Why Progressives Should Listen to Conservatives

opinion by Doug Collins

Like probably most Americans, most of us who produce the Washington Free Press are not really satisfied with our current two-party political system. One reason is that political campaigns are so dependent on expensive, superficial TV commercials. As a result, American politics--whether Republican or Democrat--is heavily influenced by moneyed interests, including wealthy individuals, large corporations, as well as large unions. Regular people with unaddressed concerns are mostly shut out of the process if they don't have large campaign donations to bring to the table. These unadressed concerns might be of many political persuasions, progressive, conservative, or other.

Although this publication is what you might call a "progressive" newspaper, this issue of the Washington Free Press is dedicated to conservative Republicans for a couple reasons. First, we have a Presidential election coming up in which both progressives and conservatives face choices which we may not be very satisfied with. I think it would be nice if conservatives could listen to some of the heartfelt concerns about the Bush presidency expressed by various writers in this issue. In addition, I'd like to ask progressives to listen to conservative ideas. With an eye to the further future, it would be nice if so-called "left-wing" Americans could consider how many of their concerns are not necessarily opposed to the concerns of so-called "right-wing" Americans.

Often people have immediate distaste for others with a different political label. That's the sad danger of labeling both oneself or others, because there's always something to be learned from others. I've long thought of myself as a progressive, but the more I think about it, the more I can learn from conservative Republicans.

Take for example the issue of women and work. Progressives have typically applauded the increasing participation of women in the workplace, and aim to make that participation equal in all ways, and I do share in that applause. On the other hand, conservatives often lament the fact that women are increasingly abandoning tradition by not devoting their lives to the care of family. Although I agree with workplace equality, I see that there is a great kernel of truth in the conservative viewpoint. The care of family has become increasingly neglected in recent decades, because there are so many men and women in the workforce, often working overtime. Traditional arrangements such as "married women stay home with the kids" are laudable in the sense that they show deep concern for the family. Progressives have too often ignored a shortcomings in their beliefs; namely, if Mom and Dad are both working full-time, then how does that affect the kids and the older generation, both of whom need family care? How does that affect the future of our society? Really, for me it only makes sense to combine progressive and conservative beliefs on this issue: workplace equality is important, but someone--whether male or female--still needs to take close personal care of the family and kids. This combined goal could be achieved by a reduction of the full-time workweek, an embracing of the true conservative virtues of simplicity, frugality, and importance of family life, and a progressive flexibility that allows males to care for kids and household.

Take also the issue of public transport. Progressives have generally backed public initiatives like commuter rail, whereas conservatives decry them as wasteful public spending. Personally I enjoy taking the trains and subways when I visit large urban areas that have them, but when I look at the modern sticker prices, I am dismayed. For example, the original one-mile Seattle monorail was built in the early 1960s for a total final cost of $3.5 million, but the new 14-mile monorail is slated at $1.75 billion dollars, as reported in a Seattle Post-Intelligencer monorail trivia article (Aug 5, 2003). What the Seattle P-I didn't point out is the per-mile comparison: even if the final cost of the new monorail is actually contained within plan (which is unlikely considering the history of most such public works), then the per-mile cost of the new monorail will be $125 million, or comparatively about 35 times the cost of the 1960s monorail, an increase which is far in excess of general inflation. Clearly there is something in our culture that has made public works much more expensive and, yes, perhaps even wasteful. Progressives should not ignore conservative criticism, because--again--there is a good kernel of truth in the conservative viewpoint. Of course people should really understand why public works are becoming so expensive before they agree to have their tax money spent on them, but commercial media and commercially-dominated politicians generally ignore the underlying cultural problem of increasing waste, and instead pose public works as simply a question of whether enough taxes can be raised.

The same is true for almost any political discussion you can think of: education, welfare, abortion, civil liberties, immigration, you name it. Progressives should listen to conservative criticism. We don't need to agree, but we need to listen to our fellow Americans who are, in fact, in the same political pickle as ourselves: underrepresented by the polical process. What we have now is a political system that is dominated by moneyed, largely corporate interests. Whether you like him or not, Ralph Nader is absolutely correct when he says that the Republican party is using conservatives just like the Democratic party is using progressives. Currently, American two-party politics is largely geared toward the one goal of channeling money to those who already have a lot of it, while paying occasional lipservice to progressive and conservative causes in order to maintain some shred of legitimacy. If true progressives and true conservatives were really a fair part of the political discussion, America would be greatly improved.