The current political division in our country is so evident that it requires no further explanations. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, left and right, or whatever you want to call the two polarized groups, have been name-calling each other vigorously with no tolerance. Well, the two groups have a long history of coexisting in democracies. In fact, every citizen in a democracy can be characterized by either one of the two groups (we are going to define “liberals” and “conservatives” in the next paragraph). It is important to truly understand the relation between the two so we can be more tolerant of each other and not be influenced or swayed by partisan mainstream media.

The existence of different ideas is the essence of a healthy democracy. Put it into the context of this blog post: the existence of both liberals and conservatives is the essence of a healthy democracy. Before we dive into historical details and analyze the relation between the two groups, let’s give both a clear definition. The liberals and conservatives we are analyzing in this blog post should not be associated with specific partisan beliefs of “modern liberalism” or “modern conservatism”. Instead, we should define “liberals” and “conservatives” to a broader context that can be applied in any democracies in any period of time, not just America in the 21st century. In a democracy, liberals can be identified as a group of people who want changes and progress; conservatives can be identified as a group of people who want to maintain the status quo and preserve traditional values and practices. Now having the definitions set, let’s take a closer look at the relation between liberals and conservatives in history and their respective roles in a democratic society.

Democracy is essentially what was advocated by classical liberalism, including ideals such as civil liberties, freedom, individualism, Social Contract, etc. However, one original ideal of democracy and classical liberalism that people overlook and seem to have forgotten nowadays is indefinite progress. Classical liberalism believes that humans are naturally good and when everyone is given the liberty and power to govern their own society, they can lead humanity toward indefinite progress for the betterment of all. So in short, indefinite progress means that democracy can and is supposed to lead a society for constant improvements, and that there are no end goals in a democracy, that there are always ways a society can be improved. From this perspective, liberals are always the ones standing on the “right” side of history, by pushing a society forward through changes and progress; on the other hand, conservatives are always the ones standing on the “wrong” side of history. There are plenty of examples and trends in history (American and European) that prove this claim.

Let’s look at the principles and practices we champion today: universal suffrage regardless of sex, race, or wealth; the right to free labor for all; equal opportunities (such as employment and education) for all regardless of sex or race; etc. These fundamental principles America and other democratic nations champion today did not just exist in the beginning of democracy. These principles were continually advocated by liberals, not conservatives, throughout modern history. Liberals. Not conservatives. With liberals’ push for these principles and reforms, democratic societies gradually adopted each one of these principles one by one throughout history. The first historical period we are going to examine is 19th century Europe, also known as “an age of competing ideologies”, or “an age of revolutions”. Europe in the 19th century best exemplifies the competition between liberal ideologies and conservative ideologies, as there was a clear dividing line between the two ideologies and the competition was fierce. Nearly all of the ideals and principles advocated by liberals back then were proven to be the “right” ideals, as they are championed by democratic societies today. The liberals in 19th century Europe advocated against autocratic monarchies, and advocated for representative governments and expansions of democracy. Nearly everyone in today’s world would agree with those liberals no doubt. This just shows how “right” those liberals were in the place of history. Wondering who were the conservatives back in 19th century Europe? They were the pro-monarchists, the loyalists, and the aristocrats. No explanation is needed to see how “wrong” those conservatives were in the place of history. Nearly 200 years later, those conservatives would find no place in today’s democratic world. Some of the power struggles between those conservatives and democratic uprisings can be seen in the Revolutions of 1830 and the Revolutions of 1848. The details of those events are complicated and are not so important to the main topic of this blog post. What is important is to realize that conservatives stood on the “wrong” side of history in 19th century Europe, and the liberals stood on the “right” side by pushing for “indefinite progress”. For the sake of having some specific evidence in order to analyze the relation between liberals and conservatives closely, let’s use Britain in the 19th century as an example. Britain was already a constitutional monarchy with representative legislatures at the time (although very few property owners could vote), so liberals in Britain advocated to expand the eligibility of voters. One prominent liberal group was the Chartists. Chartism was a working-class male suffrage movement for political reforms in the mid-19th century in Britain. Chartists drafted the People’s Charter of 1838, which demanded universal adult-male suffrage, elimination of property requirements for Members of Parliament, and equal electoral districts. These demands would eventually be established in the British Constitution by the early 20th century. As shown in the case of Britain in the 19th century, ideals liberals advocated for back then were proven to be the ideals people champion today. Liberals stood on the “right” side of history in this case.

To continue our analysis of the relation between liberals and conservatives, and their respective roles in a democratic society, let’s shift our focus to the struggles of African Americans in American history. Who were the ones advocating for abolition of slavery? Who were the ones wanting to preserve the traditional practice of slavery? How do we classify “liberals” and “conservatives” in America in the early to mid-19th century? As we have set our definitions for liberals and conservatives, the conservatives are clearly the Southerners who wanted to preserve the traditional practice of slavery and the traditional value of racism, to maintain the status quo; the liberals are clearly the abolishists and reformers who wanted to eliminate the institution of slavery in order to make “indefinite progress” for the betterment of the society. Those conservatives would find no place in today’s world of equality. This shows how “wrong” the conservatives were, and how “right” the liberals were. After slavery was abolished under the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, African Americans’ struggles continued under segregations. Conservatives throughout American history from the start of it till the end of the 20th century were always on the “wrong” side of history, as they were always the ones opposed to desegregation, extension of political and economic rights to African Americans, and the civil rights movements. Is anyone still a segregationist in today’s America? Of course, there might be a few extremists, but the conventional and society-accepted principle is that racism of all kinds should be eliminated and that all races are equal. As it turns out, values regarding society’s perceptions of African Americans that people champion today have always been advocated by liberals in history, not conservatives.

Times and times again would conservatives in history be proven “wrong”. Times and times again would liberals in history be proven to be the ones pushing societies toward “indefinite progress”. Beside the examples we detailedly analyzed, there are innumerable other instances and trends in history that prove this claim. Without going into details for each of them, let me just list them here so you can research and evaluate whether those historical examples prove the claim or not (Hint: they do): Women’s suffrage, worker’s basic rights in a factory (including working conditions), America’s expansion of voting rights in the early 19th century (only property owners could vote before then), women’ and African Americans’ equal access to jobs and education, the Welfare State (maybe? This topic might still be in the air for debate in today’s society), and etc.

One clarification needs to be made here: when I say liberals’ push a society toward “indefinite progress”, I do not mean all changes and progress are “right”, that all changes and progress advance a democratic society. Changes and progress need to be made within the confines of a democracy. Certain unalienable rights must not be revoked, including freedom, equality, and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

Now we have set the claim that liberals are the ones pushing societies forward toward “indefinite progress”, and that conservatives are almost always the ones standing on the “wrong” side of history, you might ask...what is the purpose of the conservatives then? If they always stand on the “wrong” side of history? Well, the existence of conservatives in a democracy is much much needed. 

Conservatives are the ones that keep the liberals “in check”. Conservatives are the ones that provide resistance and balance to liberals’ reforms to make sure liberals don’t go radical, too radical as to destroy democracy and fundamental values. Together, this is how real progress is made. Real progress never comes in a day. Real progress always comes gradually with time through the continuous honing of constant competition between the liberals and conservatives. Historically, all real progress comes gradually (look at the progress I listed in one of the previous paragraphs for examples, none of those progress happened quickly, some even took decades or centuries to accomplish). The French Revolution is a perfect example that illustrates the danger of the lack of existence of the conservatives in a society.

During the early years of the French Revolution, peasants massacred aristocrats. The rest of the aristocrats fled France as émigrés. King Louis the 16th was even executed by the guillotine. The conservatives at the time - the aristocrats - were gone. What happened next? Instability followed the new French Republic, violent competition for power occurred, and a Reign of Terror under the dictatorship of Robespierre destroyed the original principles of the revolution set in the Declarations of the Rights of Man and Citizen. A society that was set to be a democracy has been demolished. This is what happens when a democratic society doesn’t have a conservative group.

We can’t have a democracy without the conservatives or the liberals. Together, is how real progress is made. Together, is how a democracy works. A democracy full of only conservatives or only liberals is not a democracy anymore. It would be the dictatorship of a single group. By laying out the historical events and trends, and by analyzing the relation between liberals and conservatives in the large scope of history, we can clearly see the respective roles of each group in a democracy and the importance of the relation between the two. Current partisan mainstream media are portraying the other group as evil and objectively “wrong”. Commentators and activists act like their partisan views are absolutely right, and they are influencing the common people into thinking the same way using name-calling propaganda. So to my readers, it is crucial to understand and realize the relation between liberals and conservatives no matter in what period of time, and not get swayed or influenced by partisan media and commentators. America would not be divided as it is now and people would not be easily influenced by partisan mainstream media, if each one of us understood the relation between the two political groups and how a democracy works toward “indefinite progress”.