not pitching it because it's progressive, they're pitching it because it expands the government monopoly.

I'd also like to point out that Slavery occurring in the Bible is not an endorsement of Slavery, only an acknowledgment that it was something that was accepted by the culture at the time.

 

[Some Guy]

This would be the case if Progressives were the same as . As it is, their economics have been tried, and have failed, numerous times around the world, in numerous builds.

Though, they're not pitching it because it's progressive, they're pitching it because it expands the government monopoly.

You missed the part about "forget your pre-conceptions about what progressive means." I'm not talking about in terms of politics, i'm talking about in terms of predisposition based on your way of thinking. If you need another term, think of it as "left vs. right brained."

I'd also like to point out that Slavery occurring in the Bible is not an endorsement of Slavery, only an acknowledgment that it was something that was accepted by the culture at the time.

My point exactly. It was accepted at that time, and had not a progressive type thinker or thinkers been there to challenge it, it could very likely still be going on.

 

[jwoodie]

The airing of opposing opinions is necessary to curtail excesses in the use of power, but their active suppression often leads to even greater excesses. For example, the radical Left in this country is doing all it can to destroy the First Amendment and impose a thought-police state. Heaven help us if they succeed.

 

[Mac1958]

First of all, put aside your pre-conceptions of the words "conservative" and "progressive" in a political context, and think of them this way:

Conservatives: want to conserve the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward history and tradition as a way of informing how to forge to the future.
Progressives: want to challenge the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward creativity and new, sometimes radical ideas as a way of informing how to forge the future

Jordan Peterson was talking about this in his address to the Oxford Union. He said that total conservative rule would be "pathological order" and total progressive rule would be "pathological chaos." Considering the definitions above, he's completely correct.

If not for progressive thinkers, you'd perhaps still have women being treated largely as second class citizens, perhaps without the right to vote. No gay rights, perhaps slavery is still around, etc. I'm basically referring to a literal interpretation of the bible here. Without someone(s) to challenge those notions and say "hey, this is wrong and here's why" then conservatives aren't really forced to think about it cause they'll tend to take solace in their traditions and institutions. That's total order.

On the flipside, if not for conservatives, you'd have no order. No way of figuring out how to structure things, how to organize things and get things done. In order to actually execute on something, you need a system in place, which requires a plan, generally a document or instruction manual of sorts or some sort of hierarchy where someone in charge is leading a handful of people who lead some more people to do what needs to be done. Progressives and their propensity to challenge norms, tradition and institutions aren't in a great position to establish those institutions let alone let them be long enough to be effective without challenging them again. That's total chaos.

No matter who you are, you tend toward one side or the other, which is ok. But more than anything, i think that's the biggest evidence for and the best justification for why people can't lock themselves up in their ideology and shut themselves off to other perspectives and other ideas. On the conservative side, the world will always be changing and you need to change with it or get left behind. On the progressive side, you need people who understand how to organize and get shit done or else your visions and ideas can't manifest into anything lasting and effective.

You would think that the symbiosis and innovation that are a natural outcome of real collaboration would be obvious.

You would think that adults would understand this, almost instinctively, and behave accordingly.

But no. This is one of the biggest - perhaps THE biggest - of the destructive effects of narcissistic partisan ideology: The affliction closes minds, creates an intellectual myopia, convinces the afflicted that only they and their tribe have all the answers, and none of their answers can be improved upon.

This is a terribly destructive social disease with no (as of yet) known cure.
.

 

[Some Guy]

The airing of opposing opinions is necessary to curtail excesses in the use of power, but their active suppression often leads to even greater excesses. For example, the radical Left in this country is doing all it can to destroy the First Amendment and impose a thought-police state. Heaven help us if they succeed.

Which is why i said to forget the notions of what you think of as "progressive" because i agree, they're very regressive right now in some things they support. From a thought process standpoint, the terms "conservative" (i.e. to conserve) and "progressive" (i.e. to progress) are appropriate here.

The fact that progressives have moved beyond the term "liberal" even shows how they naturally challenge the norms. The term "liberal" which is to define yourself as a proponent of liberty wasn't even "progressive" enough so they took on that moniker. I'm sure before long they'll think of something else other than "progressive." I honestly wish they would just call themselves socialists because at least that's honest, and leave the term "progressive" to those who want to challenge that what needs challenging in our country instead of fundamentally tearing it down and rebuilding something else in it's place.

 

[Some Guy]

First of all, put aside your pre-conceptions of the words "conservative" and "progressive" in a political context, and think of them this way:

Conservatives: want to conserve the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward history and tradition as a way of informing how to forge to the future.
Progressives: want to challenge the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward creativity and new, sometimes radical ideas as a way of informing how to forge the future

Jordan Peterson was talking about this in his address to the Oxford Union. He said that total conservative rule would be "pathological order" and total progressive rule would be "pathological chaos." Considering the definitions above, he's completely correct.

If not for progressive thinkers, you'd perhaps still have women being treated largely as second class citizens, perhaps without the right to vote. No gay rights, perhaps slavery is still around, etc. I'm basically referring to a literal interpretation of the bible here. Without someone(s) to challenge those notions and say "hey, this is wrong and here's why" then conservatives aren't really forced to think about it cause they'll tend to take solace in their traditions and institutions. That's total order.

On the flipside, if not for conservatives, you'd have no order. No way of figuring out how to structure things, how to organize things and get things done. In order to actually execute on something, you need a system in place, which requires a plan, generally a document or instruction manual of sorts or some sort of hierarchy where someone in charge is leading a handful of people who lead some more people to do what needs to be done. Progressives and their propensity to challenge norms, tradition and institutions aren't in a great position to establish those institutions let alone let them be long enough to be effective without challenging them again. That's total chaos.

No matter who you are, you tend toward one side or the other, which is ok. But more than anything, i think that's the biggest evidence for and the best justification for why people can't lock themselves up in their ideology and shut themselves off to other perspectives and other ideas. On the conservative side, the world will always be changing and you need to change with it or get left behind. On the progressive side, you need people who understand how to organize and get shit done or else your visions and ideas can't manifest into anything lasting and effective.

You would think that the symbiosis and innovation that are a natural outcome of real collaboration would be obvious.

You would think that adults would understand this, almost instinctively.

But no. This is one of the biggest - perhaps THE biggest - of the destructive effects of narcissistic partisan ideology: The affliction closes minds, creates an intellectual myopia, convinces the afflicted that only they and their tribe have all the answers, and none of their answers can be improved upon.

This is a terribly destructive disease with no (as of yet) known cure.
.

It boils down to whether you think you've ever been wrong in your life. To think that you have all the answers and what you think is the gospel is to also claim that you have never been and never will be wrong. It's ok to admit when you're wrong, we all are at some point. The human experience is all about learning things that either reinforce or change your views on just about anything. What's ever-changing is that everything changes, so what was the best solution to a problem 30 years ago may not be now, which is why people need to be constantly discussing, talking, and most importantly, understanding where the other is coming from and evaluate it honestly. You may still disagree but at least you've built some empathy for that person and are able to better talk/work with that person about something else in the future.

There's none of that right now. To think you have all the answers and you know what's best for everyone is to compare yourself to or consider yourself a god.

 

[jwoodie]

It boils down to whether you think you've ever been wrong in your life. To think that you have all the answers and what you think is the gospel is to also claim that you have never been and never will be wrong. It's ok to admit when you're wrong, we all are at some point.

This is a nice sentiment, but it tends to fail in the present tense. Except for playing the Devil's advocate, anyone who does not think he is "right" when presenting an argument or opinion is being dishonest.

That is not to say that arrogance is a virtue or humility a vice. Everyone should be willing to consider additional facts and changing circumstances in evaluating their conclusions, and acknowledge past omissions. However, the current fad of accepting other individual's "truths" as legitimate substitutes for rational thought is ridiculous.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Utter Rubbish to think this Nation needs something that is referred to as the progressive movement. The so called progressives,liberals,socialists,marxists , pc republicans etc.etc. and so on and so forth have brought America to its knees. Far too many do not understand that and they do not as well understand the mess we are in. Trump being very close to a miracle is trying his best to turn America around...but way too many oppose him even in his own party.

The thing we need to face up to now is that what we have always called a democracy is no longer working. The democrats have mounted an insurrection and or a attempt at a coup d' etat. Will they be successful? At this point I think not ...barring some big new development. So at this point I see Trump surviving....but the only way he can get much accomplished is if the Republicans are successful in the mid-terms.

The big question at the moment will the political violence the leftwing has ignited --expand or wither away.

People who want to protect their families should be better informed on current political developments. Above all they need to arm themselves and organize in case worse comes to worse.

I do not know for sure where all this is headed...but just a few short years ago...it would have been unthinkable for the opposition party to engage in such outrageous tactics as the democrats have stooped to.....they should be concerned about a back-lash.

Decent people will only tolerate so much and I think the people that truly love America are beginning to understand we may have to take some radical actions of our own to stem the assault by the leftwingers before it really reaches the level of a civil war...which no one would have believed possible before...but now it is not beyond the realm of possibilities.

 

[night_son]

First of all, put aside your pre-conceptions of the words "conservative" and "progressive" in a political context, and think of them this way:

Conservatives: want to conserve the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward history and tradition as a way of informing how to forge to the future.
Progressives: want to challenge the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward creativity and new, sometimes radical ideas as a way of informing how to forge the future

Jordan Peterson was talking about this in his address to the Oxford Union. He said that total conservative rule would be "pathological order" and total progressive rule would be "pathological chaos." Considering the definitions above, he's completely correct.

If not for progressive thinkers, you'd perhaps still have women being treated largely as second class citizens, perhaps without the right to vote. No gay rights, perhaps slavery is still around, etc. I'm basically referring to a literal interpretation of the bible here. Without someone(s) to challenge those notions and say "hey, this is wrong and here's why" then conservatives aren't really forced to think about it cause they'll tend to take solace in their traditions and institutions. That's total order.

On the flipside, if not for conservatives, you'd have no order. No way of figuring out how to structure things, how to organize things and get things done. In order to actually execute on something, you need a system in place, which requires a plan, generally a document or instruction manual of sorts or some sort of hierarchy where someone in charge is leading a handful of people who lead some more people to do what needs to be done. Progressives and their propensity to challenge norms, tradition and institutions aren't in a great position to establish those institutions let alone let them be long enough to be effective without challenging them again. That's total chaos.

No matter who you are, you tend toward one side or the other, which is ok. But more than anything, i think that's the biggest evidence for and the best justification for why people can't lock themselves up in their ideology and shut themselves off to other perspectives and other ideas. On the conservative side, the world will always be changing and you need to change with it or get left behind. On the progressive side, you need people who understand how to organize and get shit done or else your visions and ideas can't manifest into anything lasting and effective.

To answer your question I think we must begin with the premise that no body of citizenry in history has truly ruled ltself save for the individual family unit. However even within the family unit absolute authority exists traditionally in the father and variably the mother who sometimes wields more or less political power than her husband. From that point we can examine how a set of parents raise their children--who fall into the same category of the citizen--the governed.

Of course not all fathers are conservative nor all mothers progressive, although that was often the case in ancient times. Yet the roles of both reversed as a result of changing requirements for family needs and parenting tactics closely related to the stages of a child's growth and psychological development. For instance the historical mother embodies conservatism in remaining home with the children, maintaining the home and meeting the domestic duties of the whole family unit, including the close attention paid to very young children. She fears what lies beyond the borders of the family home, an place unfamiliar to her where all manner of unknown threats could lurk. She also embodies the tradition of domestic routine which seems conservative in nature.

The father in this instance embodies progressive ideals in that he leaves the family behind on the homestead every morning to go out beyond the borders, hunt food, trade with other families and explore/map the unknown beyond. He is pushing the frontiers of family safety. What if an enemy family member or large predator followed him home? He has become the embodiment of risk, a progressive.

On the other side of the parental dynamic roles reverse as the children come of age and the mother embodies progressive ideals as she decides she must socialize her children with those of other families in order to mature their minds and eventually find suitable mates. Here the father now embodies conservatism as all he can think about is protecting his children--daughter in particular--from outsiders, many of whom he distrusts.

One could then argue that indeed both conservative and progressive ideologies are required to effectively raise children--to hold the family unti together and defend it while avoiding stagnation.

A new comparison then arises between the primeval family unit and the governed society. In distant antiquity post tribalism and the nomadic phases, the philosophy of governance employed in the first walled towns and cities was that of religion and its associated parables, rites, and tithes, to control the population. But the family model persisted in the form of religious leaders as father and an unseen deity as mother. Here it is more difficult to assign conservative and progressive embodiments as cleanly to this form of political rule when mother was a entity no one could see or touch. So father spoke for mother informing the citizenry what mother demanded from them and how they needed to live their lives in order to appease her.

Perhaps the concepts of king and queen stem from the need to present incarnate parents to the populace? Anyway, with the advent of the monarchy the human mother and father were back in view together even though Gods remained vital for the purpose of representing ultimate parental authority. In the case of king, queen or emperor the representations of conservative vs. progressive were never really based on types of polices enacted by the ruler.

No, the citizenry by proxy of their needs and population growth, and the actions of other kingdoms dictated philosophy of rule and law. If the harvest resulted in great surplus the monarch could afford to be more generous versus if crops failed belts had to be tightened. A king never had to worry much though because with religion and Gods, he was never without the perfect scapegoat for tough times or a higher set of parents he could use against the people to bring them to order.

I think the theocracies of the ancient world were important in that they inspired in men a thirst for greater equality with the ruling class--even with the king--and a thirst for personal freedoms. We see this manifest early on in classical Greek democracies even though the beginnings of Grecian science, art and philosophy existed within a bubble that relied on the implied brute force of both the Gods and an albeit gentler state authoritarianism. One could classify the nascence of cultural enlightenment as a progressive movement and yet all aspects of it were just as often used to promote the will of the state or religion. Propaganda is born.

The concepts of give and take, push and pull, protect and explore apply here I think to your central idea. The old ways always became more repressive if not oppressive to newer generations and with that one must also include the birth of the sciences and new religions. Wherever men had time to think new ideas about how he should do so were born and the more he questioned the men and gods above him.

Ultimately what I think history has shown us time and time again is an eventual radical departure from conservative tradition, either overnight or a course of decades. Eventually the progression of cultural revolution tends to become more of a transformation of the known, the safe, the trusted than the citizenry originally bargained for. So in order to take a step back--at least to the last safe point--the citizenry embraces more conservative rule. Then the still expanding progressive movement resists a return to the old ways and the new conservative movement has no choice but to become radically conservative and eventually authoritarian in order to be capable of pulling back.

In conclusion Left and Right or at least some degree of combination of the two ideologies is necessary for a free and healthy society. All successful variants of historical democracies have been governments existing within a state of bloodless never ending civil war. A system where two sides of the governing body--progressive and conservative--constantly disagree but remain a union terreitory and united ruling body. The concept is highly fascinating: a form of government where primeval mother and father are always locked in heated argument. When either one gets the upper hand lookout!

What we in America really need then is for one side of the parental spectrum to somehow convince the other--in this case the progressive one--that they have taken us too far from the familiar--and that it's past time to backtrack to safer ground, For our nation to survive the conservative side must find a way to do this without force and an acceptable assurance to the progressives they can keep some of the new moral/cultural ground they've conquered over the last six decades.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Didn't Forrest Gump cover most of this.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

First of all, put aside your pre-conceptions of the words "conservative" and "progressive" in a political context, and think of them this way:

Conservatives: want to conserve the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward history and tradition as a way of informing how to forge to the future.
Progressives: want to challenge the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward creativity and new, sometimes radical ideas as a way of informing how to forge the future

Jordan Peterson was talking about this in his address to the Oxford Union. He said that total conservative rule would be "pathological order" and total progressive rule would be "pathological chaos." Considering the definitions above, he's completely correct.

If not for progressive thinkers, you'd perhaps still have women being treated largely as second class citizens, perhaps without the right to vote. No gay rights, perhaps slavery is still around, etc. I'm basically referring to a literal interpretation of the bible here. Without someone(s) to challenge those notions and say "hey, this is wrong and here's why" then conservatives aren't really forced to think about it cause they'll tend to take solace in their traditions and institutions. That's total order.

On the flipside, if not for conservatives, you'd have no order. No way of figuring out how to structure things, how to organize things and get things done. In order to actually execute on something, you need a system in place, which requires a plan, generally a document or instruction manual of sorts or some sort of hierarchy where someone in charge is leading a handful of people who lead some more people to do what needs to be done. Progressives and their propensity to challenge norms, tradition and institutions aren't in a great position to establish those institutions let alone let them be long enough to be effective without challenging them again. That's total chaos.

No matter who you are, you tend toward one side or the other, which is ok. But more than anything, i think that's the biggest evidence for and the best justification for why people can't lock themselves up in their ideology and shut themselves off to other perspectives and other ideas. On the conservative side, the world will always be changing and you need to change with it or get left behind. On the progressive side, you need people who understand how to organize and get shit done or else your visions and ideas can't manifest into anything lasting and effective.

To answer your question I think we must begin with the premise that no body of citizenry in history has truly ruled ltself save for the individual family unit. However even within the family unit absolute authority exists traditionally in the father and variably the mother who sometimes wields more or less political power than her husband. From that point we can examine how a set of parents raise their children--who fall into the same category of the citizen--the governed.

Of course not all fathers are conservative nor all mothers progressive, although that was often the case in ancient times. Yet the roles of both reversed as a result of changing requirements for family needs and parenting tactics closely related to the stages of a child's growth and psychological development. For instance the historical mother embodies conservatism in remaining home with the children, maintaining the home and meeting the domestic duties of the whole family unit, including the close attention paid to very young children. She fears what lies beyond the borders of the family home, an place unfamiliar to her where all manner of unknown threats could lurk. She also embodies the tradition of domestic routine which seems conservative in nature.

The father in this instance embodies progressive ideals in that he leaves the family behind on the homestead every morning to go out beyond the borders, hunt food, trade with other families and explore/map the unknown beyond. He is pushing the frontiers of family safety. What if an enemy family member or large predator followed him home? He has become the embodiment of risk, a progressive.

On the other side of the parental dynamic roles reverse as the children come of age and the mother embodies progressive ideals as she decides she must socialize her children with those of other families in order to mature their minds and eventually find suitable mates. Here the father now embodies conservatism as all he can think about is protecting his children--daughter in particular--from outsiders, many of whom he distrusts.

One could then argue that indeed both conservative and progressive ideologies are required to effectively raise children--to hold the family unti together and defend it while avoiding stagnation.

A new comparison then arises between the primeval family unit and the governed society. In distant antiquity post tribalism and the nomadic phases, the philosophy of governance employed in the first walled towns and cities was that of religion and its associated parables, rites, and tithes, to control the population. But the family model persisted in the form of religious leaders as father and an unseen deity as mother. Here it is more difficult to assign conservative and progressive embodiments as cleanly to this form of political rule when mother was a entity no one could see or touch. So father spoke for mother informing the citizenry what mother demanded from them and how they needed to live their lives in order to appease her.

Perhaps the concepts of king and queen stem from the need to present incarnate parents to the populace? Anyway, with the advent of the monarchy the human mother and father were back in view together even though Gods remained vital for the purpose of representing ultimate parental authority. In the case of king, queen or emperor the representations of conservative vs. progressive were never really based on types of polices enacted by the ruler.

No, the citizenry by proxy of their needs and population growth, and the actions of other kingdoms dictated philosophy of rule and law. If the harvest resulted in great surplus the monarch could afford to be more generous versus if crops failed belts had to be tightened. A king never had to worry much though because with religion and Gods, he was never without the perfect scapegoat for tough times or a higher set of parents he could use against the people to bring them to order.

I think the theocracies of the ancient world were important in that they inspired in men a thirst for greater equality with the ruling class--even with the king--and a thirst for personal freedoms. We see this manifest early on in classical Greek democracies even though the beginnings of Grecian science, art and philosophy existed within a bubble that relied on the implied brute force of both the Gods and an albeit gentler state authoritarianism. One could classify the nascence of cultural enlightenment as a progressive movement and yet all aspects of it were just as often used to promote the will of the state or religion. Propaganda is born.

The concepts of give and take, push and pull, protect and explore apply here I think to your central idea. The old ways always became more repressive if not oppressive to newer generations and with that one must also include the birth of the sciences and new religions. Wherever men had time to think new ideas about how he should do so were born and the more he questioned the men and gods above him.

Ultimately what I think history has shown us time and time again is an eventual radical departure from conservative tradition, either overnight or a course of decades. Eventually the progression of cultural revolution tends to become more of a transformation of the known, the safe, the trusted than the citizenry originally bargained for. So in order to take a step back--at least to the last safe point--the citizenry embraces more conservative rule. Then the still expanding progressive movement resists a return to the old ways and the new conservative movement has no choice but to become radically conservative and eventually authoritarian in order to be capable of pulling back.

In conclusion Left and Right or at least some degree of combination of the two ideologies is necessary for a free and healthy society. All successful variants of historical democracies have been governments existing within a state of bloodless never ending civil war. A system where two sides of the governing body--progressive and conservative--constantly disagree but remain a union terreitory and united ruling body. The concept is highly fascinating: a form of government where primeval mother and father are always locked in heated argument. When either one gets the upper hand lookout!

What we in America really need then is for one side of the parental spectrum to somehow convince the other--in this case the progressive one--that they have taken us too far from the familiar--and that it's past time to backtrack to safer ground, For our nation to survive the conservative side must find a way to do this without force and an acceptable assurance to the progressives they can keep some of the new moral/cultural ground they've conquered over the last six decades.

Dream on......meanwhilst back at the ranch..............democrats are bent on causing all the havoc they possibly can......they have not called for an all out revolution yet....but give them time...the only way their sedition can be stopped is for Trump to get a nice little majority in Congress...then we can proceed to take care of business.

 

[night_son]

First of all, put aside your pre-conceptions of the words "conservative" and "progressive" in a political context, and think of them this way:

Conservatives: want to conserve the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward history and tradition as a way of informing how to forge to the future.
Progressives: want to challenge the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward creativity and new, sometimes radical ideas as a way of informing how to forge the future

Jordan Peterson was talking about this in his address to the Oxford Union. He said that total conservative rule would be "pathological order" and total progressive rule would be "pathological chaos." Considering the definitions above, he's completely correct.

If not for progressive thinkers, you'd perhaps still have women being treated largely as second class citizens, perhaps without the right to vote. No gay rights, perhaps slavery is still around, etc. I'm basically referring to a literal interpretation of the bible here. Without someone(s) to challenge those notions and say "hey, this is wrong and here's why" then conservatives aren't really forced to think about it cause they'll tend to take solace in their traditions and institutions. That's total order.

On the flipside, if not for conservatives, you'd have no order. No way of figuring out how to structure things, how to organize things and get things done. In order to actually execute on something, you need a system in place, which requires a plan, generally a document or instruction manual of sorts or some sort of hierarchy where someone in charge is leading a handful of people who lead some more people to do what needs to be done. Progressives and their propensity to challenge norms, tradition and institutions aren't in a great position to establish those institutions let alone let them be long enough to be effective without challenging them again. That's total chaos.

No matter who you are, you tend toward one side or the other, which is ok. But more than anything, i think that's the biggest evidence for and the best justification for why people can't lock themselves up in their ideology and shut themselves off to other perspectives and other ideas. On the conservative side, the world will always be changing and you need to change with it or get left behind. On the progressive side, you need people who understand how to organize and get shit done or else your visions and ideas can't manifest into anything lasting and effective.

To answer your question I think we must begin with the premise that no body of citizenry in history has truly ruled ltself save for the individual family unit. However even within the family unit absolute authority exists traditionally in the father and variably the mother who sometimes wields more or less political power than her husband. From that point we can examine how a set of parents raise their children--who fall into the same category of the citizen--the governed.

Of course not all fathers are conservative nor all mothers progressive, although that was often the case in ancient times. Yet the roles of both reversed as a result of changing requirements for family needs and parenting tactics closely related to the stages of a child's growth and psychological development. For instance the historical mother embodies conservatism in remaining home with the children, maintaining the home and meeting the domestic duties of the whole family unit, including the close attention paid to very young children. She fears what lies beyond the borders of the family home, an place unfamiliar to her where all manner of unknown threats could lurk. She also embodies the tradition of domestic routine which seems conservative in nature.

The father in this instance embodies progressive ideals in that he leaves the family behind on the homestead every morning to go out beyond the borders, hunt food, trade with other families and explore/map the unknown beyond. He is pushing the frontiers of family safety. What if an enemy family member or large predator followed him home? He has become the embodiment of risk, a progressive.

On the other side of the parental dynamic roles reverse as the children come of age and the mother embodies progressive ideals as she decides she must socialize her children with those of other families in order to mature their minds and eventually find suitable mates. Here the father now embodies conservatism as all he can think about is protecting his children--daughter in particular--from outsiders, many of whom he distrusts.

One could then argue that indeed both conservative and progressive ideologies are required to effectively raise children--to hold the family unti together and defend it while avoiding stagnation.

A new comparison then arises between the primeval family unit and the governed society. In distant antiquity post tribalism and the nomadic phases, the philosophy of governance employed in the first walled towns and cities was that of religion and its associated parables, rites, and tithes, to control the population. But the family model persisted in the form of religious leaders as father and an unseen deity as mother. Here it is more difficult to assign conservative and progressive embodiments as cleanly to this form of political rule when mother was a entity no one could see or touch. So father spoke for mother informing the citizenry what mother demanded from them and how they needed to live their lives in order to appease her.

Perhaps the concepts of king and queen stem from the need to present incarnate parents to the populace? Anyway, with the advent of the monarchy the human mother and father were back in view together even though Gods remained vital for the purpose of representing ultimate parental authority. In the case of king, queen or emperor the representations of conservative vs. progressive were never really based on types of polices enacted by the ruler.

No, the citizenry by proxy of their needs and population growth, and the actions of other kingdoms dictated philosophy of rule and law. If the harvest resulted in great surplus the monarch could afford to be more generous versus if crops failed belts had to be tightened. A king never had to worry much though because with religion and Gods, he was never without the perfect scapegoat for tough times or a higher set of parents he could use against the people to bring them to order.

I think the theocracies of the ancient world were important in that they inspired in men a thirst for greater equality with the ruling class--even with the king--and a thirst for personal freedoms. We see this manifest early on in classical Greek democracies even though the beginnings of Grecian science, art and philosophy existed within a bubble that relied on the implied brute force of both the Gods and an albeit gentler state authoritarianism. One could classify the nascence of cultural enlightenment as a progressive movement and yet all aspects of it were just as often used to promote the will of the state or religion. Propaganda is born.

The concepts of give and take, push and pull, protect and explore apply here I think to your central idea. The old ways always became more repressive if not oppressive to newer generations and with that one must also include the birth of the sciences and new religions. Wherever men had time to think new ideas about how he should do so were born and the more he questioned the men and gods above him.

Ultimately what I think history has shown us time and time again is an eventual radical departure from conservative tradition, either overnight or a course of decades. Eventually the progression of cultural revolution tends to become more of a transformation of the known, the safe, the trusted than the citizenry originally bargained for. So in order to take a step back--at least to the last safe point--the citizenry embraces more conservative rule. Then the still expanding progressive movement resists a return to the old ways and the new conservative movement has no choice but to become radically conservative and eventually authoritarian in order to be capable of pulling back.

In conclusion Left and Right or at least some degree of combination of the two ideologies is necessary for a free and healthy society. All successful variants of historical democracies have been governments existing within a state of bloodless never ending civil war. A system where two sides of the governing body--progressive and conservative--constantly disagree but remain a union terreitory and united ruling body. The concept is highly fascinating: a form of government where primeval mother and father are always locked in heated argument. When either one gets the upper hand lookout!

What we in America really need then is for one side of the parental spectrum to somehow convince the other--in this case the progressive one--that they have taken us too far from the familiar--and that it's past time to backtrack to safer ground, For our nation to survive the conservative side must find a way to do this without force and an acceptable assurance to the progressives they can keep some of the new moral/cultural ground they've conquered over the last six decades.

Dream on......meanwhilst back at the ranch..............democrats are bent on causing all the havoc they possibly can......they have not called for an all out revolution yet....but give them time...the only way their sedition can be stopped is for Trump to get a nice little majority in Congress...then we can proceed to take care of business.

^^ That's exactly what I said.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

This would be the case if Progressives were the same as . As it is, their economics have been tried, and have failed, numerous times around the world, in numerous builds.

Though, they're not pitching it because it's progressive, they're pitching it because it expands the government monopoly.

You missed the part about "forget your pre-conceptions about what progressive means." I'm not talking about in terms of politics, i'm talking about in terms of predisposition based on your way of thinking. If you need another term, think of it as "left vs. right brained."

I'd also like to point out that Slavery occurring in the Bible is not an endorsement of Slavery, only an acknowledgment that it was something that was accepted by the culture at the time.

My point exactly. It was accepted at that time, and had not a progressive type thinker or thinkers been there to challenge it, it could very likely still be going on.

I didn't miss that, because it's not a 'preconception', but a fact. Progressives aren't what they used to be, otherwise they'd be leading a march forward instead of backwards.

 

[Pellinore]

First of all, put aside your pre-conceptions of the words "conservative" and "progressive" in a political context, and think of them this way:

Conservatives: want to conserve the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward history and tradition as a way of informing how to forge to the future.
Progressives: want to challenge the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward creativity and new, sometimes radical ideas as a way of informing how to forge the future

Jordan Peterson was talking about this in his address to the Oxford Union. He said that total conservative rule would be "pathological order" and total progressive rule would be "pathological chaos." Considering the definitions above, he's completely correct.

If not for progressive thinkers, you'd perhaps still have women being treated largely as second class citizens, perhaps without the right to vote. No gay rights, perhaps slavery is still around, etc. I'm basically referring to a literal interpretation of the bible here. Without someone(s) to challenge those notions and say "hey, this is wrong and here's why" then conservatives aren't really forced to think about it cause they'll tend to take solace in their traditions and institutions. That's total order.

On the flipside, if not for conservatives, you'd have no order. No way of figuring out how to structure things, how to organize things and get things done. In order to actually execute on something, you need a system in place, which requires a plan, generally a document or instruction manual of sorts or some sort of hierarchy where someone in charge is leading a handful of people who lead some more people to do what needs to be done. Progressives and their propensity to challenge norms, tradition and institutions aren't in a great position to establish those institutions let alone let them be long enough to be effective without challenging them again. That's total chaos.

No matter who you are, you tend toward one side or the other, which is ok. But more than anything, i think that's the biggest evidence for and the best justification for why people can't lock themselves up in their ideology and shut themselves off to other perspectives and other ideas. On the conservative side, the world will always be changing and you need to change with it or get left behind. On the progressive side, you need people who understand how to organize and get shit done or else your visions and ideas can't manifest into anything lasting and effective.

This more or less jives with my thoughts on the matter. Progressives want to Progress toward the "more perfect union" by instigating social change, because if we don't make any progress, technology and the world and our evolving social mores leave our system behind. It is therefore Progressives (or Liberals; I'm using Progressives here because the word better fits my idiom) that have pushed us for education reform, labor reform, women's suffrage, Civil Rights, clean air and water, and so on. The catch is that it is possible to progress too quickly, as we did by passing Prohibition during the, well, Progressive Era - this is similar to your interpretation of unchained Liberalism as 'Chaos.' Changing too much too quickly results in our losing our culture, as Prohibition conflicted too much with wedding toasts, ships' christenings, and the cultural importance of the corner pub, among other things. Conservatives therefore want to Conserve the unique qualities that gives us our own identity; this is similar to what you say is the Conservative lean toward 'Order,' and it is important as long as their zeal for preservation of the past causes the country to stagnate or even revert.

The country has thrived for as long as it has because the tension between the two forces has more or less averaged out to a slow and steady progress in directions determined by plenty of debate and consideration. Our most tumultuous times come as our systems and parties are shuffling about and re-aligning, which has happened five times so far (around 1824, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1964); our current strife is one reason I think we're in the middle of another switch, ending our sixth system and entering our seventh, with both parties changing as a result, and possibly adding or removing one or more.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

First of all, put aside your pre-conceptions of the words "conservative" and "progressive" in a political context, and think of them this way:

Conservatives: want to conserve the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward history and tradition as a way of informing how to forge to the future.
Progressives: want to challenge the hierarchies and institutions they're used to, and tend toward creativity and new, sometimes radical ideas as a way of informing how to forge the future

Jordan Peterson was talking about this in his address to the Oxford Union. He said that total conservative rule would be "pathological order" and total progressive rule would be "pathological chaos." Considering the definitions above, he's completely correct.

If not for progressive thinkers, you'd perhaps still have women being treated largely as second class citizens, perhaps without the right to vote. No gay rights, perhaps slavery is still around, etc. I'm basically referring to a literal interpretation of the bible here. Without someone(s) to challenge those notions and say "hey, this is wrong and here's why" then conservatives aren't really forced to think about it cause they'll tend to take solace in their traditions and institutions. That's total order.

On the flipside, if not for conservatives, you'd have no order. No way of figuring out how to structure things, how to organize things and get things done. In order to actually execute on something, you need a system in place, which requires a plan, generally a document or instruction manual of sorts or some sort of hierarchy where someone in charge is leading a handful of people who lead some more people to do what needs to be done. Progressives and their propensity to challenge norms, tradition and institutions aren't in a great position to establish those institutions let alone let them be long enough to be effective without challenging them again. That's total chaos.

No matter who you are, you tend toward one side or the other, which is ok. But more than anything, i think that's the biggest evidence for and the best justification for why people can't lock themselves up in their ideology and shut themselves off to other perspectives and other ideas. On the conservative side, the world will always be changing and you need to change with it or get left behind. On the progressive side, you need people who understand how to organize and get shit done or else your visions and ideas can't manifest into anything lasting and effective.

This more or less jives with my thoughts on the matter. Progressives want to Progress toward the "more perfect union" by instigating social change, because if we don't make any progress, technology and the world and our evolving social mores leave our system behind. It is therefore Progressives (or Liberals; I'm using Progressives here because the word better fits my idiom) that have pushed us for education reform, labor reform, women's suffrage, Civil Rights, clean air and water, and so on. The catch is that it is possible to progress too quickly, as we did by passing Prohibition during the, well, Progressive Era - this is similar to your interpretation of unchained Liberalism as 'Chaos.' Changing too much too quickly results in our losing our culture, as Prohibition conflicted too much with wedding toasts, ships' christenings, and the cultural importance of the corner pub, among other things. Conservatives therefore want to Conserve the unique qualities that gives us our own identity; this is similar to what you say is the Conservative lean toward 'Order,' and it is important as long as their zeal for preservation of the past causes the country to stagnate or even revert.

The country has thrived for as long as it has because the tension between the two forces has more or less averaged out to a slow and steady progress in directions determined by plenty of debate and consideration. Our most tumultuous times come as our systems and parties are shuffling about and re-aligning, which has happened five times so far (around 1824, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1964); our current strife is one reason I think we're in the middle of another switch, ending our sixth system and entering our seventh, with both parties changing as a result, and possibly adding or removing one or more.

A lot of verbiage there. In a nutshell we have always succeeded despite our political leadership not because of it. We have had a very,very long history of poor or incompetent leadership Obama proved one thing.....we really do not need a President.

Presidents do have a lot of power if they have the courage to use it. We have had some very cowardly,meek and mild Presidents. You may say a lot of things about Trump but you cannot deny that he has stepped up to the plate and has the courage to do not only some un-popular things that go against political correctness but things that really will help America.

All the name calling by the hollywood starlets, comedians and celebrities are just examples of stupidity. Unfortunately stupidity cannot be fixed.

Trump is a true Patriot and for the first time in a long,long time we have the makings of a truly Great President.

The switch you talk about comes down to populism....that is the movement that is now invigorating America. The democratic leadership still does not get it....the socialists do....but if they try to blend in with the democrats it will only weaken and destroy them....which would not be a bad thing....because the Socialists are a dangerous threat because they represent and espouse real help for the minoriities...I do not disagree with the government helping people...I just do not want them helping the wrong people at the expense of the White Working Class who reallly deserves help.....we have been without any real representation in Wahington for decades...... That is why I support Trump.

 

[Some Guy]

It boils down to whether you think you've ever been wrong in your life. To think that you have all the answers and what you think is the gospel is to also claim that you have never been and never will be wrong. It's ok to admit when you're wrong, we all are at some point.

This is a nice sentiment, but it tends to fail in the present tense. Except for playing the Devil's advocate, anyone who does not think he is "right" when presenting an argument or opinion is being dishonest.

That is not to say that arrogance is a virtue or humility a vice. Everyone should be willing to consider additional facts and changing circumstances in evaluating their conclusions, and acknowledge past omissions. However, the current fad of accepting other individual's "truths" as legitimate substitutes for rational thought is ridiculous.

I don't disagree, and of course everyone thinks they're on the right side of the issue. But there's a lot of nuance in a lot of things. And while you may not wholly change your position on something, perhaps you'd learn something from listening to someone else, consider it, and at least be better off for having considered it. All animals, including humans, only survive because we learn from each other and use each others' past experiences to inform what or what not to do. To think you have everything all figured out is the height of narcissism.

 

[Some Guy]

Utter Rubbish to think this Nation needs something that is referred to as the progressive movement. The so called progressives,liberals,socialists,marxists , pc republicans etc.etc. and so on and so forth have brought America to its knees. Far too many do not understand that and they do not as well understand the mess we are in. Trump being very close to a miracle is trying his best to turn America around...but way too many oppose him even in his own party.

The thing we need to face up to now is that what we have always called a democracy is no longer working. The democrats have mounted an insurrection and or a attempt at a coup d' etat. Will they be successful? At this point I think not ...barring some big new development. So at this point I see Trump surviving....but the only way he can get much accomplished is if the Republicans are successful in the mid-terms.

The big question at the moment will the political violence the leftwing has ignited --expand or wither away.

People who want to protect their families should be better informed on current political developments. Above all they need to arm themselves and organize in case worse comes to worse.

I do not know for sure where all this is headed...but just a few short years ago...it would have been unthinkable for the opposition party to engage in such outrageous tactics as the democrats have stooped to.....they should be concerned about a back-lash.

Decent people will only tolerate so much and I think the people that truly love America are beginning to understand we may have to take some radical actions of our own to stem the assault by the leftwingers before it really reaches the level of a civil war...which no one would have believed possible before...but now it is not beyond the realm of possibilities.

You missed the point again. I'm not talking about the people who call themselves progressives from a political POV. I'm talking about people who have that general mindset. Creative thinkers, non-conformists, people who think outside the box. Naturally, anyone who challenges the norm is going to miss the mark on some things (maybe even most things) but they'll also hit the mark here and there.

Fact is, nothing changes for the better without people who can both identify and then say something like "hey, this isn't right." Everything after that is about how you conduct yourself and then just common discourse that you hope can be conducted in a civilized matter. Obviously the quick shift to the virtual realm for that hasn't been good for discourse but the fact remains that you need people to challenge norms, plain and simple.

 

[jwoodie]

Everything after that is about how you conduct yourself and then just common discourse that you hope can be conducted in a civilized matter.

Can you cite a "progressive" who engages in civilized discourse?

 

[sartre play]

Everything after that is about how you conduct yourself and then just common discourse that you hope can be conducted in a civilized matter.

Can you cite a "progressive" who engages in civilized discourse?

Me, 90 % of the time ( no one is perfect.