Doctrine of the Mean: A Virtuous Path Beyond Mere Centrism
Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean: The Pursuit of Virtue
To understand the philosophical underpinnings of progressive conservatism, we must first delve into Aristotle's ethical framework, primarily articulated in his Nicomachean Ethics. For Aristotle, ethics is not merely about rules or duties, but about character and the cultivation of virtues (ἀρετή, aretē). A virtue, in the Aristotelian sense, is an excellence of character that enables an individual to live well and flourish (eudaimonia). Crucially, Aristotle posits that most virtues lie in a "mean" between two extremes: an excess and a deficiency. This is the celebrated Doctrine of the Mean.
It is vital to clarify what Aristotle means by "mean." He explicitly states that the mean is not a mathematical average, nor is it the same for everyone. Instead, it is "relative to us," determined by reason (logos) and practical wisdom (phronesis). This implies that finding the mean requires careful judgment, an understanding of context, and a cultivated moral sensibility.
Let us consider some classic examples of the Doctrine of the Mean in action. The virtue of courage, for instance, lies between the deficiency of cowardice and the excess of rashness. A courageous person is not fearless, but acts appropriately in the face of fear, neither fleeing from all danger nor recklessly rushing into it. Similarly, temperance is the mean between insensibility (deficiency) and self-indulgence or licentiousness (excess); a temperate person enjoys pleasures in moderation, neither denying them entirely nor succumbing to their every whim. Generosity, another key virtue, is the mean between stinginess (deficiency) and prodigality (excess), meaning a generous person gives appropriately, neither hoarding resources nor squandering them carelessly. Proper Pride, or Magnanimity, represents the mean between undue humility (deficiency) and vanity or empty conceit (excess), where a person with proper pride rightly values their own worth and achievements. Finally, wittiness is the mean between boorishness (deficiency) and buffoonery (excess), indicating a witty person knows how to engage in humor appropriately, neither being dull nor excessively crude. In each case, the virtuous action is not a rigid point but a dynamic balance, requiring discernment and practical wisdom to navigate the complexities of human experience. The pursuit of virtue, therefore, is an active, ongoing process of habituation and rational deliberation, aimed at achieving human excellence.
Progressive conservatism, at first glance, might appear to be an ideological paradox. How can one be both "progressive" (implying forward movement, change, reform) and "conservative" (implying preservation, tradition, caution)? Yet, it is precisely in this apparent tension that its Aristotelian strength lies. Progressive Conservatism is not a compromise between two opposing forces—like centrism--but a principled synthesis that seeks to apply the Doctrine of the Mean to the grand project of societal governance and human flourishing.
Progressive Conservatism as the Virtuous Mean
The deep resonance between progressive conservatism and Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean becomes apparent when we examine how this political philosophy embodies specific virtues.
Prudence (Phronesis): The Guiding Virtue
If there is one virtue that encapsulates progressive conservatism, it is phronesis, or practical wisdom. Prudence is the intellectual virtue that enables one to deliberate well about what is good and advantageous for oneself and for human beings in general. It is about knowing how to act correctly in particular circumstances.
Progressive conservatism, in its very essence, is an exercise in prudence. It seeks to avoid the recklessness of radical change (excess) that can dismantle valuable institutions and lead to unintended consequences, as well as the stagnation of rigid reaction (deficiency) that refuses to adapt to new challenges, leading to societal decay. A truly prudent political actor, operating within a progressive conservative framework, would not blindly cling to outdated policies simply because they are traditional, nor would they embrace every new idea simply because it is novel. Instead, they would carefully assess the situation, consult historical wisdom, consider the potential impacts, and then choose the course of action that best serves the enduring good of the community. This involves a constant balancing act: preserving the strength of the past while embracing the necessary innovations for the future.
Justice: Balancing Liberty and Community
Justice, for Aristotle, is a comprehensive virtue, encompassing fairness and the proper ordering of society. Progressive conservatism strives for a just society by navigating the mean between excessive individualism and excessive collectivism. Unfettered individualism, often associated with certain libertarian or radical liberal ideologies, can lead to social atomization, neglect of the vulnerable, and the erosion of common bonds, prioritizing individual rights to such an extent that it can overlook collective responsibilities and the need for a shared social fabric. Conversely, extreme collectivism, often found in socialist or communist ideologies, can suppress individual liberty, stifle innovation, and lead to oppressive state control, prioritizing the group to the detriment of individual dignity and autonomy. Progressive conservatism seeks the just mean. It champions individual liberty and personal responsibility but recognizes that true freedom can only thrive within a stable and supportive community. It advocates for social safety nets, accessible education, and economic policies that promote broad-based opportunity, not out of a desire for egalitarian leveling, but to ensure that all members of society have the chance to contribute and thrive. This is a justice that seeks balance: ensuring individual rights while fostering a robust sense of shared purpose and mutual obligation.
Temperance/Moderation: Rejecting Extremes
Temperance, or moderation, is the virtue of self-control and restraint. In the political sphere, this translates to a rejection of ideological extremism and an embrace of reasoned, incremental reform. Political ideologies that push for extreme, rapid, or total change, often fueled by utopian visions or revolutionary zeal, exhibit an excess of conviction without the tempering influence of prudence, which can lead to destructive outcomes, as history amply demonstrates. On the other hand, a deficiency in moderation might manifest as an unthinking rigidity, an unwillingness to acknowledge the need for any change, or a complete apathy towards societal problems, leading to stagnation and ultimately, the decay of institutions. Progressive conservatism embodies moderation by advocating for careful, evidence-based policy-making rather than ideological purity tests. It understands that grand societal transformations are rarely successful when imposed from above or through violent upheaval. Instead, it favors gradual adjustments, pilot programs, and reforms that can be tested and refined over time. This is the temperance of a political philosophy that values stability and continuity, but recognizes that these can only be maintained through judicious adaptation.
Generosity/Benevolence: Fiscal Responsibility and Social Provision
The virtue of generosity, as discussed earlier, lies between stinginess and prodigality. In the context of public policy, this translates to a balanced approach to resource allocation and social provision. An extreme focus on fiscal austerity, to the point of neglecting essential public services, social welfare, or investment in future generations, can be seen as a form of political stinginess, failing to provide for the common good. Conversely, unchecked public spending, driven by a desire to satisfy every demand or to implement grand, unfunded programs, can lead to national debt, inflation, and ultimately, economic instability, representing political prodigality. Progressive conservatism seeks the generous mean. It emphasizes fiscal responsibility, sound economic management, and the importance of individual initiative and free markets. However, it also recognizes the state's role in providing a safety net, investing in infrastructure, education, and research, and protecting the environment. This is not about "big government" or "small government" in an ideological sense, but about effective and responsible government that uses resources wisely to promote the long-term well-being of its citizens. It is a generosity that is both compassionate and sustainable.
Courage: Standing for Principle
Courage, the mean between cowardice and rashness, is also evident in the progressive conservative stance. It takes courage to stand against the prevailing winds of ideological extremism, whether from the radical left or the reactionary right. A lack of courage might manifest as political expediency, where principles are abandoned for short-term gain or popularity, or a reluctance to address difficult truths. Rashness, on the other hand, might involve taking extreme positions or engaging in confrontational politics without due consideration for the consequences or the possibility of finding common ground. Progressive conservatism requires the courage to advocate for nuanced solutions, to defend unpopular truths, and to resist the siren call of simplistic answers. It demands the courage to say "no" to both revolutionary fervor and complacent inaction, choosing instead the path of principled and measured reform. It is the courage to build bridges rather than burn them, and to seek consensus rather than perpetual conflict.
Respect for Tradition and Innovation (as Virtues)
While not explicit Aristotelian virtues in the same way as courage or temperance, the progressive conservative approach to tradition and innovation can be understood through the lens of the mean. Respect for Tradition is the mean between a blind, uncritical adherence to the past (deficiency, leading to stagnation) and a contemptuous rejection of all historical wisdom (excess, leading to rootlessness and chaos). Progressive conservatism values tradition as a source of wisdom and identity, a guide for the present, but not as an immutable prison; it conserves what is good and adapts what is necessary. Embracing innovation, conversely, is the mean between a resistance to all new ideas and technologies (deficiency, leading to irrelevance) and a reckless embrace of every novelty without critical assessment (excess, leading to instability and unintended harm). Progressive conservatism recognizes that progress requires innovation, but insists that innovation be guided by ethical considerations and a clear understanding of its potential impact on human flourishing and societal well-being. These two "virtues" of approach underscore the dynamic balance at the heart of progressive conservatism: a forward-looking perspective grounded in the wisdom of the past.
Centrism: The Average, Not the Mean
Having established how progressive conservatism aligns with Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean, it is crucial to distinguish it sharply from mere centrism. While both might occupy a "middle ground" in the political spectrum, their philosophical foundations and operational principles are fundamentally different.
Centrism, as it is often practiced and understood, tends to be a pragmatic, often unprincipled, compromise or a simple averaging of existing positions. It often defines itself negatively – by what it is not (i.e., not extreme left, not extreme right) – rather than positively by a coherent set of values or a vision for the good society.
Here are the key distinctions that highlight why centrism is not based on the Doctrine of the Mean.
The "Average" vs. The "Mean": A Critical Difference
Aristotle was explicit: the mean is not a mathematical average. If one extreme is significantly worse than the other, the mean might be closer to the better extreme. For instance, in the case of courage, it is generally better to be rash than cowardly, though neither is virtuous. The virtuous person finds the appropriate response, which isn't necessarily equidistant from the two vices. Centrism, however, often operates precisely by seeking an average. It looks at the positions of the left and the right on a given issue and attempts to find a middle point. For example, if one side proposes a 10% tax cut and the other proposes a 10% tax increase, a centrist might propose a 0% change or a 5% cut. This is an average, not a principled determination of what is virtuous or best for society. It lacks the discerning judgment of phronesis. The mean is determined by reason and the pursuit of the good, while the average is determined by calculation and the pursuit of compromise for its own sake.
Lack of Virtue-Based Foundation
The most significant failing of centrism, when compared to progressive conservatism, is its frequent lack of a coherent philosophical or moral framework rooted in virtues. Centrism often prioritizes consensus, electability, or avoiding conflict over the pursuit of a specific vision of the good. It can be opportunistic, shifting its positions based on polls or political expediency, rather than adhering to a consistent set of ethical principles. Progressive conservatism, as argued, is explicitly grounded in virtues like prudence, justice, temperance, and generosity. These virtues provide a compass for policy and action. Centrism, by contrast, can be morally neutral, aiming simply to bridge divides without necessarily having a strong conviction about which direction is truly virtuous.
Moral Purpose vs. Procedural Neutrality
Progressive conservatism has a clear moral purpose: to build and maintain a flourishing society that balances individual freedom with collective responsibility, and progress with preservation. This purpose guides its policy choices and defines its identity. Centrism, on the other hand, can be more about procedural neutrality. It seeks to be a mediator, a balancer, but without necessarily articulating a substantive moral vision. This can lead to a situation where the "center" is merely the path of least resistance, or a reflection of the current political equilibrium, rather than a deliberate choice for the good. It risks becoming an empty space defined only by its distance from the "extremes," rather than a robust philosophy in its own right.
Active Pursuit vs. Passive Reaction
Progressive conservatism is an active, principled pursuit of balance. It involves a continuous, deliberate effort to discern the virtuous mean in complex situations, to adapt traditions prudently, and to innovate responsibly. It is a dynamic philosophy that engages with the challenges of the day with a clear sense of purpose. Centrism, conversely, can be a passive reaction to the extremes. It may simply be the position taken by those who wish to avoid being labeled as "left" or "right," or who believe that any middle ground is inherently superior. This passivity can lead to a lack of conviction and a failure to lead, as it waits for the extremes to define the boundaries within which it will operate.
The Danger of "False Equivalency"
A common pitfall of centrism is the tendency toward "false equivalency," where it treats all extreme positions as equally problematic, even if one is demonstrably more harmful or irrational than the other. Aristotle's mean acknowledges that one extreme might be worse than the other. For instance, while both cowardice and rashness are vices, cowardice might be considered more detrimental in certain contexts. A truly virtuous mean would not treat them as equally distant from the ideal. Centrism, in its quest for balance, can inadvertently legitimize harmful extremes by placing them on an equal footing.
Potential Criticisms and Nuances
It is important to acknowledge that no political philosophy is perfect, and progressive conservatism, despite its Aristotelian appeal, faces its own challenges and internal tensions.
One criticism might be that the "mean" itself is subjective and difficult to define in practice. What one person considers prudent, another might see as timid or reckless. Aristotle himself recognized this, emphasizing the role of practical wisdom and the need for virtuous individuals to make these judgments. The challenge for progressive conservatism is to articulate its vision of the mean clearly and consistently, avoiding the trap of becoming vague or inconsistent in its application.
Another challenge lies in the inherent tension between "progress" and "conservatism." While the philosophy aims for a synthesis, the practical implementation can often lean more heavily on one side than the other, depending on the specific issue or the political climate. Maintaining the virtuous balance requires constant vigilance and a willingness to adapt without abandoning core principles.
Furthermore, the very idea of a "virtuous path" in politics can be seen as idealistic in a world often dominated by power struggles and self-interest. However, this criticism applies to any normative political philosophy. The strength of the Aristotelian framework is precisely that it offers a moral compass, a standard against which political action can be judged, rather than merely describing what is.
In Conclusion
In conclusion, progressive conservatism offers a compelling political philosophy that finds deep resonance with Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean. By seeking a virtuous balance between the preservation of valuable traditions and institutions, and the necessary embrace of prudent progress and social reform, it embodies the practical wisdom, justice, temperance, generosity, and courage that Aristotle championed. It is a philosophy that understands that true societal flourishing requires navigating the complexities of human nature and collective life with discernment, avoiding the excesses of radicalism and the deficiencies of stagnation.
This principled pursuit of the virtuous mean fundamentally distinguishes progressive conservatism from mere centrism. While centrism often seeks a simple average between opposing poles, lacking a coherent moral foundation, progressive conservatism is driven by a substantive vision of the good society, guided by timeless virtues. It is not a bland compromise but a dynamic synthesis, a path that recognizes that the well-being of the community is best served not by ideological purity or opportunistic compromise, but by the continuous, courageous, and prudent application of virtue in the political sphere. In an age of increasing polarization, the Aristotelian wisdom embedded within progressive conservatism offers a much-needed framework for building a more stable, just, and flourishing society.
