Kekes * argues that ‘the fundamental aim of conservatism is to conserve the political arrangements that have shown themselves to be conducive to good lives’. And, he continues, ‘the conservative view is that history is the best guide to understanding the present and planning for the future because it indicates what political arrangements are likely to make lives good or bad’
* John Kekes is currently a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the Univ of Albany [NY]. The reference above is from his article “What Is Conservatism?”
The conservative inclination to resist change is reinforced by this observation. Consistent with another trait common to the conservative personality—an intolerance for ambiguity and the related need for closure—little justification or substantiation is offered for the assessment. It is simply to be accepted as an incontrovertible fact, premised on the belief that what worked before will continue to work well. Period.
This approach to public matters of much greater complexity than the conservative mind is inclined to consider is a time-saver. Why waste time modifying approaches or giving further consideration to changing circumstances if you can just rely on what’s been done before? Consideration of other perspectives and changing circumstances tend to complicate matters, and who has time for that?
It likewise avoids the discomforting unease which arises whenever one’s conclusions are challenged by facts or by a multitude of examples suggesting such “No Debate Needed” propositions are not exactly as iron-clad and universally-agreed upon as proponents would like. Keep it simple….And so they do.
This is, needless to say, another area where conflict between the conservative mindset and that of the progressive one seems to offer little hope for conciliation. We can toss in the towel on this one, too. Of course, that choice will accomplish nothing else other than saving time and avoiding aggravation. Problems won’t be addressed, and there won’t even be an opportunity for some kind of understanding—if not resolution—so that’s a consideration.
These comments beg the question: do we all really want these senseless, seemingly intractable wars to continue much longer? Do we keeping moving the threshold back so we never reach that point of total exasperation and challenges so overwhelming that if we don’t at least try something/anything there can truly be no hope for peaceful co-existence and a chance at prosperity for us all?
We also have those choices at our disposal. Perhaps considering the choices themselves might be incentive enough to realize at last that if we keep doing these same things: arguing the same points; belittling and condemning the same beliefs and behaviors; opposing and obstructing every chance we get—and more—the end result not just for our hated rivals but for our membership as well is going to be agonizingly and unnecessarily painful?
Do we really need to get to that point? Can we all pause for a moment and figure out if a better option might be worth pursuing?
If we can sweep away the disingenuous talking points; the exaggerations and fabrications; the hyper-anxieties, fears, and doubts which serve as barricades preventing any rational conversations and explanations shedding a bit more light on the perspectives and motivations of those same rivals [rather than making our own assumptions], and find the same paths our predecessors traveled to move us all forward just one step at a time, then perhaps—perhaps—we might find much more common ground than we believe exists right now.
Of course, we could keep doing what we’re doing, because it’s working so well for all of us, isn’t it?
Adapted from a recent blog post of mine