In a 2017 TED talk, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker remarked that “nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.” The quote certainly didn’t come from him, originating with columnist Franklin Pierce Adams, but it’s poignant nonetheless — one of the reasons we bemoan modernity is because our perceptions of the past aren’t always accurate.
This is a message particularly important to those of us at historically conservative institutions. Conservatism, no matter where it comes from, is based on the idea that there is something about the past worth conserving, and many of our political divides are over which of those parts we’re supposed to be clinging to. Whether it be the libertarian philosophy of limited government or the cultural norms of social conservatism, each political faction has zeroed in on what part of the American experiment is worth carrying into the present day. Even closer to home, each faction has its specific criticism of the present rooted in that perception of the past. While libertarians raise alarm over the growing power of government, social conservatives point to visibly degraded standards of morality as signifying a culture in worrying decline.
This isn’t a criticism of those factions — they have their fair points and many of their arguments are highly persuasive — but it is a call to carefully examine the way we see the past even as we bemoan the sorry state of the present. Pinker makes this broader point in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, where he traces levels of violence over the course of human history. A picture emerges of overall decline, depicting a modern day far safer and more prosperous than any other time period. Pinker posits that we don’t generally perceive this decline due to increased globalization and communication that makes us see violence as more prevalent.
An accurate perception of the past should be deeply important to modern readers, particularly those of a conservative bent. If the past is to be conserved, which parts? Should we try to “bring back the good old days” by idolizing some part of our history?
The answer is no. It’s easy for us in 2022, coming out of a global pandemic, to look at the 50s, or the Reagan years, or even the pre-COVID era as a beautiful time, devoid of the problems and issues that plague the current day. They weren’t.
When we ask the question “which parts of the past are worth conserving,” there are real consequences to getting that question wrong, and many modern political movements exemplify those consequences. We’re not called to preserve the racial demographics or tribalistic sentiments of the past, even if that past had the kind of limited government and social morality that we support.
Does this mean that the past and its triumphs aren’t important? Of course not. It does mean, however, that there’s danger in thinking about history holistically. It’s easy to think about the good old days as a safe space, one that needs to be recovered at all costs. But it’s not our home and it’s not safe, any more than the present day is. For many Christians, conservatives in particular, the danger lies not in becoming slaves to an idea of progress, but in becoming slaves to an ideal of tradition that ignores inequality and offers us rose-tinted glasses. We’re called to have the wisdom to understand the moral pitfalls of our time while also being aware that we’re not trying to bring back the good old days. We are rather seeking to make today good, through the lessons learned from our imperfect past.
