ProCiv probably favors a daring approach to institutional reform. Institutions like governments, universities, and the health care system represent society’s collective intelligence. When they are operating well, society is effective, productive, and nimble in addressing crises. When they are operating poorly, they can suck up infinite money while producing less and less benefit, a process sometimes referred to as “institutional sclerosis”. There is good evidence that American institutions are quite sclerotic. Infrastructure is slow to build and expensive compared to the past. Education and medicine are skyrocketing in price while most of that extra money goes to hiring administrators and regulatory compliance. A ProCiv point of view advocates for paying the cost to make bold reforms now in exchange for upgrading our collective intelligence to manage the challenges of the coming decades.
Read the whole post. The idea is that conservatives, concerned about the survival of civilization, ought to focus on avoiding catastrophic global risks while encouraging a lot of limited experimentation.
But I am afraid that “daring approach to institutional reform” and conservatism are not a natural match.
It seems that that what you would want would be to preserve institutions and norms that are helpful and to reform those that are harmful. Other things equal, conservatives have a bias toward preservation. Progressives have a bias toward reform. If we are lucky, then conservatives will preserve good institutions and norms while gradually accepting reforms that get rid of bad institutions and norms.
But what happens when the bad institutions and norms are cherished by progressives? Think of higher education, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or being non-judgmental about people who have children outside of marriage. The progressive does not see the need for reform, and the conservative is hesitant to attempt radical change.
Seemingly related: Scott Alexander’s summary of readers’ comments on Jordan Peterson.
“Biases” aside (in this case, you argue, to “preservation” or inaction), conservatives have more reason to fear the backlash of reform attempts (and not only when it fails) than progressives. A lot of this revolves around biases behind the cultural and academic funnels though which reform is evaluated and the media megaphones through which its effects (or even prospects) get blasted. Conservatives have been far more willing to tackle reform when they don’t have to fight National battles, i.e., at the State and Local level. At this level, either the scale of their opposition is de-levered, or they can simply fly under the radar screen. Let’s continue fighting for decentralization and federalism, and we will get more reform from both sides, so we can see what works (either in general, or simply for each of us).
This is probably why conservatives have become so irrelevant, being replaced by reactionaries. But while they are also concerned about civilization, they are more concerned with bring about its end to usher in the second coming.
+1
Further in Lyle’s piece, he states “I’m a political Taoist.”
That sounds much more interesting and relevant than “pro-Civilization.” If “ProCiv” is the same as “political Taoism” I’d guess the latter nomenclature would have much broader appeal both to liberals (non-Western, non-white male, non-oppressive), conservatives (rooted in an ancient system that has undergone centuries of practice and has clear notions of virtue), as well as libertarians (Lao Tzu is frequently described as the first libertarian intellectual).
Taoism rejected Confucianism’s embrace of hierarchies, rigid rituals, and social order. It focuses on finding harmony and values compassion, frugality, and humility.
The vegetarianism thing might be a problem (not that there is any problem with it as an aspirational goal rather than as a legal requirement), but if there were ever an authentic Taoist political party or candidate, they would get my vote.
The Taoist emphasis on balance and harmony seems quite compatible with the type of awareness promoted by The Three Languages of Politics.
Earlier you said that Trump temporarily scrambled the axes into bobo and anti-bobo factions, but I wonder if the causality runs the other way, and Trump was the consequence of a scrambling driven by a deeper and more long term political phenomenon. If counterexamples to the model start piling up – “progressives” trying to lock in and entrench the status quo, and criticizing old practices as barbaric, and “conservatives” hoping for radical reforms – then the old meanings of those terms are no longer adequate to describe our new reality.
I would say there’s no such thing as being pro-civilization in the abstract, and without some particular vision in mind, usually the specific traditional form of civilization that is part of the heritage of ones own people and historically delimited society. No conservative would deny that some ancient oriental despotism or caliphate is a form of “civilization” and ones that have achieved respectable accomplishments, but they are utterly uninterested in mimicking alien habits and institutions.
Instead, the issue is a deep and irreconcilable conflict of values, preferences, and visions of what constitutes a just society and a good, desirable, functional, and productive civilization. The fact that we have two pro-civilization factions locked in an irresolvable dispute about the future of civilization is precisely the problem. What appear to be systematic biases or habits is mostly coincidental to the more fundamental axes of this conflict.
Increasingly, “progressives” are authoritarian secular utopians with absolutist egalitarianism as their primary organizing principle. “Conservatives” that aren’t merely “yesterday’s progressives” are increasingly traditionalist reactionaries since restoring yesterday’s status quo now requires radical reform.
Increasingly, “progressives” are authoritarian secular utopians with absolutist egalitarianism as their primary organizing principle.
If that were true, progressives would be loudly demanding the end of “diploma privilege.” Exactly the opposite it true. Far from thinking it is wrong that people with diplomas make more (often much more) than people without diplomas, most progressives think it is a bedrock principle of fairness. “I am paid on the basis of my education and experience.”
Education and medicine are skyrocketing in price while most of that extra money goes to hiring administrators and regulatory compliance.
Using a single healthcare issue as an example such birthing a baby, I would like to know your thoughts. Given this is fairly basic and extremely important health decision (which will have huge implications on economics later).:
1) Infant morality has had huge drops the 1850 – 1950 but continues a steady decline since then.
2) Most of the drops of infant morality has been extra machine and nurses that are not necessary for 95%+ of births.
3) Should the government simply provide basic maternity benefit?
4) Why has maternity deaths in the US had slight increases since 2000? I chalking this up to decreasing number of medical facilities in rural/semi-rural America which is a real problem.
5) I assumed the US healthcare is sort like offense that constantly passes. It can really shine in hard cases, lead the world innovation, have highest cancer survivors but often fail on a basic blocking/tackling to have run up the middle on a 3rd and 2 yards.
#4: I think it has more to do with obesity rates leading to more complicated and dangerous pregnancies.
People forget that the Kennedy baby died when it was born at 36 weeks of age. Back then, that level of prematurity was risky. Not so much now. Quite a bit written on why we have had the increase in maternal mortality. Sort of depends on where you live. Texas had a huge increase starting 4-5 years ago. It now may have the worst maternal mortality rate in the first world. Probably a result of policy changes, including losing all of those Planned Parenthoods.
Rural hospitals were losing OB programs anyway as their mortality was high and they lost money. Probably has a lot more to do with sicker women going to term now.
A sclerotic institution is an institution that is resistant to change
so trying to change one is a wasted effort
if the institution is obsolete then it is probably cheaper to let it go on then expend money in trying to change it
OTOH if the function the institution used to fulfill is still important then there is an incentive for private (even illegal) alternatives
if higher education or public healthcare are dying on the vine without a black/grey market forming to replace them then maybe they aren’t all that important to begin with
we should let the market tell us which institutions are worth saving by letting the market save the ones that are still important
We generally kick can as far as possible, then default, then attempt reform, in that order. Works fine, best take the same recipe that worked last time.
How many progressives are there? Really. You think 40%? 50? Funny stuff.
Try to cap and voucher Medicare. Where do you think the resistance will come from? OWS types? Twenty something adjunct professors of sociology?
Means test Social Security? Lets get real.