When I began following the great political and cultural wars
of our day I was always left perplexed by the utter disconnect between the two
sides. They seemed to come from different planets. On the one planet the sky was blue and on the other it was
red; on the first gravity pulled objects down but on the second it pulled them
up. It was impossible to tell who
had won the debate because the two sides seemed to speak different languages
and employ differing systems of logic.
At that time, I also assumed that both sides were sincerely
aiming at the same goal of making the world a better place. In my uninformed simplicity I thought
the main difference was Progressive-Liberals wanted to move more quickly toward
this goal while Conservatives were more cautious and advocated slower
progress. But the more I learned,
the more I realized that not only did the two sides have different goals but
they began from different places.
I used to be a debater and was familiar with its rules and
logic but what I saw in the current national arena bore little resemblance to
the kind of debate I knew. One of
the things I learned was that the two sides to an argument must begin by
accepting a few basic things “a priori”.
These are the foundational assumptions from which both sides start when
building their arguments. It seems
that Conservative and Progressive-Liberal sides can never have a coherent
debate about anything because they begin with different a priori assumptions.
The Conservative side operates from the ground of historic
western culture. This is a view of
the universe shaped by Judeo-Christian thought and Greco-Roman philosophy and
tradition. This view recognizes
that the universe was designed by a transcendent power, operates according to
rational principles, and serves ultimate exalted purposes.
The Progressive-Liberal side has rejected historic western
culture in favor of the belief that the universe has evolved through random
chance and will continue to evolve to higher states by the same processes. There are no objectives truths to be
found in the universe. “Truth” is
whatever seems best to us at any given time. The universe and history are not moving toward any ultimate
goal. The only purpose to be found
in anything is whatever purpose we assign it. They also view themselves as the most highly evolved of
humans who can use their advanced powers to lead the process of human evolution
forward more quickly and precisely.
When you look at it this way there truly is an unbridgeable
chasm between Conservative and Progressive-Liberal. They begin from completely incompatible starting points and
proceed by differing paths to opposite ends. Here are some of the key differences:
|
Conservatives study history and the universe expecting to
find in it the principles of design that show us who we are and how we are
best made to live. This is what
the authors of the Declaration of Independence meant when they wrote, “We
hold these truths to be self evident…”
They believed that the inalienable rights of man were clearly seen in
the nature of man and the universe.
|
Progressive-Liberals believe that they are “the people”
and wisdom has come with them.
Since they are the most highly evolved people ever to live, they look
into themselves and together arrive at the best and most advanced thought
currently available. The
universe is nothing but matter and energy that tells us nothing about purpose
or what is good and true.
|
|
When Conservatives study history and the universe they
expect to find there objective principles that do not change and are true for
all time because they were put there by the transcendent designer.
|
Progressive-Liberals assume that any thinking from the
past is less highly evolved than contemporary thought. They will always prefer a new idea
over an old one.
|
|
Conservatives recognize that there have been times in the
past when people received extraordinary insight into the nature of man and the
universe. These insights have proven
remarkably true and reliable throughout hundreds and even thousands of years
of human history. Conservatives
look back to this store of proven insight to evaluate the claims made by
contemporary thinkers and to help plan the way forward.
|
Progressive-Liberals arrive by consensus among themselves
at the best thinking currently available but they assume that it will eventually
be superseded by more highly evolved thinking. For them nothing is objective or eternal. All thinking is subjective and
temporary and is likely to become outdated, discarded, and replaced by
something more advanced.
|
|
Conservatives recognize that history shows man to be
naturally inclined toward evil unless restrained from base desires and taught
to pursue higher more noble things and proven virtues. No one should have excessive power
over others. Every person and
group must be checked and balanced by others to prevent them from giving rein
to lower and baser impulses.
|
Progressive-Liberals see themselves as the best and
highest of men currently on the planet and they are confident that they will
continually evolve to higher and better states if they are given authority to
implement their plans. They
pursue near total power convinced this will inevitably produce a better more
highly evolved society.
|
Once I understood this it cleared up the confusion that seemed
to reign within the debate between the two sides. Let me illustrate with the argument over the Senate
filibuster. When Republicans held
the majority in the U. S. Senate Progressive-Liberals such as Harry Reid and
Charles Schumer lauded the filibuster as a great and noble practice and as the indispensable
bulwark of freedom. Now that Reid
and Schumer control the Senate they rail against it as a vile tool of obstructionism
and an abominable impediment to progress.
Conservatives are astonished that these men could shamelessly engage in
such rank hypocrisy. Reid and Schumer however are unperturbed and can make
these claims because of the logic of Progressive-Liberalism.
The contradiction is resolved when seen through the lens of
Progressive-Liberal philosophy. Reid
and Schumer see themselves as more highly evolved and therefore superior to any
who oppose them. They see no need
to respect their opponents any more than a person would respect a
cockroach. They also reject the
very notion of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is based on outdated notions of objective morality which they
have discarded as primitive. The
Progressive-Liberal position they seek to advance is the current best thinking
available. The best outcome for
everyone is for it to be advanced by whatever means are available. Progressive-Liberals cannot state their
philosophy plainly because too many people whose support they need wouldn’t understand
it. The less evolved are not yet
enlightened enough to see things as they ought. They simply need to be moved along toward the Progressive-Liberal
utopia even if by subterfuge and most will understand in the end how it was all
for their good. In their own minds
there is no hypocrisy at all. They
truly believe the filibuster to be great and noble if it is used to advance the
good (the Progressive-Liberal plan) and it’s vile and execrable whenever it is
used to block the good (the Progressive-Liberal plan). The means is justified if it helps
bring about the good.
Understanding the basis of Progressive-Liberal thought helps us
understand why they do what they do.
