An American response to Winston Churchill on conservatism

     Without accusing what was possibly one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century as being nothing more than a drunk, excusing the fact that his diminishing popularity was likely due to an ever increasing conservatism (which will be explained shortly), and outright ignoring the fact that this phrase is mistakenly attributed to him, Winston Churchill makes a grave mistake in saying: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
     What this quote ignores is the natural and historic tendency of political and economic leanings and how they relate to the morphing society's affect on the aging individual; in essence, progressivism naturally challenges “the lifestyle” being that enhancement of all facets of society and of living means a change at all the levels of living— a perpetual alteration. The discomfort with this grows when we become accustomed to a certain living style; as we are all members of a culture or of a subculture, the “we” knows no bounds of economic status, thus, the discomfort of change affects the poorest of us as well as the richest of us. Where the commodity becomes a fetish, the tendency of progressivism is a turnoff because we consider the prospect of stagnancy (at best) or steady decline (at the worst) to be greater than the idea of change at every turn (— interestingly, this attitude seems to be contrary to the way the capital market is designed to work).     This is essentially psychology on a grand scale; how does time affect the individual's perception of reality? My grandfather once told me that when he was my age, he thought that at his age society and government would be entirely different, that it would be more forgiving to “the small guy.” Working for decades at General Motors in Connecticut, he understood the powerful infrastructure that he and his parents were preparing for the future: technology, money, social programs, new age culture, drive, service, specialty, wealth with no poverty, a unified class. Now, he can't believe what he is seeing; things have not just gone stagnant, they have become worse, and reality seems to be very surreal for him and people of his generation.
     My grandfather is a liberal; he supports strong government programs for the poor and working class, strong taxes for the rich, foreign diplomacy over war, and large spending and reform in education. He went into retirement for less than a few years after the plant closed only to come back out to raise two of his grandkids with my grandmother, and suddenly he needed to continue finding work (which he was fortunate enough to do). No one has had to adapt to change more than my grandparents, and they are just fine doing that. Why can't change in our government and society serve people like this and, more importantly, change the work ethic and education of those who aren't so driven?     The reason why Churchill's quote is considered correct is because it is always attributed to a single divine and/or logical truth when the fact of the matter is that the prospect of attaining the individual, single self interest (a la state of nature) guides the destiny of the society— the idealism and societal goals set forth by not only our forefathers, but our younger minds are trampled by the insecurity and comfort of our elders. The idea and ideal of progressivism becomes taboo along with what younger minds have to offer and sacrifices made by hard working people are either ignored or considered expected of everyone including those who are not equipped to do so.
     So when you find yourself growing increasingly defensive of the policies and practices of yesteryear, reflect on your life choices and ask yourself why. Do you have something to gain by putting a stop to change in your society? If you don't have anything particular to gain, ask yourself who does; if we can consider that, traditionally, the bottom line is the dollar, then those who would not profit from societal and political change are those who will fight the change. And those who fight the change use propaganda to capitalize on the discomfort that change inevitably creates in an individual. Instead of empowering people to “do what feels right”, people are being forced to react negatively to things that make them uncomfortable rather than to facilitate the change and to acclimate.     Close your eyes for a moment and picture your life between the years of twenty-five and forty (even if you fall into or beyond the range, imagine how things have unfolded); you have to imagine all the complexities of early life: first or second career or your fourth or fifth dead-end job, college debt is in it's young years if you have it and if you don't, maybe you have a slightly nicer apartment or car than the average college student, but essentially you are in the same position; in fact, maybe you're simply unemployed and desperate for even a part time, minimum wage employment. By the time you're forty you are settling into a routine, a specific kind of lifestyle; now you probably have a serious relationship or partnership and you are beginning to make good money— enough to buy a home or take on debt to buy a home (if you haven't already).
     Now open your eyes. In your later years, things become easier in some ways and harder in others and your memory starts becoming selective; it begins to ignore moments or sentiments of the past because they no longer serve your self-interest. Even if life isn't as you've imagined it would be, you start accepting your disposition and you become comfortable with it— in fact, you reach the point of defending it.
     Any change to serve those currently in the position you used to be is threatening if you're lead to believe it will only reduce you back to that position or at the very least make your current state of being unsustainable without further effort; a small part of you feels no responsibility for those who are like you once were as those who used to be where you currently are did for you. Ritual and habit becomes easy and the added responsibility of the future generation and less fortunate threatens the simplicity and/or comfort of your living.
     This is entirely justifiable; you are here, now, and you're not entirely happy, but you are safe and comfortable. Future generations will be able to do the same and the less fortunate will be able to follow suit when they change the ways they make choices— voila, you are now conservative.
     That being established, it is a sound assumption that the simplicity of your living (or at least the comfort) is, in fact, threatened by change. Social issues begin to take precedence in your political leanings simply because this is not how things used to be, and things used to be just fine for everyone. Some of the changes being made aren't necessary at all, so shunning new ideas becomes second nature.     Change is inevitable, imminent, and perpetual whether we like it or not, whether we are ready for it or not. Preservation of tradition and tradition itself are admittedly important to the identity of a culture and society, but sacrifices must be made to preserve the underlying values and necessities that make the good society what is good. A “get-what-you-deserve” society cannot exist within the conditions our forefathers set before us because we already accept that a life void of liberty and of the means to life is not representative of the American dream; in other words, the most successful and comfortable of us all must make sacrifices to allow the less fortunate to thrive. Separately, to mark self-preservation as an individual concern is foolhardy since the purpose of our independence as a nation was its guarantee.
     This is the fallacy I find in Winston Churchill's supposed phrase. Though it may only pertain to our society in the framework of my argument, I still find us to be the greatest society of all, and all those wanting for the good society should consider this argument.
~Joe