THE MIND OF A PROGRESSIVE.
UNDERSTANDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLAY BOOK
March 28, 2014
Former Black Panther supporter, far-left advocate and Communist Party USA sympathizer David Horowitz has released the second of a nine-volume collection of his writings under the title of The Black Book of the American Left. This volume is simply called "Progressives."
In the introduction, Horowitz, the son of staunch Communist Party USA leaders, says the "progressive" label is one that its adherents wear proudly. "It appeals to their amour propre, identifying them as people who are forward-looking, therefore enlightened and modern" he says.
"Progressive" fits their sense of themselves as apostles of "hope and change", in fact as a species of social redeemers. Consequently, the basic premise of their politics is that "forward" is necessarily a good direction, and that a fundamental transformation of social relationships is both possible and desirable.
Let's see, "Hope and Change" was Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign theme and "Forward" was his 2012 mantra. Weren't these Lenin's themes at the beginning and during the height of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia? Yep, right out of Lenin's mouth!
As an expression of this self-image, progressives commonly refer to themselves as being "on the side of history," as though history was steadily moving towards beneficent ends. Inevitably, the term "progressive" has the added advantage of putting the best face on their collective achievements, although these have frequently entailed consequences that were destructive on an epic scale.
It also leads Progressives to make alliances both formal and informal with the enemies of the relatively enlightened democracies in which they actually live.
No greater obstacle to clarity about current progressive movement exists than the habit of detaching them from their ideological antecedents, specifically those in the Communist past. A common attitude regards Communist ideas as passe, and any attempt to link them to present company as politically dangerous. But this lazy thinking makes any understanding of contemporary progressives impossible.
When they are in their own company, progressives themselves are not shy about their indebtedness to Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and even Antonio Gramsci. When they are in position to determine academic curricula, they give the Marxist tradition pride of place. Their politics are directly and self-consciously inspired by the intellectual tradition that produced the totalitarian results.
There are tell-tale signs that the continuities between the Communist left of the Stalin era, the New Left which followed in the 60s and 70s and the contemporary left that emerged following the Communist empire of the Soviet Union are real.
Since September 11, 2001, the Progressive mantra and ideology has been completely co-opted by the Communist Party USA, the New Left of the Students for a Democratic Society and the ilk of the Saul Alinsky school of community organizing.
This means, to say one is a Progressive today means they are a Communist. And you thought the word Communist was dead.
Starting in 2004 and culminating with the election of Barack Obama, Progressives became the ruling ideology of the Democratic Party. Since 2012, there are no more "blue-dog" Democrats, no Reagan Democrats, no moderate Democrats (with the possible exception of Sen. Joe Manchin) and surely no Conservative Democrats on the Federal level and very few are left on the state level, except in some pockets of the south.
If an inability to grasp the left's historical antecedents is one obstacle to understanding its behavior, a close second is the failure to appreciate the connection between its utopian and nihilist agendas. The belief in a perfect future inevitably inspires a passionate (and otherwise inexplicable) hatred towards the imperfect present.
The first agenda of social redeemers is to dismantle the existing social order, which means their intellectual and political energies are focused on the work of destruction. This explains why they demonize traditional marriage, producers of wealth, elevate the down-trodden, praise dependency, provide giveaways to those who don't want to work and be a responsible contributor to society, etc. etc.
Comedian-turned-conservative pundit Evan Sayet says that the problem with today's "New Left" (Progressives) is their total rejection of the intellectual process. In other words, indiscriminateness is an absolute moral imperative.
What Sayet means by indiscriminateness of thought is a worldview that puts the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, and the evil over the good. Each effort on behalf of the lesser should be met with an equal and opposite campaign against the better. This explains Obama's war on the upper class, Christians and white males.
Indiscriminateness gives the Progressive the "right" to cry racism, homophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, or any other -ism, and phobia in their vocabulary. Indiscriminateness allows Progressives to push the victimhood of the lazy, the criminal, Blacks, Hispanics, women, LGBT, and every other special interest.
With this in mind, is there any wonder why Democrats (the party of the Progressive, i.e. Communists) ascribe to the better the negative qualities associated with the lesser while concurrently ascribing to the lesser the positive qualities found in the better? This is pure Orwellian Newspeak. Using Newspeak, Democrats can demonize the worker while praising the welfare/food stamp recipient.
We can only arrive at the conclusion that progressivism is a mental disorder. It's proponents can be certifiably diagnosed with either Antisocial or Narcissistic Personality Disorder - or both. Their followers have a Dependent Personality Disorder. This means the Progressive mind is sociopathic.
How else does one explain the Democratic Party today? Do they not side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over the behaviors that lead to success?
The Progressive mind is really a regressive worldview. That is why Barack Obama and his ilk do not believe in American exceptionalism.
Look at it this way: If America isn’t exceptional, then how do you explain our exceptional prosperity? How do you explain our exceptional strength? Well, first of all, it’s ‘unjust.’ Why should we be so rich if we’re nothing special? But given that we are the most prosperous nation in all of human history, the strongest nation in all of human history, Barack Obama and those who share his ideology have no choice but to see America as the greatest injustice in all of human history.
Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. That’s what the Progressive believes. That if you eliminate discriminating thought, you’ll eliminate things to disagree about. We won’t fight, we won’t kill each other, we won’t scream and yell, we won’t hurt each other. If you eliminate thinking, they're going to have this Paradise. If thinking is out, all that's left is feeling, i.e. emoting.
But this is not what happens. Progressives don’t eliminate the recognition of right and wrong, they flip-flop it, and invariably, there’s nothing else they can do. They were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative and indiscriminateness of thought leads only and always to siding with the wrong, evil and failure.
In its simplest form, the culture war is a war being waged by the people who don't do or make anything against the people who do and make everything. Ayn Rand says that it is a war waged by the "Looters" against the "Producers."
As long as Progressives are in control, Conservatives and all non-Progressives are destined to be maligned, ostracized, even criminalized. The nation will never be right, will always fail and will increasingly become evil.
We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.