The Futility of Reactionary Conservatism

     It is an unchanging axiom that conservatism will never continue for long. At least, not in a relative sense. As far as modern history(the period chosen arbitrarily from Sumer to Canute the Great to  present's creation by the ever-flowing future due to the early establishment of Western ideals) goes, the world has become increasingly conservative. People have continued to integrate new ideas and cultures, even though they invariably opposed such change as dangerous. When England began to take over significant areas of land, it justified itself by stating that the other people were inferior, either due to culture or skin color or often times both. The power that England accrued allowed it to boast that the sun never set upon it. But eventually even the largest empire in human history crumbled: the rights of minorities to autonomous home rule was established, indigenous people adapted to new technology as way to challenge British superiority, and the democratic education that Britain established became the uniting banner for many later revolts and revolutions. Of course, such a trend was global and affected other powerful civilizations as well. Empires crumbled throughout the ages, be they  Egyptian or Chinese. It seems that people of their own home area(or rather the provincial elite) wish to have a majority say in their own lives to the extent that they are willing to consistently murder and conspire. 

     But the preference of autonomy to heteronomy is not an exclusive by-product of modernity. In general, society  tends to have a greater toleration increasingly voluptuous outfits, and the activities associated with them, in proportion to its collective age. As time went on in Greece and Rome, the women came topless to gladiator fights or street parades. Rome was famous for having an incredibly adulterous(a word that is supremely outdated as the majority of people commit this heinous crime) culture, especially prior to their fall. Even American society has drifted from the lofty colonial outfits and dresses to rugged pants and t-shirts. Perhaps the most annoying society in opposition to this theory is Islamic society, which throws a monkey wrench in the whole thing due to its striking regression. But such a change is the exception rather than the rule, temporary, and often times inaccurate in regards to the actual whims of society. Although for a time burkas (Islamic clothes covering every inch of the female body) were traditionally upheld, it could be imagined that they were not particularly favored due to the the more open nature of humanity. Ironically, elaborate designs were embroidered on their surfaces, defeating the whole purpose of drawing less attention. In present times, only a few countries mandate the outfit. Even Iran, descending from the great legacy of Persia and a major Islamic country after the Islamic Revolution, refuses to be controlled by its Islamic culture and engages in parties ending in shocking intimacy and binge drinking. 

     If history is viewed this way, then one might sensibly argue that society needs to be moderate, neither adopting the immorality of the Romans right before their fall or the strictness of Islam which has never been very effective. Evidently, it is assumed that the Romans' promiscuity was somehow a causation for its fall. But the fact that many regions and cultures have adopted their devotion to primal desires, with Western civilization leading the charge, suggests that it is not a bad thing; after all, Europe leads the world in many other good things such as longevity and healthcare. In addition, society needs to be in a continuum, always wanting to evolve and change(often times for more autonomy and individual rights) as time goes on. Such a desire is at odds with reactionary ideology, which vehemently opposes change. Thus, society is both paradoxically more receptive to change as well as less open to it than ever. But their can be no middle path as one cannot hope to reconcile the differences of the other. Both hate each other with intensity and have never historically come to a real compromise in this regard. After all, the world in general has become more frisky and westernized, the Islamic countries included. It seems that the world naturally inclines towards greater freedom, a trend that will probably be hastened thanks to technology connecting more people. Conservatism is adopted as a balancing force for people who believe that society is becoming too heterogeneous, in part due to the generational effect. But such a movement is often times extreme and short-lived. Indeed the Tea Party embodies this, as it is nearly absolute in the insanity department and probably will fizzle down after the nuclear fallout resulting from the failure of conservatives' kamikaze efforts to stop Obamacare failing. Society in the global sense tends to work itself out in such patterns. The best conservatism can do, not considering a new ice age or the like artificially forcing regression on the world,  is to achieve the moral high ground in their actions for once and not just their words. What this means is that it can no longer force people to go a certain way or do crazy things like burn buildings. No, it must be what the progressives were, allowing people the right to choose. Such an action was what made religion so great in the beginning, as people had the choice to join a more unified and principled group. Everyone wants principle, after all. But nobody wants it shoved down their throats. If, even after such a sane measure, society as a whole fails to become more conservative, then so be it. People should have pride in their own beliefs being strong in the face of perceived immorality and be satisfied with their own lives.