Progressives vs Conservativs is the ultimate tension.
Politically speaking, if we set aside the extremists on each side, the middle ground debate between well-informed people is often a battle between the following:
Progressives want to move society forward, but often in too centralized and artificial manner. At their best, they want to help the disenfranchised among us and focus on what they see as the bigger picture. At their worst, they get into eugenics and central control and underestimate the efficiency of market forces.
Conservatives often want to hold society where it is, even when resisting new change that could be good. At their best, they support responsibility and virtue and hard work, while at their worst, they harm new ideas or minorities that deviate from their local culture, and hold back good new ideas.
And how we interpret these forces changes over time. Sometimes science is at the forefront, and sometimes politics/culture is. Copernicus and Galileo were scientific progressives, and were punished for it despite being right. But then Marx and Woodrow Wilson were political progressives, and had success despite later being wrong in many ways. And then ironically, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were both considered progressive US presidents, but in many ways they couldn't be more different. Conservatives today have more respect for the former than the latter.
Both fundamental forces, progress and conservatism, are necessary. We need to move forward, but with awareness of our past. Cautiously progressive, and virtuously conservative. Humble in our presumed ability to control the world, but empathetic in our outreach to groups that don't necessarily fit within the existing culture. Something akin to Libertarianism fits the bill, but with more widespread support. When Libertarianism fails to catch on in any of 200 or so countries, its lack of success needs to be examined. Why isn't Libertarianism popular?
Some of this I argue is due to technology. The existing tech of fast transactions but slow settlements gives power to central banks and governments. Technology dictates politics.
For example, prior to the invention of the printing press, it wasn't possible to have a democratic republic over a large landmass. That required fast information transfer and widespread literacy. Ancient people were not "ignorant" to have their prior social structures; they outright lacked the technology to even attempt our current norms. And today, can we imagine if new technology makes our existing norms irrelevant? What if capital flows as freely as information flows? Does that change politics? I think so.
In the modern era, central planners have a technological edge. It's easy for them to consolidate the banks and central banks, since everything is reliant on credit-based transfers. The invention of bitcoin and fast non-credit transfer starts to mess with that, but it takes time with liquidity and network effects.
I expect the next few decades to change substantially. But as they do, I consider progressivism vs conservatism to be a useful framework to keep in mind. Openness to change vs preservation of what works well now. In all technological environments, era after era, this is ultimately the key social debate. As monetary technology stalled in recent decades, politics took center stage. As monetary technology advances over the next couple of decades, I expect that technology to start impacting and framing conversations more and more, as it starts setting the clear path.
