If only facts followed fantasy. In his Brussels address, Obama was actually lauding ideals of democracy, equality and liberty. Portraying Europe as the origin of modern liberalism, the president spoke of a continuing conflict between tolerant, free suffrage and bigoted tyranny. "We must never take for granted the progress that has been won here in Europe and advanced around the world," he told audiences, "because the contest of ideas continues for your generation."

Obviously, this did not silence Obama's critics, for whom universal healthcare, for example, is at odds with freedom. Commenters on Glenn Beck's conservative website theblaze.com responded to a fact-check story on Obama's speech with scorn. "He may not have said it, BUT HE BELIEVES IT," said one. "We were doing fine until he came into office with world vision," said another, "meaning either communism and/or Islam since we know he is a Muslim of the worst order!" And so on.

Interestingly, and for all their righteous fury, none of Obama's critics questioned the basic idea of progress. Conservatives often lambaste progressives, but this is usually shorthand for social democrats, liberals, left-wingers - "nothing more than patient communists," as Beck told the David Horowitz Freedom Centre. They take issue with movements towards tolerance and state welfare, but not with the US, and perhaps the world, moving towards some ideal state. "Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose," said George W. Bush, "set by the hand of a just and faithful God."

Conservatives have no monopoly on this kind of belief in progress. Whether as divine providence, manifest destiny, enlightenment or "the right side of history" - a phrase used by Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as Greens and Labor politicians in Australia - the idea lives on.

Importantly, this is not simply the idea that things can get better - or small 'p' progress This idea is also more complicated than it looks. Better for whom? Every judgment of this sort implies some standard, which not everyone will share. Better for any liberal humanists reading this column is unlikely to be better for IS thugs. Progress, in other words, involves some commitment to value, and values are in conflict.

But even if a consensus on political ideals existed (and on how to achieve them), progress would still be a dubious notion. This is because it is often conceived as a necessity: things must get better. Capital 'P' Progress. History is moving a certain way, and political opponents ought to recognise this, and get in line.

This is less a scientific prediction - because there is rarely any evidence to accompany the claim - and more a polemical tool. Instead of arguing for the merits of a policy or institution, we take its rightness for granted, and then slander our enemies for getting in the way.

One obvious problem with this is that, often enough, our opponents also have grand narratives of their own - stories of falls from grace or technological betterment that are at odds with ours. And they can equally say: "No, you get in line". In other words, political debate ceases to be a careful negotiation of reasonable but mutually exclusive claims (if it ever was), and becomes a clash of rival phantasms.

The point is not that we can somehow talk our way out of conflict. Quite the opposite. What the "right side of history" argument assumes is that society, for all its pathos and farce, has some single and desirable goal; or that all genuinely good ends are necessarily harmonious. But strife is endemic to the political realm, and not only because some politicians are venal or ignorant. Every civilisation is, at its best, an ongoing argument about what it has been, is, and will be - and what it ought to be.

If there is to be small 'p' progress, it will be partly because we are brave enough to leave Progress behind.

Dr Damon Young is a Melbourne philosopher and author. He has written a longer essay on progress for the latest New Philosopher magazine.