A worldview in three parts: Progressives and Conservatives

I recently read an article which highlighted significant philosophical differences which underpin the worldview of “Conservative” and “Progressive” thinkers; the author’s title assertion is that these differences are so significant, the two groups are unlikely to ever get along.  A seminal quote from the article is “…the divide between those who believe the world has a given order that ought to be respected because it makes things go best in the long run, and those who do not believe this and think invoking such order is little more than a tool of oppression wielded by the powerful against those they exploit.”

I think about my friends—both real life friends and Facebook friends—and see that this is a finely honed knife which helps explain why some of my relatively mild and thoughtful individuals who would describe themselves as Progressives seem (to my self-admittedly Conservative mind) to be wild anarchists at heart.  But that’s perhaps an unfair descriptor, based on how foreign these two worldviews seem to one another—it seems that to my Progressive friends, my Conservative views are wildly elitist and dogmatic.

I’ve posted before about the three part worldview model used by Nancy Pearcey and have used that model to clarify my own thoughts and my understanding of the worldviews I observe.  I thought it would be a valuable exercise to attempt the same thing with this article, and indeed it was. 

A Worldview in Three Parts:  Conservative
The Origin of the World	What is Wrong with the World	How to Fix the World
Religious Conservatives (not just Christians) will frequently hold to a deistic origin story, in which God created the world and everything in it.  This world has a certain pre-ordained order to it, because it was designed and created to work that way.  Non-religious Conservatives will not necessarily espouse a deistic creation story, but do uphold the idea that the world has a certain order and organization (and they often are respectful of religious views). Conservatives respect marriage as part of that good order; the family unit is respected as central to the good order of society.  Government is respected as also necessary to preserving good order in society; it is often viewed as an outgrowth of the authority of the family, even a delegation of the authority of the family (e.g., schools are given authority by the parents to educate children).	Conservatives see that the world works better when order and organization prevail.  “What is wrong with the world” is seen as refusal to adhere to laws that uphold that good order—both natural and social order. (This near-worship of social order can become a dogmatic longing for “the good ole’ days”, and/or result in refusal to change the status quo even when it is obvious that there is underlying unfairness – e.g., when conservatives reject changes to racist laws because change “rocks the boat,” and is viewed as disruption of social order.)	If asked “what makes people happy”, a Conservative would probably talk about happiness being a product of a well ordered world and society.  They see happiness as being a product of respect for natural and social order. The “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” of the Constitution is seen as referring to the role of government in preserving good order such that individuals and families can pursue happiness. Fixing the world then means creating and upholding laws that protect that good order and discipline, and largely leave the law-abiding individual/family alone.  Conservatives frequently cite the benefits of strong marriages, strong families and a legal system that underpin, support, and protect good order in society.

A Worldview in Three Parts: Progressives
The Origin of the World	What is Wrong with the World	How to Fix the World
The world evolved to its present state.  No divine creator is espoused.  Human beings are only one part of the evolved world and with no special status.  Social constructs like marriage and family are not part of an innate order, but are superimposed by those in power. There is no perceived underlying order to the universe, it has all evolved as a result of chance.	Progressives reject ideas of natural and societal order, viewing these as only products of “the powerful” who use laws and regulations to control the activities of others.  Progressives view “social order” as stifling individual freedom; progressive pursuit of happiness may be the complete rejection of societal norms and expectations which are viewed as an arbitrarily imposed burden. Per the article I’m citing, much of this comes from Marxist philosophy (who blamed Capitalism for the ills of the world); now, instead of Capitalists, it is “straight white men” who may be pointed to as the source of evil in the world. It also seems that some of this worldview stems from Nietzsche’s “slave morality” wherein he criticizes the ideals of meekness, restraint, submission and piety as resulting in weakness; instead he calls for “exceptional people” who follow their own “inner law” and inner morality.  His call was to “become what you are.”	Happiness for the Progressive is to be free from the created order or perceived social constructs or expectations (from God, religion, the nation, biology, family…).  To use the Nietzsche quote again:  “Become what you are.”  Or, in the words of coffee cups and t-shirts “you do you.” Or, from Marx, throw off the stifling demands of “the Man” and reject social constructs like marriage and family.  These are viewed only as discriminatory and hateful, destructive to the individual.  Progressives reject any special benefits for those who adhere to social constructs like marriage—they pursue removal of such state-sponsored benefits like tax benefits associate with marriage, or seek to extend those benefits to those who have been excluded from traditional marriage, and/or seek to require the state to subsidize those at a disadvantage because they don’t choose to adhere to social constructs (for example, social support for single mothers viewed not as caring for the weak, but instead supporting individuals who chose to reject social constructs).

I’ve decided that I will never wear a “You do You” t-shirt, because I think it’s Marxist and Nietzsche-an.  But seriously, I can see much more clearly now how decisions are made by Progressives and Conservatives, and how sometimes those decisions may reach the same point but for different reasons.

For example, a Conservative may philosophically—and with their votes and voices—support programs that provide some financial support to the underprivileged, to the homeless or to single mothers or to new immigrants to the country.  They do so because they believe that such support will help these individuals improve their situation, become successful and contributing members of a good, stable society.  Progressives, on the other hand, while possibly espousing the same rationale, may actually hold an underlying view that the homeless, single mothers and immigrants must be given government aide to balance out the unfair advantages given to others—indeed, that people who choose to be indigent or to bear children out of wedlock or to cross a border illegally must be given support in their choices, because rejecting social norms or breaking laws should not result in personal disadvantage or harmful consequences.  

This is also where the Choice becomes a god.  Conservatives may make a stable society with good order and strong laws their god, but Choice is the god of Progressives.  The only true sin of the Progressive is not to live our your personal truth, to allow yourself to be enslaved by the government, or religion, or the expectation of others.  The original article points out this interesting result:  “Progressives…aim for freedom from the created order….As a consequence, Progressive freedom has a strong authoritarian bent.  This may seem paradoxical, but in fact follows directly from the progressives’ need to oppose by force the outworking of the order of nature, and to silence those who attempt to point out the problems with this.  This is the root of the widely observed antipathy to free speech among the Postmodern Left, and of the bullying culture that frequently accompanies the imposition of progressive dogmas on people and organizations.”   Because the Progressive view of freedom and “goodness” is very subjective—“you do you”/ “become what you are”—it can very quickly devolve into screaming debates wherein only the loudest and most strident voices win.  For Conservatives who generally just want everyone to get along, and who may also espouse a Christian approach of turning the other cheek and of wanting peace and kindness, they may be at a distinct disadvantage when discussions take a very raw Progressive turn. 

The original place where I learned about this article is from a conservative Lutheran-Christian blog written by Dr Gene Veith.  The author brought to the original article another nuance—what about the idea of sin, of human sinfulness?  His points are that for Conservatives who are Christians, they will understand the fallibility of all human institutions—of government, marriage and family.  They will not blindly adhere to the status quo, because they know that people are innately sinful and selfish; constant evaluation and examination of both self and the ordered but sinful world is necessary.  So in the face of racial discrimination, for example, a non (or nominal) Christian might defend discriminatory laws for the sake of the status quo; but a Christian will examine those laws in the light of God’s holy expectations, His created order and His love for and value placed upon all human beings.  

A Christian will also see that the Progressive call to live without interference, to live their own truths without being subject to government or social pressures, puts far too much trust in sinful human nature.  As the prophet Jeremiah said (17:9), “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.  Who can understand it?”  Truly, even Christian Conservatives are not immune and must not think they are!  All people are sinful, conceived and born in sin—no matter our political leanings or religious beliefs.  

Dr Veith concludes with this statement:

“It would follow that Christians, while tending towards conservatism, would also be sensitive to some of the evils that bother progressives.  But they would see them as violations of God’s design, rather than as an excuse to violate that design further.  Christians would have at best modest hopes for what human governments and “nation-states” can accomplish, avoiding all utopian thinking–whether of the conservative or the progressive variety–in a spirit of realism and skepticism, even while they do what they can to advance the common good.  The Christian’s hope is fixed not so much on this world, which will soon pass away, but on the world to come–on Christ who has atoned for the sins of the world and who will reign as King over the New Heaven and the New Earth.”

1)      What do you consider yourself—a Progressive or a Conservative?  Have you given this question much thought before, or do you consider it of little value?  How can it be useful to understand the underlying worldviews of Progressives and Conservatives, both for you personally and as you engage with the world?

2)      Regardless of where you fall in the political spectrum, what role does your Christian faith play in informing how you function as a citizen, how you vote or interact in society?

3)      Consider a current polarizing issue.  How do Conservatives vs Progressives view that issue differently; and how do the underlying worldviews of each help shed light on the respective perspectives of each side?  When you intentionally insert Christian morality, a clear understanding of sinfulness, and a Godly perspective on human worth, into that debate—how does that nuance the discussion?