CDZ Conservatives and Progressives need each other

[Indeependent]

Liberals love norms...the norms of perversion.

 

[karpenter]

You Lost Me At 'Hierarchies'
I Don't Recognize 'Hierarchies'
And Neither Does Our Bill Of Rights

The United States Is Truly Unique

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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?

He is way off in left field with all his 'blather' about progressives....simply does not get their true nature.

 

[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.

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.

You chose to use a term that is well known to refer to a particular political group...a poor choice of words. You should have used different terminology for people who have a creative mindset and or think outside the box.....definitely not the democrats aka progressives, liberals, and devotees of political correctness.

These folks are the 'norm' backed up and made possible by a media that is basically nothing more than a propaganda machine.....and have had too much power for way too long.....our struggle(conservatives) is to expose and excise them from their positions of power....which they have used for decades now to hurry us down the path of political correctness and destruction. No on has suffered more at the hands of these so called 'progressives' than the White Working Class.

You are way out there in a idealistic nebulous realm of theoretical suppositions bordering on incoherence. You need to focus your thoughts and speak clearly

 

[jwoodie]

He is way off in left field with all his 'blather' about progressives

Civilized discourse?

 

[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?

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

Do you consider the current "resistance" movement to be progressive?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Everyone should be moderates. Too far right and too far left is madness.

Conservatives by definition are unable to cope with change and want to hang onto outdated ideas and failed methods.

 

[jwoodie]

Conservatives by definition are unable to cope with change and want to hang onto outdated ideas and failed methods.

Like capitalism?

 

[Circe]

[
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.
.

Or, since it's universal, perhaps it's normal.

I'm always surprised that some people think ways of thinking and acting that all people do, ought to be changed. When they are pretty plainly evolved human attributes. War, violence, in and out group dynamics, sex predation, etc., etc. It's how humans are made, and we use these characteristics to evolve against each other: intraspecific evolution.

 

[Mac1958]

[
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.
.

Or, since it's universal, perhaps it's normal.

I'm always surprised that some people think ways of thinking and acting that all people do, ought to be changed. When they are pretty plainly evolved human attributes. War, violence, in and out group dynamics, sex predation, etc., etc. It's how humans are made, and we use these characteristics to evolve against each other: intraspecific evolution.

I think that's a good and important point. And come to think of it, maybe what concerns me so much is that it seems to me that we're regressing as a culture. I think we know better than this, that we're capable of better than this, right now, at this point in our evolution. I think we've evolved at least to that point. But we're choosing to behave this way, and there are people who have a vested professional interest in enabling it. They're getting their way.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

When I saw the title of the thread, I was expecting something stupid, if only because of the subject title. How great to find out it was written so intelligently.

Thanks for offering such a great post. Don't let it deter you that somebody stupid called it funny in order to mock you. This forum sorely needs more posters like you.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

He is way off in left field with all his 'blather' about progressives....simply does not get their true nature.

Those who call themselves "progressive" are almost invariably authoritarian leftists devoid of understanding and engaging in group think -- what George Carlin called "fascism pretending to be manners" -- but that doesn't mean there aren't some actual philosophical underpinnings to progressive ideology. Distinguishing between the ideology and those purporting to follow it is important here.

Even though most who call themselves liberal or progressive here are neither liberal nor progressive, that does not mean there is no actual ideology. It just means they are very poor examples of such.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Well said!

In my mind, it's always a balancing act - go to far one way or the other, and the people revolt. Eventually, the new becomes part of the status quo that conservatives protect. Conservatism is geared towards protecting the status quo - liberalism towards pushing the envelope of what is "us".

One of the most informing articles I read was this one, though it talks of it in religion it expands to broader society (fundamentalism/conservatism vs liberalism): The fundamentalist agenda

Fundamentalism’s conservative impulse wants stability in societies. Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances.

...While society is a kind of slow dance between the conservative and liberal impulses, the liberal role is the more important one. It makes our societies humane rather than just stable and mean.

But for the liberal impulse to lead, liberals must remain in contact with the center of our territorial instinct and our need for a structure of responsibilities. Fundamentalist uprisings are a sign that the liberals have failed to provide an adequate and balanced vision, that they have not found a vision that attracts enough people to become stable.

...When liberal visions work, it’s because they have kept one foot solidly in our deep territorial impulses with the other foot free to push the margin, to expand the definition of those who belong in “our” territory.


When liberal visions fail, it is often because they fail to achieve just this kind of balance between our conservative impulses and our liberal needs.


Over the past half century, many of our liberal visions have been too narrow, too self-absorbed, too unbalanced. This imbalance has been a key factor in triggering recent fundamentalist uprisings. When liberals don’t lead well, others don’t follow. And when society doesn’t follow liberal visions, liberals haven’t led.​

 

[Asclepias]

Conservatives by definition are unable to cope with change and want to hang onto outdated ideas and failed methods.

Like capitalism?

Capitalism requires a couple of things. Rubes that are only consumers and a pipe dream that if you work for someone eventually you will be rich.

 

[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.

Well said!

In my mind, it's always a balancing act - go to far one way or the other, and the people revolt. Eventually, the new becomes part of the status quo that conservatives protect. Conservatism is geared towards protecting the status quo - liberalism towards pushing the envelope of what is "us".

One of the most informing articles I read was this one, though it talks of it in religion it expands to broader society (fundamentalism/conservatism vs liberalism): The fundamentalist agenda

Fundamentalism’s conservative impulse wants stability in societies. Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances.

...While society is a kind of slow dance between the conservative and liberal impulses, the liberal role is the more important one. It makes our societies humane rather than just stable and mean.

But for the liberal impulse to lead, liberals must remain in contact with the center of our territorial instinct and our need for a structure of responsibilities. Fundamentalist uprisings are a sign that the liberals have failed to provide an adequate and balanced vision, that they have not found a vision that attracts enough people to become stable.

...When liberal visions work, it’s because they have kept one foot solidly in our deep territorial impulses with the other foot free to push the margin, to expand the definition of those who belong in “our” territory.


When liberal visions fail, it is often because they fail to achieve just this kind of balance between our conservative impulses and our liberal needs.


Over the past half century, many of our liberal visions have been too narrow, too self-absorbed, too unbalanced. This imbalance has been a key factor in triggering recent fundamentalist uprisings. When liberals don’t lead well, others don’t follow. And when society doesn’t follow liberal visions, liberals haven’t led.​

We can easily tell which side the author of that article is on. Yikes.

First, i object to the term "liberal" here as the term is derived from the word "liberty." Ones who call themselves liberals are concerned with liberty for those who they want to have liberty but don't really give a fuck about liberty for people they don't like. As such, actual liberals have had to call themselves libertarians, or classical liberals. "Progressives" is a better term more within the context of what i had explained in OP: people who want to challenge the norms.

Second, i wouldn't equate conservatism with fundamentalism. I see the correlation but conservatism has never really called for religious involvement directly in governance, just adhering to some principles taught by the text but not letting the text dictate governance. The constitution can't be considered "fundamentalist" cause it's not inherently religious.

Third, i would object to the overall tone that progressives are the leaders of a society. In some ways, yes, and in others, no. Progressives inherently aren't pre-disposed to being good leaders of institutions because of that desire to be a skeptic, and to challenge norms. They're better left to being thought leaders, left to challenge the institutions where they need challenging. The biggest mistake that progressives make, which is what the article above basically states, is when they see conservatives as the enemy and thus push way too hard outside the norm.

Overall, both sides need to see the other as a friend, not an enemy. It takes some humility on both sides to realize that they have their shortcomings and their strengths. Any good productive relationship, be it romantic or business,pairs (or groups) people together with strengths and weaknesses that don't overlap too much, so one person can bring something to the table that the other can't, but can do this, and so on. It takes conservatives to recognize that they need to adapt and it takes progressives to realize that they need order for each other to work together.

 

[Some Guy]

Conservatives by definition are unable to cope with change and want to hang onto outdated ideas and failed methods.

Like capitalism?

Capitalism requires a couple of things. Rubes that are only consumers and a pipe dream that if you work for someone eventually you will be rich.

Ha. Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty. There's a couple key words there that make capitalism vastly more preferable.