Are you a progressive or a reactionary?

One of the more troubling developments in politics over the last few years is the desire of those on the Right to be seen as “progressive” and to argue for “change”. Indeed this appears to be the new virtue: Conservative politicians suggest that they have a progressive agenda and that they are in favour of “change”. Doubtless Cameron’s Conservatives have seen the manner in which the successful Obama campaign used the idea of “change”.

But the problem here, of course, is that neither Obama or Cameron have as yet stated what they are going to change and why it should be done. Change is rather seen as a good thing in itself, as is being able to call oneself “progressive”, even if no attempt is made to explain where we might be progressing to.

But why should we see progress as desirable? Edmund Burke argued that we need to have the means to change things, but this was not because he wanted to see “progress”, but rather the reverse. He argued that “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation”. It is only by being able to change that we can preserve those institutions – the rule of law, free markets, private property, the family – that make our society what it is.

What this suggests is that instead of insisting we are “progressive” we should instead insist on a return to the original and non-pejorative meaning of “reaction”. Burke was, properly speaking, a reactionary. This was not because he refused to countenance any change, but rather that change should only be made in reaction to threats to those institutions we hold dear. The obvious reason for this is that what exists is already known and understood, whereas progressing to something new entails taking a risk on what we know little about.

So the next time that someone refers to you as a reactionary, take it as a compliment!

Someone’s spoken sense at last. The concept of ‘progressiveness’ is an utter chimera. New Labour naturally embraced it in two ways:1. As a convenient cloak of their own political vacuity.2. To make institutional iconoclasm and constitutional philistinism appear entirely reasonable.Neither corollaries should have any place under a Tory administration.

Well, I’d go back and make people re-learn the lessons of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Tom Paine of two centuries ago and of Henry George of over a century ago.Is that ‘reactionary’ or ‘progressive’? You tell me.

Mark, you can be whichever you want! It really is a matter of disposition and it need not be internally consistent as is shown by your interesting mix of heroes, with the empirically grounded (Smith, Ricardo) and the utopian perfectionists (Paine, George). I think a key question to ask – to oneself as well as to others – is ‘What do you want to change things for?’ You would get a very different answer from Smith than either Paine or George.

Inspired by your excellent post, I offer a personal extension of your thoughts at:http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2009/07/change-edmund-burke-can-believe-in.html

I am a third way politician. I have always been and nothing has changed in terms of my political outlook. The message remains the same, with some modifications of course, if necessary. I am currently reading some article on Fordism and how one can get the right economic balance, post-Cold War. Anybody who argues for the retention of status quo appears not to grasp the magnititude of the wind of political and economic change, nationally and internationally.

Julius – change is always occurring, the problem is to assume that we can understand it or pre-empt it and so control it. In any case, it is all too convenient to use the terms ‘crisis’ or ‘emergency’ to demand change – it still doesn’t mean we know what we are doing. In any case why favour the unknown over the known?

Someone’s spoken sense at last. The concept of ‘progressiveness’ is an utter chimera. New Labour naturally embraced it in two ways:1. As a convenient cloak of their own political vacuity.2. To make institutional iconoclasm and constitutional philistinism appear entirely reasonable.Neither corollaries should have any place under a Tory administration.

Well, I’d go back and make people re-learn the lessons of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Tom Paine of two centuries ago and of Henry George of over a century ago.Is that ‘reactionary’ or ‘progressive’? You tell me.

Mark, you can be whichever you want! It really is a matter of disposition and it need not be internally consistent as is shown by your interesting mix of heroes, with the empirically grounded (Smith, Ricardo) and the utopian perfectionists (Paine, George). I think a key question to ask – to oneself as well as to others – is ‘What do you want to change things for?’ You would get a very different answer from Smith than either Paine or George.

Inspired by your excellent post, I offer a personal extension of your thoughts at:http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2009/07/change-edmund-burke-can-believe-in.html

I am a third way politician. I have always been and nothing has changed in terms of my political outlook. The message remains the same, with some modifications of course, if necessary. I am currently reading some article on Fordism and how one can get the right economic balance, post-Cold War. Anybody who argues for the retention of status quo appears not to grasp the magnititude of the wind of political and economic change, nationally and internationally.

Julius – change is always occurring, the problem is to assume that we can understand it or pre-empt it and so control it. In any case, it is all too convenient to use the terms ‘crisis’ or ‘emergency’ to demand change – it still doesn’t mean we know what we are doing. In any case why favour the unknown over the known?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

Invest in the IEA. We are the catalyst for changing consensus and influencing public debate.

Donate now

Thank you for
your support

Subscribe to
publications

Subscribe