The Root of the Problem

The conclusion was clear as could be:

“Diversity of thought” is white supremacy.

What isn’t, by the reasoning of MIchael Harriot, “World-renowned wypipologist. Getter and doer of “it.” Never reneged, never will. Last real negus alive.” His reasoning is that the phrase was used to defend some academic he described as pro-confederate. Whether the prof was racist isn’t the point. Someone used “diversity of thought” to justify the person Harriot says is a white supremacist, so the phrase itself is now white supremacy. 

This is why we can’t have nice things, like equality, because people incapable of basic logic write stupidity like this, and people who are even less capable of basic logic regurgitate their idiocy. Yes, thinking is hard, but these are people who wouldn’t be capable or willing to think regardless. They are the useful idiots of progressivism.

So in the spirit of a dolt like Harriot, I too will make a simple pronouncement.  Progressives are not liberals. Progressives are the antithesis of liberals. Progressives suck.*

A liberal can believe that government can do more good or less, and one can debate how much to conserve. But progressivism is inherently hostile to moderation because progress is an unmitigated good. There cannot be too much of it. Like conservative fundamentalism, progressivism contributes to the polarization and paralysis of government because it makes compromise, which entails accepting less progress, not merely inadvisable but irrational.

Unlike liberalism, progressivism is intrinsically opposed to conservation. It renders adhering to tradition unreasonable rather than seeing it, as the liberal can, as a source of wisdom…The critic of progress is not merely wrong but a fool. Progressivism’s critics have long experienced this as a passive-aggressive form of re-education.

People use the words progressive and liberal interchangeably. They are not at all the same. Liberals have far more in common with conservatives than they do with progressives, which could well explain why progressives call out liberals for being conservative. Well, that and the fact that their only response to reason is ad hominem attacks. Like “diversity of thought is white supremacy.”

Both liberals and conservatives share an appreciation of rationality and tradition. They both want what’s best for people and their country. They disagree on how to get there, but can appreciate that reasonable people may differ. But progressives?

Because progress is an unadulterated good, it supersedes the rights of its opponents. This is evident in progressive indifference to the rights of those who oppose progressive policies in areas like sexual liberation.

There can be no discussion about this, despite the constant pretense of saying “we need to have a conversation,” unless you define discussion as being lectured by simplistic self-righteous prigs until you give in or commit internal suicide. If they are right, because their goals are, by definition, the “unadulterated good” and it’s not possible for the unadulterated good to be wrong, then what’s left to discuss?

I speculate that many people who imagine themselves progressive will dismiss this, just as they will dismiss Harriot’s idiocy as being representative of progressivism. They support the vaguely good goals, equality through the elevation of interests of whoever is deemed marginalized at the moment at the expense of the majority, who enjoys an unrecognized and undeserved privileged existence. What’s not to like?

But then, that merely makes you a white supremacist to Harriot and those who are sufficiently woke to be obsequious. You will find yourself like Laura Kipnis, Brett Weinstein, and others who saw themselves as progressives, as true believers in social justice, only to end up burned at the stake when they failed to adhere to the rules of the orthodoxy.

One cannot, of course, make too much of labels. But democracy is conducted with words, and progressivism, by its very definition, makes progress into an ideology. The appropriate label for those who do not believe in the ideology of progress but who do believe in government’s capacity to do good is “liberal.” They would do well, politically as well as philosophically, to revive it.

Most of us can discuss what the best goals should be and how best to get there. How much government is the right amount, and how much is too much. What things government does well, and what things it does very poorly, even disastrously, often resulting in dead people in the street. The more you know about the efficiency and effectiveness of government, the more you appreciate the merits of a libertarian-ish skepticism. Theories are cool, but rarely work out as well on the ground as they do on paper.

It’s not the labels that matter, but since we’re constrained to communicate through words, we’re stuck with them to some degree. We are also stuck with stereotyping, even though each reader believes himself to be his own very special snowflake whose personal ideology is entitled to its very own wikipedia page all about me. As if every person should fully plumb the depths of every other person before any word can be uttered.

Sorry, but it can’t happen. It won’t happen. It’s quite likely that no ideology captures you perfectly, but that’s because there is diversity of thought, areas of agreement and areas of disagreement. It doesn’t necessarily mean your beliefs are in bad faith, even if they’re idiotic, but it does mean that there is such a thing as diversity of thought. You, most likely, are a diverse thinker.

Michael Harriot says you are, therefore, a white supremacist. He’s progressive. The problem isn’t what he’s said, or that he reflects anything other than a confederacy of dunces, but that “mainstream” progressivism dictates that I cannot dispute the lived experience of a black man because I enjoy white privilege and I support diversity of thought.

*The word “progressive” is used here in the sense of the current wave of social justice warriors.

3 thoughts on “The Root of the Problem

  1. Jake

    I always thought the root of the problem around these parts was Hamilton and his pesky ‘Implied Powers’ doctrine.

  2. Patrick Maupin

    Are the NYT’s token liberal writers an adjunct to, or a replacement for, their token conservative writers? The Overton window can only open so far in one direction before it starts closing in the other.

Comments are closed.