"Conservative" Versus "Regressive."

For too long, regressive interests have masqueraded as if they are "conserving" some kind of status quo. In reality, they are trying to upend it. However, there are still ways we can make progress.

Greetings, my friends!

Last week, we embraced the positive notions behind Progressivism and suggested a technology that might potentially aid us in the fight against climate change, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.  We also got a mid-week update on how Eli Lilly is reducing its prices for insulin. If only life were those two things, I’d say it was a great week!

Today, I want to get a little philosophical for a minute.  We all know there are many terms used to pigeon-hole those of us on the left:  “Communist,” “Socialist,” “Marxist,” “Progressive,” “Leftist,” and “Liberal.”  An individual may acknowledge and accept that they fall into one of these categories, or may feel they belong in multiple ones, or may even feel like they don’t belong in the one someone else puts them in.

It’s here where I acknowledge that labels can be dangerous, both to the person trying to label something a certain way, as well as to the person who a label is applied to.  Labeling is imperfect, subjective, and prone to error.  If you’ve ever called a socialist a liberal, well, you’ve probably found that out the hard way.

With that said, and in honor of the leading Republican contender for the Presidential Nomination calling Democrats “Communists” (or whatever he said; I confess I didn’t read too closely, I’m too sober for Trump’s shit), I want to focus on a label that Republicans love to apply to themselves, how I don’t really think they’ve got it right, and what term I think really applies to most of them.

What Does Conservatism Mean?

First, let’s run a quick differential on what the concept of Conservatism means.

The Collins Dictionary defines “Conservatism” as “a political philosophy which believes that if changes need to be made to society, they should be made gradually.”

Wikipedia defines it as “a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, practices, and values.”

Lastly, to take a definition from those who are so proudly using it, The Heritage Foundation, what I would consider a regressive (more on that later) organization, defines it as…Well, it’s a multi-layered definition, which is actually not a bad thing.  I think the biggest takeaway was that, to them, it’s a philosophy dedicated to “achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.”

With these definitions, it seems like conservatives should just be interested in maintaining a status-quo, and only making small changes at the edges when absolutely necessary.  Yet, that doesn’t seem to be what these people mean.

Danielle Kurtzlieben of NPR wrote an article about how Republicans will crawl over each other to define themselves as conservative.  In it, she cites NYU Journalism professor Jay Rosen in arguing that journalists use the term “Conservative” to describe Republicans, but that isn’t really what they are.

Do American Conservatives Believe In Their Own Labels?

Time for a rapid-fire round:

Is banning books from libraries because they talk about social justice and social-emotional learning a traditional American practice?  Is telling parents they may not  medically care for their children the way they see fit conservative?  Does telling people who can become pregnant that they cannot get reproductive health care they need fit the bill of “maximum freedom” in any social order?  

These new policies are not conservations of current conventions.

These are regressions.

That is why I want to introduce the term “Regressive” to the political vernacular, with what little reach I have.

My definition of regressive is absolutely open to amendment, but it goes a little something like this:  “A political ideology dedicated to stripping rights and privileges away from individuals and organizations in the interest of establishing and maintaining societal control.”

I posted on Twitter that I was kicking the differential between “Conservative” and “Regressive” around, and the overwhelming feedback I got was, frankly, “They’re the same thing.”

And, sure!  As presented by Republicans, they are!  But they are not the same according to their definitions.  Now, we all know how people further on the left dislike being called “Liberals” when we aren’t liberals. What could we possibly gain from clarifying the distinctions between our opponents?

But I think it’s worth marking the difference simply because understanding what we’re up against, and what motivates them, is worth it.  It allows us to better confront the problems each one poses.

Here’s an example:

The Practical Difference Between Conservatives And Regressives

Ron DeSantis is a regressive.  To be fair, I would argue he’s a Fascist, but Fascism is a regressive ideology, so it’s kind of a closed loop.  He wants to take America back to a time when…Well, honestly?  Probably a time when Native Americans were being genocided and Black Americans were enslaved, but at the very least to a time when most people weren’t allowed to vote.  You know, “Great Again.”

Joe Manchin is more like a conservative.  He’s part of the Democratic party and occasionally votes for our side, but he is ultimately unwilling to make most suggested changes.  Of course, part of his conservatism probably comes from his bank account, such as his tremendous coal assets.

That’s kind of the thing that ties the two concepts together:  Both conservatives and regressives are likely acting out of a desire to maintain a status quo which explicitly benefits them.  And, in a way, who can blame them?  Who wants to willingly surrender social status or wealth?  Especially if they believe that others are as selfish as they are?

How Progressives Can Benefit From Conservativism…?!

But therein lies the way to make and maintain progress where otherwise there would be only stagnation.  Whereas regressives are going to resist making any form of progress because they want to un-make it, conservatives can be convinced to make progress if they believe it is in the interest of maintaining some arcane tradition - or, at least, if it’s in their personal best interest.

Moreover, while progressives are often thwarted by conservatives blocking progress, the same can often be said for regressives trying to take away rights and privileges.  John McCain’s infamous thumbs-down against destroying the Affordable Care Act is a prime, if rare example of a conservative actually doing what their name suggests.  Lest they be forgotten, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski also voted against the regressive effort, just less dramatically.

In short, while conservatives are not likely to help us make progress, they might be the bulwark we need, in tight times, to keep us from backsliding as much as we might otherwise.

But maybe most of all - I just don’t like acknowledging Fascist ghouls as “Conservatives” when they are, in fact, “Regressives.”  They cannot be allowed to coopt the idea of “maintaining the status quo” when they are, in fact, attempting to change it for the worse.

I hope that’s given you some thoughts.

Thank you for reading The Progressive Cafe.  If this article has helped you, please consider signing up for our mailing list.  This article is by Jesse Pohlman, a sci-fi/fantasy author from Long Island, New York, whose website you can check out here.