What is it about the left that allows it to do things like excuse Maxine Waters' rabble rousing, propose HR1 and scold the nation with a choice of vax or mask? How is it that they can promote anti-racism, which is the polar opposite of what it purports to be? Well, it's because they're Progressives, aren't they? But that explanation, whilst accurate, is still not terribly helpful because nobody in conservative circles seems to know what it really means.
Fundamentally, Progressives are not like any other group of people. They don't inhabit the same moral universe as the rest of us; it's not even close. A large majority of Americans subscribe to a moral code that is explicitly or implicitly founded on Judeo-Christian values. They acknowledge the existence of right and wrong, of natural rights that are present at birth and which never leave us. They believe that the Constitution, imperfect though it may be, embodies principles that are immutable.
Progressives don't believe any of that; not one single part. They don't believe that there is anything permanent about morality. To them, history teaches that morals change with the times and are dependent on the will of the people. What is considered acceptable in one epoch may be beyond the pale in the next. There are no fixed points.
It follows that, if the moral universe is fluid, our rights are humans may be, too. And , indeed, they are. To the Progressive, talk of natural rights is retrograde, a view that held sway in former times, but which has been superseded by a morality than heeded the lessons of history. Nowadays, it is the group, not the individual, which is the primary unit of social currency. If one pursues their logic further, we arrive at a place where anything that champions an opposing view, such as the Constitution, is irrelevant. It's only use is as a historical document, a record of what constituted received wisdom two and a half centuries ago.
This ideology, radical though it may seem, is permitted to coexist in a free society. Live and let live, after all. And if that was the end of it, this article wouldn't have been written. But, regrettably, Progressives don't believe in freedom either or, at least, not in the way that the rest of us do. In their world, they have 'science' and 'history' on their side and 'freedom' can only be achieved via the exercise of 'will' on behalf of the people.
None of these words mean what they used to mean. Science now includes hypotheses as proven fact and the correct political theory is no longer mere philosophy. History has been upgraded; rather than simply being an account of the past, it has become a living process from which the informed can discern patterns that will guide us to a glorious future (mostly), provided we follow our intellectual elites. Lately, unfortunately, we have erred in our treatment of those less fortunate than ourselves, those born with a racial or economic disadvantage, for which we must make reparations.
It doesn't sound much like an ideology that will be content playing second fiddle and so it has proved. With its roots in Rousseau, via Marx, Hegel and the Frankfurt School, it has wormed its way through academia and into political life in a much more pervasive way than most people seem to realize. It is also not recent; Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive, as were two of the other three candidates in the 1912 presidential election.
Psychologically, its adherents tend to hail from the histrionic end of the behavioral spectrum – they are not shy but they are easily offended and pathologically altruistic. So, a Constitution that is diametrically opposed to their views cannot be left unmolested. It must be undermined and ignored. Tactically, it may not be wise to be too open about that (at least, not yet), but emphasizing its flaws and mischaracterising it solely as a legal document will do the job in the meantime.
The 'will' of the people, as exercised by the state, is the only thing that matters to them. Incidentally, you may wonder how it is that the state became the behemoth that it is. You can thank FDR for that, as it was he that explicitly redefined the relationship between the individual and the state. Natural rights became granted rights, the individual became the group, small government became big and as groups can only be defined in opposition to each other, someone needs to be in charge of it all; big government got even bigger.
* * *
Imagine having the freedom to do what you think is right without any blow-back; without any moral metric to restrain you. Better yet, imagine how psychologically nourishing it must be to believe you are acting on behalf of humanity. Delusional, yes; but also gratifying. And if right and wrong are malleable concepts, capable of redefinition via the will of the people (for people, read Progressive elites), then it's a societal free for all. Whatever advances the cause is justifiable, no matter how toxic or asinine it may seem to the rest of us.
Which brings us full circle. What they do and say doesn't have to make sense in any traditional sense. It just has to work in accordance with their own internal logic. So, if BLM or Antifa are bringing socialist nirvana closer, then whatever it is that they do is justifiable. If HR1, far from advancing electoral fairness actually enshrines in law what the left is already doing and ensures that they can cheat to win in perpetuity it cannot, by definition, be reprehensible. And, Kendi's advocacy of anti-racism aligns perfectly with their belief system, as it sanctifies revenge racism as the chosen method of balancing the historical scales.
All this genuinely makes sense to the radical left. They cannot conceive that they may be wrong, cannot countenance the possibility that another viewpoint may have one iota of validity. We need to understand the way that they think, rather than hyperventilating every time they plumb new depths. At present, mainstream conservative commentary is helping nobody. A focus on the macro, the arrant nonsense that makes up Progressive ideology, would be a lot more effective than mouthing predictable outrage at its practical excesses.