We have remarked that one reason offered for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow better.  But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse.  The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative.  The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact.  But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are.  But you do not.  If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change.  If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post.  If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution.  Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post.  But this which is true even of inanimate things is in a quite special and terrible sense true of all human things.  An almost unnatural vigilance is really required of the citizen because of the horrible rapidity with which human institutions grow old.  It is the custom in passing romance and journalism to talk of men suffering under old tyrannies.  But, as a fact, men have almost always suffered under new tyrannies; under tyrannies that had been public liberties hardly twenty years before.  Thus England went mad with joy over the patriotic monarchy of Elizabeth; and then (almost immediately afterwards) went mad with rage in the trap of the tyranny of Charles the First.  So, again, in France the monarchy became intolerable, not just after it had been tolerated, but just after it had been adored.  The son of Louis the well-beloved was Louis the guillotined.  So in the same way in England in the nineteenth century the Radical manufacturer was entirely trusted as a mere tribune of the people, until suddenly we heard the cry of the Socialist that he was a tyrant eating the people like bread.  So again, we have almost up to the last instant trusted the newspapers as organs of public opinion.  Just recently some of us have seen (not slowly, but with a start) that they are obviously nothing of the kind.  They are, by the nature of the case, the hobbies of a few rich men.  We have not any need to rebel against antiquity; we have to rebel against novelty.  It is the new rulers, the capitalist or the editor, who really hold up the modern world.  There is no fear that a modern king will attempt to override the constitution; it is more likely that he will ignore the constitution and work behind its back; he will take no advantage of his kingly power; it is more likely that he will take advantage of his kingly powerlessness, of the fact that he is free from criticism and publicity.  For the king is the most private person of our time.  It will not be necessary for any one to fight again against the proposal of a censorship of the press.  We do not need a censorship of the press.  We have a censorship by the press.