Is The Arc Of American History Toward A Conservative Or Liberal Direction?

Discover magazine blog suggesting that despite a propensity for society to break down into conservative-minded sectors and with sheer numbers (of conservatives over liberals) the left still seems to win over time.

Yes, labels change as history marches on. Everyone knows that, for example, many of America's founders would have been liberals during their time, but only now are considered conservative. But even so, this provides backing to the idea. Was not America borne out of responsiveness to conservative overbearing?

Is conservativeness the bane of progress? How can society progress without progressive policies?

For all the talk about American exceptionalism the arc of history seems to be moving to the Left, broadly speaking. Despite the reality that the American Left seems weaker in numbers and less coherent a movement than the Right, conservatives have been waging a rearguard battle by and large. The macrohistorical trends are simply not born out by the strength of numbers that conservatives have at any given moment. One might infer from this that there are strong sociocultural dynamics and institutional biases which nudge Western liberal democracies in a Left direction, with the rate of change modulated by contemporary political configurations. And yet perhaps we are too Whiggish, human history has been characterized by secular trends being nested within broader cyclical patterns.

Predicting The Past From The Present Facts

well our entire economy is based around classic liberalistic ideals. Capitalism stresses individual freedoms.

reply to post by Hadrian


At first sight, there might be something in this, as regards democracy in general. One mechanism might be that conservative parties would feel the need to restrain their more reactionary tendencies for the sake of winning more centrist votes. This is part of what my namesake was doing, and it seems to be Cameron's aim.

Also younger generations would come, even in the more conservative party, who would have grown up with the effects of the more recent reforms and might be more willing to accept them than their parents.

How about we just toss out this whole "partisan" idea and just run the government on how people want. If you are a good candidate, you shouldn't have to be in a certain party.

Parties originated to group people with similar ideals but today it is less that and moreso a political tool to get votes. Such scrutiny but thanks for this thread.

(I also find the country built on conservative thinking as there was much needed in the subject of government and industry building. When those two things boomed, only then did people start getting more and more liberal.)

reply to post by SPACEYstranger


aren't individual freedoms moot when awarded within a fascist corporate state? (that's rhetorical lest i reveal my political slant.)

Originally posted by TheBloodRed
How about we just toss out this whole "partisan" idea and just run the government on how people want. If you are a good candidate, you shouldn't have to be in a certain party.

Parties originated to group people with similar ideals but today it is less that and moreso a political tool to get votes. Such scrutiny but thanks for this thread.

(I also find the country built on conservative thinking as there was much needed in the subject of government and industry building. When those two things boomed, only then did people start getting more and more liberal.)

well, i know it's fashionable to hate on political ideology because of america's political party stalemate, but political philosophy predates america and will post-date it, as well.

and perhaps the country was built on conservative thinking as it applies now, looking back. perhaps some would view the thinking that birthed america, in its setting, liberal, perhaps even radically so.

Originally posted by Hadrian
reply to post by SPACEYstranger

 

aren't individual freedoms moot when awarded within a fascist corporate state? (that's rhetorical lest i reveal my political slant.)

well, you could say that equality is moot. Because all men and women dont have equal opportunity to expression. Only the richest of the rich have the capacity to have their voice heard. So yeah, freedoms are kind of moot since they are imposed on us by the rich as a sort of "enslavement under law".

of course, its not so bleak today where people have disposable income. But the manipulation at its core is the same.

This is Marx talking, not me.

I still think the communist manifesto will prove itself partially true.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

reply to post by Hadrian


I would say that individual freedoms are moot when awarded by any government. Fascist, socialist, capitalist or any other type of gov't.


If something is given by a group then it can be taken back. Versus something that is inherently yours.

reply to post by Hadrian


Society's naturally evolve gradually any sudden changed usually proves to be detrimental . A situation in dire straights can also produce a sudden change . for instance the failure of the ruling class in Russia to let society evolve lead to the 1917 Revolution . The New Deal came about due to the social and economic environment created by the Great Depression .

Post Colonial Africa serves as a good example as the after mouth of a sudden change across wider society's .

reply to post by sporkmonster


that's all well and good - inherent freedom may be nice to the individual with idle time to ponder his status while benefitting from the merits of a progressive, liberal society.

however, for the slave at the bottom of a bottom-heavy oppressive state with no freedom, i imagine freedom does not seem so inherent to this individual.

i wonder if, despite theory, freedom is always given to you by others. someone can always, at any time, attempt to deny you your freedom and may succeed at doing so. same for a government. whether your right to freedom is inherent, your state of freedom seems completely at the whim of those around you with the capability to exert power over you.

reply to post by Hadrian


That's right.

"A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take it all away."

(Or something along those lines!)

Constitutionalists believe our rights come from God,not government.