My New Year’s Resolution
You’re probably wondering: Does an anal-retentive person such as me make New Year’s resolutions? Does a bear shit in the woods? Is the Pope Catholic? I’ve been making—and recording—New Year’s resolutions since 1 January 1979, which was just over a month after I began keeping a journal (on 21 November 1978). I won’t say I’ve made resolutions every year, but I’ve come close. I do find, however, that I have fewer resolutions to make with each passing year, since—brace yourself—I’m becoming more and more perfect with age: intellectually, emotionally, morally, and physically. Think about it. Does God make resolutions? What could God want, other than to lose a few pounds?
My resolution for 2007 is to change the political terminology I use. If you go back through this blog’s archive, you’ll see that for some time after creating the blog, I used the word “liberal” to describe those with whom I disagree on matters of political morality. Eventually, I began referring to them as “leftists.” For a couple of years now, it’s been “conservatives” versus “leftists.” I sometimes use the expression “classical liberals,” but more often I use “libertarian” to describe the view in question. I don’t know what a liberal is anymore. Ronald Dworkin calls himself a liberal, but he’s an egalitarian, which puts him on the left. John Rawls is thought of as a liberal, perhaps because of his Equal Liberty Principle, but he, too, was an egalitarian. Members of the American Civil Liberties Union probably think of themselves as liberals, but they take positions that can hardly be classified as neutral or middle of the road. In short, I don’t know what “liberal” means anymore, so I’ve all but stopped using it.
To me, the important fight, politically, is between those who wish to conserve various traditions, institutions, practices, and ways of life and those who wish to abolish or modify these things. The latter would use reason—which they exalt—to rethink everything, with no presumption that what has existed for a long time be retained. Many of these people refer to themselves as “progressives.” They have a vision of how society can and should progress, and they seek to implement it—through coercion if necessary. They view conservatives such as me as impediments to progress (which may be why they treat me so poorly). I view them as reckless social engineers who don’t appreciate the extent to which reason is (already) embodied in traditions, institutions, &c. They think I’m anti-reason. I think they’re oblivious to reason’s limitations.
Neither of us is an absolutist. Conservatives aren’t categorically opposed to change, and progressives aren’t categorically in favor of it. It’s more a matter of temperament. Conservatives are disposed to leave things alone, as long as they work. Progressives are disposed to change things, if they can be made better (by their lights). Conservatives are pessimistic, and progressives optimistic, about reason’s ability to make things better. Conservatives are motivated by fear—that things will get worse. Progressives are motivated by hope—that things will get better. We might also put the difference in terms of presumptions. Conservatives presume that what exists is good, and insist that anyone who wishes to change it bear the burden of proof. Progressives reject this presumption, or, if they endorse a presumption against change at all, they endorse a weak one—one that is more easily rebutted. You can see the difference between conservatives and progressives quite clearly on the matter of homosexual “marriage.”
Peter Berkowitz recently edited two volumes for the Hoover Institution: Varieties of Conservatism in America (2004) and Varieties of Progressivism in America (2004). I like the symmetry of these labels. About the only thing I don’t like about the word “progressivism” is that it’s loaded. Progress is, by definition, change for the better. Progressives obviously believe that the changes they advocate are for the better, so they find their label accurate. But conservatives don’t! Conservatives think that some of the changes advocated by progressives are for the worse, in which case the proper label for them would be “regressives.”
In a way, I like it that “progressivism” is loaded. If I use that term, instead of, say, “leftism,” nobody can accuse me of trying to gain a rhetorical advantage by my choice of labels. I don’t want a rhetorical advantage. I want to win fair and square, using only logic. I’m reminded here of Don Marquis, who used the terms “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion” in his famous 1989 essay “Why Abortion Is Immoral.” What’s odd about this choice is that Marquis argues for the immorality of abortion. Why would he not use the preferred label of those who share his view, which is “pro-life”? When I asked him about this, he told me that he didn’t want to be accused of trying to gain a rhetorical advantage. I like that explanation. In fact, it’s brilliant.
So that’s my resolution for 2007. I may slip up every now and then and use “leftist,” “leftism,” and “the Left,” but I’ll try to stick with “progressive” and “progressivism” from here on out. When you see these terms, you may, if you like, imagine me winking and whispering, “What I really mean is ‘regressive’ and ‘regressivism.’”
