In his work, Ideas Have Consequences, Richard Weaver mentions more than once a particular idea which he refers to as the “Whig theory of history.” This is the idea that the course of man’s journey through time has been one of constant social, ethical and technological improvement. This idea has received the illustrious christening of Progress. Essentially, the idea of Progress is the historical counterpart of scientific Darwinism. This theory carries the implication that change is valuable for its own sake, that all that has come before is outdated, archaic, and to be unreservedly discarded. According to this idea, Progress is the product of vast and inevitable social and economic forces, which no action of individuals or groups of persons can avoid. Those who attempt to slow progress, that is, to preserve beliefs or lifestyles held from time immemorial are viewed as unenlightened irritants, and are branded reactionaries. Those who subscribe to this idea of Progress believe that the civil government and societal structure are to be its faithful instruments. However, I am firmly convinced that the idea of capital ’p’ Progress is a fable, and that the goal of government and society is not to facilitate some ephemeral concept of Progress, but rather to achieve the best balance possible between opposite poles.

I think it is profitable to examine the word ‘progress’ a little closer. To ‘progress’ is simply to move towards something. You can ‘progress’ towards a burning building or the edge of a canyon. Things can become “progressively worse“. Yet today, how many times do we hear leaders say, “We are making progress!” Is it of no importance what we are progressing towards?

A few historical examples will greatly illuminate the point I am attempting to make. The French Revolution, which was initially hailed by many as a bold and admirable stroke in the service of Progress, became a bloody debacle that horrified even the most progressive and liberal minds of the day. Certainly there were abuses under the Old Regime, but the attempt to overthrow, rather than ameliorate, the established order, became much worse, and in the end led to Napoleonic tyranny. In what is popularly called the American Civil War, slavery, which was assuredly an evil stain upon the land, was ended, but at the cost of state sovereignty and the system of government laid down by the Founding Fathers.

So we see that there is no unadulterated Progress, but that when we attempt radical measure to achieve what may be a desirable end, we risk losing something just as valuable, if not more so. As John Randolph of Roanoke forcefully declared, “Change is not reform!” Here is shown the value of what I call, “Reactionary Reasoning.” The wise scholar of society realizes that whenever the balance of order is disrupted in an attempt to attain a feat of “Progress”, chaos can ensue. While moderate reform is necessary and desirable, we must establish safeguards for the treasured heritage and hard-earned freedoms before we embark on a crusade. The cost must be weighed, and sometimes reform must be rejected in favor of continuity and preservation of better things. The real objective of society is not everlasting movement towards some ultimate paradise, but a prudent balance between liberty and order, justice and mercy, prosperity and morality. Civilizations and cultures rise and fall, not by impersonal, unavoidable forces, but by the conscious decisions and passions of human beings. To believe that we are destined to progress infinitely in every way is sheer, incautious, arrogance. Certainly we are much more advanced technologically than at any point in history, but that does not mean that the ancient canons of spirituality and morality are outmoded, or that we may discard the ways of our ancestors without a second thought. We must always cultivate the virtue of historical humility, and realize that we see so far because we stand upon the shoulders of giants.