Society Gets More Progressive Because People Die

[Barrister]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

That seems to be a very conservative view of change.

So give us a liberal view of change.

[crazy canuck]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

We have gone trough a period of politically conservative governance so not a lot of progressive ideas which have failed - they haven't been implemented.  Not wanting to change seems more a question of what you know and the fear of what you don't rather than the wisdom of experience.

[crazy canuck]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

That seems to be a very conservative view of change.

Naw, the conservative view is all change is bad unless proven otherwise.  Rich was making an experiential argument that I think also does not hold water.

[Valmy]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

We have gone trough a period of politically conservative governance so not a lot of progressive ideas which have failed - they haven't been implemented.  Not wanting to change seems more a question of what you know and the fear of what you don't rather than the wisdom of experience.

They have been implemented somewhere though, haven't they? I mean typically Canada and the US are not on the cutting edge as far as progressive policies go.

[alfred russel]

Change is coming. You can either understand, control, and leverage it, or you can resist it and hold it back....and reap the consequences of letting the change come from chaos instead of control.

But there isn't a "lets not change" option on the table.

I disagree that the bolded part is an option.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, Berkut should probably rewatch Jurassic Park.

[Malthus]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

We have gone trough a period of politically conservative governance so not a lot of progressive ideas which have failed - they haven't been implemented.  Not wanting to change seems more a question of what you know and the fear of what you don't rather than the wisdom of experience.

I wouldn't say the US is currently "conservative", but rather "reactionary".

Reactionaries and progressives agree on nothing except this: that radical change is necessary and desirable. Both are "radicals", though their prescriptions for change are generally opposite.   

A "conservative" in the US would mourn the era of Trump, in which the leadership of the US has done its utmost to tear up the world status quo. 

[frunk]

I wouldn't say the US is currently "conservative", but rather "reactionary".

Reactionaries and progressives agree on nothing except this: that radical change is necessary and desirable. Both are "radicals", though their prescriptions for change are generally opposite.   

A "conservative" in the US would mourn the era of Trump, in which the leadership of the US has done its utmost to tear up the world status quo.

I would put the opposites as reactionaries and revolutionaries.  Progressives aren't necessarily trying to tear down the system rather than improve it.

[Berkut]

Change is coming. You can either understand, control, and leverage it, or you can resist it and hold it back....and reap the consequences of letting the change come from chaos instead of control.

But there isn't a "lets not change" option on the table.

I disagree that the bolded part is an option.

Meh, history shows that it is most certainly an option. Indeed, even if at first you fail to change and let the chaos swamp you...the outcome of that is inevitably the rise of powers that decide how to understand and control the change.

There are plenty of examples of people, organizations, or even countries that have successfully understood, adapted to, and controlled change.

And usually examples of other people, organizations, or countries that refused to adapt to the exact same change and suffered the consequences.

[Malthus]

I wouldn't say the US is currently "conservative", but rather "reactionary".

Reactionaries and progressives agree on nothing except this: that radical change is necessary and desirable. Both are "radicals", though their prescriptions for change are generally opposite.   

A "conservative" in the US would mourn the era of Trump, in which the leadership of the US has done its utmost to tear up the world status quo.

I would put the opposites as reactionaries and revolutionaries.  Progressives aren't necessarily trying to tear down the system rather than improve it.

I suppose that depends on the progressive.

Conservatives and some progressives both claim that what they want is to support the existing system. Conservatives run the gamut from those who want to change whatsoever to those who want change, but at a managed pace to ensure it does more good than harm. Progressives are more likely to take the position that supporting the existing system requires necessary changes, or the system will run down (that is, be damaged by its inherent contradictions, etc.) leading to reactionaries or revolutionaries taking over.

[alfred russel]

Meh, history shows that it is most certainly an option. Indeed, even if at first you fail to change and let the chaos swamp you...the outcome of that is inevitably the rise of powers that decide how to understand and control the change.

There are plenty of examples of people, organizations, or even countries that have successfully understood, adapted to, and controlled change.

And usually examples of other people, organizations, or countries that refused to adapt to the exact same change and suffered the consequences.

Of something like 5k years of human history, my reading is that every powerful state eventually falls, and whatever ideals a society has will eventually be abandoned and replaces.

But maybe we will be the exception.

[Maximus]

So give us a liberal view of change.

I don't think liberalism is about how one views change.

[crazy canuck]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

We have gone trough a period of politically conservative governance so not a lot of progressive ideas which have failed - they haven't been implemented.  Not wanting to change seems more a question of what you know and the fear of what you don't rather than the wisdom of experience.

They have been implemented somewhere though, haven't they? I mean typically Canada and the US are not on the cutting edge as far as progressive policies go.

But where is the experience of seeing it fail and particularly in a context where that would be internalized.  Really the argument goes the other way, enough people have seen the absolute failure of conservative policies that they are becoming more progressive and even radical.

[crazy canuck]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

We have gone trough a period of politically conservative governance so not a lot of progressive ideas which have failed - they haven't been implemented.  Not wanting to change seems more a question of what you know and the fear of what you don't rather than the wisdom of experience.

I wouldn't say the US is currently "conservative", but rather "reactionary".

I was thinking of a longer period of time - Reagan to present.

[Valmy]

But where is the experience of seeing it fail and particularly in a context where that would be internalized.  Really the argument goes the other way, enough people have seen the absolute failure of conservative policies that they are becoming more progressive and even radical.

Well here is hoping these "enough people" show up and actually vote.