True? — frank

For the majority of politicians, doubtful. Even if the all say they do it to improve the lives of the people, I don't think it is out of compassion.

I think compassion is a driving force behind progressivism (and at times this is perhaps more aptly called "empathy"). But I disagree with this:

Therefore, progressives who have no compassion are fooling themselves. They're just trying to own the higher moral ground without the morality to go with it. — frank

Of course one could make such an argument, but every group value is susceptible to being transformed into untethered taboo, and this is also true of compassion. So if a group of compassionate people win the day and their program becomes established as a societal norm, then the reification of compassion will begin to present the same problems that attend the reification of any other societal norm.

As an example, a group or individual might become vegan on the basis of compassion, but then once that connection between veganism and compassion becomes ossified such people can easily fall into the trap of imposing their veganism on communities which are reliant on animal products. The taboo ushers in black and white thinking, "Everyone who is vegan is compassionate and therefore good; everyone who is not vegan lacks compassion and is therefore bad," and this in turn provides the groundwork for the second-order virtue signaling that you reference.

In that example there ends up being a limited compassion (i.e. compassion for animals but not for the communities that rely on animals). That double-standard endpoint can be extrapolated, and this is because "compassion" is too vague and undirected to function as a sound value (or in Aristotelian terms, as a central virtue). In real life to be compassionate towards one group is also to be uncompassionate towards an opposed group, at least where political action is concerned.

...and I should add that although the modern mind balks at the explicit claim, "Everyone who is X is good and everyone who is not is bad" (even though that claim is constantly being made implicitly), the formula itself is not the problem. The problem is a superficial X. For example, Aristotle's X would be "just, temperate, prudent, and courageous," and it is precisely the complexity and robustness of the cardinal virtues that make such an X plausible. "Compassion" is too one-dimensional to serve that role.

That is an amazing answer. Thank you.

- Sure. :up:

Is the implication that non- progressivism is not compassionate? That is to say, unless compassion is exclusive to progressivism then I dont see how you can usw it as the basis for progressivism the way you are.

Is the implication that non- progressivism is not compassionate? That is to say, unless compassion is exclusive to progressivism then I dont see how you can usw it as the basis for progressivism the way you are. — DingoJones

No, but the driving force of conservatism isn't compassion. It's practicality.

They are political positions, wouldn't the driving force be political change?
Also, compassion can be a driving force but be tempered by practicality, they aren’t mutually exclusive.
Im trying to understand how you have boiled progressivism and conservatism down to these particular “driving force’s”.

I have a theory that the driving force behind progressivism is compassion. Therefore, progressives who have no compassion are fooling themselves. They're just trying to own the higher moral ground without the morality to go with it.

True? — frank

If you are a right-wing libertarian and believe in free market, rights of the individual and limited government making the best society possible, why wouldn't that also be compassionate? Libertarians believe that their way makes the society function better, so why wouldn't that be compassion too? There's no hidden sinister agenda behind to have some "social darwinism" to eradicate the people libertarians hate. Libertarians look at Switzerland and think it works just fine.

I think the real issue is collectivism and the role of the government that make progressives differ from others. Government, the state and legislation are there tools to address social problems and inequality for the progressives. Not the market mechanism and choices of the individual. I think this is the core in progressivism.

They are political positions, wouldn't the driving force be political change? — DingoJones

Conservatives of any generation tend to be suspicious of change. If they embrace it, they probably do so because they see the change as a return to a traditional state.

Progressives feel comfortable stepping into the unknown. That comfort level is bolstered by moral conviction tied to a sense of righting old wrongs. The downtrodden are always in their sights, whereas the conservative says the downtrodden will always be with us and stability is the highest good.

Also, compassion can be a driving force but be tempered by practicality, they aren’t mutually exclusive. — DingoJones

I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, but note the next time you're looking at progressives, how interested they are in matters of practicality. This isn't a good time in history to observe conservatives in the US because they're in the shadows of a populist who has taken over their party.

If you are a right-wing libertarian and believe in free market, rights of the individual and limited government making the best society possible, why wouldn't that also be compassionate? — ssu

Because it leaves a chunk of the population with no safety net.

Government, the state and legislation are there tools to address social problems and inequality for the progressives. — ssu

Conservatives are usually willing to let nature take care of social problems. They think that when we interfere with nature (due to an overload of compassion), we inevitably undermine a process that leads to social health and well-being. This process happens to be brutal, but conservatives are ok with that. This is because compassion isn't their driving value.

Conservatives are usually willing to let nature take care of social problems. They think that when we interfere with nature (due to an overload of compassion), we inevitably undermine a process that leads to social health and well-being. This process happens to be brutal, but conservatives are ok with that. This is because compassion isn't their driving value. — frank

That might be true for some Americans, but for example in my country (or in the Nordic countries in generals), this doesn't hold for the conservatives. They are totally OK and do appreciate the welfare state, but do point out that in order for there to be a welfare state, one has to have a well functioning healthy private sector and economy.

Absolute poverty, especially rural poverty has been solved and is non-existent, when just hundred years ago it still was around in my country. People don't live in the streets and beg for food or money. That's something that conservatives in my country value. Yes, they are full aware of the free rider problem and the negative aspects of a welfare state, but they understand that these are little compared to the negative effects of not having social security net. Yet the welfare state hasn't been just a leftist program as there has been a political consensus about it. This is something hard to fathom, if people think that politics in other places is totally similar to US politics and political discourse.

As you should notice, conservatism in Nordic countries is quite different from what it is in the US. Yet even in the US there's a difference between ideology and actual reality: when we actually look at what even the Republicans think about social security or Medicare/Medicaid, they actually are totally OK with these programs, even if the ideological think tanks oppose these. The actual policies implemented by Republican administrations show this.

Just one example:

President Bush enacted policies to help Americans receive the care they need at a price they can afford and also infused transparency and innovation into the health care system. The President instituted the most significant reforms to Medicare in nearly 40 years, most notably through a prescription drug benefit, which has provided more than 40 million Americans with better access to prescription drugs. The President also created tax-free Health Savings Accounts to help Americans take charge of their health care decision-making, and increased funding for medical research, which contributed to medical breakthroughs such as the development of the HPV cancer vaccine.

So is it really that conservatives are willing to let nature take care of social problems? Everybody is for themselves?

This is something hard to fathom — ssu

I live in an insignificant little state and it's population is twice that of Finland. Could I see half my state become socialist? Sure, especially if it didn't have to defend itself.

So is it really that conservatives are willing to let nature take care of social problems? Everybody is for themselves? — ssu

In general, yes. Sometimes conservatives live in a politically moderate climate. They make adjustments.

"Progressives" is a very broad term.

As a fundamental definition, progressives merely represent a focus on changing society from a set of humane moral values. Placing people and their wellbeing before industry. It's focus is to try and establish what is true about the human condition and change society based on it.

Conservatives on the other hand rather want to decide on a set of rules and principles that are more rigid over time.

While progressives focus on change to find the best system, conservatives think that having rigid rules and principles is what leads to the best system.

And there are problems with both forms of thinking. Progressives might fall into bias as they try to argue for a newly established truth, and through it miss finding a balance in the change they argue for. Conservatives on the other hand, fail to recognize systemic problems that their rules and principles uphold, and they become ignorant of criticism of those rules and principles they hold close. Most ironically, conservatives sometimes are just the progressives in youth becoming so attached to the principles they fought for that they become conservatives around it, arguing their, in their era, progressive ideas, were universal truths.

A healthy society is, I think leaning more towards progressive thinking, because it is a realization that "truth" requires dedication to figuring it out. Conservative ideas of preservation of certain rules and principles usually comes from an ignorance of how reality works, not seeing that society change all the time and it changes with new knowledge and discovery about the human condition.

But equally, unchecked progressive thinking leads to a chaos you can't build a society on, because there's not a lot of room to establish those new ideas into practice.

So a society leaning more towards progressive thinking, but still utilizing the conservative concept of a rigid system, might be the best path through history. Constantly establishing new conditions of being based on new knowledge and dedication to truth, but with the rigor of establishing a longer lasting practical reality through preservation of the best ideas.

Progressives feel comfortable stepping into the unknown. That comfort level is bolstered by moral conviction tied to a sense of righting old wrongs. The downtrodden are always in their sights, whereas the conservative says the downtrodden will always be with us and stability is the highest good. — frank

As if minimizing the number of downtrodden while increasing the amount of Americans with plenty of spendable income somehow does not result in tremendous stability?

:smirk:

[quote="Christoffer;1027780" Most ironically, conservatives sometimes are just the progressives in youth becoming so attached to the principles they fought for that they become conservatives around it, arguing their, in their era, progressive ideas, were universal truths.[/quote]

This is true.

A healthy society is, I think leaning more towards progressive thinking, because it is a realization that "truth" requires dedication to figuring it out. Conservative ideas of preservation of certain rules and principles usually comes from an ignorance of how reality works, not seeing that society change all the time and it changes with new knowledge and discovery about the human condition. — Christoffer

I'd like to define a healthy society empirically. Is it flexible enough to survive crises? Or does it shatter against the rocks, leaving the population to suffer in turmoil? There are times when a progressive outlook, one ready to embrace change, is optimal because old strategies have been tried and failed. But when thing are stable, conservatives seek to protect hard-earned wisdom, so they really should prevail during those times.

As if minimizing the number of downtrodden while increasing the amount of Americans with plenty of spendable income somehow does not result in tremendous stability? — creativesoul

That's an interesting question, and history answers that it definitely does not produce stability. When the general population is fat and happy, the labor market becomes costly and inflexible. If 1970s labor unions in the US and the UK would have had the ability to stop grandstanding and work with employers, it would have been harder for neoliberals like Reagan and Thatcher to take control. The neoliberal solution was to bring labor to its knees and make them beholden for every crumb. That produced stability.

I live in an insignificant little state and it's population is twice that of Finland. Could I see half my state become socialist? Sure, especially if it didn't have to defend itself. — frank

What would this "socialism" mean in this case?

Opting for something equivalent to the labour government of Keir Starmer in the UK?

Opting for social-democracy like in Sweden? This would be I think closest to what Democratic Socialists in the US dream of.

Or something closer to Venezuela, left-wing populism and authoritarianism? Because it will hardly be old-school Marxism-Leninism.

And just what that defend themselves means? Or do mean to defend the turn to left-wing politics? Remember that it was social-democrat lead administrations in Sweden and Finland that opted to join NATO and got rid off the last remnants of the neutrality doctrine. That leftist don't care about defense issues is a right-wing myth.

(These progressive social-democrat women decided that NATO membership was better than neutrality for their countries.)

You seem really out of touch to me.

...and I should add that although the modern mind balks at the explicit claim, "Everyone who is X is good and everyone who is not is bad" (even though that claim is constantly being made implicitly), the formula itself is not the problem. The problem is a superficial X. For example, Aristotle's X would be "just, temperate, prudent, and courageous," and it is precisely the complexity and robustness of the cardinal virtues that make such an X plausible. "Compassion" is too one-dimensional to serve that role. — Leontiskos

All X's are ossified by tribes, whether they be political, religious, or whatever.