Tearing off the Blindfold.

[hoot1]

I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to say conservatives oppose change. You are correct in saying liberals seek change. And I think it’s fair to say conservatives don’t necessarily seek it. Conservatives see change as a natural evolution flowing from the combined influence of all the various institutions affecting society. A liberal, I think, tends to impose change through various kinds of authority. Of course this is a general concept and there are many variations and exceptions made necessary by different factors.

I think liberals tend to rely on sovereign authority much more than conservatives. That’s not to say conservatives are like libertarians who oppose that authority, instead, conservatives tend to keep it with a well-defined role. True, we don’t have a monarchist government. But there are those who push for the functional equivalent by advocating for fundamental changes such as direct election of POTUS, basing the Senate only on population, giving the federal government more authority over state government, and operating the congress in a POTUS rubber stamp mode.

Here is what I wrote about change and conservatives in an earlier post (#77) and what I still believe,

Conservatives and liberals don't always agree on whether change is needed and/or how to make changes, but I don't buy into the idea that conservatives always resist change and only liberals seek change.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

For me, the best explanation in favor of conservatism (or at least that makes a persuasive critique of a lot of modern liberal policy) is the notion of Chesterton’s fence:

Chesterton’s Fence: A Lesson in Second Order Thinking - Farnam Street

A core component of making great decisions is understanding the rationale behind previous decisions. If we don’t understand how we got “here,” we run the risk of making things much worse.

fs.blog