The problem with the liberal vs. conservative paradigm
on the Bernie/Trump ticket
Join us for an salon this Tuesday entitled ‘Between Performance and Sincerity: The Role of Ritual in Internet Discourse’ with
In recent days, people have struggled to make sense of Cracks in PoMo’s agenda. Perhaps the reason people are so confused as to how to properly label us is that they are unintelligent, and are unable to detect nuances. Maybe it’s because they all have low IQs. It could be that they have too much brain fog from spending too much time scrolling through X and watching reels.
Part of the issue is also that we are pretentious, mischievous contrarians who like to “play too much.”
We’ve already broken down our agenda on several occasions, and yet some of you people still don’t get it. So we decided to spell it out even further in a second manifesto for those who are slow learners. But in this post, we’d like to focus on our distaste for the conventional liberal vs. conservative paradigm,1 and will break down our case for swapping it out with the progressive+traditional one.
We bicker over our alleged “liberal” and “conservative” positions, yet fail to consider the extent to which these categories function as hollow, “hyperreal” simulations which mainly lack any referent in reality, that were concocted by entities in power that were not popularly elected and that operate at a far remove from us everyday folk, mainly for the sake of sowing confusion and division among us.
We regurgitate seemingly-algorithmically generated platitudes as if they are from a script that’s been fed to us. The tribalism that follows leads to social division, which weakens our agency and renders us more vulnerable to manipulation by those who set the terms of the discourse.
We blindly follow the scripts that correspond with the tribe that best fits our personality type (determined in part by our “nature,” in part by “nurture”--how, with whom, and where we grew up). Little of it derives from genuine convictions. We rarely arrive at positions by seriously considering their logical conclusions and ultimate implications.
I’m a gay guy who grew up with conservative religious parents, of course I’m a liberal who supports abortion rights and BLM. I’m a white woman raising a family in Kentucky, of course I’m a conservative who is against teaching gender ideology in schools and letting terrorists and rapists into the country. Etc etc. In a sense, your ideological positions have already been determined for you. We blindly accept that issues are left- or right-coded without inquiring as to whether said “codes” are truly apt.
We fail to consider the cognitive dissonance of such positions. Take the authoritarian and misogynist bents of gay male culture, which are far from progressive. Or the inherently progressive implications of the “pro-life” platform, whose argument that all lives have inherent value regardless of how little they contribute to society doesn’t exactly sit well with the meritocratic bent of standard American conservatism.
This is part of why Cracks in PoMo rejects the liberal vs. conservative paradigm. Liberal and conservative are abstract, flimsy categories with vague meanings (Which liberalism: classical, economic, social, neo?? Whose conservatism: paleo, neo, social, economic, etc etc????)…which mostly came into existence during the time of the Enlightenment as reactions to ideas/projects they were opposed to, rather than real convictions growing organically from lived experienced (very top-down rather than bottom-up).
Rather, we find the progressive+traditional paradigm to be much more useful. Progress and tradition speak to two eternal forces that complement each other rather than oppose each other. Tradition speaks to the need to receive wisdom passed down to us by our ancestors. Without it, we cannot progress. Without roots, the tree won't grow. Without a foundation, the building will crumble. But without progress—without engaging tradition in a way that considers its relevance to the needs of the present and the future—tradition becomes a stale, meaningless idol. The dynamic power of tradition is maintained by its dialogue with progress, and the generative power of progress is sustained by tradition.
The liberal vs. conservative paradigm’s point of departure is abstract principles, and thus is bound to produce hollow ideologies. The progress+tradition paradigm’s point of departure is based in reality, in lived experience, in concrete needs and phenomena. Unlike liberalism and conservatism which are locked into a perpetual state of antagonism, of having to eliminate the opposition, progressivism and traditionalism complement and need each other.
For whatever reason, some of us will sway more toward progressivism or traditionalism (again, often due to deterministic factors that precede our reason/free will). This is a given. The solution, then, is not to eliminate the “other side,” but to forge spaces of collaboration. Your sensibilities and priorities complement mine. My position is incomplete without yours. You see a part of the issue I don’t see. You have a piece of the puzzle that I lack. Rather than aspiring to live in a silo with like-minded folks, we ought to aspire to be surrounded by a community of people with a diverse set of positions, who temper out each other’s extremes, and whose sensibilities correct, complement, and strengthen my own.
Unlike the phrenetic, nihilistic oscillation that characterizes the antagonistic posturing and tactics of the liberal vs. conservative paradigm, the tension that sustains the complementarity dynamic between progress and tradition bears fruit. The results accomplished by the antagonistic ethos are short-lived, whereas the complementary tension generates longer-lasting ones that benefit a wider swath of the public.
While this position of ours is rooted in Christian experience, it is capable of speaking to all human beings. That being said, we can see the precedence for our position in Christianity in its purest form—before getting disfigured by ideological priorities—which speaks to this super-human insight of synthesizing seemingly-opposing poles: the transcendent and the temporal, the masculine and the feminine, justice and mercy, the Dionysian and Apollonian, the particular and the universal, the local and the global. This is the “genius” of the Incarnation—a feat which only God could have pulled off.
We take our inspiration from the insights of the likes of Dorothy Day2 and Peter Maurin3 regarding the complementarity of freedom and obedience, of John Henry Newman on authority and conscience, of Chesterton on the errors of conservatism and progressivism,4 of the Second Vatican Council on risorgimento and aggiornamento, and of friend-of-the-pod
on the both/and of Christianity (which does not fit well into the American Democrat vs Republican paradigm).Also,
synthesized this position well in his interview with about his version of post-liberalism (which we discussed in our salon with him, , and Bill Cavanaugh).Anyway, does this mean we should back a Bernie/Trump ticket for President/VP? Lol no (we only made that the title of this piece so you would click on it…tho that would be wild if it happened!). The point is, start using your brain. Talk to people. Aim to collaborate, to learn and be corrected, rather than to masturbate your ego by condemning the “other side (tribe)” and hiding in your little silo, while technocratic elites continue destroying the social fabric (which encompasses both you and your alleged “enemies”!).
The fact that we’ve reduced everything down to these two very simplistic, broad categories demonstrates how impoverished our intellects and imaginations have become…and also goes to prove that everything I’ve been saying about the whole “divide and conquer” tactic employed by technocratic elites is right. Make the people dumb. Divide them among themselves. Then we can really have our way with them.
Please don’t be so dumb, my people! The world does not come down to a Manichean battle between liberals and conservatives. There are all kinds of ideologies out there. Can you please swallow a dose of nuance and learn to think outside of these two boxes? Time to get some Adam Curtis and Musa al-Gharbi in your lives…
-from our article on the conclave
"When I became a Catholic, it never occurred to me to question how much freedom I had or how much authority the Church had to limit that freedom... I had reached the point where I wanted to obey." (The Catholic Worker, December 17, 1966)
"During the first year of the existence of the Catholic Worker, Cardinal Hayes sent us a message through Monsignor Chidwick, then pastor of St. Agnes Church in New York. The Cardinal approved of our work, he said. It was understood that we would make mistakes; the important thing was not to persist in them. And of course we made mistakes. We have erred often in judgment and in our manner of writing and presenting the truth as we see it. I mean the truth about the temporal order in which we live and in which, as laymen, we must play our parts... When it comes to concerns of the temporal order—capital vs. labor, for example—on all these matters the Church has not spoken infallibly. Here there is room for wide differences of opinion. We are often asked the question, 'What does the Church think of our work and our radicalism?' The Church as such has never made any judgment on us." (LF, 122)
"To see Christ in others, especially those in authority, as David saw it in Saul even when Saul kept trying to kill him. Even as Uriah did when he must have known the gossip of the court. To see Christ and only Christ even when following one's conscience incurs what looks like defiance and disobedience. To guard the spirit in which one resists. The spirit of a child, combined with the judgment of a man. 'To be subject to every living creature.' We obey when we go to jail. Either register or go to jail. We are, after all, given a choice. I'm afraid I have not kept this spirit of respect towards Senator [Joseph] McCarthy. There is no room for contempt of others in the Christian life. I speak and write so much better than I perform. But we can never lower the ideal because we fail in living up to it." (DD, 199, "Notes for September Conf.", 1953)
"What a world problem, this authority and freedom, and the tension between the two! And how we Americans have held onto the Christian ideas of freedom and the dignity of human personality while forgetting that freedom is based on complete submission, complete meekness to God." (PM, 163)
Read more in the NY Encounter’s exhibit on her.
A Radical Change
1. The order of the day
is to talk about the social order.
2. Conservatives would like
to keep it from changing
but they don't know how.
3. Liberals try to patch it
and call it a New Deal.
4. Socialists want a change,
but a gradual change.
5. Communists want a change,
an immediate change,
but a Socialist change.
6. Communists in Russia
do not build Communism,
they build Socialism.
7. Communists want to pass
from capitalism to Socialism
and from Socialism to Communism.
8. I want a change,
and a radical change.
9. I want a change
from an acquisitive society
to a functional society,
from a society of go-getters
to a society of go-givers.“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.” -Chesterton
This is a breath of fresh air, and the way of discipleship, especially as a new Catholic trying to navigate the culture in the church.
Excellent Stephen