I find a couple problems with progressivism that just don't allow me to accept it as a viable political or social model. The first is that it is rooted in a tautological concept. A logical tautology is a non clarification where all instances are true such as defining a color, red is red, or where a statement covers both the false and the true condition and therefore cannot be proven to be either false or true. For example, he will either win or not win. Thank you Mr. Obvious. The progressive movement, like eugenics, is rooted in evolution and natural selection. All change, whether good or bad for the individual, propels the group towards a better condition because the current condition is flawed. All changes to a flawed political/social system, whether good or bad for individuals, propel society towards a better condition because the current system is flawed. Natural selection is a tautology and therefore can never be proven or disproven. Why didn't they survive? They weren't the fittest. If they were the fittest, they would have survived. They will either survive or not survive. Again, thank you Mr. Obvious. The only real philosophical difference between evolution and progressivism is that evolution leaves survival decisions up to "chance" while progressives decide for themselves who should be the fittest. They apparently either know better than everyone else because they are "enlightened" or they have experienced life in a way that somehow uniquely entitles them to politically engage more than those who haven't had their same experiences. Should the poor or the rich survive? How about the white male v. any other gender or minority? We, the progressives, will decide based on our empathetic, enlightened world view.
The second problem for me is the lack of absolutes. Specifically, the lack of MORAL absolutes in a political/social sense. If one believes that change is inevitable and the status quo is flawed there can never be an absolute end, goal or moral with the exception of change itself. I find this reasoning faulty. Allow me to illustrate. A person is either pregnant or not pregnant, dead or not dead. These are absolutes. There just aren't degrees of pregnancy or death. Webster's defines moral as, "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principle or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong." I find that progressivism accepts the first half about conduct, eg. political correctness, but not the latter half about right and wrong, eg. abortion.
What is a moderate stance on abortion? Does a fetus have rights or not? Lines must be drawn and absolutes established if a law is to be applied fairly.
Superiority is, "the quality or condition of being superior." When I put "moral" and "superiority" together, along with their definitions, I understand moral superiority to mean having a better understanding of right conduct and distinctions between right and wrong than others who just aren't as smart. Maybe 'arrogance' and/or 'intellectualism' could sum it up. Progressive superiority stems from empathy, "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another." Progressives attempt to frame most debates in terms of empathy. We should all feel sorry for (insert predetermined "fittest" group here) and if you don't, then you are a (insert pejorative, ad hominem term here). This is the essence of a progressive air of moral superiority. The irony is that aside from advocating that the status quo is always flawed, change is always a desirable goal and their point of view is the only qualified, legitimate one in any debate, they have no moral absolutes. A moralless absolute air of moral superiority and I'm not going to let that oxymoron shut me up.
No comments:
Post a Comment