“A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.”

--- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Yale Univ Press 2003/1859, p. 113), quoted by Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Pantheon 2012) , p. 294
Haidt's context:

In Chinese philosophy yin and yang refer to any pair of contrasting or seemingly opposed forces that are in fact complementary and interdependent. Night and day are not enemies, nor are hot and cold, summer and winter, male and female. We need both, often in a shifting or alternating balance. John Stuart Mill said that liberals and conservatives are like this: “A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.”

According to Haidt, the Mill quote continues: "Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.”

"efficiency is a political claim, a way of portraying a situation that makes some people or things look more important than others"

--- Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Third Edition 2011) p. 78

Framing excerpt:

In the library conundrum [taken from Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: Macmillan, 2nd ed. 1947), pp. 186-87] that opens this chapter, we saw that efficiency is a political claim, a way of portraying a situation that makes some people or things look more important than others. In the face of many different but equally plausible meanings of efficiency, we should doubt the very possibility of proving that one kind of social system leads to “the greatest good given our collective resources.”

[Efficiency] does not tell you where to go, but only that you should arrive there ... with the least effort

--- Aaron Wildavsky, Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis (1979) p. 131 via Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Third Edition 2011) p. 57

From the text:

Efficiency

Modern man has a deeply rooted belief that objectives should be attained at the lowest cost. Who can quarrel with that? But technical efficiency should never be considered in a vacuum. It does not tell you where to go, but only that you should arrive there (or go part of the way) with the least effort. The great questions are: efficiency for whom and for what? Some goals (destroying other nations in nuclear war, decreasing the living standards of the poverty-stricken in order to benefit the wealthy) one does not wish achieved at all, let alone efficiently. Efficiency, therefore, raises once more the prior question of objectives.

Stress on efficiency assumes agreed-upon objectives. Knowledge of the general welfare, to which the plan is supposed to contribute, turns out to be one of its major assumptions. Without this knowledge, planners would have no legitimacy to tell others what part they should play in this grand scheme.

"We are all in this together; therefore, we must all be responsible" vs. "... we need to help each other out"

--- Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, a London-based think tank, quoted in CS Monitor  "Is Europe really on the brink" 29 October 2012, page 5.

A fascinating contrast of views of responsibility vs. solidarity, framed here as the German vs. Southern perspectives. The "we must all be responsible" view would be the Conservative response in the US, and "we need to help each other out" would be the Progressive one. From the article:

"There is no conviction yet that Germany is willing to commit to the kind of mutualization of debt that is fundamental to the survival of the euro," says Dr. Niblett at Chatham House. "They define Europe's collective responsibility rather than solidarity. That means: 'We are all in this together; therefore, we must all be responsible,' not, 'We are all in this together, so we need to help each other out.' Making that transition from the former to the latter has not yet happened in Germany."