As I drove across East Texas I found myself in need of a change of pace and turned on the radio and listened to a talk “show.”

The discussion pinged around on several different subjects but kept circling back to the rift between the major political factions and what must be done to bring them together. The long and short of it was that there needs to be accommodation; we need to reach some “middle ground.”

But what if there can’t be middle ground?

Recent articles in the press have compared the current era with the 1850s, suggesting the stress between the left and right – between the “Progressives” and the conservatives – is at an analogous level as that between abolitionists and pro-slave factions in the decade prior to the Civil War. The conclusion is that, as in 1850, there’s no real chance for a peaceful solution; sooner or later we’re going to have a real civil war.

I can’t see the future, so whether we have a civil war in the next several decades remains to be seen.

But I think the difference between conservatives and “Progressives” is profound, and arguably can’t be spanned in any meaningful way.

While some may call for accommodation between extremes, there’s a more fundamental issue that explains the chasm between the two sides; the difference lies in the nature of Progressivism itself. “Progressives” are not, as the name would imply, those who seek a better way for governing. Rather, they seek a strikingly different way of governing. True, in a sense, everyone is a kind of progressive; call it small “p” progressivism. Everyone wants an easier way to find water in the desert, an easier way to grow crops, produce food, make energy, a land with no crime, no hunger, no poverty.

But…

The “Progressives” posit that there are no absolute truths, and focus their social model on “clans.” Those who aren’t part of the clan (a clan based on belief systems rather than blood line) are the “other,” the enemy. Membership is entirely dependent on accepting the clan’s approved belief system; ejection from the clan comes when you fail to accept, and in some cases act on, those beliefs. (Hence, the manner in which a leftist who gives ground on some point is then declared an apostate by the “Progressive” clerisy.)

The real “Progressive” focus is about accruing power to the clan, to ensure survival (and necessarily dominance) by the clan. Beliefs are held not because they track with certain philosophical positions (if that were the case there would need be some set of absolutes, but there aren’t) but because the beliefs redefine some sort of power structure to the benefit of the clan.

Abortion, for example, is central because it forces a situation in which the beginning of life is defined by the state, not by God (or nature, if you prefer). And once the state defines when life begins and ends (and we’re nearly there on ending life as well), life is no longer a universal right. Rather, it’s a privilege granted by the state. And all other rights, being lesser than the right to life, then become mere privileges granted by the state – the state controlled by the clan.
Some future “Progressive” state could just as easily perceive a need for woman to produce more children. If that were to happen the state would have the authority to order women to become pregnant. Dystopian fictions suggesting a government in which women are forced to have children may want to cast aspersions on conservatives, but the only states that would engage in such behavior are totalitarian states, where power is concentrated in the hands of government, where individual rights have been eliminated. Such is the future “Progressive” state.
Similarly, a true “Progressive” state, in which there are no absolute truths, would allow for anything, as long as it served the interests of the ruling “clan.” Under such a situation, de facto slavery might in fact be permissible.
That’s the future government that is, in fact, being championed by the Democratic Party candidates. Their words describe a “Progressive state.” Such a state, in the end, would be devoid of all rights, but would require a government that possessed any and all powers. Such a state is incompatible with civil rights or individual rights. It’s difficult to imagine there can be accommodation with such a political philosophy, or with those who believe in it.

Copyright 2019 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com