Causes in Conflict

In Palestine, for example, both Jews and Arabs claim the same land as their God-given ancestral homeland, both sides have suffered violence, seek justice and revenge, and both believe they have God on their side. In the case of two sides fighting over one property, it's possible to conceive of a simple conservative-progressive opposition: whoever currently possesses the land will seek to keep the "good" and the Have-Nots will seek to change the "bad." Thus, in current conditions, Israeli rhetoric urges peace and stability in the area, while the dispossessed Palestinian Arabs are fomenting instability.

However, very few conflicts are that dramatically direct. Most conflicts have great complexities both in kind and degree. For example, consider the political elections in the United States in which there is, superficially, a two-part dichotomy, a two-party system. Yet, the two parties are not in direct contradictory opposition to each other; there are so many sub-issues involved in any campaign, and so many different shades of Democrats and Republicans (including conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, and vice versa) that there are seldom clear-cut or sharply defined choices.

So we end up voting for the greater-of-two goods or (often) the lesser-of-two evils; such qualified choices are appropriate because we don't elect a person to solve a single issue; we elect a person for a timespan of many years in which a wide variety of issues have to be dealt with. On Election Day we seldom encounter candidates who can handle all possible situations better than their opponents.

Oblique conflicts.
Most of the controversial issues we see are in oblique opposition, opposed to each other at angles, because the conflicting groups have different sets of threats feared and causes defended.

In many respects, they are not even "speaking the same language," because they disagree so totally about values and priorities, about what's the main issue at stake. In the abortion controversy, for example, one side may see the main issue as "killing a person" ("Death and Destruction"); the other side may see the main issue as a woman's "right to choose" ("Restriction"). Nations, which are the target of terrorist threats ("Death and Destruction"), see the main issues as "Security," a defense of "law and order." in contrast, alienated terrorists often describe their fears in terms of "humilation" and "injustice"; their cause is restoring "justice"; all sides, of course, claiming virtue and righteousness: God is on their side.

People often disagree on definitions and basic premises; such fundamental differences often get lost in the emotional charges and counter-charges made, in the name-calling and the "horror stories" and "atrocity pictures."

Because causes tend to cluster, often overlapping each other, individual persons may sometimes feel confused or uncomfortable because they may support some related causes and not others. For example, some people in the "right to life" (anti-abortion) movement may declare themselves "pro-life," yet simultaneously support capital punishment for guilty criminals, and wars which will kill innocent civilians..

Sometimes clusters are inconsistent and illogical because the "hidden agenda" is essentially dominance over the other side. People often join, support, or endorse other groups within a movement simply so that "their side" will win, will dominate the opposition, no matter what the specific issue. Whether we're dealing with political issues between the Left and the Right, or any kind of social conflicts, there is a tendency for adherents on either side to support related groups. People look at the list of names of the Officers, or the Board of Directors, to see if they recognize "friends" from other affiliated groups.

Dominance is often the unspoken issue, the "hidden agenda" in many conflicts between conservatives and progressives. If all conflicts were simple and direct, then the use of the terms conservative and progressive would be clear, easily understood by all. But, because conflicts are oblique, and the participants have many differing goals (benefits) and threats (loss of benefits), these two terms often seem shifting or ambiguous.

Furthermore, these terms describe a relationship which can change. New relationships are created when change occurs. Roles reverse. For example, a group may use progressive rhetoric (change the "bad") to get elected, or to get a new law enacted; but once successful, once elected or the law passed, then the same group must use conservative rhetoric (keep the "good") to defend itself.

The revolutionary, once successful, becomes the new Establishment, but then usually damns the opposition for being "counter-revolutionary" and discourages further change. This is often confusing; once the revolution is over, people like Thomas Paine are out of a job, and can't understand why their ideas are no longer popular.

So also the dilemma of "conservatives" who find themselves attacking the Supreme Court (the very essence of law and order) whenever the Court rulings disagree with their opinions. They expect the Court to keep the existing "good," and, when there's any change in interpretation, such ultra-conservatives seek to change the Court: to "restore" to what it "really" should be.