The Progressive and the Reactionary: A Side-by-Side Comparison

Radically simplifying the often apparently mystifying

Photo credit: Umberto

Fuzzy, Dopey, Fishy, Squishy, Squirrely Concepts

First, I would like to point out a fact that should be fairly obvious, but that most people, most of the time, don’t seem to pause long enough to consider and reflect on:

“Liberal” and “conservative” are fuzzy, dopey, fishy, squishy, squirrely concepts that will never accurately reflect or convey the tempestuously nuanced values, beliefs, views, or lived experiences of those so labeled.

If you asked a hundred self-identified liberals and a hundred self-identified conservatives to describe what these terms mean, you would get 400 messy, vague, contradictory, all-over-the-place answers.

When someone says “liberal” or “conservative,” the terms trigger an avalanche of ideas, reactions, abstractions, representations, associations, vagaries, subjectivities, distortions, oversimplifications, biases, stereotypes, caricatures, and tired old chestnuts in our minds—and every avalanche occurring in one of our minds is wildly different from all the other avalanches in everyone else’s minds.

Second, the concepts themselves, due to their very existence, ineluctably contort the values, beliefs, and views of those so labeled to conform to the artificial categorizations these labels generate in the minds of the labeled—categorizations, mind you, that change all the time, as evidenced by centuries of historical evidence.

What was considered “liberal” or “conservative” in ancient Egypt or Endo-period Japan was radically different from what is considered “liberal” or “conservative” in Saudi Arabia or the United States today. Because there are no fixed definitions, what’s deemed to be liberal or conservative in any given place or time is whatever people who label themselves with terms like liberal or conservative imagine them to be.

Third, these categories can be manipulated by authoritarian regimes to ram through undemocratic actions in pursuit of political domination. Despite the what-should-be-obvious-but-definitely-isn’t fact that human brains, instincts, and behaviors are far more alike than they are different, and suffused with distortions, political leaders and parties try to hammer conformity into the minds of their imagined in-group while fomenting oppositional hostility toward imagined out-groups. It’s important to remind ourselves that humans are humans just going around being humans, and all of our social, cultural, and political categories are arbitrary, made-up things that don’t actually exist in reality until we start acting as if they do.

A Simplifying Model

If we want to create a unified understanding of liberal and conservative differences around which progressives can mobilize unified understanding, tactics, and action, we need simple, accessible, and understandable descriptions of those real and assumed differences, while also recognizing that those real differences only exist because we assume they do.

To create the world we’re trying to create, progressives cannot continue to generate a continually erupting atomizing geyser of research reports, academic articles, polling data, endless pontifications and debate, and squabbling fields of endeavor lousy with scattered ideas, competing theories, inbred jargon, and a whole lot of navel-gazing.

Why?

1. A handful of shared goals collectively pursued by millions will drive progressive progress and political victories.

2. But a million goals held by millions of people pursuing different agendas in thousands upon thousands of siloed organizations, coalitions, campaigns, initiatives, and projects will undermine large-scale progress, multiply political defeats, and pave the way to losing everything we care about because we can’t agree on much of anything.

To illustrate how a simplifying model of liberal and conservative differences could work, I’ve developed the comparative side-by-side framework below. The objective is not perfection, but distillation. The tables don’t address every difference, reflect everything we know, or answer every question—and that’s the point.

Importantly, the model articulates differences in thinking, values, tendencies, preferences, and motivations, not differences in support for the transitory political issues that arise from liberal and conservative orientations, imaginings, and fixations that change all the time.

If we don’t understand the deep, durable social-psychological forces and patterns that give rise to liberal and conservative thinking and beliefs, the other side will always appear to be insane, wrong, immoral, an enemy, a threat to our preferred way of life. And as history has clearly shown, endless warring among factions solves nothing, sows suffering and misery, creates multigenerational trauma and hostilities, and makes our world a far shittier place to live in—a place that literally no one actually wants to live in, despite the fact that we can’t stop compulsively manufacturing living conditions all over the place that totally resoundingly massively suck.

The Progressive and the Reactionary

The terms “progressive” and “reactionary” are used below to discuss the real or assumed differences between “liberal” and “conservative” beliefs and thinking in the United States. I believe these two terms are more useful because:

1. Their historical origins are the root of current political thinking.

2. They are more descriptively accurate.

3. They are comparatively less culturally and politically polluted.

4. They are somewhat less likely to trigger the kinds of learned and rutted emotional reactions that cause Americans to double-down on preexisting beliefs and confirmation bias.

Origins

For those who are interested:

1. The origin of the term progressive can be found HERE.

2. The origin of the term reactionary can be found HERE.

Definitions

Without simple, clarifying definitions, descriptions, and explanations, mobilizing large-scale human understanding and action in the modern world becomes, in my view, functionally impossible.

To simplify our differences, I propose the following working definitions:

Progressive / Reactionary

1. Progressive = a future-oriented movement toward the creation of new social conditions imagined to be preferable to past and current conditions.

2. Reactionary = a past-oriented movement to maintain former social conditions imagined to be preferable to current and potential future conditions.

Progressivism / Reactionarism

1. Progressivism begins with the recognition that the social conditions of the past were, in many ways, unfair, unjust, oppressive, or inhumane—in other words, conditions that progressives/liberals believe should be changed.

2. Reactionaryism begins with the recognition that the social conditions of the past were, in many ways, stabilizing, workable, time-honored, or valuable—in other words, conditions that reactionaries/conservatives believe should be maintained.

Progressive / Reactionary Impulses + Thinking

1. Progressives tend to think that revolutionary ideas and actions, faster-paced social and cultural change, major overhauls in social systems and policy, and more audacious and experimental approaches informed by science, research, data, evidence, and reason are required to solve ongoing problems that were caused by people in the past, problems that are seen as direct and ongoing threats to things like security, rights, and wellbeing.

2. Reactionaries tend to think that revolutionary resistance and obstruction, slower-paced social and cultural change, small tweaks in social systems and policy, and more cautious and conservative approaches to solving problems, especially approaches that respect the methods and traditions of the past, are required to maintain things like security, rights, and wellbeing.

Progressive / Reactionary Values + Priorities

1. Progressives prioritize the security, safety, and wellbeing of people from other groups as much as, and sometimes even more than, the people in their group, which makes a lot of sense: When more people enjoy security, safety, and wellbeing, conflicts between groups deescalate and everyone benefits, and therefore failing to protect other people in other groups, or other parts of the country or the world, is seen as immoral and irresponsible because it endangers everyone, especially the most vulnerable, powerless, and exploited populations.

2. Reactionaries prioritize the security, safety, and wellbeing of people in their group more than those of people in other groups, which makes a lot of sense: You can’t easily control the beliefs and intentions of people in other groups, and conflicts between groups happen everywhere all the time, and therefore not prioritizing the security, safety, and wellbeing of people in their group, which includes the proactive marshalling of defenses to prepare for potential future attacks by other groups, is seen as immoral and irresponsible, particularly when their group feels or is threatened.

Progressive / Reactionary Authorities

1. Progressives typically value and respect authority figures such as academics, researchers, scientists, technocrats, government officials, and other people they perceive to be “experts” (people who American reactionaries often call “elites”). They typically get their information and guidance from people who study and understand the complexities of a given topic or field of endeavor. They want their leaders to demonstrate compassion and articulate a vision of an idealized future in which the problems of the past have been solved, and values such as progress, fairness, diplomacy, equality, and justice rein.

2. Reactionaries typically value and respect authority figures such as religious leaders, generals, police officers, populists, and other people they perceive to value their preferred traditions and customs. They typically get their information and guidance from people who radically simplify complexity into a handful of moral principles, behavioral edicts, and punitive rules. They want their leaders to demonstrate strength, aggressively protect the flock, and articulate a vision of an idealized past that’s grounded in values such as faith, tradition, family, discipline, and punishment for transgressions against their preferred moral order.

Progressive / Reactionary Social Structures

1. Progressives tend to prefer non-hierarchical, pluralistic, bottom-up social structures (representative democracy, NGOs, public schools, grassroots organizations, advocacy groups, labor unions, cooperatives), a relatively equitable distribution of political power throughout society, and consensus-based decision-making processes that are inclusive, deliberative, and diplomatic. For progressives, freedom only exists when social conditions are conducive, political systems are egalitarian, wealth is equitably shared, healthcare is universal, or judicial systems are principled and fair.

2. Reactionaries tend to prefer hierarchical, top-down social structures (authoritarian-style regimes, churches, parochial schools, military organizations, law-enforcement agencies, corporations), the consolidation and centralization of political power, and unilateral decision-making processes in which authority figures give marching orders to followers. For reactionaries, freedom exists when other groups don’t interfere with their lives, judge their beliefs, condemn their behavior, try to take their stuff, or transgress against their preferred moral order.

A Side-by-Side Comparison of Cultural Tendencies

“Liberals” were not born liberal, of course, and “conservatives” were not born conservative—we were all born into and live within liberal and conservative cultural contexts abuzz with cacophonous noise: politicized divisions, moral posturing, specific incompatible beliefs, mutual animosity, bad-faith arguments, fallacious assumptions, widespread incoherence, rank bigotry.

To better understand where the noise originates, and why our political spaces are so raucous and inharmonious, I believe we should focus on patterns, such as tendencies or deep motivations, that are consistent and ever-present over time.

For example:

A Side-by-Side Comparison of Why We Need Each Other

In my view, progressivism and reactionaryism are both right and wrong, rightful and wrongful, and rightheaded and wrongheaded about many, many fundamental aspects of life, politics, the nation state, and other important things.

Yet one of the most depressing and nonsensical features of American life right now is that Americans with natural or acquired inclinations can’t see that they need other Americans with different inclinations—because everyone having the same inclinations is profoundly self-harming and self-sabotaging in a massively complex society that requires people of all inclinations, particularly those with interdependent lives and interests, to get along and figure it out together or else we’re all going to suffer.

For example…

A lot more discussion about the topics above coming soon.

Tune in to stay tuned…

Last revised 2/5/2026