There is an argument to be made that conservatives are inherently optimistic. They acknowledge the parts of a system that work, the parts and systems that have proven to be effective and valuable throughout history.

Progressives, on the other hand, often point out the fatal flaws in existing systems and propose alternative solutions. They believe that the current solution is inherently more flawed than the alternatives.

The question of how flawed and irrelevant a solution might be lies at the heart of politics. It’s a question of how one defines and values the problems in the world, and the effectiveness and cost of the proposed solutions in addressing those problems.

Conservatives tend to trust in the evolutionary principles applied to markets and politics, relying on empirical data to sort out the relevant from the irrelevant solutions. However, the judgment of what constitutes the value of a problem will always remain subjective.

Progressives, on the other hand, often rely on the creative process of abstraction to theorize and come up with new solutions. However, they run the risk of getting stuck in abstractions and losing touch with practical realities.

History has shown that people have a tendency to make their own theories absolute, even when proven wrong. Once a theory is proven not to work, humanity often tries to make it work anyway.

Progressives, when insufficiently reflective and observant of the effects of their theories, may be unable to acknowledge what they do not know. They may try to uncover what they don’t know, but at the very least, they let the outcome determine which solution works.

In this way, we can see that different worldviews play a role. Conservatives believe in a world in which not everything can be controlled, while progressives rely on an almost absolute understanding to construct better solutions through reasoning.

Conservatives, in this sense, have a kind of spirituality. They try not to capture the nature of reality in set “laws,” but rather define, within a chaotic and unknown world, what has value and set guidelines to historically obtain value.

We differ in the interpretation and prioritization of the problems we observe in our world.

The word “observe” is interesting here. It implies “seeing,” an act that we like to believe provides us with empirical data. But what do we see when we look into the world?

Each person sees different things according to what they believe to be true. We see only that which is relevant to what we value.

This highlights the importance of understanding our values, as it greatly informs us about what we might not be seeing in the real world. This raises the question of what a “value” is.

Different people have different values, and as a result, observe different things in the world and have different impulses to explain what they observe. Politicians may differ not only in values but also in their models of the world.

Is the world an unknowable place, forever changing? Or is the world a place that we can shape?

The former perspective teaches us what works and invites us to reflect on what we do not know. Once we have unearthed what we do not know, we can mobilize that knowledge to update our conceptions of the world and reason towards new solutions.

Conservatives believe that the world is an ever-changing place, which means that the evolution of solutions will always be necessary. However, evolution alone cannot conjure up new alternatives; it can only weed out what does not work.

To come up with new solutions, conservatives need progressives. The theorists, conceptors, and thinkers play a crucial role in this never-ending loop of dependency.