Progressivism vs Conservatism

Are you a progressive or conservative? Which philosophy is superior overall?
If you are a conservative, why should we keep your values over the other possible values?
If you are a progressive, why should society constantly change?

I am mainly referring to social institutions and political and social structure of society, but technology is definitely part of it too.

Bi0Hazard: Progressive because we can do better.

Bi0Hazard: I wouldn't say that either philosophy is inherently "superior" or "better." It depends on what society is relative to you ideas. If an extremely conservative person was thrown back to 1840's America, they would hopefully be an abolitionist, which would be a liberal idea. If an extremely liberal person woke up in some strange society where murder was condoned, they would hopefully try to enforce their own ideas on the value of life. In today's world, I am a conservative.

If you are a conservative, why should we keep your values over the other possible values?

I remember watching the vice-presidential debate last year, distinctly when they brought up the abortion issue. Tim Kaine said something along the lines of "I'm pro-life, but I think we shouldn't enforce our morality on other people." I imagined how I would respond if I were Mike Pence: "Then why don't we disolve the U.S. government. After all, there are anarchists out there. We wouldn't dare force our ideas on them! Should we still condemn racism? Racists have their own ideas. Who are we to say that they are 'bad.'"

If you don't stand up for your controversial values, you really can't stand up for seemingly fundamental values.

Random Stranger: Yes, it is all dependent on time frames in a society. A conservative of the past is not a conservative of today, just as a progressive of the past is not a progressive of today. Since we live 2017, I am referring to 2017 progressives and conservatives.
By looking at history as a whole, then nearly everyone today is a progressive since they believe in values that were from progress, it is just that for conservatives of any time, apparently the society they lived in happens to be the one that shouldn't be changed.
Tim Kaine said something along the lines of "I'm pro-life, but I think we shouldn't enforce our morality on other people." I imagined how I would respond if I were Mike Pence: "Then why don't we disolve the U.S. government. After all, there are anarchists out there. We wouldn't dare force our ideas on them! Should we still condemn racism? Racists have their own ideas. Who are we to say that they are 'bad.'"
But the question is, why should your values be enforced and not change (at least anytime soon)? After all, in the past, U.S. conservatives were against interracial marriages, now they are not, but they are largely still against same-sex marriage. In the future, the time will likely come when same-sex marriage will be seen as normal and uncontroversial as interracial marriages are seen today, and the future conservatives will no longer be against same-sex marriage but will advocate keeping to other values. History has always been progressing, so why should we suddenly halt general change in values now?

I don't quite know if you are for or against same-sex marriage, but either way, this would apply to general U.S. social conservatives.

This is the general views of these philosophies:
Progressivism: Society is best when change is always happening. Progress is key. We can always do better and should always strive for better.
Conservatism: Society is better off remaining in its current or past state (of a specific time). Conserving superior societal institutions is key. We will not do better with change, we are better off keeping this society (or a specific past society).

admin: Virtually everyone is a progressive today, it just takes longer for some groups to update their views. For example, Hillary Clinton was against same-sex marriage back in 2000, but is now for it. Many republicans are still against it today, but that has been changing. Conservatives used to believe in denying women the right to vote, but they have come around. No conservative today would want to go back to slavery. They are delayed progressives. Conservatism is just something relative to our time. The views conservatives hold today were from a past progressivism.
Maybe I should just start referring to modern conservatives as "delayed progressives", I am sure they would like that.

Bi0Hazard: Be careful not to confuse perennialism for conservatism.

admin: Do you think I almost did that?

Bi0Hazard: Yeah. A conservative by definition wants to conserve the social institutions OF THEIR TIME, not those of the past. Otherwise you're a perennialist. Of course sometimes the lines are blurred like if an institution has a long history (ie the church) but that doesn't mean conservatives take longer to update their views. They always conserve the status quo's social institutions. Nor are they inherently oppositional. For example, in my views that democracy is great, I'm a conservative. Just something to be wary of.

admin: That is how I thought of conservatism, it could be preserving a current social institution or a past social institution (reactionary). A progressive would be someone who sees progress (constant gradual change) as vital to improve society.

Conservatism: Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions like religion, monarchy and the social hierarchy as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while the more extreme elements called reactionaries oppose Modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Progressivism: Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

I don't quite know how you are defining perennialism, but it seems like this:

Perennialism: Educational perennialism is a normative educational philosophy. Perennialists believe that one should teach the things that are of everlasting pertinence to all people everywhere, and that the emphasis should be on principles, not facts. Since people are human, one should teach first about humans, rather than machines or techniques and liberal rather than vocational topics.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_perennialism
For example, in my views that democracy is great, I'm a conservative. Just something to be wary of.
A progressive would say that overtime, social institutions like that should advance/progress or be "updated".

Bi0Hazard: I like to draw the link to Rome. Pompey and pals wanted to conserve the senate and republic (optimates) while Caesar and pals wanted to change it (populares). I've never seen a conservative movement actually talk about bringing back a past system (ie the kingdom) except by an assertion that this system is always essentially superior. To me that claim is incompatible with conservatism. A conservative never wishes to change a lot, for example, because they believe in the existing social order. When conservatives want changes it's usually to undo the recent actions of progressives in order to salvage and restore those social structures. I was referring mostly to political perennialism - usually it manifests itself as being anti-modern. So Amish politics are dominated by it for example. Fascism was also significantly grounded in it (read Julius Evola for example).

I don't see democracy needing much updating. Electoral processes and stuff yes, but democracy as an ideology not really. In that sense I want to conserve it.

admin: As an aside, it's for this reason that most conservatives are shocked to learn every fascist party historically was right wing despite being "national socialist."

admin: In the U.S., Same-sex marriage is legal, but defining marriage as between a man and a women like before is considered conservative.
I've never seen a conservative movement actually talk about bringing back a past system (ie the kingdom) except by an assertion that this system is always essentially superior.
Sounds like conservatism to me, that a certain institution is inherently superior.
I don't see democracy needing much updating. Electoral processes and stuff yes, but democracy as an ideology not really. In that sense I want to conserve it.
Typical conservative, thinks that a specific social institution (democracy) is superior.

Bi0Hazard: Not to me. As you said, conservatism is relative to the time. It's not "always" superior, only at that time. It's the status quo that conservatism admires, and the social structures that maintain that status quo.

And yes, absolutely - I was using that as an example to show that even though I'm progressive mostly, most people are not totally one or the other.

admin: Conservatism can also be preserving institutions of the past (Going back to the way things were, reactionary).
It's not "always" superior, only at that time.
But conservatives may believe that there social institutions are inherently superior to others. There are many that believe that.
And yes, absolutely - I was using that as an example to show that even though I'm progressive mostly, most people are not totally one or the other.
So, you can be both progressive and conservative it seems.

Bi0Hazard: See and I wouldn't inherently call them conservatives just because they like something from the past.

admin: If they want society go back to specific social institutions, I say yes.