The history of the Church of Secular/Progressivism. How the secular progressives have developed a political viewpoint into a religious experience.
In my years of debating social/progressives I've certainly noticed the evolution of progressive rhetoric; especially in the last generation. It started with Reagan. The Left had been deeply wounded by the Carter administration; but still carried a heartfelt belief that even a terrible socialist was better than any conservative. It was the beginning of the establishment of the social/progressive religious philosophy.
Until that time progressivism was just another political perspective. It had its ardent supporters, but held its place with several other competing perspectives on government. Libertarianism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, and Conservatism were all represented within the American political spectrum to some extent. Political discourse in this country had developed to the point where all political systems other than Liberalism and Conservatism had, for the most part, been discredited. It was widely held that only a loon would throw his support behind Socialism or Communism. To be sure, actual examples of these political systems enjoyed some support in the United States. But such support was almost exclusively within the realm of academia.
We may speculate as to why this is so. Some will argue that it is because of the insular, static, nature of the campus environment; while others will state that tenure played a major role. The reason matters not. It is enough to establish that there was a time when Progressivism was virtually exclusive to college administrations and teaching staff.
It is worth mentioning that Progressivism itself had undergone major change from its early roots The Liberal/Progressivism I speak of as it existed in the higher educational establishments wasn't the Classic Liberalism of our founding fathers. It was more recent. To include 'Liberalism' in the designation was to actually mis-identify the movement.
The Classic Liberalism of our founding fathers stressed individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. Its foundations were human rationality, natural rights as granted by the Creator, individual property rights, the protection of civil liberties, and equality under the law.
The 'Liberal/Progressivism' of the college campus was a different animal. This viewpoint stated that human nature and morality are not fixed, but rather are revisable through society's history. Its foundations were secularism, rationalism. Its goal was the fulfillment of an utopian society through the secular perfection of Man.
The movement engendered a rejection of a Creator in favor of Darwinism and supplanted Man as the ultimate product. The movement produced an expansion of civil rights, the ascendance of groups, equality of outcome, income redistribution, the elevation of victims, nonjudgementalism, and environmentalism; in other words, Social Justice.
The movement came pre-packaged with the remedies that society must practice to alleviate a myriad of perceived shortcomings. It must be noted that such ideas as universal health care, the elevation of groups over individuals, and the absolute belief in evolution are not new. The roots of these are firmly planted in the historical record. As always; the most fundamental position was and is that such a system must be successful. The central belief was that if there had just been more money spent, or if the purges had been more inclusive, or the people more willing to sacrifice much longer terms of misfortune. That utopia was achievable if one only kept one's eye on the prize through a short (but of undefined) length of shared sacrifice. Ultimately that level of sacrifice itself could eventually be redefined as equity, if it were spread evenly enough.
Remember, I earlier stated that this movement had been mis-identified. This philosophy was actually more properly defined as Secular Progressivism. The Progressives at this early time actually preferred the title of Liberal as the word didn't conjure up the horrific pictures of the purges and mass executions usually associated with such societies.
While all political viewpoints had a vocal, passionate minority; it was just that; a minority. The overwhelming majority of American citizens were too busy trying to wrangle actual solutions to society's challenges to pour their collective souls into something considered to be so transitory. Few, as yet, defined themselves exclusively by their political philosophy. Your job, your religious belief, your financial position, and your social status were all considered to be more indicative.
Reagan, more than anyone else, made the word Liberal a denigration; and many on the Left switched and began to call themselves progressives. By now the words liberal and progressive had switched places and Progressivism no longer carried the stigma of the wild eyed, lock step, narrow minded, revolutionary that was now conveyed by the word Liberal.
After Reagan's 1984 landslide, progressives began to develop the art of word disassociation in earnest. They had gone head to head with conservatism believing that no one in their right mind could possibly see any choice other than progressivism and Reagan handed them their heads. The final Electoral College count was 525 to 13. Ever since; such a mandate has been the 'wet dream' of the progressive.
After much introspection, even the progressives had to admit they had gotten the word out. They had drawn as clear a set of differences between the values of progressivism vs. conservatism as possible and the American people had undeniably chosen conservatism.
Here I must note that I've always been of the opinion that /progressives have always had a personnel advantage over conservatives. Not only that, but the progressives know it! The progressive believes in the absolute infallibility of government; and from birth their children are groomed for life as a bureaucrat. Progressives rise through government in the same manner as conservatives rise through business. Progressives gravitate to government service with the best and brightest to elective office. The best and brightest conservatives most always gravitate to the boardrooms of our Fortune 500 companies. After all; business success may shower wealth on an achiever but the high offices of government grant power over individuals.
Since the 1984 election, progressives have developed several clear incentives. Call them the dogma of the Religion of Progressivism.
First, the American public must be 'forced' to discover the superiority of progressivism.
Second, the campaign never ends. You push the party line exclusively; "Government always good; individualism always bad!" is the battle cry of the progressive.
Third, political discourse is war. Nothing is more important than the triumph of progressivism. The complete obliteration of conservative philosophy and the absolute annihilation of any conservative being are defined as one in the same. This is of primary importance, as conservative thought has no place in the new lexicon:
Fourth; all policy must be couched within euphemism. Strict adherence to this precept is required in order to placate the average American. The idea is to make unpalatable policy seem innocuous; to get the average person to accept the change as so minor as to not constitute anything to be concerned over. After all; what's in a word, how can one word possibly alter the debate over core principles?
Abortion becomes 'choice'; tax increases become 'investments', and under achievers become the blameless 'losers of life's lottery'. The definition of 'bipartisanship' is conservatives moving to accept progressive tenets, never the opposite. Discrimination becomes a pejorative instead of appositive feature of value judgment. I could go on but you get the idea.
Over the years, progressives have become superb at mangling the definition of words in order to achieve the victories they've sought. But the visceral, burning, hatred and intolerance of all things outside the state has recently begun bubbling to the surface.
From the progressive perspective, it came to a base in 2000. Here was a person groomed and primed for true progressive leadership. One well versed in the religion of progressivism; a new champion of one of the more successful liberal administrations. He was poised to ascend to his rightful place as the new political leader of the greatest country on earth. The presidency was Al Gore's birthright! There was no longer any reason to hide behind deceptive language. The Clinton administration had guaranteed the ascendance of the progressive agenda. President Gore would cement the process.
The election was his to lose, and lose it he did. His over-confident, condescending, Holier-than-Thou treatment of his second-string adversary from the State of Texas provided endless hours of gleeful entertainment to progressives across the country. To them the outcome was inevitable. George Bush Jr. was a sacrificial lamb being led to political slaughter.
The outcome of both that; and the subsequent election of 2004 brought the force of the hatred harbored by the progressives into sharp focus. Progressives everywhere literally went out of their minds! Both Hollywood progressives and all other defenders of the faith became vocally outraged against the Bush Administration. Some threatened to move from the country, others could not open their mouths without spewing hatred for all things Bush. Literally every thing George did was wrong, bad, deplorable, stupid and immoral. This was my first encounter with people who actually believed George Bush to be simultaneously so impaired as to be almost sub-human, yet at the same time so gifted as to blind everyone to his crafty, cunning, manipulative nature. How could any person possibly believe someone to be concurrently so stupid and yet so intelligent?
After the 2004 election, psychiatrists began reporting large upswings in the number of patients complaining of depression, despondency, and unresolved anger; which these doctors ultimately tied to the results of that 2004 general election. This illness was eventually identified by psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer as BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome. Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "The acute onset of paranoia, in otherwise normal people, in reaction to the policies, the presidency – nay – the very existence of George W. Bush."
Then we came to apogee of this deranged thought process; the rapture that was the election of 2008. In Barack Obama they discovered a person so skilled in the art of euphemism and generality that crowds of people literally heard exactly what they wanted to hear; ignoring or discarding the rest. A child of the bureaucracy that had purposely spent so little time in any one political office as to leave no record worth analysis. A person of such ephemeral background that one could not even ascertain, with any certainty, his constitutional qualifications for the office he currently holds. The MSM sings praise to each of his declarations with the fervor of monks reciting psalms. Disagreement with any Presidential proclamation or policy is met with a passion that, one could readily imagine, fueled the Inquisition. If Al Gore is a prophet; then Barack Obama is truly the Messiah of the religion of secular progressivism!
As of this writing, Barack Obama has been the President of the United States for just over one year. In that short span, he has broken his promises of bipartisanship and transparency. He has rescinded his policy regarding the exclusion of lobbyists and has populated his administration with 'hold-overs' of a bygone era, as opposed to elevating new talent. He has tried to fundamentally alter the contract between the Federal Government and the American Citizen through universal health care, cap & trade legislation, and government ownership of banks, manufacturing concerns, mortgage companies, and insurance companies.
Add up the cost to taxpayers of the Stimulus ($787 billion) and the Omnibus Spending Bills ($410 billion) and he has personally overseen the spending of over $1.1 trillion since the inauguration; and has introduced a $3.5 trillion budget for next year. That is over $12 billion of spending for each of his 390 days in office; and I fear he's just warming up.
As we enter into the 2010 off-year election cycle, a goodly part of Obama's agenda has stalled in both Houses of Congress. The 'stalwarts' of the Faith; the Matthew's, the Olbermanns', the Krugman's; the Axelrod's, the Huffington's and the Soros'; all urge the recently 'Consecrated One' to hold fast to his Gospel in hopes that the miracle may yet manifest itself. "Pass the agenda now! Once the people see, they will return to the Faith!" They believe Obama and the Congress should force this legislation through; ardently believing that once the people witness the miracle they'll return to the fold.
The outcomes of the 2010 election cycle will determine if the Church of Secular/Progressivism remains ascendant, or if it suffers a schism much as Catholicism did during the Reformation.
Bill: Great article!
My take on things, to add to what you said, is that people today on the Left don’t have political philosophies as much as they have political feelings. It feels good to feel good about yourself for caring about other people — details aside that you’re using other people’s money to put your feelings into practice. Intentions are more important than results; “he meant well” is a compliment, not a criticism.
Even those who profess to operate on a philosophical basis usually have no real connection to the actual details of that philosophy. Modern day “Progressives” have adopted this cool-sounding label to counter the stigma of Liberalism, which is associated with recent real world failures. They don’t really buy into the eugenics-based racism of Classical Progressivism. In fact, they probably don’t know anything about the history of Progressivism at all.
This is why I’ve always argued against applying classical definitions of political philosophies to similar sounding modern day labels. Instead, we have to look at what the current practitioners of a political faith actually stand for in contemporary times. There are certain currents that run throughout the decades, such as a tendency for Progressives to see man as capable of overcoming (not simply dealing effectively with) human limitations, and a Conservative’s innate distrust of big government vs. a preference for self reliance. But in the end it’s not the labels that matter to me so much as the thought process behind their advocates.
And in this case I think you’re correct to define modern day progressivism as a “religion”, because it’s driven by an emotion-based faith in their view of humanity much more than it is by any empirical view of the world. Feel something strongly enough, and it is.
All of which means that Progressivism will not be defeated by the facts, but by equally strong emotions on the other side. The difference here is that the conservative resurgence (the TEA Party Movement) bases its emotion on how the Progressive idiocy is personally affecting them and the country, not on some theoretical utopian vision of reality based on strong feelings and good intentions only. This is why, in the end, Progressivism will fail and Conservatism will win. [And it explains why “Progressivism” is already mutating into “Populism” as the substance (or lack thereof) of Progressivism is exposed].
This is one of the most informative posts I’ve ever read here at IC. Congratulations Bill! Of course I’d quibble with some of the mis-characterization of motives, but I must say I actually learned something, which is a treat.
Anyway, to give an example of what liberal thought actually looks like, I’d like to direct your attention to this presentaion by Chef Jamie Oliver, who won the Ted Prize and made his wish yesterday in Long Beach.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/765
Notice that he only mentions the word ‘government’ once in the whole speech (I’m sure your ears will prick). Of course, the ‘school’ part of his triangle involves government, but it goes without saying that the food we provide in schools should be healthy. The one time Jamie mentions government is in the context of regulation, but what he is also touching upon is a restructuring of our farm subsidies and incentives. There is corn sugar and/or starch in practically every food on the shelves – and eating nothing but corn makes you fat. This situation is largely a function of our high sugar tariffs and massive corn subsidies. I think as conservatives you’d all agree that cutting socialist farm policies are a good idea.
Obesity is a serious social problem in our country, guys, and as Jamie Oliver notes, 2 out of the 3 parts of the food triangle are in the private sphere: Home and Main Street. Here is an issue that could unite liberals and conservatives, as the answer truly does begin in the home by teaching our kids about healthy food and eating.
Jamie Oliver knows who holds the real power over what and how we eat – and it ain’t big government but big business and families. He’s standing in a room full of executives, scientists, artists and engineers and telling them strait to their faces that they have the power to reduce both our health debt and our mortality with ideas as simple as putting food ambassadors in our supermarkets. And teaching our children to cook.
The look on some of the overweight peoples’ faces in the audience are classic too.
Chasm,
I watched your recommended video. I agree with his statement that people don’t, and haven’t, cooked home meals in decades. My wife and I know of several friends of ours that eat out almost exclusively. They kid themselves. They excuse the behavior with: “We both work. Who wants to cook? Eating out is easier.” I don’t know how people got away from the ‘eat-at-home’ habit. My wife and I were both raised that way. Of course, that was a different era. Dad worked, Mom stayed home, kids did homework after chores and only went out after supper on weekends. I know, I know a real ‘Leave-ti-to-Beaver’ existence. But yes, people used to live that way.
We’re the same as our parents but different from most everyone else. My wife has never worked outside the home. Don’t get me wrong; she works her tail off at home. But an advantage of this is that she cooks. I get a wonderful, diverse, healthy, meal each evening. One that includes an entrée, two vegetables, and more often than not, a salad.
Because of where we’ve chosen to live, we’ve got acreage that allows us to grow produce. It also requires actual work, meaning exercise. Trimming trees, fixing fence, caring for our four cows and three hogs, working winters in the hot house; and during the summer; the mowing, tending the garden, and other sundry chores that have to be done to care for our little mini farm.
As a result we’re probably more flexible, durable, a little lighter, and a lot happier than most of our middle fiftyish brethren. Ah well; such is life!
Back to your post. I don’t know of any mis-characterization of motives. There are no ‘motives’ regarding progressives; there is only ‘motive’. The central theme or motive of progressivism is the immediately achievable, secular perfection of Man here on earth. All that is required in order to meet this standard is to implement the entire progressive agenda immediately. The depth of commitment progressives have regarding this precludes all else. This is why I submit that progressivism has become the equivalent of a religious experience for those affected.
I’ve postulated before that there are differences of degree on the left. I’ve labeled them democrats, liberals, and progressives. Each group displays an order of magnitude of difference in their depth of commitment to the philosophy. Democrats are seldom found at the center of any issues debate. They are too consumed with day-to-day living to spend any great amount of time in such proceedings. Liberals treasure debate. The banter surrounding nuances of policy draws them as moths to the flame. They’re always prepared to go a round or two. Progressives, on the other hand, are Ideological Jihadists. They will tell you what is correct. Disagreement is dissention and dissention is heresy.
I wish the people at IC would either use white print or a white background so I could read it easier.
Chasm,
Don’t know what happened to my response; but I’ll try once more.
I watched your recommended video. I agree with his statement that people don’t, and haven’t, cooked home meals in decades. My wife and I know of several friends of ours that eat out almost exclusively. They kid themselves. They excuse the behavior with: “We both work. Who wants to cook? Eating out is easier.” I don’t know how people got away from the ‘eat-at-home’ habit. My wife and I were both raised that way. Of course, that was a different era. Dad worked, Mom stayed home, kids did homework after chores and only went out after supper on weekends. I know, I know a real ‘Leave-it-to-Beaver’ existence. But yes, people used to live that way.
We’re the same as our parents but different from most everyone else. My wife has never worked outside the home. Don’t get me wrong; she works her tail off at home. But an advantage of this is that she cooks. I get a wonderful, diverse, healthy, meal each evening
As a result we’re probably more flexible, durable, a little lighter, and a lot happier than most of our middle fiftyish brethren. Ah well; such is life!
But back to your post. I don’t know of any mis-characterization of motives. There are no ‘motives’ regarding progressives; there is only ‘motive’. The central theme or motive of progressivism is the immediately achievable, secular perfection of Man here on earth. All that is required in order to meet this standard is to implement the entire progressive agenda immediately. The depth of commitment progressives have regarding this precludes all else. This is why I submit that progressivism has become the equivalent of a religious experience for those affected. I’m developing my thought further on this; might make an interesting submission.
I’ve postulated before that there are differences of degree on the left. I’ve labeled them democrats, liberals, and progressives. I have groups on the right as well. I’ve ascribed the labels republicans, conservatives, and supremacists. Each group displays an order of magnitude of difference in their depth of commitment to the philosophy.
Democrats are seldom found at the center of any issues debate. They are too consumed with day-to-day living to spend any great amount of time in such proceedings. Liberals treasure debate. The banter surrounding nuances of policy draws them as moths to the flame. They’re always prepared to go a round or two. Progressives, on the other hand, are Ideological Jihadists. They will tell you what is correct. Disagreement is dissention and dissention is heresy.
I’m not certain what’s going on. I usually write my posts on the word processor (I’m a terrible speller) then highlight, copy, and paste. This system always worked well before. I’ve tried this twice today, and both times got the ‘black screen of death.
Bill,
I’ve seen the black boxes before, and have ignored them, but I was able to highlight the text to read it, so no worries.
Well, we’ve finally made a breakthrough then, and call me a Liberal-Democrat under your definition as opposed to a Progressive. But then, your definition of Progressive is much closer to the classical, gilded era one than how it is used currently. And that gets to the heart of the problem: you’ve mis-estimated both the strength and influence of your enemy. I’m not saying that there aren’t any Progressives under your definition, but there certainly aren’t any in positions of power or political influence. If you think Obama is a Progressive because he proposed to overhaul healthcare, you’re reading far too much into his attempt to solve an actual problem: that health care costs and Medicare are crippling this country. Fact: our system is the most expensive, least efficient, worst outcome-per-dollar health system in the advanced world. It makes business inefficient – why does my employer have to maintain it’s own bureaucracy just to sign me up? Literally. I work in the entertainment industry, and besides getting my treatment through Blue Cross, there is an entire entity – the Motion Picture Health and Welfare Fund – that exists only to process claims and keep track of employees hours. That is so inefficient, so many more people mooching off my health care, that it’s almost Kafkaesque. Yet that’s the system conservative think is just dandy, and they portray even the attempt to tinker on the edges as “the greatest threat of socialist takeover of our liberties in the history of mankind.”
As I said in another post, conservatives are now openly declaring their desire to return us to the Gilded Age. If they succeed, then you may indeed see the re-emergence of a populist progressivism, but they sure ain’t having much effect right now.
@Chasm – The idea that conservatives think our convoluted health insurance setup is just dandy” is flat-out false. And simply preposterous.
Yet the regressives love to parrot this canard, because in their minds, it elevates them above the supposed stupidity and intransigence of their opposition.
But conservatives understand that free markets work best. Health care and insurance are no different than anything else in that regard. Just look at the history of laser surgery for the eyes. Which is not tangled up by 3rd-party payers etc. etc.
The cost goes down, the quality goes up, people make their own decisions. Freedom, good health, and choice abound.
So just quit lying about what conservatives think is dandy.
We have an excellent health *care* system in this country, which is being corrupted and destroyed by anti-competitive financial foolery and endless regulations.
Until we discover a limitless flock of golden-egg-laying geese, here will never be enough health care for everyone who wants it – it’s impossible. The wisest thing we can do is allow people to compete honestly towards providing a better product or service for their customers. Once again, quality will rise, prices will fall, more people will be satisfied than any other way of doing it.
And the crazy, ignorant idea that governments can can ever satisfy the material needs and desires of the many, and do so better than the free market – that has been disproven over and over again.
“Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell should be required reading in our school system. It would get rid of a lot of regressive, statist, idiocy.
And lastly – regarding your complaint that this doesn’t serve some unfortunates in our society –
I agree. And that’s where the milk of human kindness comes in. Please feel free to be as charitable as you like with your own time and money for your own chosen cause. And feel free to enlist as many others as you can to volunteer all their resources, too.
And take your nasty regressive idea that you have a moral right to force others to serve your cause, no matter how noble it may seem to you, and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
If you can’t persuade people to support your cause voluntarily, then your cause isn’t worthy of support.
[...] MORE [...]
[...] How the secular progressives have developed a political viewpoint into a religious experience. [...]