The Conservative's Approach to Change

Conservatism, according to Wikipedia, is "a political and social philosophy [that] promotes retaining traditional social institutions." Of course, within this, there are a million and one ways to be a conservative. One can be a libertarian, a fiscal conservative, a reactionary, and so forth. Personally, I would classify myself as a moderate, run-of-the-mill conservative. However, in all of these branches of conservatism, there is a common thread: an aversion to change. This aversion to change has significant implications for our political situation and discourse, and to that end, it is extremely important.

One of the biggest reasons for this aversion to change is a preference for security. Conservatives tend to see a world in which traditional institutions, while not perfect, have led to stability and growth, and thus are beneficial and should not be abandoned willy-nilly. Again, there are many brands of this claim. I, for one, prefer slow changes so we can easily evaluate if we like the course we are taking and take steps back if necessary. Others, like reactionaries, might be so in favor of traditional stability that they think we've gone too far and want to go back to the way things used to be. Regardless, the preference for the security of the traditional or current state is a constant.

This attitude is in stark contrast with the attitude taken by liberals, who tend to more believe that change is good and necessary. The reason for the conservative's hesitance with regards to change likely draws from a number of sources. First of all, there is a large self-interest component. The conservative likely things don't need to change very much because in the current situation, the conservative is better off than in another proposed situation. Secondly, there is a large cultural component to conservatism. There is a reason that most of the southern United States, for example, is largely red. It's not because everyone in the south is much more affluent than other parts of the country (indeed, data seems to suggest otherwise), but rather, because there is a strong cultural tradition in that part of the country that strongly favors conservatism.

So in many ways, the conservative's aversion to change is a rational response, brought about by self-interest and cultural factors. Of course, as I've stated before, I'm a moderate conservative, so I can't fully step back and be objective in this regard. However, in politics, the problem lies in that aversion to change. Everyone, while they may not want quick or significant change, has something that they want to change. Indeed, that's one of the first things we learn in economics: wants are unlimited, and people want to change their situations to get those things that they want. Therefore, it becomes easy to target people who want to avoid quick change; such people are quickly characterized as the people who want to make sure that people don't change their situations to get what they want.

And to a large degree, those attacks work. And yet, it is clearly a rational response to the changes in society to be a conservative, depending on one's personal beliefs and situation. Usually, most people who make that point are dismissed as "right-wing loonies" (a phrase I will admit to using regularly). As a society, we often are so focused on our desire for change that we demonize those who don't agree with us. In doing so, however, while we are making our own rational responses to the change, we discourage others from making their own rational responses, and that's unfortunate.