Even more than change, conservatives dislike ambiguity, moral and otherwise, and a lack of resolution or finality when dealing with problems. This conservative attitude leads to the stereotyping of both individuals and circumstances, and a preference for expedient, simplistic solutions for even the most complex of problems.
The second pillar of the conservative position, is the conservatives' fear and their concomitant reaction of aggression towards outsiders. These cognitive emotions define another aspect of the conservative world-view, which is a high-level of tolerance for inequality. Progressives cannot understand why anyone would consent to inequality, as it is contrary to the principles upon which they base their idea of justice. This near-embracing of inequality by conservatives is also the underlying basis for the "social Darwinism" that many of them exhibit. From their tolerance of inequality arises the "cheap labor conservatives'" idea of meritocracy (where the imposed hierarchy of cheap labor conservatives, no matter how arbitrary, decides your relative merit), and the fiction of personal responsibility for your own wage level. This in turn leads to the belief that the minimum wage is unnecessary, and the worker is to blame for low wages, because he is "worthy" of nothing better.
Progressives, on the other hand, evidence far less fear of the different and new, and welcome the challenge inherent in fashioning a better world for everyone, both individually and collectively. In terms of political philosophy, the only thing a progressive wants to exploit is the highest potential of every citizen, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, for the greatest good for all concerned. Progressives are revolted by the institutionalized dehumanization that exists in the hierarchical world of the corporation, where employees are little more than interchangeable parts. The progressive wants to give everyone an equal opportunity in their "pursuit of happiness."
Unfortunately, the elitist attitude of the Radical Right, and their desire to establish what amounts to a system of corporate feudalism, is not limited to the United States. If you examine the programs of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization, and their requirements for the extension of credit to Third World nations, it is obvious that this program of corporate feudalism is spreading its unholy tentacles of hierarchical dominance throughout the world.
Among the requirements of these financial organizations for providing aid is the privatization of state-owned enterprises, union busting, and reductions in spending for social programs, including public education. In so doing, the nation carrying out these requirements does nothing to help the economic plight of the majority of their populations. In fact, these actions have the tendency to effectively disenfranchise the majority of a nation's population. Additionally, the majority of a country's population are rarely in any position to take advantage of privatization of state-owned enterprises, because of their lack of immediately exploitable capital. (See Hernando De Soto's book The Mystery of Capital, for more on this phenomenon.)
Due to this lack of immediately exploitable capital by the majority of citizens, foreign investors and the wealthy elite of that nation are almost invariably the only ones in a position to benefit from this dispersal of the target government's assets. The sale of these assets (often at fire sale prices) leaves the government hamstrung by its loss of revenue, and unable to exercise any restraint on the new owners of the assets. The process leaves the nation more dependent than ever on the IMF, WTO, and World Bank for financial support.
Former Chief Economist for the World Bank, Joseph E. Stiglitz, in his book Globalization and Its Discontents, categorically states that most nations are worse off after intervention by these three entities than they were before. For example, when Ecuador, which is a natural gas exporter, was forced to increase what it charged for cooking gas by 60% because of its economic assistance agreement with the World Bank, there were riots against the increase. What is even more telling is that, according to Dr. Stiglitz, economic growth in the nations that have submitted to this extra-national financial services trio has declined, or even reversed itself. Once again, this demonstrates how the conservative mindset (and I don't think that anyone believes that the majority of bankers are anything but conservative), and its desire for simple one-size-fits-all solutions, can be extraordinarily harmful when applied in the Real World.
In the deplorable control that is being inflicted on less-developed nations by these three institutions--including the circumventing of democratic ideas and institutions--there are important lessons that all Americans need to learn.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
