Conservative Liberalism

Due to the way the political deck is stacked in America and around the world, there’s a tendency to see liberalism and conservatism as polar opposites. Really, they’re not even on the same spectrum. The opposite of conservatism is progressivism, and the opposite of liberalism is authoritarianism.

And, as proven by certain discussions that happen on this board, some liberal people can be extremely conservative. The same people who are in favor of gay rights and religious freedoms rail out against the quicker speed of life in the new world of technology as the beginning of the decline of civilization, and speak out for the government intervening in the arts to protect its old institutions. These are both very conservative arguments, that intellectual culture should be guarded the same way religious conservatives argue Christian culture should be guarded.

The current world of American semi-mainstream indie films like Friends With Kids has become the very definition of ‘Conservatively liberal’. We keep getting films where people make rational arguments to stray from the social status quo, then end up getting pulled right back toward the center, finding that although they were not wrong to try something new and different, it’s not what they really wanted. The subtext is a secular, modernist argument that the current status quo is the asymptotic consequence of basic human nature. This is conservative liberalism carrying the flag of progressivism.

What do you think it is that’s led to this trend? Does any insular environment lead to idly passing judgment on large groups of people and attributing any cultural trend you’re not engaged with to a flaw in character, or some kind of mass brainwashing and manipulation?

Are these films hypocritical, or are they just the brainchild of hip modernism and melodramatic plot standards?

Is it really just as hard for a person who identifies as liberal to step outside their own shoes and respect the decisions other people make for themselves as it is for a person who identifies as conservative?

“Are these films hypocritical, or are they just the brainchild of hip modernism and melodramatic plot standards?”
Go ask your congressperson-
“Have you stopped beating your spouse?”

I can see liberals being authoritarian in the name of progress, but I don’t understand how conservatives could liberally carry the flag of progress.

Maybe a Venn diagram is called for…..

A conservative liberal is somebody who believes in social freedoms but believes cultural change is unnatural and should be prevented, who idolizes the past and thinks things are changing for the worse.

Progressive liberal: Star Trek The Next Generation
Conservative liberal: Average of Mubi
Progressive authoritarian: Third Reich
Conservative authoritarian: Iran

I think most Judd Apatow films would fit this, too, right? What other films do you think could be considered conservatively liberal?

Also, is Friends with Kids conservatively liberal in the sense that it outwardly seems to endorse social progressivism, but the characters end up choosing the conservative alternative? Or in the Mubi sense of being conservative as far as culture is concerned? Cause aren’t those different things, or are they shades of the same thing?

I’m reminded of the recent spate of “friends with benefits” sex comedies, where the characters pretend to be so modern and liberated that they don’t need love to enjoy their rolley-polley. Spoiler alert – in the end, the sex buddies always end up falling in love.

that’s because sex is more about emotion than people want to believe

Agreed, but these movies want to pretend they’re very edgy before arriving at the same “conservative” solution that countless generations have long understood.

The problem with this thread is the mishmash of contradictory terms. It’s not entirely Jirin’s fault even if he tries to exploit this for supposed ironic effect, especially in his use of typical straw men – it’s how the U.S. misuses them. Conservatives embrace economic liberalism. The argument that they are actually pursuers of the most radical change in the political spectrum in the US today is pretty self-evident if you look at their proposals. The “liberals” are generally trying to conserve what remains of state protections with very modest expansions (health care reform). So, yes, conservatives are liberals and liberals are conservatives and isn’t that ironic, don’t you think?

“The problem with this thread is the mishmash of contradictory terms.”

That and that it’s trying to use ideas to describe words instead of using words to describe ideas.

“Progressive liberal: Star Trek The Next Generation
Conservative liberal: Average of Mubi
Progressive authoritarian: Third Reich
Conservative authoritarian: Iran”

What?

How can a TV show, a user on a movie site, a genocidal dictatorship and a country be comparable at any point, under any circumstance, ever, in any fashion, at all, ever? Ever? How?

That’s one of the most ridiculous things ever posted on this site.

There still hasn’t been an even marginally coherent argument made for the thesis of the thread, so… I’m gonna call it, “Waffles” because it’s full of pockmarks and holes.

That’s weird. I don’t get how being in favor of gay marriage but hesitant towards technology makes you a “conservative liberal”. It’s just means you’re a complex individual rather than a cliche.

Despite what the current climate likes to sell, people are not so black and white. Thank Rush, Coulter, Moore, and Rhodes for that. They make a living selling people on absolutes and the masses actually believe it. Sorry Charlie, peeps ain’t so simple.

@Santino

Who’s trying to simplify anything? I’m not talking about absolute stereotypes, I"m talking about averages. The average man is taller than the average woman, but if I said ‘Men are taller than women’ you wouldn’t assume I meant that every single man is a hulking giant and every single woman is a pigmy. There is a huge contingent on Mubi that’s consistently reactionary about any kind of cultural drift they don’t agree with, and I find it similar to the reaction of religious conservatives to secular culture, and it is very conservative.

A conservative idolizes the past and a progressive idolizes the future. The trend on Mubi is to idolize the past. Whether it’s Glenn Beck’s idyllic past of a flawless Christian nation or Mubi’s idyllic past where everybody and their mothers appreciated great art and interacted as well informed political human beings, it’s just different natures of the same beast.

Of course it doesn’t apply absolutely to every single person, that goes without saying. I’m talking about the area where the dart marks appear the most dense. Any time you’re talking about human beings a large standard deviation is implied.

@Wu Yong

Fine. “The government of the Federation in Star Trek: The Next Generation”, “The government of Iran”, and “The role of government proposed by many members of Mubi”. I think intent there was pretty obvious.

@DFOOO, Brad

Those are exactly the kinds of movies I’m talking about, where they have a modern premise but the characters are pulled toward conservatism on the implied premise that human intent can not trump human nature. A progressive sees human nature as something that can change, and a conservative sees it as a constant.

@Ari

Both the democratic and republican parties in America are extremely conservative, just one is liberal in the social sphere and one is liberal in the fiscal sphere. And even there they’re pretty damn close to each other, they just appear wildly different because they talk up the wedge issues so much.

And both parties are equally guilty for eroding civil liberties, it’s just that only one of the two parties admits it.

I’m trying to read between the lines here (aka real intent) and I get the sense Jirin that you are a progressive/liberal/whatever that is just unhappy with the way mainstream so-called lefties are and that they really aren’t as much to the left you would like (or as much to the left as they say they are). Is that a fair surmise? I don’t disagree with that feeling, I’m just trying to cut through all the BS here.

“And both parties are equally guilty for eroding civil liberties, it’s just that only one of the two parties admits it.”

This is the statement that really revealed the man behind the curtain.

For what it’s worth, I find Jirin’s original post to pretty clear, and I would agree with most of it- especially the first paragraph. I would add The Kids Are All Right to list of conservative liberal films. They used the exiling of the selfish sexual male as the prerequisite to the happy ending…. i found that slightly “puritan” for lack of a better word.

By this rationale, wouldn’t Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina have to be considered “conservative liberal” novels, then?

Or, if you prefer, progressions in awareness are not progressions?

“Fine. ‘The government of the Federation in Star Trek: The Next Generation’, ‘The government of Iran’, and ‘The role of government proposed by many members of Mubi’. I think intent there was pretty obvious.”

Alright…
And I ask…
“How can a TV show, a user on a movie site, a genocidal dictatorship and a country be comparable at any point, under any circumstance, ever, in any fashion, at all, ever? Ever? How?”

If the best example of this hypothesis on the supposed scaling of conservatism, liberalism, progressivism and authoritarianism is only to be found in the jumbled mixing of real world governments, insanely fictional TV show proposed utopian forces and a perceived (and generalized) assertion of the consensus attitude towards politics on a movie site, then it’s a pretty horrendous hypothesis.

In an attempt to see if I actually get Jirin’s categories and to provide apples to apples examples for Wu, here’s a version using Sci-Fi/fantasy characters:

Progressive liberal: Picard (Star Trek)
Conservative liberal: Superman
Progressive authoritarian: Magneto (X-Men)
Conservative authoritarian: The Emperor (Star Wars)

Yeah I don’t think the fact that he used widely varying examples to illustrate his categories ruins anything. I like his categories! Although I’m not sure where I would fall on them…

dp

haha – nice Brad!

@ Matt – Yes. I also consider La Dolce Vita and L’Aventura to be “conservative” (they basically say once society moves beyond religion, it will be empty and meaningless)

You guys have waaaaaay too much pop culture knowledge. It would’ve taken me weeks to come up with those examples!

The liberal / conservative chart might not be as clear as Dungeons and Dragons terminology:

Jirin said, The trend on Mubi is to idolize the past.

I think many people do think the films from the past are generally better than the films in the present, but I’m not sure that means the average person at mubi is “conservative” when it comes to movies—i.e., they think progress is “unnatural” or that filmmaking shouldn’t change.

I actually don’t hear that many of those kinds of ‘conservative’ “they don’t make ’em like they used to” voices around here (and if so, they are usually mildly ironic and self-aware). I would say Hollywood studio films today are shit compared to Hollywood films pre-1980 but I think that’s actually as close to an “objective” and “factual” observation as I have ever made on this site.

Ari said, I actually don’t hear that many of those kinds of ‘conservative’ “they don’t make ’em like they used to” voices around here (and if so, they are usually mildly ironic and self-aware).

More importantly, you don’t hear people advocating a return to older modes of filmmaking. This would be a conservative approach, imo. My guess is that most people are open to new filmmaking techniques as well as open to embracing new films.

@Ari

I would say Hollywood studio films today are shit compared to Hollywood films pre-1980 but I think that’s actually as close to an “objective” and “factual” observation as I have ever made on this site.

Well, this is a tricky issue. For one thing, we remember all the good-to-great films of the past and while forgetting the bad—whereas we are very much aware of all the bad films that exist now. Also, the good-to-great films made now haven’t stood the test of time, yet.

" My guess is that most people are open to new filmmaking techniques as well as open to embracing new films."

Yeah, I mean, you do get the “everything’s been done” kinda of aesthetic exhaustion sentiment sometimes. But that’s something else – it’s actually an expression that yearns for something new/different.

“Well, this is a tricky issue.”

Not for me! Seriously. Any list I make pre-1980 is very heavy with studio films. Now there are maybe one or two per-year here or there max. You can say it’s me but dammit I reject that argument when it comes to the studios.

“I also consider La Dolce Vita and L’Aventura to be “conservative” (they basically say once society moves beyond religion, it will be empty and meaningless)”

But doesn’t that beg the question in, say, L’Avventura “conservative” or “religious” is the sense that it’s positing that life is essentially unhappy, or more of a Marxist historical dialectic-based critique of modernity—that this particular form of social life under these specific historical conditions is meaningless. I’m pretty sure there’s as good (if not better) an argument to be made for the latter as there is for the former.

“…the sense that it’s positing that life is essentially unhappy, or more of a Marxist historical dialectic-based critique of modernity—that this particular form of social life under these specific historical conditions is meaningless. I’m pretty sure there’s as good (if not better) an argument to be made for the latter as there is for the former.”

I’d actually never heard the former. The latter is so essentially present, at least in Antonioni’s film.

“Yeah I don’t think the fact that he used widely varying examples to illustrate his categories ruins anything.”

No, it doesn’t. It would have to have meaning first, for it to be ruined.

“Progressive liberal: Picard (Star Trek)
Conservative liberal: Superman
Progressive authoritarian: Magneto (X-Men)
Conservative authoritarian: The Emperor (Star Wars)”

The same problem I have with the other list I’d have with this.

It’s a shortcut, without a base or critique, political, social, economic or otherwise.

If we say Stalin was a “conservative authoritarian” and Ceausescu was a “progressive authoritarian” what does it really matter when they both starved their own people to death?

The line being drawn is inherently illusory because it’s an absolute in a world without absolutes. Just look at the OP:
“The opposite of conservatism is progressivism, and the opposite of liberalism is authoritarianism.”
“This is conservative liberalism carrying the flag of progressivism.”

“…there’s a tendency to see liberalism and conservatism as polar opposites. Really, they’re not even on the same spectrum.”
“Are these films hypocritical…”

The problem here is two-fold.
1) (As Robert pointed out) If conservatism is the opposite of progressivism, how can conservatism carry the “flag of progressivism”?
2) If conservatism and liberalism are not even on the same spectrum, ideologically speaking, how can a film (or anything/one) be a hypocrite for extolling both values?

The reality is, as Ari pointed out, that ideologies are fluid, not static, so nailing them down so rigidly creates an inherent falsity in analysis.