Both “Reaction” and “Progressivism” are vast umbrella concepts on whose definition no one can agree.
Both combine many very diverse ideas, and sometimes exactly who falls on what side will be exactly the point at issue.
[Edit 3/2014: I no longer endorse all the statements in this document.
I think many of the conclusions are still correct, but especially section 1 is weaker than it should be, and many reactionaries complain I am pigeonholing all of them as agreeing with Michael Anissimov, which they do not; this complaint seems reasonable.
Now that Michael has revealed the domains in which he is critiquing modern society, we can start to double-check them to see whether Progressivism has indeed sent everything to Hell in a handbasket. To support the Reactionary thesis, I will want to see long-term and unmistakeable negative trends in these indicators.
It is a staple of Reactionary thought that everything is getting gradually worse.
I will not require a completely monotonic downward trend, but neither will I accept a blip of one or two years in a generally positive trend as proving all modern civilization is bankrupt.
Likewise, if something has been getting worse in Britain but not the United States, or vice versa, that will not suffice either.
Reactionaries point out this is not the case, and actually see present society in a state of severe decline, pointing to historically high levels of crime, suicide, government and household debt, increasing time preference, and low levels of civic participation and self-reported happiness as a few examples of a current cultural and historical crisis.
Reactionaries usually avoid getting this specific, and with good reason.