That something can just as easily be democratic and/or republican processes.
To a great extent, I agree. It was, I think, the formation of the nation that made that so in large measure. And, it is that reality that can make Democratic/Republican or conservative/liberal compromise possible.
What you describe are institutions.
Few "liberals" want to tear down the institutions (with some exceptions), indeed, they largely and vehemently want to preserve and protect them, but they do want to
improve them. Not all of those suggestions are tenable, but far more of them are than would be apparent to an outside observer in today's environment. Contrast that with the iconoclastic ambitions of the TEA party/Freedom Caucus/Trump wing of the GOP. Their entire program is to tear down those institutions. The instincts of many GOP stalwarts was to condemn the attack on the Capitol -
their institution - in words as strong as their Democratic brethren. Sadly, that instinct has since been suppressed.
What I think of is knowledge. The idea that we don't know how to predict how things will go based on "first principles" tends to create a greater reliance on history and an acknowledgement of human nature for what it is...not what it could be.
I think that mischaracterizes the opposite. Liberals are
as wedded to history
as conservatives - they just want it to be accurate and reflect the diversity that is America. They prefer it not be bowdlerized and gauzified. Too often, I assert, that is where the schism actually occurs. Many conservatives want to idealize that past. They want to preserve a history
as they want it to be, not as it
actually was. Modernists want to clear it of the patina of nostalgia and strip off the varnish that obscures the truth.
Similarly, I don't think liberals are, in the main, "head in the cloud" idealists, but do have a vision of where they want
to go. Where we've been informs our path, but it doesn't define our future aspirations, and shouldn't limit them. The past is prologue, it is not the destination. That is the central failure of conservatism throughout history. Today is "good enough", even when change is inevitable or desirable.
As a conservative, I am willing to change and welcome it in some areas.
Hallelujah!
I am very unwilling to throw away lessons learned on similar topics by others.
And, you shouldn't. Those that refuse to learn from history are bound to repeat the mistakes of history, such is the fraught era we live in. We
have learned, and
are learning, much. Those lessons should inform our decision-making, but they shouldn't end it.
I am also very skeptical of my or anyone else's ability to engineer a complex system such as a society. Hence a more incremental approach.
I love skepticism. It is too routinely ignored, nowadays. Society is a complex system, true, but
too small of increments in change can doom any endeavor. It's the venerable "penny-wise, pound foolish" narrative repeated iteratively. Hence immigration, taxation and environmental degradation become perennial problems - although obvious and even popular solutions are evident.
And, when change
has occurred, particularly solidified by decades of development and acceptance, trying to "go back" is a fool's errand, but one too many are willing to embark upon. Which, for example, is more disruptive to society -
Roe, or
Dobbs? I think the answer is obvious. Social Security, whether "socialist or not", is a revered and established institution that, frankly, makes our society function.
Conservatism has not historically been about going back, but standing pat.
Conservatives don't hold a corner on happiness, but I believe like most humans they desire happiness.
Amen to that.