[There is] the commonly held notion that conservatives are especially likely to value tradition, conformity, social order, and consensual adherence to rules, norms, and conventions....It is also consistent with the assumption that it is generally easier to establish common ground with respect to the status quo than with respect to its many possible alternatives and to communicate effectively by transmitting messages that are relatively simple and unambiguous rather than reflecting the kind of complex, nuanced, and perhaps ambivalent cognitive and rhetorical styles that seem to be more common on the political left than the right. (links/citations in original) [***]
There’s much to be said for adherence to tradition and social order. A society changing its rules and principles on a regular basis is a society going nowhere fast. In a world as complex as the 21st Century exemplifies, maintaining the framework of established norms, laws, expectations and a high level of the existing status quo seems perfectly reasonable. Chaos deliberately chosen is almost never a wise course of action for any undertaking [not that that necessarily stops far too many public voices from doing just that]!
So the efforts to preserve much of what a nation’s history has already established for itself and relied upon is commendable at many levels. It’s the starting point from which more progress should emanate, and there’s the rub in too many instances. “Starting point” is not likewise the finish line.
Inflexible insistence that what is should be what continues to be may on occasion be a worthwhile stance, but more the case in generations past than in today’s political, economic, and cultural climate. As the issues become more complex—an almost daily occurrence now—ignoring that complexity in favor of the familiar developed in simpler times and on the basis of simpler conditions and challenges, can be an enormous disadvantage. With little or no room for the imperative of flexibility and adaptation to accommodate those inevitable complexities, the short-term comfort of not rocking the boat paves the way for even more problems later on.
It should not be a revelation that even for those urging changes great or small, a built-in risk is the fact that in such instances, the unknown looms large. Incremental adaptations provide a lifeline to the tried and true, affording us the safety of a return to familiar ground. Recognizing that is one thing.
Being paralyzed into inaction or denial of any need for change is quite another. Manufacturing excuses whose primary intent is to simply obstruct works well, but there are outcomes to every choice and action. Not choosing and inaction are subject to the same rules of Cause and Effect.
The problem is that given the societal, cultural, economic, political, industrial, and religious complexities encompassing almost every facet of modern day cooperative living, expecting changes to shift into neutral until a majority has reached a comfort level with the new is not happening in this lifetime. Change and progress have been the defining characteristics of mankind since the dawn of mankind!
The more participants who seek change in more aspects of daily living for more reasons and with more expectations, a too-stubborn insistence on preserving the past without a simultaneous willingness to continue moving forward results in precisely what we see splashed across our front pages and televisions and computer screens every day: a battle between those seeking change and those opposed. Inevitability is a difficult foe to control.
Efforts to derail or at least divert the reality of an ever-changing world by adopting simpler assessments and policies serve only to cast supporters that much farther behind, requiring an even greater effort to control the reins of social and political progress. It won’t work, for one thing. Creating or expanding conflict as a tactic reaps the only rewards protracted conflict can provide: more conflict.
The “success” of those political, media, and cultural leaders in opposing or obstruction has a much shorter shelf-life than they may be anticipating, with a bigger price tag we’ll all be forced to confront somewhere down the road. The can can only be kicked so far, and reality can be postponed only for so long. It would be to our collective advantage if those favoring obstruction and opposition might contemplate that for a moment or two.
Better yet, those who blindly rely on “leaders” to pave the way would be better-served by a bit of introspection.
Climate change; the expansion of same-sex marriage and related cultural issues; the woeful and hideous disparities between the haves and have-nots; the acrimony which dominates most public debates, together with a host of other contentious tactics, conflicts, and conflict-generating beliefs collectively serve to create only a more distressed society. Is that making any sense for any of us, or for our children?
Would it instead make more sense to find ways to cut through the BS, the distractions, the disingenuous irrelevancies and all of the other efforts to keep us from moving forward collectively, and instead start having honest discussions and a much healthier respect for the perspectives and concerns of our opponents? Is it possible that no one actually sees any value in maintaining a state of perpetual conflict producing only more conflict tomorrow?
The value of traditions and established norms is that they also provided the means by which progress and change could be discussed [and disputed] in arrangements whose primary objective was always to make the next day better and to ensure the next generation had better and more opportunities. That’s what got us into the 21st Century—with its advantages and challenges. Ignoring the latter should not be an option if the future still matters.
Are we going to let irrational, over-hyped fears and misrepresentations, and a near-total unwillingness to respect other points of views and others’ needs keep us from moving forward?
That’s a choice.
Adapted from a blog post of mine
***
Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities by John T. Jost, Christopher M. Federico, and Jaime L. Napier at Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009. 60:307–37 [online at psych.annualreviews.org] Copyright 2009 by Annual Reviews. p 311-312