TL;DR
- Labels are lazy. Classifying ideas as "left" or "right," "innovative" or "outdated," often obscures the real debate. A better mental model is needed.
- Use a number line. Imagine the "status quo" is zero (0). Any push for change is a move to the left (negative numbers), and any attempt to revert to a past state is a move to the right (positive numbers). In this model, "progress" is simply about the direction of change, not its inherent goodness.
- It's all about speed. Most modern debates, in business or society, aren't about if we should move forward, but how fast. We can define four archetypes based on their appetite for change: Progressives (full speed), Liberals (pragmatic speed), and Conservatives (cautious speed).
- The Zero Point is always moving. This is the crucial part. Technology and society are always advancing, so the "status quo" is a moving target. The radical idea you fought for 10 years ago is today's baseline. This explains the classic phenomenon of the young radical becoming the "old conservative"—not because their beliefs changed, but because the world moved, and the "zero" of their youth is now deep in negative territory.
The Shifting Zero: A Mental Model for Navigating Change
In any boardroom, in any strategic planning session, and certainly in the public square, you see the same phenomenon: passionate people talking past each other. We throw around labels—progressive, conservative, innovative, legacy—as if they are definitive judgments. We get so caught up in the specifics of an issue that we fail to grasp the fundamental logic driving the disagreement.
This isn't just about politics; it's about the very nature of change. How do we decide when to leap into a new technology, and when to hold back? When is a change "progress," and when is it a reckless gamble?
If you approach these questions by analyzing dozens of individual issues, you’ll quickly get lost. You need a better mental model, a foundational logic for how we process change. I found a brilliant one in an old political science textbook by Leon Baradat, a framework so conceptually strong it applies to any era, any country, and, as I’ll argue, any business.
Anchoring to the Present: The Number Line of Change
First, we have to agree on a starting point. Every ideology, every strategy, is a response to the current state of affairs—the status quo. In a society, there's a general consensus on things like property rights, market rules, and the role of institutions. In a company, there's a consensus on the current tech stack, the workflow, and the business model.
Let's place this status quo at zero (0) on a number line.
This simple act of anchoring gives us a powerful new vocabulary. Any argument that the status quo is flawed and we must change to something new is a move to the left (the negative side of the number line). Any argument that the status quo is a degradation of a better past, and we must revert, is a move to the right (the positive side).
In this context, words like "progressive" (left-moving) and "reactionary" (right-moving) are stripped of their emotional baggage. They become neutral descriptors of direction relative to zero. This is critical. If you get hung up on the labels, you’ve already been manipulated.
A reactionary isn't automatically wrong. If a "progressive" change is implemented—say, a company goes all-in on a buggy, unproven software platform—and it causes a tenfold increase in critical failures, the argument to "go back to the old system" isn't inherently bad. It's a rational response to new data.
Conversely, a progressive isn't automatically right. They are simply advocating for a future state they believe will be better. Nobody pushes for a change they think will make things worse. The essence of progressivism is the belief that moving forward from zero is desirable.
The Real Debate: What's Your Speed?
Here’s where it gets interesting. In today's world, almost every mainstream debate in politics and business happens on the left side of the number line. Unless you are an absolutist arguing we should abandon modern technology and go back to farming with hand plows, you are, in a broad sense, on the side of progress.
The real conflict isn't if we should change, but how fast and how cautiously we should do it.
We can map the most common ideologies onto our number line, not as fixed points, but as different approaches to moving away from zero.
- Progressivism (-100): This view holds that change must be constant and accelerated. We must push from 0 to -50, then to -100, then -200, without stopping. Retreat is unacceptable. If some people can't keep up or if there are costs along the way, that is the necessary price of progress.
- Liberalism (-50): This perspective agrees that change is right, but it’s pragmatic. If we can get from 0 to -50 in one leap, great. But if there’s resistance, moving in stages—from 0 to -20, then to -40—is acceptable. Even a temporary retreat is fine, as long as the long-term trajectory is toward -50.
- Conservatism (-20): This is the ideology of steady, cautious reform. It agrees we must change, but only on a stable foundation. Let's move from 0 to -20, then stop and ensure society (or the company) can handle the consequences before considering the next step. If a crisis occurs, a rapid retreat isn't just an option; it's the responsible thing to do.
- Reactionism (+): This is the belief that change itself is the problem. The past was better. Whatever your -10 or -100 is, it’s a mistake. We must undo it all and move back into positive territory.
When you look at it this way, you realize that the fiercest arguments are often between people who fundamentally agree on the direction of progress but disagree violently on the acceptable pace and risk. The liberal sees the conservative as an obstacle, while the conservative sees the liberal as reckless.
The Golden Rule: The Zero Is Always Shifting
Now for the insight that changes everything. The status quo—our zero point—is not static.
In the past, technological change was slow. The "status quo" could last for a generation. Today, it shifts every few years. What was a radical, "progressive" idea a decade ago is now the baseline, the established "conservative" reality.
This explains a phenomenon that baffles us all: why the passionate young liberal so often becomes the cautious older conservative.
Let me give you a personal example. Thirty years ago, as a young professional, I was a "liberal" for advocating that every employee should have email. Fifty years ago, my mentors were "left-wing" radicals for demanding systemic changes in their industries.
Today, many of the very things we fought for are the bedrock of the modern world. They have become the new status quo. They are the new zero.
When I was at -50 on the number line and my mentor was at -70, we were pushing for change. But over the last 30 years, the entire societal coordinate system has shifted 30 points to the left. Suddenly, I'm at -20, and my mentor is at -40.
Relative to the new zero, the old liberal position now looks conservative. The old progressive stance now looks liberal. When a new generation comes along and proposes a radical change from the world we built, we, the builders of that world, naturally urge caution. We want to protect the progress we fought so hard to win.
We haven't changed our core values. We still believe in moving forward. But the ground has shifted beneath our feet. We fought for the goals that, through decades of effort, became the next generation's "normal."
So, the next time you find yourself in a heated debate about change, stop and ask yourself: Where is zero? Are we arguing about the destination, or are we just arguing about the speed of the journey? Understanding this framework won't solve all our disagreements, but it will make our conversations infinitely more intelligent.
