An Overview of and Proposal for a New Terminology of Political Identification

Introduction

I have been absent for some time as my life adjusts to a recent string of changes. In my absence, I hope our continuing and growing readership will be pleased to know I have spent this time in deep reflection and study. While I have not been writing strictly, numerous independent endeavors have been coalescing like the tributaries of a great river system, swirling in vortexes of convalescence. In discussing with Brandon for new adaptations for Philo~soffee as we continue to grow, I want to share some of these insights in what I feel a necessary expansion of politically-minded philosophy. This is not an attempt to promote the ideologies, slants, and worldviews of our present sectarianism. Quite the opposite.

Like our coalescing tributaries, I would like begin focusing on the unity of the whole system. To do so, we will need to zoom in and out from time to time, as our minds struggle to embrace the totality of any one system. I wish to begin with what I see as a brief overview of the general spectrum of our political orientations and the significance of a stability in terminology. In my approximately twenty years of thoughtful political reflection, I have found too much inherent bias cooked into terms such as “liberal” or “conservative” that function too much like the ultimate terminologies Richard Weaver lays out in his Ethics of Rhetoric. This myside (confirmation) bias hampers our capacity to speak earnestly which only further drives wedges in what has become a growing sectarian feud that will only worsen as trust in dialogue diminishes and tribalism reigns triumphantly.

Focusing on four such terms, I want to express our political spectrum on the “extremist” (in that they cover the outer edges of our arbitrary line) poles and their moderate centers. From left to right (directionally and euphemistically): Progressivism, Liberalism, Conservatism, and Revanchism. My selection of these terms is not meant to be a rendering of their present or even historical usages, but an offering of contextual clarity in how I would like Philo~soffee to frame issues of political import to avoid the detriments of our culturally acquired myside biases in regards to constructions of political identity. In introducing these terms, I wish to briefly apply a hierarchy simply for the utility of narrative ease in laying out their relations with one another. The following hierarchy is nothing more than a tool to aid in comprehension, and should not be viewed as a rigid structure. Like our confluence analogy, these terms are more reflections of orientations inherent to any philosophically-minded system. As such I shall begin with conservativism, proceed through progressivism, expand into liberalism, and finish with revanchism. While I will, for the purposes of continued essays, link these terms with specific philosophies, movements, individuals, and ideas I make one final emphatic plea that these terms are nothing more than an offering for pragmatic clarity.

Conservatism

I begin here because conservative mindsets are very much grounded and solid ground is typically a good place from which to begin. Philosophically, conservatism is concerned with stability. It does not necessarily look backwards (as revanchism does) as much as it intuits from behind. Conservative mindsets seek to preserve the status quo, which is far from a negative quality. In fact, of the four terms, conservatism reflects neutrality at its best. Rhetorically, when Americans make appeals toward neutrality, centrism, stability, integrity, and a host of other synonyms, they intone and evoke a spirit of conservative framework.

Politically, conservatism is the ballast of any system. It is what keeps the ship from sinking or tipping. Without the balance it provides, our political ship would be stuck on dry-dock and any attempt to navigate away from a neutral position would be a feckless endeavor. To return to our river metaphor, conservatism is the central branch within to which all the tributaries flow. When the flow is stopped, the pool becomes stagnant and diseased. While our ship may float, it needs guidance (liberalism) to steer the course. However, before we can steer, we must first be able to propel ourselves forward.

Progressivism

Progressivism is the propellant of our ship. It is dynamic in nature, abhors rigidity, and is not neutrally aligned. I will hesitatingly refer to it as positive motion, with the intention that this is to be taken in the Taoist sense of mutual opposition: yin and yang. Push and pull. Like positive yang, progressivism drives the ship forward. It is the great engine room, converting potential conservative energy into a kinetic force. In our river system, it is the pull of gravity that drives the water seaward. Progressivism brings change and renewal into the system. In the study of any movement, progressivism is tied to forces that drive adaptation. Evolutionarily, it is the change and forward motion that promotes the need for flexibility (which we will discuss with liberalism).

Certainly, like conservatism, progressivism has its negative qualities. Too much change to quickly brings instability and uncertainty. It requires a governor to manage and distribute the change evenly. Just as a stagnant pool suffocates life, too much energy and motion prevents life in our river system the opportunities to thrive.

Liberalism

Liberalism is that governance. Liberalism is the wheelhouse of our political ship. It directs the course and aides in keeping ballast. Sitting between progressivism and conservatism it is simultaneously the ally and foe of both. Politically, progressives will try to erode liberal control like stones in a river and erode is precisely what liberalism does best. While conservative orthodoxy finds progressive dynamism unsettling to stability, it is necessary for a healthy system. Liberalism regulates the flow of our progressive streams and tributaries as they rush in, providing balance.

Like progressivism, liberalism is forward thinking, but it (like conservatism) intuits from behind, as well. This puts liberalism in a rather pitiable position. The struggle of any liberal philosophy is the duration of its relevance. When the new ideas of progressivism settle into the system and coalesce into the new status quo, the regulator becomes irrelevant. At a certain point, any individual operating from a liberal orientation must make a choice to progress forward a new wave of change or to stagnate in the new status quo.

Revanchism

Where conservative and liberal frameworks intuit from behind and progressivism and liberalism face forward, revanchism is the pushback of yin. It is a negative dynamism of kinetic energy but that does not infer it is bad. In optimistic language, revanchism can be replaced with revivalism, return, renewal, or any other term that implies a state of “back again”. If our ship has propelled itself too far forward and risks running aground, revanchism can negatively propel us back to safety. However, of the four terms, I have intentionally selected a pessimistic framing of revanchism as an impetus to turn back uphill, like a river flowing in reverse. This is inherently against the natural order of a balanced system.

If revanchism is the headwaters to progressivism’s seaside border, the negative push is always back to the source. Alliteratively, revanchism is best defined as a redistributive, revenging revenant reminttedly regressing return. Revanchist movements, in the American sense of politics, are oftentimes described as paleo. They live to glorify past incarnations of self as having value above all other considerations. If progressivism and liberalism’s positive (in the sense of the good/bad dichotomy with which most English-speaking Westerners are familiar) attributes allow for a stimulation of the status quo that stave off conservative stagnation, then a misguided revanchism is the appeal for toxicity. A misguided attempt toward a progressive ideology is like a whitewater rapid. A misguided revanchist one is a cesspool.

Conclusion

In looking at our own political moment, I propose using this terministic framework to evaluate our oppositional struggles in determining the speed and direction of the American political narrative is needed. In a wave of populist change, the status quo of conservatism has been rejected by the progressives and the revanchists. One sect is devoutly pushing forward while the other pushes back. The battle lines have already been drawn and, for those aligned to these frameworks, the only course of action is to either continue to push, or to surrender or be overrun by the other. For those, still unaligned to these kinetic forces, stymied in the center, the two visible course of action are either to cut off the positive and negative flows respectively or to join their push.

For us at Philo~soffee, as I promised, our intent is not to push for a narrative in this strictest sense (although I will admit that we certainly do lean in favor of approaches toward forward motion to some degree in opposition to either a full stop or full reversal). Presently, our goal is simply to create a platform to air out these conflicts and evaluate their feasibility to determine what we hope to be the surest, most likely outcome. The above, I hope, will provide us with a useful language by which to engage this dialogue clearly, but earnestly.