One of the fundamental features of Liberalism of any kind is a belief in the idea of "Progress" - the idea that today is always better than yesterday. And tomorrow will be better than today.

But what is the problem with this idea? (Contd..)

A belief in progress also means that certain ideas are rendered obsolete.

i.e...

If you believe in progress, then you also have to believe that certain ideas or modes of behavior are superior to others.

And this implies you have to necessarily develop a contempt for people who hold on to those obsolete ideas / ways of thinking.

So to be a liberal or a progressive inevitably also implies that you must be against "diversity"-because progress runs counter to diversity of ideas/ways of living and thinking

If some ideas are indeed better, and we keep "progressing" with time, diversity can't be a good thing

So even though diversity of the more superficial kind (especially that of color or gender) tends to be championed by liberals, the more fundamental diversity of thought, speech and conduct is anathema to "liberalism" in general, because it challenges the notion of "progress".

The conflict between "progress" on one hand and "diversity" on the other is an irreconcilable conflict.

"Progress" invariably drives the homogenization of culture, morals, even language, food, attire.

If you are for "progress" then you can't simultaneously hold that all ways of living are valid or equally respectable.

Eg: The ideology of "progress" deemed a century ago that a democratic govt with one vote / person is a universal ideal

What that means is that there is no room now for anyone to hark back and argue for an alternative from the past. Eg: Franchise based on property/education qual

If you do so then you are deemed to be "against Progress" - a "conservative" or much worse a "regressive".

Conservatives wouldn't accept this charge of "regression" because they are much more comfortable with diversity than liberals, and are less wedded to the notion of continual "progress"

Eg: If you never accept in the first place that universal franchise is the ideal but merely one of the many forms of choosing one's govt, then harking back to a limited franchise doesn't necessarily imply being "regressive" but merely choosing an alternative to the present system

A more trivial example of "progress" is in the mundane matter of "attire". Again, "progress" has deemed "comfort" as the ideal that should override any aesthetic considerations

This has meant casual attire in the"liberal" west has increasingly tended towards wearing less and less during summers. As that is deemed more "comfortable". The result is that both genders excel each other in getting as close to nude on public streets during summer,where I live!

In this "progressive" climate, if you argue for a more formal public wear even during summer (for instance western wear from 1950s), that is deemed "regressive"

Because progress has deemed comfort as the ideal. And that ideal keeps pushing you towards lesser and lesser clothing

"Progress" creates homogenizing ideals everywhere. THis includes education. Where a "common curriculum" is deemed to be an ideal

It is irrelevant to the liberal ideal ofc that different students have different appetites for what can be learnt. Yet a "common syllabus" is embraced

Another example of the "progressive ideal" at work is in the domain of food and nutrition.

There is a fad of developing what is called a "balanced diet" that people are impelled to move towards. Regardless of what they may require.

Eg: In an old classical text like Manu Smriti (which is not progressive in any way), there is no silver bullet when it comes to dietetics

The food prescribed for a scholar is different from the food prescribed for a laborer. The latter needs a LOT more protein than the former.

But modern "progressive" thought holds this diversity of recommendations in contempt.

There has to be ONE balanced diet. That is supposed to work for everyone! That's the modern way.

The idea of progress is an idea that is fundamentally opposed to diversity. It emphasizes uniformity, by its very definition

This is precisely the reason why the world needs "conservatives" to take on the inexorable "march" of progress" and say "Stop" once in a while!