Originally Posted by custar
To me, classical conservatism is fairly close to what you described; slow to change, favoring upholding traditions and customs. I can see where hierarchical would come in, but mostly because for some time that had been the state of political organization at the time of our Revolution. Also to me, conservatism is more the opposite of progressivism than classical liberalism.
My understanding of Tradition is that it is a hierarchical structure. Take the Code of Manu as a good example. The Middle Ages is another. The Green concept of the Chain of being reflects this as well. I know of a few oriental systems of tradition, who's names escape me, that follow the hierarchical train of thought.
I'm hesitant to agree that it is slow to change. It merely appears that way because Tradition is always a priori - preceding from an ontological objective order. The validity is not the point so much as it is the understanding of what the opposite of progressivism is.
Anyway. "The Natural Aristocracy" is a rather illuminating correspondence with insight into our origins that I think is sorely missed. Right from the start we were torn between what we call progressivism and conservatism. If anything, in my mind that is, classical liberalism is either an infant or a chimera. Your choice.