To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. Familiar relationships and loyalties will be preferred to the allure of more profitable attachments; to acquire and to enlarge will be less important than to keep.
An interesting assessment….But note the “all or nothing” approach. It’s evident in a large body of commentary, justifications, explanations, and defenses of actions and proposals from our conservative counterparts. Nuance can definitely hinder one’s progress towards a prompt resolution, but ignoring the various components and perspectives necessary to achieve meaningful solutions has its drawbacks as a strategy.
No nuances; no exceptions; no alternative considerations; no efforts to appreciate the broad middle between two choices sort of eliminates a lot of important elements, doesn’t it? One would think that’s obvious, but one would think incorrectly, sad to say. That problem-solving approach is consistent with other findings about the conservative id: an intolerance for ambiguity; either-or options and no others; no inclination to venture out into the wider world to see what else might be available … the maintenance of the status quo is what’s most important.
Effective? If quick and simple problem-solving is the goal, then yes it it. But for matters of broad political, economic, social, and cultural impact, it’s probably the last problem-solving tactic one should consider. But here we are….
This line of thinking and its supporting beliefs suggest that no matter what the issue, no matter how many legitimate, differing perspectives, needs, or circumstances should be rightfully factored into analysis and/or the decision-making, the conservative all too often will have none of that. In generations past, that might have been quite useful in those simpler times with far fewer others to account for.
But in the 21st Century? It strikes one as more backward that forward-thinking, a process governed by fears and doubts more so than a desire to seek better and more. That’s not to say there are never valid reasons for hesitation. The greater the impact and the complexity surrounding an issue of broad significance, the more deserving the situation is for rational contemplation and a reasoned assessment of risks.
But that is not the typical approach in too many instances. The reliance on a few pat answers and a corresponding unwillingness to yield to broader considerations is anathema to most of today’s leaders on the Right. The same arguments are proposed over and over, facts and evidence to the contrary be damned.
Trickle-down, anyone? Unsettled science? Evolution? Unlimited energy abundance? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Their consistency is duly noted, as is their full-out commitment to the cause and fealty to the leaders and the messages repeated ad nauseum; admirable in certain instances but not so much in the pressing issues of today’s modern society.
The governing principle too often seems to be that unless a change can be absolutely guaranteed beneficial in every conceivable circumstance, best that it not be permitted. It does save time and energy … so there’s that. But failing to even give any thought to the underlying reasons for a variety of proposals [were there any Republican officials who bothered to consider the actual need for broader health care coverage before knee-jerk opposition presented itself?], or the consequences to others and the conditions others must contend with are just so much extraneous irrelevancies.
To persist with a headlong dive into the past while the rest of life moves forward is hardly an enlightened or valuable strategy. Making things worse for more people in more ways and at greater cost is a curious negotiating stance.
That might be worth pondering….
Adapted from a recent blog post of mine