The inimitably paradoxical and hilariously incisive writer G. K. Chesterton wrote the following in a newspaper column in 1924 (?):
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."
It is a clever bit of prose, apt, witty and deliciously adroit. No wonder he ranks among my utmost favorites.
Interesting, too, is this quote (which pre-dates Chesterton's) from Ambrose Bierce, a master of macabre short stories and a biting satirist for the San Francisco Chronicle; the passage is culled from Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary":
CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
It is amusing that both men, one from London and the other from San Francisco, should land on essentially the same observation. Both wrote for newspapers; both were drawn toward the fantastic and the macabre (though Bierce was far more gloomy and pessimistic: Chesterton was a shining light of mirth and optimism). But that they both essentially played the identical riff; that they should both disparage conservatism and progressivism in nearly the same way, just fascinates me.
That's it. I am sure I could exegete the passages, winnowing the wheat from the chaff of each, showing that they are oh-so-subtly different. But I shan't.
Peace.
©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
6 comments:
I see the humor, but I disagree. The US is full of liberals/progressives and conservatives, but I don't think there's many in Congress.
I think if we elected people who actually did what people tend to believe, we'd be better off. If Democrats actually went about trying new things and Republicans went about cutting what didn't work, the system would function. What we have is Democrats who do nothing and Republicans who do everything all wrong. The "progressives," in the sense of the party who implements broad, sweeping changes, are the Republicans, while Democrats have been trying to get the shit to shoe-level.
I always find discussions about conservatives and progressives which focus on the groups' respective positions on "change" (whatever that means) to be off the mark.
The dichotomy is not between the parties, or even between the alternatives of change versus status quo. Rather it lies between philosophies, i.e. which reigns supreme: the individual or the collective? Or, stated differently, where is power best concentrated: Among many or few?
The question is not, however, (and has never been), about whether identifying problems and attempting to solve them is or is not good policy. Rather, people with an individualist mindset believe that when there are many attempted solutions, it becomes easier to identify which are successful and to eliminate those which are not. Collectivists tend to think there is only one solution for all, and once that solution is implemented, collectivists become as resistant to change as anyone.
Toss in the idea that some know better than others and must therefore impose their ideas on the rest of us "for our own good, because we don't know any better" versus the idea that people have a right to screw up, provided they accept responsibility for their decisions, and voila!, you have our current state of political affairs.
Cheers.
R.,
Awesome post!
I am drifting away from initial intent: I did not intend to spark a discussion about the differences between progressives and conservatives.
That said, I have this to say: Progressives often look backwards; they often want to "return" to the halcyon days of some rejected or currently out-of-fashion policy. A "New New Deal"? You know what I mean. There's a lot of retro in progress.
Ginx, curiously, essentially inverts the Chesterton/Bierce locution: conservatives are the progressives and progressives are the conservatives. He does make a good point, I think: Man, if these folks would just do what they say they'll do we'd all be better off.
Of course, it's not possible for anyone to do everything all wrong, as Ginx asserts.
I agree with the substance of Ginx' point, though I may disagree with the his locus of the blame. In truth, both parties are to blame because regardless of campaign speeches, they shift their goals to retaining power more than following a coherent philosophy, which (we hope) underlay their pre-power promises.
That said, I can agree with the "just do what you say" admonition. The problem however is that they never say what they mean. To quote my father, "politics is the art and practice of deceit."
Cheers.
R.S.,
Fair enough: taking a most cynical view -- that these men and women don't mean what they say -- validates your position. But I think the fact remains that not only do these people NOT do what they say, they don't even do what they DON'T say. Even a hidden agenda falls unfinished at their feet.
How is that for cynical?
From what I've seen, these men and women do have an agenda-it's just the agenda tends to shut anyone out who falls below 150K a year. It's all money these days-and the activist Conservative movement seems less Conservative and more about politicians, lobbyists, judges, and corporations making the laws as easy and hence, profitable, for each other as they can. Then again, the "Liberal" side isn't any better.
Post a Comment