Thursday, February 15, 2018

An Insider’s View: The Sinister Rigidity of Upper-Middle-Class Progressivist America (Part 3)

As a social or psychological phenomenon, progressivism began as an idealistic program of reform. Its first major appearance was in the early 1900s, and among the earlier followers of progressives like Woodrow Wilson, there were some who sincerely believed that they could benefit the nation, or even the world, with their progressive policies.

At some point, however, a segment within the progressive movement began to operate rather cynically, maintaining the rhetoric of political reform, social reform, and economic reform, but using that wording to cover their motives of self-interest.

The cynics within the progressive movement could exploit their more naive fellows.

Although progressivism did manage to implement some of its policies during various segments of American political history, it did not achieve consistent power: Coolidge was able to restore fiscal balance after Wilson’s excesses; Reagan was able to moderate some of Carter’s more bizarre actions.

Even during those time periods in which progressives managed to hold power and enforce their policies, they did not obtain the results they sought. Wilson’s extreme intervention into the economy didn’t bring about the benefits he hoped to obtain.

Over the course of the twentieth century, progressivism became frustrated, and frustration led to anger. Fear joined anger: fear that the progressive agenda would not be implemented or would not succeed if implemented. Additionally, progressivist propaganda generated fear in order to prompt the voters to embrace progressivism, warning the voters about some looming disaster which could be avoided only by adopting progressivist policies.

Characterized by fear and anger, later versions of progressivism operated mainly by catastrophizing and demonizing: to adopt progressive policies was to avoid a catastrophe; to reject progressive policies or candidates was a catastrophe. Candidates or policies which were not progressive were not merely wrong, they were evil, and had to be opposed at all costs.

Cynics fostering fear and anger; fear and anger leading to catastrophization and demonization: the electorate seemed to grow weary of this version of progressivism.

By November 2016, the voters saw Hillary Clinton as someone who promoted fear and anger, and who relied on that fear and anger to fuel her political activities. Whether or not Hillary herself was an angry person didn’t matter. Voters perceived that she needed and wanted the voters to be angry and afraid, and that she was working to ensure that they were.

Whether or not she had goals and a vision, Hillary was perceived as a candidate who was primarily “against” something, and who did not have a constructive or affirmative vision for the nation’s future. She didn’t communicate specific policy goals, although she may have had them posted on her campaign’s website.

By contrast, Donald Trump, despite his rhetorical flaws, projected a positive vision for the nation’s future and specific policy goals.

The progressive establishment co-opts and subverts educational institutions as one of its primarily vehicles. This has led to a skepticism among voters about some aspects of education. The influence of progressivism on schools, colleges, and universities is a complex phenomenon which would require a longer narrative than will be presented here. But because of progressivist influences, certain segments of the educational establishment have lost credibility in the minds of the voters.

The “insider’s view” of one who lives and works a community filled primarily with progressive voters reveals that they are often rather nice and friendly people, but they find it nearly impossible to entertain certain ideas.

Many progressives cannot believe, e.g., that anything brought forth under the title “tax cut” can be beneficial to middle-income and lower-income citizens. For the progressive, it is an article of faith that “tax cut” is always an excuse to line pockets of those who are already wealthy, and to do so at the expense of the poor. Despite any empirical or mathematical evidence, the progressive cannot, and will not, consider the possibility that tax cuts allow middle-income and lower-income citizens to retain more of their own hard-earned wages.

Likewise, progressives largely believe that any form of deregulation cannot have beneficial effects. They are incapable of entertaining even the possibility that deregulation of certain industries could create well-paying jobs and lift people out of poverty.

Reason would not demand, of course, that progressives accept ideas which are contrary to their own ideology. But reason would demand that they at least understand or explore such ideas, if for no other reason than to produce counterarguments. Instead, progressives reject such ideas out of hand, as if they are a priori identifiable as nonsensical gibberish.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

An Insider’s View: The Sinister Rigidity of Upper-Middle-Class Progressivist America (Part 2)

In the wake of the November 2016 presidential election in the United States, the ‘progressive movement’ was left in shock. Its followers did not understand how or why they had lost.

Why hadn’t the voters given an overwhelming landslide victory to the progressives? In the words of an anonymous author at the ‘Alternet’ website, many of the progressives

don't understand the causes of their own situations and fears and they have shown no interest in finding out. They don’t want to know why they feel the way they do or why they are struggling because they don’t want to admit it is in large part because of the choices they’ve made and the horrible things they’ve allowed themselves to believe.

The big surprise was that many African-American voters, and many Latino voters, chose to vote against Hillary Clinton. The progressives were mystified. Although Hillary styled herself as a progressive who would be a messiah for the Black and Hispanic voters, her assumptions were in fact quite racist: she assumed that African-Americans and Latinos were obliged to vote for her simply because they were African-Americans and Latinos.

This is the essence of progressive ‘identity politics’ - Hillary assumed that people vote a certain way because they belong to a racial or cultural demographic group.

It had not occurred to the progressives that people might vote based on their desires for economic opportunity or their desires for political liberty.

Progressivism contains a hidden but patronizing and condescending racism within its ideology. It assumes that Blacks and Hispanics, rather than seek opportunity in the economic sphere, should and would seek security and dependence.

Because progressivism’s assumption is wrong, Donald Trump received more African-American and Latino votes than Mitt Romney or John McCain.

To dwell among progressives is, in the words of the anonymous ‘Alternet’ author, to listen “to their political rants” and wince “at their racist/bigoted jokes and epithets.” The progressives who present themselves as the ones who will end racism are in fact the ones who perpetuate racism.

A free market economy is the least racist thing in the world. It doesn’t care about the color of one’s skin; it cares about the amount of effort one produces.

Under the tutelage of progressives, American towns “go from a robust economy with well-kept homes and infrastructure to a struggling economy with shuttered businesses, dilapidated homes and a broken-down infrastructure,” as the ‘Alternet’ writer phrases it. Progressives express rage at these conditions, but don’t understand that their policies have caused it, and don’t understand that continuing their policies will only amplify the misery.

Progressives “don’t understand themselves or the reasons for their anger and frustration.”

Instead of data about society and about the changing beliefs of voters, progressivism “has shaped most of their belief systems.” Progressives seek to redistribute wealth, and to regulate the distribution of benefits and opportunities. They failed to internalize that people - of all races, cultures, and religions - value opportunities and freedoms.

“Systems built on a” progressivist “framework are not conducive to introspection, questioning, learning, or change. When you have a belief system built on” progressivism, “it isn’t open to outside criticism, especially by anyone not a member of your tribe and in a position of power.”

In other words, the progressives were certain that Americans wanted them to intervene in economy, in education, and in social trends. They couldn’t, or wouldn’t, believe that voters wanted an energized economy at home, and a strong national image abroad. Progressivism

doesn’t understand itself and will never listen to anyone outside its bubble. It doesn’t matter how “understanding” you are, how well you listen, what language you use … if you are viewed as an outsider, your views will be automatically discounted.

Progressives have so thoroughly internalized their foundational assumptions that when outside voices “present them any information that contradicts their entrenched beliefs, no matter how sound, how unquestionable, how obvious, they will not even entertain the possibility that it might be true.”

For example, progressives simply can’t bring themselves to believe that poverty can be alleviated by deregulating industries - that such deregulation would spur economic growth, creating not only jobs, but jobs that pay well.

Because they can’t conceptualize such dynamics, they were mystified, and remain puzzled, at the results of the November 2016 election.