“A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.” — John Stuart Mill
Chinese philosophers invented the concept of yin and yang more than 2,000 years ago. Since its inception, the symbol has taken on much significance, representing conflicts between passivity and activity as well as conservation versus progression. We as observers often view our national political parties as inherently at odds with each other based on the parties’ respective goals. This perspective may be true when we zoom into many individual issues (e.g. a Democrat’s pro-choice opinion is likely the opposite of a Republican’s pro-life position), but long term, I argue that the system works with its conflicting sides more than we’d like to give it credit. Like yin and yang, progressives and conservatives balance each other through innovation and maintenance—idealistic advancement followed by realistic limits to social and political changes.
This phenomenon of balance is incredibly clear in business. In the American free market, innovation is able to progress as long as the ideas remain practically implementable. However, without proper checks and balances, wide-eyed entrepreneurship can result in devastating consequences. A theory explaining startup success claims that businesses are most prosperous when founded by liberal thinkers but taken over by conservative CEOs. Even when exceptions come up, such as the argument that Meta is a liberal company due to their bias toward liberal users, chief executives are still grounded in financially conservative policy. As a result, I am compelled by the theory that growth requires both an idealistic, risk-ignorant genesis and a long-term commitment toward realistic scaling back. Beyond business, this ideology also exists in government.
When progressives discuss topics like climate change, conservatives are quick to criticize progressives’ general tendency to overlook unintended consequences. For example, if the government artificially increases energy prices to dissuade over-usage of electricity, those with lower incomes will indirectly have less access to energy. The idea of unintended consequences — a chief tenet of all conservatism — plays into another conservative belief: epistemological modesty. This theory states that humans lack the knowledge necessary to forecast exactly how individual policy shifts will impact society. For the climate change question, progressive circles such as “Doughnut Economists,” a group supporting environmental concerns by cautioning against extreme gross domestic product (GDP) increases, claim that unstoppable growth is not always a positive phenomenon, citing ecological impact. I push back against this criticism, knowing that for each 1% decrease in GDP, the mortality rate rises by an estimated 0.5%. Of course, climate emissions must be seriously addressed, but we must recognize the unintended consequences of doing so without hesitation. The area where most progressives become skeptical of the yin and yang theory, however, is social justice.
Social progress is often brought up as a direct contradiction to my claim of necessary duality in politics. It is true that liberal policy achieved abolition, suffrage and legal racial equality, all of which forced the country out of archaic disparities between its American ideals and reality. While the conservative goal of maintaining the historic status quo does sometimes place conservatives on the wrong side of history, the intentions of conservative actions are complex and worth examining. In the classic TV series, “The West Wing,” Democratic presidential candidate Matthew Santos presses his conservative opponent on this topic during a debate, asking, “What did conservatives do [for social progress]?” Well, my answer might surprise those who know my admiration of conservatism: not much.
Conservatism is generally unfocused on social justice. While conservative principles, such as free market capitalism, will in theory create an equal playing ground regardless of demographics, conservatives will not be the group pushing for social change. As a former progressive myself, this realization dumbfounded me. I found myself asking, “What relevant political theory ignores social inequality?” I found my answer with yin and yang politics. Conservatism is not a synonym for bigotry, although some Republican politicians do push this notion. Rather, conservative policy acknowledges progressive movements as present and often overreaching.
If conservatives completely controlled the government, we might begin to see a halt to social justice progress. But they don’t. A gridlocked and ever-changing political layout allows for an improving process of two steps forward, one step back. Forward thinkers may despise the step back, but I encourage them not to despair. An innovative society checked by skeptics allows the world to move slowly, and arguably, naturally. While egalitarians are understandably disappointed by the lack of progress made in realms they see as essential, their predecessors in the 19th and 20th centuries felt the same way. Like with climate change, tax policy, COVID-19 or free speech, take a look at the other side without judgment. They might just be the passive yin to your active yang.
Ben Brodsky (25B) is from Scottsdale, Arizona.
