529 Progressiveness and conservatism                          

Conservatives are wary of the uncertainty of change, in particular unintended and perverse outcomes of intervention, and of the reduction of liberty that such intervention creates. Economic conservatives are generally in favour of non-intervention and many are libertarian, in favour of unfettered markets. Government intervention is seen as unleashing inefficiency, and therefore obstructing prosperity, in contrast with free markets. I sympathise with Taoist libertarianism, aversity to rules and regulations, but that libertarianism is leftist, progressive, condemning ‘ruthless rivalry, undiminished very profit-oriented and property-oriented thinking’ (Komarcyca, 2019: 122), and assigning government the task of ensuring that the whole population has the means for a flourishing life.  

            Cultural conservatives are wary of erosion of traditional culture, and values of religion, family, birth and feelings of being rooted and belonging in a nation or community. They fear that those are threatened by an influx of fugitives or other immigrants, diluting national values and culture, or stealing employment and housing.

            Conservatism is laudable for its modesty in effecting change. It is often based, implicitly or explicitly, on stoicism, the old stance, going back to antiquity, of not trying to change what is not in one’s power to change, to accept that the universe has its order, which one should submit to, and be resilient to inevitable change. As a result, they feel less compelled to fight injustice. Stoicism is not only part of Western civilisation, but also of Eastern Taoism, which also pleads for non-intervention.

            Remarkably, research has repeatedly shown that conservatives and republicans in the US consider Covid-19 less of a threat than liberals, democrats (Conway et al., 2020; Hamilton and Safford, 2020). Closer investigation showed that this is not due to their being less vulnerable because they are often richer, with larger, more spacious homes, and other means to facilitate isolation, but due to the fact that if Covid were serious, the government would have to intervene, which they do not want (Conway et al. 2020).

            There is an evolutionary basis of mistrust and discrimination of outsiders. There is a limit to solidarity based on ‘parochial altruism’. Parochial altruism, studied by de Dreu et al. (2014), is solidarity within the group one feels to be a member of, and suspicion of outsiders. It has adaptive, evolutionary value for group survival. But a solidary group is vulnerable to opportunistic infiltrators that prey on internal solidarity, and in evolutionary selection push out the people that practise solidarity. Thus, that society can survive only when accompanied by parochial altruism that identifies and blocks the outsiders. The identification of outsiders is most easily done on the basis of appearance, in skin colour, dress, religious practice, conduct and language ability.

To lift people above personal vulnerability in the effort and risk of identifying and blocking invaders, there has to be a stronger motivation than self-interest, in existential commitments to religion or other transcendent cultural commitments, tainting the outsiders as inhuman, animal, depraved, connected with areas of the brain that harbour feelings of disgust that in evolution helped to prevent contagion with poisons and filthy food. This offers the needed strength and effectiveness of control. There lie the roots of prejudice and discrimination, all the more effective for being instinctive from developing in evolution. Autocratic regimes often prey on this instinct to anchor nationalist dreams of unity and exclusion of immigrants.

Tragically, it seems true that refugees often do receive more social support than autochtone citizens on average do, but this is partly because they are not allowed to work for prolonged periods of time, until they are awarded citizenship, and are thus locked into unemployment. To mend this, they should be allowed to work immediately upon arrival, even if full citizenship is suspended for a while.

In fighting inequality of ownership, communism under Stalin developed a coercive, authoritarian society with limited freedom, weak in innovation. It claimed to be progressive, but was in fact conservative, causing rigidity

Religious political parties are conservative in trying to preserve religion, and the need to work, but progressive in their Christian or Muslim striving for compassion and caring for the poor, with social security and foreign aid, while other conservatives are usually indifferent or against that.

 

Progressives find that in dreaming of the virtues of free markets, libertarians disregard moral considerations of justice and fairness, and ignore imperfections of markets.

Progressiveness is based on the faith that change for the good is possible, and should be sought for the sake of justice. Concerning the stoic spirit of not intervening in injustice, because it is often fruitless, how do you know that you have no influence if you haven’t tried it?

Followers of conservative populists do not shrink from causing mayhem and wrecking constitutional order, to defend historical institutions, such as freedom to own arms, ingrained habits and instincts of racism and discrimination.

Economics can be conservative in the positive economic effect of experience yielding increased efficiency, in streamlining production and eliminating redundancies, which yields a threshold to moving on to something new.

In economics there is a law of diminishing returns, which says that the more you have of something, the less value an additional unit of it will have to you. When one applies the law to money and wealth, one can see that an additional amount has lower utility to the wealthy than to the poor, and this yields an argument for the redistribution of wealth and income by higher taxes on the wealthy than on the poor. On the other hand, the J.S. Mill and Pigou argued that the wealthy spend more on the pleasures of ‘higher’ utility, such as .concerts, opera, ballet, visual art, books and learning, while the poor spend more on things of ‘lower’ utility, such as junk food, drinking, football matches, entertainment and hypes, excitement of fast driving and rave parties. Then, redistribution of income and wealth will reduce the incidence of the higher utilities. A rejoinder to that is that this is class prejudice, and that the thesis that the rich engage in things of higher utility is dubious. It may have been true in the past, when royalty and nobility bought and commissioned art, sponsored musicians, and built glorious architecture, but now one sees the rich seeking distinction in getting richer than their neighbours, showing off with cars and yachts, eating and drinking expensive delicatessen, going on expensive holidays, not so much engaging in reading and intellectual and cultural activities, and going to ballet, opera or art exhibitions mainly to gossip and exhibit themselves.

 

Whether one opts for conservatism or progressiveness depends on background, taste and political ideology. In this dilemma, I opt for progressiveness, but one needs to face the complications in that. Goodhart (2004) identified a dilemma of progressiveness. On the one hand progressives want to maintain diversity, of race, ethnicity, sexual preference, culture, appearance, religion, language etc., and on the other hand they want ample social support for whoever needs it, for which they must raise taxes, which grates with the indifference and grudge of people who are increasingly oriented to the interests of their own narrow group and do not want taxes spent on people they have no affinity with. This grudge has contributed to a conservative turn away from social solidarity, and more so to the extent that a society is fragmented. Goodhart proposed that in the USA there is less social support than in other countries because it is more fragmented in racial and ethnic groups than other countries, say Scandinavian ones. He quoted Putnam’s saying that there is a ‘link between high ethnic mix and low trust in the US’.

Paradoxically, part of the so-called political left has been conservative in trying to preserve the social benefits and regulations instituted after WWII, in face of the rise of neoliberal ideology that led to their decline, from the 1980’s. Now even conservatives see that this neoliberalism has gone too far, with excessive inequality between the rich and poor, and that governments should intervene, in curtailing monopolistic organisations, curtail tax evasion and impose higher taxes on the rich.

 

A Universal Basic Income (UBI) is progressive in breaking the link between labour and income, and yielding more leeway for those who are now receiving social benefits or low wages, and conservative in making it acceptable to abolish many social benefits, and reduce protection of employment. Labour unions have been erected on progressive socialist principles, but are conservative, in the Netherlands, in sticking to the imperative of labour, because they have been ingrained with striving for maximum employment, and this is where they see their societal mission and claim to existence. Labour is seen as needed for social contact, but with a UBI one can be active without being employed.

 

I see myself as progressive and leftist economically, but I must admit that I am apalled at the decline that I perceive of cultural and intellectual values. An example is the following. The other day I read in the newspapers about an interview with the head of a newsshow who was criticised for admitting raving nonsense from extremists and conspiracy theorists to the discussion table. Her answer was: no-one is waiting for nuance, and the show has to make a bang. Excitement and entertainment rule, even in the news. Does this make me a conservative after all? I remain in favour of redistribution of income, equal opportunities, and the exercise of the cardinal virtues of moderation and justice, and try to make my contribution to uplift, if that does not sound too paternalistic, society in matters of knowledge and intellect. I am an old white man.

 

Questions

-          Are you progressive or conservative, concerning the economy or culture

-          How is progressiveness sometimes conservative

-          What do you consider good in conservatism

-          Are you in favour of high taxes for the rich