“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal and if they are equal, they are not free.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Three words; science, history and freedom. One concept; the unalienable rights of man. Redefine the former and deny the latter and you have America as she is today, a broken reed. The fundamental beliefs of the founders of the nation no longer hold sway and, if we're honest, they haven't for at least fifty years. Any conservative that argues that a certain law or policy is 'unconstitutional' is either naïve or in the habit of gaslighting you, as a significant amount of political business is unconstitutional in the sense that it violates the principles that infuse the Constitution, rather than merely being incompatible with its wording . By that measure, little about what currently constitutes the legal and social fabric of the US is constitutional; to fulminate about yet one more abomination is not useful unless it is part of an ongoing exposé, a continuing unmasking of the Progressive agenda.
The purpose of this article is twofold: firstly, to attempt an explanation of the journey from there to here; from concepts that articulated an understanding of man and his nature and structures that strove to codify those ideas in the most effective, far sighted way to a morass of unanchored, relativist dogma which elevates an intellectual (hypothetical) view of man's nature; ever changing history is our only guide and that history is made by our elites. And secondly, on the back of that, to explain why the left does what it does and what it is going to keep doing.
It's the journey that the Founders feared, that they tried to prevent by their enumeration of the separation of powers. The Progressives, lacking the ability to raise their eyes from their collective navel, fail to see that their actions in destroying the Constitution via the medium of denying the existence of natural rights, have entirely proved the Founders point. They are the growing tyranny that was foreseen.
Science is now also opinions and hypotheses, not the quest for and acquisition of knowledge. History is now a process, not a record of the past. On its own, this latter concept doesn't sound overly radical; after all, each moment that passes becomes history. But the new theory holds that nothing from the past has any permanence, so this also includes values and principles. The logical extension of this belief is that the past has nothing to teach us, that there is no guiding morality and hence no prudential application of same. Man and his ethical universe is, allegedly, constantly evolving and there is nothing that remains with us for the entire journey. As for freedom, well, that now means collective will, the inevitable result of the fusion of history and science and the knowledge accrued from that mix, although 'collective' has come to be defined rather narrowly. Very narrowly, in fact, according as it does to the experts or elites alone. Welcome to the Progressive universe.
Nonetheless, on its face, even the most jaundiced eye should be able to see at least some sense in some of this belief system. For instance, it is reasonable to say that science and history, under the old definitions at least, are part of what informs man's decisions in the present. It's what we would call experience or wisdom, although that would imply judgement which would, in turn, imply the use of some sort of pre-existing criteria, which sounds uncomfortably like morality – which doesn't, of course, exist. While acknowledging the existence of these choppy ideological waters, it's undeniable that man's principles and ethical behavior have evolved (or become more refined) over the millennia rather than remaining completely static, although it's also true to say that our Judaeo-Christian tradition has been with us for two thousand years or more. So, it's not as though there isn't a kernel of truth in anything the Progressives espouse and it would be counter-productive to claim otherwise.
Additionally, a degree of skepticism and a questioning of assumed authority should be welcomed. Strength can be derived from re-examining, testing and renewing principles and some can, as a consequence, be shown to be proven theory, not just beliefs founded in faith to the exclusion of evidence. Genuine sciences such as psychology have pored over every facet of the human condition and provided ballast for certain beliefs. For example, whether one accepts that, objectively, nobody can prove the philosophical point that all men are created equal, it can be shown that to believe so and to be accorded such a status by others is fundamental to man's happiness.
Progressive thought, by contrast, is purely theoretical; it is a particular reading of history and a future that is predicated on the exercise of will alone. It is not based on any understanding of human nature; indeed, it refuses to acknowledge the existence of an unchanging human nature. Human nature is infinitely malleable, changing with each epoch. Nonetheless, Progressivism has the social sciences to give it legitimacy. Every ideology needs intellectual backing, even if it is spurious and theoretical and the social sciences are certainly that, especially so as they were created by the same ideologues that subsequently used their 'science' to authenticate their beliefs; a somewhat circular process. Even so, theory still can't be shown to be fact without an intervening process to make it so.
If a theory, a working hypothesis, is derived from an observation of practical outcomes (i.e. real life), it is worthy of exploration, but it still needs to be tested and evidence needs to be accumulated. The idea is to demonstrate whether the theory holds water, whether it is the only viable explanation, or not. That is the scientific method. Regrettably, that is not the Progressive method, even though 'science' is so important to them. They have come at it from a different direction.
It is rare that a theory is plucked from the air, with nothing to recommend it other than possibilities, and then adopted in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary and in the absence of any empirical evidence recommending it (as it is not tested in real life), but that's what we have with the Progressive movement. For future reference, if you have a theory which appeals to a certain type of personality and you also have deep pockets, you too can legitimize your belief by creating a simulacrum of science around it and claiming that it is proven; just like Bill Gates.
* * *
I digress. Although the source of our value system is biblical, the Founders did not deem it wise to derive their authority from God, to place religion at the heart of the Constitution, no doubt as a consequence of studying previous regimes and their propensity for serious discord resulting from the factional behavior of competing beliefs. Nonetheless, most fundamental was the belief that all men are created equal. It is easy to hold this to be self evident without following it through logically. A natural or unalienable right is a right that is present at birth; it is not a right that is granted by anyone or anything, including government. If it is not given, it cannot be limited or taken away. It just is. This has some important implications.
It follows that it is the principles that lie behind the Constitution that constitute hallowed ground. Defending the Constitution, per se, is not where the battle should be fought. Conservative politicians fall into this trap repeatedly, whether by accident or design, but the Constitution itself is flawed, specifically by the contradiction inherent in an assertion that all people are created equal and a simultaneous protection of slaveholders' property interest in fellow human beings. Any defense of it, based solely on its status as a legal document or in terms of its language will founder on accusations of racism (at the very least) and it is incoherent to claim otherwise.
That is not to deny the wisdom of its totality, but an acknowledgement of its imperfection is necessary. This is especially so as it goes to the heart of the Progressive argument in favor of denying its legitimacy, not just in terms of racism. If one claims that this contradiction is a product of its time, one would play directly into their hands, for their view (specifically of the Constitution, but of many other truths too) is that it is a merely a record of a moment in time, an impermanent document detailing contemporary morality that holds no particular value as it has been superseded by the passage of History.
Moving the philosophical ramparts back to principles illuminates the difference between natural rights and the practical application of same; one can argue about how best to make the principles flesh, but not about what they are. And the how is constrained by the what and mustn't overstep its bounds. As a result, powers and limitations to government are easily determined. It is possible to understand that there are permanent values and ephemeral policies. If one believes that man is born with rights and also created equal to all other men, there are some necessary conclusions to draw, specifically in the field of governance. However,
“when the principles that establish the legitimacy of the constitution are understood to be changeable, are forgotten, or are denied, the constitution can no longer impose limits on the power of government.”(1)
* * *
Limited government, in the spirit of constitutional politics, is based around the idea of protecting individual rights and property. Conversely, the Progressives hold that this could only be a negative view of freedom. This is a measure of the level at which the movement has perverted the use of language. To most people, the exercise of freedom is a concept that is equally applicable to the individual as it is to the collective. Somehow, this no longer applies. Progressives believe that individuals can only become free when they exercise their will on behalf of the group. It's another of those theories that stands unencumbered by logic, another example of taking the philosophical steps two at a time.
There is no empirical evidence to support it, despite the fact that the Progressives worship at the altar of empiricism. There is, in fact, plenty of evidence to show that whilst 'tribal' membership is a natural, human want, subsuming one's entire identity in the group is psychologically harmful. Additionally, if we are to be categorized on the basis of our group identity, there will inevitably be conflict. A group must be defined in opposition to another group.
It must also follow that, if the group is more important than the individual and we are to be judged on a group basis, our individual conduct loses importance. This is not a recipe for enhanced self esteem, because individuals matter less, but it is a get out of jail free card if you belong to the right group. So, in their usual simplistic fashion, Progressives dispensed with complexity and imperfection and plumped for the group over the individual, retrospectively justifying it with pseudo-scientific, academic verbiage.
Most importantly, the denial of individuality removes, at a stroke, an acceptance of man's natural rights. If the group is to be new unit of personal currency, and the state is to be viewed as the ultimate group, true freedom can only be achieved in the service of the state, the alleged embodiment of the people's will. And a state bureaucracy has to be the means of implementation.
Of course, each person is a member of a number of different groups, so some groups would have to be more equal than others. In the Progressive view of History, race and class came to predominate, probably due to the influence of early twentieth century European intellectuals, who shared the Marxist analysis of economic and social conflict (and the doctrine of social justice which held that the state is the entity charged with resolving that conflict). And the reason for the inequality, at that time, was the alleged inferiority of certain people or races; remember, the evolution of the human race was believed to be scientifically explicable, not just in the biological sphere (as demonstrated by Darwin), but also in the political and social. Charles Merriam, a prominent advocate of Progressive theory stated:
“...not only are men created unequal … but this very inequality must be regarded as one of the essential conditions of human progress.… This fundamental fact that individuals or races are unequal is not an argument against, but rather in favor of, social and political advancement. Liberty is not derived from the natural equality of all men, but is the reward of the races who have contributed most to human progress.”(2)
* * *
It is notable that the belief in the inferiority of the black race, in particular, was unabashedly Progressive. Slavery was held to be a blight, primarily because it was anachronistic, not because it was inherently wrong. Black Americans wouldn't have been slaves if they weren't feeble enough to become slaves in the first place. That was the judgement of History but, instead of possessing them as property, a more altruistic and enlightened approach would be to redress the errors of the past, not by acknowledging the slaves' natural rights but, by an effort of collective will, reversing the tide and according them more rights than others. To Progressives, this is not illogical. They don't see it as a prime example of two wrongs making a right, because that moral universe has no validity to them.
Positive Discrimination is the outcome, commensurate with this view. Civil Rights legislation from the sixties onward, welfare policy over the same period and the increasingly nonsensical proclamations about social justice and reparations of the present day are all examples of an unequal application of 'justice'. Because it has become the orthodoxy, because the belief is that there is a need to make up for the sins of the past, instead of leveling the playing field there is a desire (on behalf of Progressives) to give preference to previously disadvantaged or excluded groups, plus some new ones more modern in character.
But the thorny issue of the meaning of equality is as alive today as it was then; we recognize it in the familiar contours of the equality of opportunity or equality of outcome argument. As previously understood, equality meant that every man had equal opportunity to make something of himself and equal rights under the law. Because of this, it was inevitable that there would be differences, in achievement at least. To be free was to be different.
“Thus, social inequality, which grows out of the differences inherent in the faculties of men, is a necessary outcome of a free society.”(3)
But, if quality of outcome is the desired end state, there is a need to gerrymander the social system, because that outcome will not occur naturally. And, gerrymandering requires power over every aspect of society, because without it there will be too many uncontrolled variables.
Ordinarily, it would be difficult to comprehend how a philosophy, diametrically opposed to the one enshrined in the documents that are the lode stone of the republic, came to be adopted without so much as a whimper. However, this transformation occurred largely outside the political process. It was a product of academia and the elites that existed in those spheres. It wasn't explicitly stated to the people in terms that would explain what may be lost as well as what may be gained.
Still, according to Progressive ideology, there is an upside. Because the strain of individuality has been removed, and because the 'social mind' is now free of any constraints applied by natural or moral behavior (because the principle behind natural rights has been denied, so has any moral matrix that encoded them), it will seek scientific truth. The evolving will of the people will establish intellectual and moral foundations for what is permissible in any particular epoch until it is time to move on again.
So, we have gone from immutable principles, inherent moral qualities, by which men are guided and from which those same men have derived a constitution, and a government which is there to serve the people by making the Constitution flesh, to a world in which the fact of everyone possessing free will is a problem, not a blessing, where there are no permanent moral markers and the solution to the challenge of the individual/group dynamic is to plump for one over the other whilst establishing the state rather than the people as the ultimate power.
And the Constitution? As soon as it came to be viewed as a collection of laws, rather than an exposition of guiding principles, it became subjective. And as soon as it became subjective, it became about will and judgement, not principle. If you give up reason, you give up the right to rule yourself, because those immutable rights (arrived at by a process of reason) are gone – now it is the state's responsibility to establish what, today, constitutes right and wrong, what the law means, what is acceptable and what isn't, because now it's all relative and the process of history is teaching us new knowledge all the time.
* * *
And so to the New Deal era and FDR's explicit redefinition of the American regime; the government defines the social compact and the people give the government power, so that they may receive rights in return. This interpretation, which has been accepted by political friend and foe alike since the 1930s, utterly changes the balance of consent. It now becomes the job of government to give the people rights, whether economic or social. It abolishes the gap between public and private and allows the government into every area of the citizens' lives.
If the state was to take on these increased responsibilities (which it had actively sequestered), the government would need to acquire some expertise. Being involved in every aspect of society is complicated. Thus, the technical expertise of the state became established, not to implement the actual will of the people, because the ground had shifted; the people had given the government permission to define the limits of their rights, even if it didn't immediately appear so and it is the government who will, henceforth, utilize the administrative state to those ends.
These experts, by becoming involved in the furtherance of a political goal, are no longer merely academics; they are inevitable partisan, as their increased power and continued employment are now dependent on maintaining the system. In the present day, it's no accident that all the solutions to our ills are technological; the internet of things, 5G, vaccine passports, a cashless society. All these are viewed by the elites as inevitable human progress.
There is a general tendency, in many people, to obsess about the process while losing sight of the ends, forgetting that the process is subordinate to the ends, merely useful as signposting. If the system gets in the way of achieving the ends, it needs to be revised or rejected. But we all know people who like the certainty of the process, who lack the confidence to use it as a guide rather than something to be slavishly obeyed – these are the perfect foot-soldiers of the administrative state. Unquestioning, earnest, accepting of authority, with fewer questions than answers.
The left (interchangeable with the Progressives with a capital P, although both Democrats and Republicans have come to terms with a political universe defined by progressivism; it's only a question of how to achieve ends that separates them now) places huge store in legality. Laws are passed by an act of will and, if that happens, it was meant to happen as part of the unstoppable momentum of History. But these laws stand alone; they have no automatic legitimacy, they don't require a foundation in any external morality, because no such thing exists any more. They acquire whatever faux legitimacy they have from the rational state, but there is nothing permanent anchoring them; just the shifting 'will of the people', code for the elites supposedly acting in their name.
When Progressives talk about the Constitution, claiming that whatever policy or legislation that they are currently touting is not in breach, you can be sure that they don't care either way. They are saying what they believe they have to say, sparing your sensibilities. Progressivism is anti-constitutional, the antithesis of an appeal to the nature of man. You can also be sure that, if it is significant legislation, it WILL be unconstitutional, whether in terms of the dry law contained within the Constitution's pages or in terms of the principles that underlie it.
“...for the Progressives, the human problem, as well as the political-theological problem, is theoretically and practically soluble in a technical or rational way. In their view, nature, and the human problems understood in terms of nature, including politics and religion, must be transcended on a higher plane, one that makes it possible to ameliorate human problems scientifically, within the framework of the rational state.”(4)
And, since the Civil Rights Act and the creation of an alphabetic soup of federal agencies, the state has been on a mission to prove the truth of the adage, 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile'. Intrusion into the private sphere has continued apace, accelerating at times of crisis (Patriot Act, Covid tyranny), most of it driven by the bureaucracies rather than the legislative chamber; 'guidance' and regulation have assumed a quasi-legal standing, despite the fact that an unelected, administrative fourth branch of government is the body responsible for the issuance of such missives.
Ultimately, in the Progressive mind, there will be no continued need for politics, because there will be no further room for debate of the rational. The experts define the rational and they are the ones implementing it. In their view, the bureaucratic state is the most efficient means of providing for the people. Not only is energy wasted in politicking and debate, there are really no grounds for debate once the science has spoken. There is no recognition that the term 'social sciences' is oxymoronic, that there is nothing scientific about political theory. There is no grounding in the study of the nature of man, of any degree of overarching morality, just a denial that such a thing exists.
* * *
It isn't just the redefinition of important concepts or the theoretical nature of Progressivism that gives pause; it is internal contradictions, also. Man has supposedly dragged himself up by the bootstraps, by an effort of will and he differs from the animals because of that fact and it is this will that has been exercised throughout History and is the basis for creating the future. But Darwinism taught that evolution was, in large part, an involuntary process of adaption. Progressives, far from repudiating Darwin's work, instead seized upon it as scientific proof of their theories. Additionally,
“postmodern intellectuals have pronounced their historical judgement on America's past, finding it to be morally indefensible. Every great human achievement of the past...came to be understood as a kind of exploitation of the powerless.”(5)
There seems to be some confusion here, a partial repudiation of their own belief system. If man's moral journey is sequential, it is reasonable to claim that the moral positions taken today are superior to those of yesteryear. Nonetheless, if History is to be our mistress and succeeding epochs are merely tweaks of man's moral compass, how do we have the right to judge the past in contemporary moral terms? That would imply that future generations could find fault with today's progressives, which doesn't sit well with their overweening arrogance. And how did the Progressives get from a belief in the inequality of man (manifested in their insistence that the black man was inferior to the white man) and a concomitant acceptance of the morality of slavery, to a visceral denial of History's right to practice evolution?
* * *
There are two main ways of interpreting Progressive actions today. Either they have revised their beliefs as regards racial inequality (and economic inequality, as a result) and now believe that the black man is just as capable as the white man (which doesn't seem likely, given their continued fixation), or they still believe in inequality but now suffer from an excess of altruism, a need to over-correct which they are insistent on inflicting on the rest of us.
It's not enough to claim that all lives matter, because it demonstrates an adherence to the old moral order, to equality as previously understood. And because the Progressives cannot conceive that they could be wrong, anyone that opposes their view of the world is automatically a racist. This is why Ibram Kendi and the anti racist message is lauded. Old morality doesn't exist for them; there is no external mechanism that measures or guides them. It's about will defining History – their will. If they succeed, then it must be moral because it wouldn't succeed unless it was.
Any ideology that relies on the will of the group (or the self appointed representative of the group) to define morality is going to run into problems. It puts one in mind of Biden's infamous reply, when asked about China's oppression of the Uyghurs; apparently, he was unable to offer any objective criticism; cultural differences were the cause, as China has different values when compared to the West. Different, not reprehensible.
However, if you acknowledge no external, non-malleable morality and believe, instead, that History decides what is morally acceptable, then it makes sense. After all, the Uyghurs are on the wrong side of History. As a result of that, they have been shown to be inferior and, whilst America might view their subjugation as anachronistic and would urge a more altruistic approach, it's really none of our business.
Anybody seeing this dilemma, or any other, through eyes that accept natural, unalienable rights is wrong. Science has shown it to be wrong. Morality is to be established by the will, developed within the structure of the state; what is not mentioned is that the will is that of the elites, not the people.
For instance, if will, as defined by the elites, has decided that using the Earth's resources is immoral, then lying and cheating to stop it is not immoral in its stead. If you have studied the premise of Global Warming, read the detail of the IPCC reports (rather than the Executive Summaries), marveled at the epic hypocrisy of elites jetting around the world whilst preaching about the dangers of carbon dioxide, you will know that it is highly improbable that otherwise intelligent people believe that the Earth is on course for unstoppable Global Warming. The 'crisis' is merely a tool to be wielded and it's not immoral to lie about it, because it serves a deeper purpose and that purpose is moral....according to them.
If Covid can be used in furtherance of their agenda, then the manifold inconsistencies and outright deception that have characterized the government's response are justified. Anybody who is not seized by revolutionary fervor, who still possesses an ability to think critically, knows that both these engineered 'crises' are a means to an end. Whilst there are undoubtedly earnest drones who are true believers, the reality is that, for the elites, it's about homogeneity and control.
The same goes for any number of other modern issues. Conservatives are befuddled, outraged that the left won't condemn the likes of Maxine Waters for stirring up rioters, or Kamala Harris, while a Vice Presidential running mate, providing public backing for a fund that bailed out rioters and other assorted criminals. It's not that the left are behaving in a deliberately evil way; they just don't accept the same moral code. Burning, looting and attacking random citizens and law enforcement is not inherently wrong, in their eyes. They are dictating what current morality should be, not succumbing to some historically outdated metric that conservatives subscribe to. And, what's more, it's not a live and let live choice.
There's no such thing as neutral; if you're not actively with them, you are automatically against them. The same mentality applies to election fraud, defunding the police and any kind of identity politics. Progressives just don't view things through the same prism, frightening though that realization is. Anything goes, as long as it is in the service of whatever cause the ideology has alighted on; morality is determined by the victors.
So, do not expect anything that accords with traditional morality. Don't expect the media or the courts to ride to the rescue; they won't either, because they are either believers or because they have seen what happens to dissenters and want no part of it. Progressives are arrogant and vindictive; they know they are acting in everyone's best interests; it's just that they haven't asked them lately, but what would be the point, anyway? The state, with its vast reservoir of expertise and 'scientific' knowledge, knows best.
It's why they are often remarkably open about their plans. They know they're right, they know they are making the rules, they know they have the power and they know they won't be help accountable. They have no self awareness; they don't realize that they are the living embodiment of the unscientific, paragons of confirmation bias. Start at the end state (as ideology dictates), work backwards cherry picking evidence as you go, deny the existence of contra-indicators and dissemble shamelessly when challenged.
Any political action that involves misleading people, provided it's not undertaken as damage limitation, has to spring from a well of arrogance. Not only do you know best, but you are not going to demean yourself by subjecting yourself to any form of questioning. It's why leftists rarely want to debate the merits of their case – an ad hominem response is more appropriate, not necessarily because they don't believe they could make their case if they had to, but because of the utter contempt they have for anyone who disagrees with them.
* * *
Progressivism is not compatible with the Constitution. How can it be? How can a theory of History which holds that principles are impermanent possibly co-exist with beliefs that are the polar opposite? And, by extension, how could any policy act in furtherance of constitutionalism unless it simultaneously serves the Progressive cause?
The Progressives acknowledge no opposing view; it's not just that they don't accept the validity of any belief that doesn't echo their own, it's that they cannot conceive of it. 'Science' and the rational state are the only explanation that can make sense. Organised intelligence, or bureaucracy, is the only viable solution. The Progressives are marked out by their vehemence. There have been, and still are, many philosophical viewpoints, all of which believe they are right, but only the Progressives seem to have a pathological need to impose their view on others.
There seems to be more to the movement than merely the ideas; there seems to be particular character types that are drawn to the ideology, people with some form of pathology, perhaps. Those with a need to dominate or people cursed with an overabundance of empathy, but lacking an equally generous measure of fairness and proportionality. There is an arrogance and vengefulness that is deeply unattractive.
The need to mandate speaks to a fundamental pessimism about the human condition, whether it is presented as an extension of altruism or not. It presupposes that man could not get there of his own volition. Of course, the Progressive might argue that they are filling a place in history, they are an agent of change. That it is because of them that man WILL accomplish advancement and that we shouldn't think of this process pessimistically. But it still demonstrates arrogance; that the common man needs a helping hand from an elite, who knows better.
* * *
And so, to today. Distinctions need to be made. The Constitution is not holy writ. It is informed by principle; in that sense (and if the phrase were not already loaded with political meaning), it could be said to be a 'living document'. It describes the system to be utilized to most effectively realize the foundational beliefs. But an amendment which dilutes or neuters those principles is not an enhancement; and any amendment proposed by a Progressive will, by definition, be intended to do just that.
Progressivism (or historicism), on the other hand, is a sociopath's charter – the future will be what I will it to be and, what's more, there is no moral metric to judge me by. The loudest person in the room dictating what is right and what is wrong and later claiming that history has vindicated them by allowing their vision to happen. What it is, is what it was always meant to be. Progressivism takes the joy out of life. If everything I do must further the success of my group in the state, life does not hold the potential for a great deal of fun.
And it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The pathological altruism has taken a sinister turn lately. The most recent example, the response to the Covid 'pandemic' is a case in point. If we ignore claim and counterclaim and focus on what has actually taken place, there has been a massive redistribution of wealth, from the middle class to either the elites or the state. The likes of Bezos, Musk, Gates et al have seen their wealth grow by the hundreds of billions, collectively, while over 100,000 small businesses have closed permanently.
The government has dished out welfare checks to all and sundry, most of whom did not need the cash. There are new taxes on inheritance that will further decimate the property owning class and hikes in corporation tax that will inevitably trickle down to the consumer, as all such taxes have done historically. There will be a massive expansion of the welfare state. We have a tendency to prescribe altruistic (albeit misguided) motivation to Socialists who like to spend other people's money. However, this time, it's occurring in combination with other events.
The unemployment rate is over 6% while, simultaneously, there are a plethora of job vacancies because people are being paid more in welfare checks to stay at home. Inflation is running at 6% (which would be nearer 11% under traditional metrics); money is worth less, which is especially galling if you are working hard to earn it. More and more people are becoming financially dependent on the state and the two 'infrastructure bills' just need a majority to pass the Senate. The future is being mortgaged to fulfill a Progressive agenda that has very little to do with helping ordinary Americans.
* * *
In order to fight the enemy, it's necessary to first understand him – not just to recognize his actions, but to figure out the motivation behind them, to see what might come next, to probe for weaknesses. Progressives aren't evil in the traditional sense; they are arrogant, venal, intellectually dishonest and willfully obtuse. In order to arrive at the socialist nirvana that is their version of equality, they are not invested in the concept of rising tides lifting all boats. Their joyless vision works, instead, by using the lowest common denominator as a marker. It's an ideology that suits a personality type, the type that worships care above all other virtues - without leavening it with fairness and proportionality - and that is evangelical enough to push it on the rest of us.
There is absolutely no point in expecting anything to go the way it should. Everything, including the law, is up for grabs. If it doesn't fit the agenda, it won't get enforced. Justice, in the traditional sense, will not prevail and we will be presented with an infuriating cocktail of inconsistency and blatant unfairness. This shouldn't be news as it's already happening.
There is no point engaging them on the micro level, partly because it would mean competing on their terms, conferring legitimacy to their creed and partly because they won't engage with you on matters of detail, anyway. It has to be as macro as it gets and that means targeting the very foundations of their beliefs which are intellectually shaky and which remain unexposed to the majority of Americans who still subscribe to their own version of an external, moral code. Some people are instinctively opposed to what they see from the left; others, less conservative in outlook, must be shown what they are enabling by their insouciance or unthinking adherence to a particular way of voting. The only way back from the precipice is a reaffirmation of the values that were behind the Constitution – that of natural rights.
“We are faced with a new kind of incredulity—one that prevents men from believing in the old things of which they no longer have any experience. It has become far easier for modern man to accept change as something normal, almost natural. What has become difficult to understand, let alone preserve, are things that are unchanging or eternal.”(6)
Time is pressing. Political conservatism was captured by the Progressives decades ago and a generation has never known anything other than change for change's sake and moral relativism. They cannot be expected to treasure something they have never known, which we haven't had the courage to fight for. So it's incumbent on those of us who can still remember what proper freedom looks like. Being afraid of the mob is pointless; they are going to attack anyone who isn't sufficiently woke, anyway, so we may as well get it over with. And there is strength in numbers. Picking off individuals is much easier than demolishing a united group. It'll be an uphill battle, as the enemy has much power, and it's worth remembering that while“men... think in herds... they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”(7) But we must believe it can be won.
Citations
Marini, John. Unmasking the Administrative State (p.13)
Merriam, Charles. A history of American Political Theories, (pgs. 311-312)
Marini, John. Unmasking the Administrative State (p. 88-89)
Marini, John. Unmasking the Administrative State (p. 230)
Marini, John. Unmasking the Administrative State (p.31-32)
Marini, John. Unmasking the Administrative State (p. 36)
McKay, Charles. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.