The Unbridgeable Chasm

When I began following the great political and cultural wars of our day I was always left perplexed by the utter disconnect between the two sides. They seemed to come from different planets.  On the one planet the sky was blue and on the other it was red; on the first gravity pulled objects down but on the second it pulled them up.  It was impossible to tell who had won the debate because the two sides seemed to speak different languages and employ differing systems of logic.

At that time, I also assumed that both sides were sincerely aiming at the same goal of making the world a better place.  In my uninformed simplicity I thought the main difference was Progressive-Liberals wanted to move more quickly toward this goal while Conservatives were more cautious and advocated slower progress.  But the more I learned, the more I realized that not only did the two sides have different goals but they began from different places.

I used to be a debater and was familiar with its rules and logic but what I saw in the current national arena bore little resemblance to the kind of debate I knew.  One of the things I learned was that the two sides to an argument must begin by accepting a few basic things “a priori”.  These are the foundational assumptions from which both sides start when building their arguments.  It seems that Conservative and Progressive-Liberal sides can never have a coherent debate about anything because they begin with different a priori assumptions.

The Conservative side operates from the ground of historic western culture.  This is a view of the universe shaped by Judeo-Christian thought and Greco-Roman philosophy and tradition.  This view recognizes that the universe was designed by a transcendent power, operates according to rational principles, and serves ultimate exalted purposes.

The Progressive-Liberal side has rejected historic western culture in favor of the belief that the universe has evolved through random chance and will continue to evolve to higher states by the same processes.  There are no objectives truths to be found in the universe.  “Truth” is whatever seems best to us at any given time.  The universe and history are not moving toward any ultimate goal.  The only purpose to be found in anything is whatever purpose we assign it.  They also view themselves as the most highly evolved of humans who can use their advanced powers to lead the process of human evolution forward more quickly and precisely.

When you look at it this way there truly is an unbridgeable chasm between Conservative and Progressive-Liberal.  They begin from completely incompatible starting points and proceed by differing paths to opposite ends.  Here are some of the key differences:

Conservatives study history and the universe expecting to find in it the principles of design that show us who we are and how we are best made to live.  This is what the authors of the Declaration of Independence meant when they wrote, “We hold these truths to be self evident…”  They believed that the inalienable rights of man were clearly seen in the nature of man and the universe.	Progressive-Liberals believe that they are “the people” and wisdom has come with them.  Since they are the most highly evolved people ever to live, they look into themselves and together arrive at the best and most advanced thought currently available.  The universe is nothing but matter and energy that tells us nothing about purpose or what is good and true.
When Conservatives study history and the universe they expect to find there objective principles that do not change and are true for all time because they were put there by the transcendent designer.	Progressive-Liberals assume that any thinking from the past is less highly evolved than contemporary thought.  They will always prefer a new idea over an old one.
Conservatives recognize that there have been times in the past when people received extraordinary insight into the nature of man and the universe.  These insights have proven remarkably true and reliable throughout hundreds and even thousands of years of human history.  Conservatives look back to this store of proven insight to evaluate the claims made by contemporary thinkers and to help plan the way forward.	Progressive-Liberals arrive by consensus among themselves at the best thinking currently available but they assume that it will eventually be superseded by more highly evolved thinking.  For them nothing is objective or eternal.  All thinking is subjective and temporary and is likely to become outdated, discarded, and replaced by something more advanced.
Conservatives recognize that history shows man to be naturally inclined toward evil unless restrained from base desires and taught to pursue higher more noble things and proven virtues.  No one should have excessive power over others.  Every person and group must be checked and balanced by others to prevent them from giving rein to lower and baser impulses.	Progressive-Liberals see themselves as the best and highest of men currently on the planet and they are confident that they will continually evolve to higher and better states if they are given authority to implement their plans.  They pursue near total power convinced this will inevitably produce a better more highly evolved society.

Once I understood this it cleared up the confusion that seemed to reign within the debate between the two sides.  Let me illustrate with the argument over the Senate filibuster.  When Republicans held the majority in the U. S. Senate Progressive-Liberals such as Harry Reid and Charles Schumer lauded the filibuster as a great and noble practice and as the indispensable bulwark of freedom.  Now that Reid and Schumer control the Senate they rail against it as a vile tool of obstructionism and an abominable impediment to progress.  Conservatives are astonished that these men could shamelessly engage in such rank hypocrisy. Reid and Schumer however are unperturbed and can make these claims because of the logic of Progressive-Liberalism.

The contradiction is resolved when seen through the lens of Progressive-Liberal philosophy.  Reid and Schumer see themselves as more highly evolved and therefore superior to any who oppose them.  They see no need to respect their opponents any more than a person would respect a cockroach.  They also reject the very notion of hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy is based on outdated notions of objective morality which they have discarded as primitive.  The Progressive-Liberal position they seek to advance is the current best thinking available.  The best outcome for everyone is for it to be advanced by whatever means are available.  Progressive-Liberals cannot state their philosophy plainly because too many people whose support they need wouldn’t understand it.  The less evolved are not yet enlightened enough to see things as they ought.  They simply need to be moved along toward the Progressive-Liberal utopia even if by subterfuge and most will understand in the end how it was all for their good.  In their own minds there is no hypocrisy at all.  They truly believe the filibuster to be great and noble if it is used to advance the good (the Progressive-Liberal plan) and it’s vile and execrable whenever it is used to block the good (the Progressive-Liberal plan).  The means is justified if it helps bring about the good.  Understanding the basis of Progressive-Liberal thought helps us understand why they do what they do.