It’s something that’s struck me over and over as I’ve read through historical accounts of progressive movements, that despite their being ostensibly more collectivist compared to some conservative hyper-individualism…They struggle to hold together and coordinate to accomplish their goals. In some instances it’s interference or sabotage from outside, but as often it can be found from within as well.
What are some of the contributing factors here, and how might they be addressed to better accomplish progressive aims?
Conservatives can organize more easily because it is easy to agree to not change anything. Progressives all want change, ostensibly in the same general direction, however that doesn’t mean they agree on the vector, or even what needs to be changed to achieve it.
Conservatives can organize more easily because it is easy to agree to not change anything
I think it’s important to differentiate between politicians and regular people here. Regular conservatives just think trans-people should go into hiding. Mike Johnson and Co. wants to outlaw the idea of being transgender altogether. Whereas Main Street conservatives just want to live their lives “freely”, unobstructed by stuff that doesn’t offend their sensibilities and burden them with responsibilities they haven’t chosen, D.C. conservatives want to make it so that the government is hamstrung to govern.
Conservatives aren’t actually hyper-individualists. That’s a wrong assumption. They’re individualists within confines. They have their set communities that are guided by an authority (church, for example) and they want everyone else to conform to their way of living.
Any conservative structure has an authoritarian leadership whose call to action will be heeded. The biggest disobedience you find will be people just not saying anything against it.
Unlike this, progressives deal with a lot of infighting because there’s a thousand ways to achieve things and any leadership is constantly scrutinized and criticised.
There’s an inherent speed and organisation advantage to single-point leadership (authoritarianism) Vs the more measured compromise system (democracy).
And then there’s the part where conservatives are the overwhelming majority of rich people, who can dump in the money to organise things. You have to be a garbage human to become filthy rich, and those garbage humans will of course happily work on campaigns to hold progressives back. Progress is the enemy of scum, the past is their friend.
Conservatives aren’t actually hyper-individualists. That’s a wrong assumption. They’re individualists within confines. They have their set communities that are guided by an authority (church, for example) and they want everyone else to conform to their way of living.
I considered this, and was initially going to describe them more as leaning authoritarian as you (and others) have, but I didn’t think that fit well either. I tend to agree that conservatives are more inclined to authority and fall in line with it, but wouldn’t you say it’s also a wrong assumption that they want everyone else to conform to their way of living? The extremists among them, certainly, but that’s not what I was referring to.
Besides, there have been progressive/leftist movements that adopt a more authoritarian approach, but they’ve also tended to fall and/or get warped into something not really resembling leftist/progressive movements.
Leftist organizations with authoritarian approaches exist, but generally have a way lower impact on the life of the average progressive. They’re usually, with very few exceptions, smaller groupings.
With conservatives there’s always an in-group. other groups get judged by whether they follow the same life rules, even if they’re things the other group can’t change.
They “tolerate” other groups - as long as those other groups do not show up in their life. Begrudgingly a part of them has accepted more diversity, but they’d rather have diversity gone once the opportunity arises.
Any issue that might be big for them is a non-issue until it affects their group. So you better not change anything and do as they do, no matter how impossible it actually is in reality.
There’s no willingness for compromise and changing their ways. It’s their way out the highway unless you force them.
Conservatives always subscribe to a higher moral authority that they say is the way to be. Their individualism just comes down to “I can manage with the rules prescribed, so you have to be able to do the same. I don’t rely on others. You shouldn’t either.”
That’s not individualism. That’s just Stockholm syndrome. They’re clinging onto a weird ‘life sucks, live with it’ “rugged individualism”, which is literally just suffering through life. Because that’s all they’ve been taught, because they weren’t ever allowed to be the nail that sticks out. They had the hammer applied on them when they did and now they do the same to others.
Progressives celebrate sticking out, they want to allow everyone to be their true, authentic self. They get to do something conservatives weren’t allowed to. That makes them angry. And progressives want to change things in innumerable ways - the motivation for it doesn’t matter, can be all good, like preventing more climate catastrophes. each conservative group will have at least something a progressive group is “threatening” to change: trades learned, ownership structures, technology, etc. their spokespeople will rail against these for their various interests (bigotry, narcissism, profits …) And that unites them against the thousands of splinter groups all labelled progressives.
I think Conservatives have an easier time falling in line, they’re traditional authoritarians who believe that you should do as you’re told, follow orders, be a team player, take one for the team, respect authority, blah blah blah. They’re not a terribly diverse group of people, you’ve got fringe elements here and there, but all mostly respect the central authority. While we do see infighting at times amongst higher-up conservatives (basically internal power struggles), they mostly tend to fall in line when something is deemed a priority by leadership. Obviously there’s been exceptions to this, but it still holds up for most of them.
Liberals on the other hand can be just as catty with each other as they can be with Conservatives. The Democratic party has tried to create such a big tent and endear itself to so many different causes that each of these is fighting for attention within the party over who gets priority. You’ve got women with their abortion rights, economic inequality, feminism, #metoo, etc AND you’ve got black americans with civil rights issues, police brutality, racism, economic inequality, etc AND then you’ve got immigrants with immigration, exploitation, language barriers, religious clashes, etc AND then you’ve got the LGBTQIA+ movement with marriage equality, transgender discrimination, etc AND you’ve got environmentalists that are worried about global warming, carbon pollution, plastic pollution, etc AND you’ve got the Youth voters worried about education, the environment, their future in general, etc AND there’s plenty others I’m leaving out, or general causes that cut across these groups (like Israel/Gaza).
The point is, Liberals can’t seem to really focus on one issue before another issue bubbles to the surface, it’s almost schizophrenic, there’s too many voices and priorities all fighting to be addressed. How can you unite a group of people like that around a central issue that affects all of them at once? Economic inequality cuts across alot of lines, but for different reasons. Conservatives may have some competition between religious and business interests, but that doesn’t happen terribly often and they usually just go along with whatever they’re being told, they don’t have to think about anybody else other than themselves. “Trans people make me feel uncomfortable. They’re the bad guys now? Ok, yea, I’m all in.”
If you’re in agreement with another Liberal about an issue, but misspeak or generalize about the wrong thing, they’ll be all over you as if you have been a bigot your whole life. Liberals will turn on each other in a heartbeat. Conservatives, on the other extreme, can’t seem to let go of people no matter how horrible a person they’ve been revealed to be. Pedophile? Serial rapist? Fraud? Domestic abuse? Nah, you’re still cool with the GOP.
I think those on the left are a lot less likely to fall in line behind a leader because that’s exactly what we’re fighting against. It does seem to be beneficial to action for someone to take charge and make things happen. I think that role, even if it does have validity, is given greater weight by our collective indoctrination into the great man myth. And any indoctrination has great effect on mentality even if you can logically refute it.
My personal thought (that I’m open to changing (also we’re all too willing to change our mind)) is revolutionizing that role to be more in line with non-hierarchical values. That could be creating a doctrine that can establish some guiding principles that would include action. Or to stay people focused, have it be an assigned position. Pick someone who is good at making things happen and let them do that. As long as that person doesn’t have an outsized influence on how and what is happening, and is able to be removed and replaced whenever appropriate, that could work.
But yeah our biggest weakness is our inability to commit to something better. I think it’s a good trait to be open minded to criticism in all directions as a path for growth. But it easily becomes a case of the unattainable best being the enemy of an attainable better. I think we’re tempted to have a clear goal to guide us. But if we’re going to actually make progress we need to unite under a blurry goal and be okay with finding clarity over time. Even that is a better system than we’re currently living under.
For some leftists/progressives, I think you’re right that they’re firmly anti-authoritarian through and through, making that the central issue they’re fighting against, but for just as many, if not many more, wouldn’t it be more that they’re fighting against economic inequality/injustice, bigotry, disenfranchisement, and the like?
Or to put it more positively, fighting for justice, equality, enfranchisement, etc.?
Yeah I think my argument definitely leans further left, and another big factor is what paddirn is saying on this post. The problem with our current society is a vast web of interconnected problems and systems, and we have a sort of paralysis of choice of what to attack first. It’s difficult to know where to start on this dauntingly large task.
I think it could make sense to make use of our broad interest to divide and conquer. Maybe we can’t all unite to fight one issue at a time, maybe it’d be more effective to split into groups that each take on an issue. I think there still needs to be a unified strategy so that the various problems can be dealt with in full, and that would include support from the whole when that becomes necessary. But if we set up a plan of attack that could, 1) appease the interests of all to see the issues they’re most passionate about written down to be addressed even if it’s not immediate, and 2) break the massive task into smaller more manageable chunks. In order for that to happen there still needs to be some coordination and commitment to action which I address in my previous comment, but I think this is a more actionable way for real progress to happen.