What is the true nature of the status quo?

Posted February 2021

By Garon Jones

Staff Editor

It is a very rare occasion that an individual whose political identity sides with that of the right wing, or for that matter any breed of libertarianism, can go through a span of months without coming across the accusation that they, or the people they represent, are in support of the “status quo.”

It is an equally rare occurrence that those who make such accusations will even stop to ponder the historical context of the so-called “status quo,” yet alone actually take into account whether such a definition applies to the accused in question. To members of the leftist intelligentsia, the “status quo” is just one in a long list of politically convenient labels used to permanently brand the ideology of those who they oppose. Or to put it more properly, to place themselves as the forces of good who espouse the mantra of “change” against the forces of evil, those who simply want to maintain the “status quo.”

Those who profess “change” can easily be seen as heroes who want to rid the world of its evils. However, those who support the “status quo” can easily be seen as villains who want to keep society at a standstill.

In order to properly examine this claim, we must first examine what policies those on both sides of the aisle, classical liberals and so-called progressives, typically advocate for.

Starting with the liberals, they typically advocate for a smaller government*, with a greater emphasis on individualism, and as a result, free market capitalism. They oppose corporatism, subsidies, bailouts, and regulation. Those who call themselves conservative may sometimes support these ideas, though they are not necessarily liberals in the classical sense. Liberals also tend to support gun rights, along with freer choices in education.

Leftists or progressives tend to support larger government, and may place a greater emphasis on the collective or “social good.” They typically oppose free market capitalism at least to an extent, and tend to favor Keynesian economic policies such as higher taxes and regulations on the economy. Those on the left tend to favor gun regulation, support government controlled education, and government run social programs.

In context with the last century and a half, it is the latter whose policies have ultimately prevailed in the United States. Movements such as the “Progressive era” in the early 20th century, along with the New Deal programs of the 1930s and the Great Society programs of the 1960s, have accelerated this trend of big government even further. These policies have continued to thrive up until today and will continue to thrive long after tomorrow, no matter which party controls the seat of government.

In context with this simple look at American history, the true “status quo” becomes obvious. It is the federal government continuing to gain power over our lives.

The status quo is a public education system run by government claiming to be necessary for educating our children, while simultaneously returning us lower test scores year after year. The status quo is a collection of powerful monopolies backed by government regulation, fueling the flames of corporatism. The status quo is the ever increasing infringement on our most fundamental right to self preservation: the right to keep and bear arms. The status quo is a continually rising minimum wage, which prices low skilled workers out of jobs and increases the costs of commodities. And the status quo is a slow but steady government takeover of our healthcare system, and a reduction of consumer choice. This list could go on for many pages, but the point is quite clear. The status quo is something the “progressives” want to keep.

It was the “progressive” candidate Barack Obama who ran under the guise of “change,” while simultaneously advocating for a trend of increased government over a century old! Yet many who supported his candidacy pushed back on conservatives, and blamed them for being “stuck in the past” or for “just wanting to keep things the way they are.” Ironically, it is the very policies these people advocated for which have ultimately kept society stagnant.

As an additional note, it was Milton Friedman, one of the leading intellectual leaders of the liberal movement in the United States who wrote a book entitled Tyranny of the Status Quo. Ironic how such phrases would be used against that very liberal movement just decades later.

This is not to say that phrases like “the status quo” or “change” are inherently positive or negative. The point here is to recognize when words become shifted to fit the narrative of those in power. Pay attention. Take note. And spot whether phrases are used by politicians as adjectives to identify particular people, or as clubs to beat particular enemies.

*To briefly explain the confusion with the term liberal, for the purposes of this article, I will refer to a liberal in the classical sense, that being one who advocates for the overall reduction of government. Conservatives and Libertarians may align with the classical liberal, although they often have different beliefs. I do not use terms like Republican or Democrat because these are political parties and as such, both being owned by the state, have similar, not opposing interests. And I will not be using the term Conservative for similar reasons. I will refer to another column of mine that explains these concepts in greater detail for those who are interested.