Liberal vs. Conservative Is a Nonsensical Apples-to-Oranges Comparison — Part II
Conservative values are built on the status quo, preserving things as they are. Non-movement. So by contrast the opponents of conservatism appear to promote movement or change.
That which is already in place is by definition already tested and to some degree proven to be what it is or is not.While that which one proposes to put in place is by definition untested, yet to be proven, its final implications not yet fully known.
As Mitch McConnell has so vividly illustrated over the past decade, blocking change has come to mean blocking liberals. The two have become synonymous. At no time has the conservative thesis of non-change been more clear. Conservatism has truly perfected the ideology of obstruction.
The filibuster — which requires 60 Senate votes to pass most bills, rather than a straight majority of 51 — protects the status quo. As you might be able to guess, studies show that the filibuster favors conservative causes which tend to resist change and hurts liberal causes that often require change.
The human brain is arguably better wired for conservatism. Humans seek patterns to follow because nature is full of linear patterns that are easy for us to quickly calculate and draw inferences.
By contrast, discovering new patterns is excruciatingly difficult for the human brain. The analysis required to find new patterns uses the newest part of our brains and is a skill we have had less time to evolve and perfect. We cannot analyze but a very small part of our world at a time. Analyzing everything in your world is exhausting, not to mention simply impossible.
Pure 100% conservatism is nearly feasible, while its opposite is not. As a result gravity favors conservatism. It is most certainly easier, a more human tendency.
Therefore liberalism ends up being given two tasks when countering conservatism, while conservatism’s counter of liberalism requires only one. Asking the anti-changers to change requires both efficacy of the proposal as well as critical analysis to demonstrate such efficacy. The reverse requires only pointing to the efficacy of what already exists, even when such claims to primacy are often fallacious.
If you enjoyed this story, please click the 👏 button and share to help others find it! Feel free to leave a comment below.
