By Erica Wanis
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
According to pervading political stereotypes,
Progressives are the group concerned with and committed to the betterment of
the "common man" while Conservatives are characterized by a parochial
desire to preserve the institutions and traditions that have served the
interests of the white majority for the last few centuries. This is the
narrative being promulgated by the gatekeepers of American political and pop
culture, and these are the assumptions informing the attitudes and beliefs of
students at America's most elite institutions of higher learning.
Engage a self-proclaimed "progressive" on any
of the hot-button social issues of the day, and these stereotypes immediately
come into play. The greatest impediment to "progress" on issues of
social justice, they insist, are bigoted, racist, and misogynistic "old
white men" who cling fervently to an antiquated worldview in which women,
the poor, and other minorities are consigned to second class status. Because these
enemies of equality still wield enormous political and economic power, they
insist, America's promise of liberty and justice for all remains unrealized.
In order to change this, Progressives are convinced that
the old order and everything it represents must be overthrown. So long as even
one person feels stymied, excluded, or shamed by prevailing social, cultural,
and moral norms, our nation is not living up to the true meaning of its creed.
The gay teen seeking acceptance, the single mom with no family or friends to
support her, the tomboy who wants to try out for the football team, the
transgendered man who wants to use the ladies' room at his workplace, the
starving artist forced to wait tables or sell insurance in order to pay his
rent, the feminist determined to eschew the constraints of marriage and family
in exchange for a life of unbridled self-seeking. . . these are the faces of
the Progressive crusade to demolish the moral, cultural, and political
assumptions that have informed the social order for hundreds of years.
If one considers these issues carefully, however, it
quickly becomes apparent that the good of the commons is the least of
Progressives' true concerns. Not only are the "social justice" issues
they champion boutique at best, the policy solutions and moral/cultural
paradigm shifts they advocate are positively harmful to the average run of men.
In the January 2014 issue of First Things, editor R.R. Reno examines this
phenomenon in some detail, in the context of the recently passed Employment
Non-Discrimination Act, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of an
'individual's actual and perceived sexual orientation or gender
identity.'" Progressive elites, he suggests, set themselves above and
apart from the culture and society they inhabit. They view themselves as
superior to the average person, and thus uniquely qualified to use whatever
means at their disposal to advance their agenda in the name of the common good:
Whatever one thinks of gay marriage, one has to admit that "the great civil rights issue of our time" addresses the needs of a very small number of people. The same goes for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It concerns the world of the one percent and their navel-gazing about 'sexual identity.' . . .[T]his does not mean [that elites are] selfish or self-centered. Elites can be philanthropic and committed to social causes of all sorts, often thinking in terms of therapeutic, legal, or economic interventions designed to get the best results. What it means is this: As I stand at a distance from particular cultures and communities, I constitute myself. . . .Thus political correctness, perhaps the most telling feature of today's elite culture. The politically correct are invariably those who think of themselves as the best of people. Unlike the ordinary run, they have risen above xenophobic patriotism, racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, and every other ism. We're inclusive! Political correctness compliments the vanity of elites. It's a sign of their moral right to rule.At the same time, political correctness serves as a powerful weapon with which to destroy competitors for power and status. A traditional Christian doesn't disagree with the ruling consensus; he's a homophobe. A parent who opposes sex education for ten-year-olds doesn't have moral standing to speak; he's benighted. Others get dismissed as economically naive, or as unable to recognize cultural differences. The cultural progressive knows how traditional authority works – will to power, patriarchy, heteronormativity, or what have you. Anybody with a real education is in the know about these things! . . . The people who don't "get it" are by definition unqualified to rule.[Prominent historian and social critic Christopher] Lasch was an implacable enemy of this elite hauteur. He came to believe that cultural progressivism of the sort that wants to tear down existing forms of life to rebuild them in accord with new and supposedly better principles "boils down to a deep contempt for ordinary people." Failed postwar urban planning provided one of his favorite examples. Were he alive today, redefining marriage might be another.
Just last week, Anthony Esolen touched on the same exact
issue, albeit in a radically different context, in an article for Public Discourse
in which he examines the relationship between collegiate sports and the common
good. Taken to task by a colleague for diminishing the public significance of
women's hockey, Esolen took the opportunity to examine the corrupting influence
of Progressive ideology on college sports:
[I]f a college really believed in the camaraderie that sport helps to foster and the excitement of watching one’s friends struggle to win fair and square – if its administrators truly believed that such benefits should be extended to as many students as possible, regularly and in a wide variety of ways – then it could take a tiny portion of what is now spent on coaches, recruiters, physicians, staff, and travel, and devote it to promoting club sports and a robust program of intramurals.
By and large, this doesn't happen. Esolen has a theory
why:
[C]lub sports cannot serve the political end that women's sports are meant to serve. . . . The public appearance of equality must be adored above all, even if it implies a staggering inequality in other respects; unequal access to precious space on campus; and unequal opportunity to win a scholarship.The whole interchange has set me to thinking about how little concern anyone in our time evinces for the common good. We worship abstractions . . . [B]ut if we looked at young men and young women and the common good, and not abstractions, we might begin to think of other things besides the ratio of members of each sex participating in this or that activity. We might think about love. . . .It is rather odd, when you think of it that way—when you move away from regarding everything, even women's hockey, in a political light. You see that the first thing that the "political" lose sight of is the polis. . . . Worship politics, and you lose the polis.
Both of these men are worth quoting at length because
they both articulate so brilliantly the concern for the common good that is at
the heart of the true conservatism, and conversely, the lack of concern for the
common good that characterizes so much of Progressive ideology. Conservatives
recognize that for most people, having a married mother and father is a good
thing; that being married yourself, to a member of the opposite sex, and
raising a family, is a good thing; that celebrating the natural and innate
differences between male and female, and allowing society to reap the
respective strengths of each, are good things. Not only are these things
practical goods, they are metaphysical goods. This conviction, of course, flows
from the belief that man is a created, contingent being. In other words, there
is someone who knows us better than we know ourselves because he made us, and
he knows better than we do what we need. Conservatives believe that
metaphysical goods should be promoted, defended, and preserved.
Of course, this can, and should, at all times be done in
a respectful and appropriate way. Civil dialog is always better than straw man
attacks and rhetorical bomb throwing. But these discussion need to be had, and
conservatives shouldn't shy away from engaging on these issues in the public
sphere. The future of the American republic will be determined by how readily
we embrace what's truly good for us, not merely what feels good.
No comments:
Post a Comment