Moral Equivalence
I have often wondered why liberals --or their more ambitious and intolerant faction: 'progressives,' have such disdain for Americanism, or more specifically Capitalism. But due to my perception of progressives as being morally and intellectually dishonest, I have never excepted the explanations disseminating from the progressive camp.
Capitalism, and the Capitalist society it produces, seems to be the greatest obstacle --in the minds of progressives-- to achieving human equality.
Although many forms of Capitalism has been practiced throughout history. From the Roman and Arabic practice of mercantilism in the early middle-ages; in-which products would be bought, relocated, then sold at a higher price. To the Japanese form of Capitalism of today; in-which national and corporate achievement is valued over individual prosperity.
It is the American form of Capitalism; in-which social and economic prosperity is rewarded to the achievement of --individuals-- that garners the contempt of the progressive movement.
Liberals and progressives have an undeniable propensity toward collectivism. This propensity, on some level seems the logical explanation for their hatred of 'individual capitalism.' However, such a simplistic and dismissive position would undermine, not only the complexity of this ideology, but also the conviction of it's 'believers' to achieve an end, regardless of the means it necessitates.
The word "Capitalism" in the minds of liberals, progressives, and even the intelligentsia that occupy the classrooms of our most celebrated learning institutions, has become synonymous with terms like greed and corruption.
However, progressives draw no moral equivalence to the greed and corruption that plagues the halls of this nations Capitol. Instead, they perpetuate and defend the corruption of government officials, for the purpose of achieving the end they so desperately desire.
"Capitalists" as defined in progressive circles, bears a strange and striking resemblance to the "bourgeois" who were described as oppressive toward the "proletariat" in many of the social and economic theories of Karl Marx.
In many ways, I believe liberals and progressives see themselves as defenders of the "proletariat" injecting themselves between man and his poverty. This is a sincere belief within the progressive movement. Sadly, the protection progressives offer against poverty comes at the price of individual and economic freedom; exemplifying in my opinion a secularist's distorted sense of morality.
It's human nature when looking upon poverty and suffering, to desire the end of that suffering. Likewise, when presented with a man having not a morsel, it's human nature to give him bread. However, most reach for a logical balance between charitable giving and the enabling of dependency. Progressives do not seek this balance. Instead, they seek to provide man with all that is needed to survive in a society; thus, leaving his hands and his mind idle. Such one dimensional views of society displays a severe deficiency in the moral aptitude of the modern progressive movement.
American "Progressivism" has many separate factions and is found under the banner of many seemingly unrelated organizations: Code Pink, LGBT, NAACP, and MoveOn.org, just to name a few. Making it difficult at times --especially for the casual observer-- to decipher their "collective" agenda. However, there is a thread of commonality running through the core of these organizations that is unmistakable; a thread that is woven deeply into the hearts and minds of American liberals and progressives: A putrid hatred for individual capitalism; moreover, individuality.
As well as an ominous view of 'American capitalism' these groups also share a common vision of future society. One of: "economic 'equality' communal effort, and egalitarianism." In short: "A Marxist Utopia." However, progressives see this possibility, only through a totalitarian statehood, communistic economy, and the forceful Cooperation of ordinary citizens --whatever force is required.--
In the "great experiment" of the progressive ideology, these sacrifices for a "free nation" are not only acceptable, but negligible; moreover, they are necessary. But a free man will not easily surrender his freedom, and would likely, first, surrender his life if given the choice. This means progressives would need an incremental approach. --To rob a man of his freedom, you must first "free" him of his responsibility; and through the "promise" of security, you might then take from him, his possession of liberty.
It is no small task to overthrow the Constitution of a free people; success will not come quickly. But then again, these forces have not just begun their work.
I believe the greatest error that can befall the future of the American nation is to underestimate the conviction of the left to bring about "change." For as surely as the apostles of Christ would lay down their lives to utter the message of the cross; so too will the American left surrender their nation for the possibility of utopia. And with the same fervor.
Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.
Photo by: roland @ flikr.com
Great article Lannis...
I agree, progressives have a real disdain for Americanism and see individualism as a barrier to what you perfectly described, a Marxist Utopia.
Reply to this
Hey I want to know how you found this template from I want it!
Reply to this