A Definition of Conservatism: The Problem Sighted

Psychologist World, accessed 3/10/2018

Conservatism is, in my view, a psychological phenotype that is primarily based in fear of change, and difference. It isn't an intellectual movement, per se, but the inability of a group of people to function in the dynamic and often chaotic and uncertain world we actually do live in. Conservatives, from my understanding of their own past stated beliefs, often wish to go back to an imagined time and place that never really did or will exist in practical reality. It is primarily favored by those who are already in some way privileged, or who are unaware of how privileged they are under the existing status quo (which is probably how it has lasted for so long within human societies). This opinion is based in evidence from political psychologists, and findings in political neuroscience (there are whole new fields being devoted to this line of research; search for political psychology and neurology for more).

The net effects of conservatism on the society can be seen in many different societies and cultures throughout time and space. The clearest example can be seen in the Western world in the difference between the Northern European countries and the Southern European countries. Those societies which adhered to the old Roman Catholic Church, deferred to the landed aristocracy and monarchies, and essentially killed any further scientific research beyond Church dogma (the Counter-Reformation) are on average poorer and weaker economies, societies, and governments than the Northern European societies (who revolted against the Church dogma, decentralized power to the merchants and middle class, and embraced science and technology for their society's well-being). Another case can be seen in the Islamic world, before and after the fall of ijtihad in Islamic jurisprudence (which was the clause in Sharia that enabled the Law to evolve and adapt over time with present conditions) in the 15th century. A more detailed look at this can be seen in Acemoglu and Robinson's book, "Why Nations Fail".

 In short, I don't see Conservatism in any form as being a helpful psychological phenotype, or something that is worth preserving on the social level. Change is the one constant in this universe, and nothing is more sacred than preserving and improving the current well-being of the public and the environment in many different cases and contexts. Conservatives, I think, often fail to appreciate the things they need to keep (such as family, friends, and a healthy social/environmental ecosystem), and focus on the things that aren't necessary to have, or aren't worth keeping (such as specifics in law, social organization, etc).

I know you may say "well, that's just your opinion". But this is an educated opinion that is backed by quality evidence from the real world in which we live, and not just on your own theoretical bases. I am not of the school of thought that all opinions are equal, especially in the light of evidence towards a needed common set of goals for continued human survival. Fact: we don't live on money and power for ourselves. Fact: we work better as a group than as a bunch of individuals. Fact: individuals who don't play nicely with others are more likely to be excluded and eventually pushed out by the larger social group (Bohem). Fact: I believe with this line of reasoning, and the conditions we're getting into, we can safely jettison Conservatives from a place of status and influence as our social worlds continue to erode under Conservatives' government (regardless of party affiliation).

My hypothesis is that we'll be better off by being compassionate, considerate, and adaptable based on evidence than if we were to not be those things as people, and as a group of people. Let the testing begin.