Progressive Politics

Conservatives can organize more easily because it is easy to agree to not change anything. Progressives all want change, ostensibly in the same general direction, however that doesn't mean they agree on the vector, or even what needs to be changed to achieve it.

Conservatives aren't actually hyper-individualists. That's a wrong assumption. They're individualists within confines. They have their set communities that are guided by an authority (church, for example) and they want everyone else to conform to their way of living.

Any conservative structure has an authoritarian leadership whose call to action will be heeded. The biggest disobedience you find will be people just not saying anything against it.

Unlike this, progressives deal with a lot of infighting because there's a thousand ways to achieve things and any leadership is constantly scrutinized and criticised.

There's an inherent speed and organisation advantage to single-point leadership (authoritarianism) Vs the more measured compromise system (democracy).

And then there's the part where conservatives are the overwhelming majority of rich people, who can dump in the money to organise things. You have to be a garbage human to become filthy rich, and those garbage humans will of course happily work on campaigns to hold progressives back. Progress is the enemy of scum, the past is their friend.

I think Conservatives have an easier time falling in line, they're traditional authoritarians who believe that you should do as you're told, follow orders, be a team player, take one for the team, respect authority, blah blah blah. They're not a terribly diverse group of people, you've got fringe elements here and there, but all mostly respect the central authority. While we do see infighting at times amongst higher-up conservatives (basically internal power struggles), they mostly tend to fall in line when something is deemed a priority by leadership. Obviously there's been exceptions to this, but it still holds up for most of them.

Liberals on the other hand can be just as catty with each other as they can be with Conservatives. The Democratic party has tried to create such a big tent and endear itself to so many different causes that each of these is fighting for attention within the party over who gets priority. You've got women with their abortion rights, economic inequality, feminism, #metoo, etc AND you've got black americans with civil rights issues, police brutality, racism, economic inequality, etc AND then you've got immigrants with immigration, exploitation, language barriers, religious clashes, etc AND then you've got the LGBTQIA+ movement with marriage equality, transgender discrimination, etc AND you've got environmentalists that are worried about global warming, carbon pollution, plastic pollution, etc AND you've got the Youth voters worried about education, the environment, their future in general, etc AND there's plenty others I'm leaving out, or general causes that cut across these groups (like Israel/Gaza).

The point is, Liberals can't seem to really focus on one issue before another issue bubbles to the surface, it's almost schizophrenic, there's too many voices and priorities all fighting to be addressed. How can you unite a group of people like that around a central issue that affects all of them at once? Economic inequality cuts across alot of lines, but for different reasons. Conservatives may have some competition between religious and business interests, but that doesn't happen terribly often and they usually just go along with whatever they're being told, they don't have to think about anybody else other than themselves. "Trans people make me feel uncomfortable. They're the bad guys now? Ok, yea, I'm all in."

If you're in agreement with another Liberal about an issue, but misspeak or generalize about the wrong thing, they'll be all over you as if you have been a bigot your whole life. Liberals will turn on each other in a heartbeat. Conservatives, on the other extreme, can't seem to let go of people no matter how horrible a person they've been revealed to be. Pedophile? Serial rapist? Fraud? Domestic abuse? Nah, you're still cool with the GOP.

I think those on the left are a lot less likely to fall in line behind a leader because that's exactly what we're fighting against. It does seem to be beneficial to action for someone to take charge and make things happen. I think that role, even if it does have validity, is given greater weight by our collective indoctrination into the great man myth. And any indoctrination has great effect on mentality even if you can logically refute it.

My personal thought (that I'm open to changing (also we're all too willing to change our mind)) is revolutionizing that role to be more in line with non-hierarchical values. That could be creating a doctrine that can establish some guiding principles that would include action. Or to stay people focused, have it be an assigned position. Pick someone who is good at making things happen and let them do that. As long as that person doesn't have an outsized influence on how and what is happening, and is able to be removed and replaced whenever appropriate, that could work.

But yeah our biggest weakness is our inability to commit to something better. I think it's a good trait to be open minded to criticism in all directions as a path for growth. But it easily becomes a case of the unattainable best being the enemy of an attainable better. I think we're tempted to have a clear goal to guide us. But if we're going to actually make progress we need to unite under a blurry goal and be okay with finding clarity over time. Even that is a better system than we're currently living under.