Progressivism: Intolerant Tolerance
My subtitle for teaching I was doing in 1996. [1]
The movie Dead Poets Society contributed to the belief. Robin Williams plays the progressive teacher in a boys school. In one scene he instructs the boys to tear out certain pages in their textbooks. “Be gone James Evans Pritchard, PhD!” is the war cry. Why were these pages targeted? The point of the scene and the whole film can best be summarized this way: what is “new” is always better than the “old.”
Dreher addressing “progress” takes the point a step further: “the future will inevitably be better than the present” (48, emphasis his). Who wants to oppose progress? Depending on the definition, no one wants to regress to the days before a Polio vaccine, unleaded gasoline, space satellites, or, dare I say it, smart phones. However, depending on who wields political power, “progress” may mean different things to different people.
Perhaps the most direct statement from Dreher defining “progress” appears on page 50:
“Classical liberals are more concerned with individual freedom, while leftists embrace equality of outcome.”
Dreher’s point, and the classic distinction between “conservatives” and “progressives,” is the last three words: “equality of outcome.” Conservatives, caring to preserve human ideals, agree with “equality of opportunity” not the “equality of outcome.” Why is this so important? Progressives desire control over definitions. Progressives want to mandate end results. Progressives want citizens to know that “science [is] the source of all authoritative knowledge” (52). Once the population is committed to technological “results,” the only “ends” they see are toward someone’s view of “progress.” [If you have not read or follow Thomas Sowell, begin now.]
“The Myth of Progress teaches that science and technology will empower individuals, unencumbered by limits imposed by religion and tradition, to realize their desires” (53).
I
t is easy to be a “progressive” in our current 21st century culture. Everyone from late night comedy hosts to sports figures to business people must perform obeisance to the latest form of “progress.” To be a “conservative” in our current 21st century culture means every utterance, performance, and public appearance must be guarded. Quoting Roger Scruton, Dreher says that conservatives are “heretics” to the progressive religion and so
“Everyone can join in the throwing of electronic stones at the scapegoat and never be held to account for it, because you don’t have to prove the accusation” (57).
For instance, it is acceptable to praise the results of the 2020 election while being careful to question the results of the 2016 election. “Thoughtcrimes” are identified by digital overseers. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube accounts are being monitored, sometimes demonetized, sometimes, taken down altogether (see one example of the Epoch Times here).
For well-meaning folks, to be “progressive” in the 21st century means forward thinking, committed to change, and advocating improvement within political concerns. Large concerns within the movement include enhancement of women’s roles in government, broadening of ethnic participation in business board rooms, or public assistance by governmental structures for those needing financial assistance. [But it is not reported that in the 2020 election more ethnically diverse, politically conservative women were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Such a discovery does not coincide with the progressive narrative and so is unreported.] In fact, conservatives would agree to each of those initiatives. Conservatives would argue these initiatives come from an outside, “religious,” transcendent source of Truth. [2]
But Dreher argues that progressivism is “a rival religion” (54). And Dreher makes the clear connection to utopian doctrine: humans will bring a perfect world to earth (55). Indeed Dreher identifies key doctrines I was teaching in 1996 (note the copyright). I introduced high school seniors to the term “postmodernism.” [As you can see in the picture, I still have copies of the handouts.] The beliefs represented in a term that was all the rage in the 1990’s continues is progressivism today. The ancient origins have not changed: Genesis 3.
Listening to most news sources, one would think that being “conservative” means old, antiquated, or obstructionist. When I use the word “conservative” I mean I am a perennial preservatist. A perennial flower is a plant that blooms every year, year after year. My belief as a “perennial conservative” is that there are great ideas and ideals that God has embedded in His creation, in the world order, which continue to blossom, to bear fruit. A preservatist is a person who wants to guard those ideas and ideals, passing them on to the next generation.
To be a perennial preservatist – a “conservative” by my definition – is to care for equality of opportunity (known by economists like Thomas Sowell as “equity”). But if, as progressives demand, equality of outcome is the definition, socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism in every form is sure to follow. For the Christian, here are some biblical foundations showing the important Scriptural foundation for “equity”:
- Systems of justice (Gen 3; Deut 16-19; Isa 58-59) should maintain that the standard for justice is righteousness, setting precedence for fairness and equity. The possibility that good can be rewarded and evil punished exists because the transcendent source of Truth exists. Justice in human relations should eschew bribery and favoritism while encouraging consistency, mercy, and protection of the poor, weak and defenseless.
- “Equity” or “equality of opportunity” (Deut 32:4; Ps 89:14; Lev 19:36; Deut 16:18) maintains that freedom of the individual is based upon inalienable rights, the source of which is the transcendent Creator of the universe. Impartiality is established in the natural law of creation. Justice for all people should be paramount. However, equal opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome. Distribution of resources fails to account for a fallen world with inevitable inequities and personal irresponsibility.
- Giving to others from that which God has given (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-37) is not Christian communism where a government imposes equality not equity. The Greek word koinonia includes monetary gifts as “fellowship” as seen in Philippians 4:10-19.
[1] Just to be clear, D.A. Carson came up with his title 17 years after mine 🙂
[2] I would love to take a deep dive into politics but I need to comment on Rod Dreher’s third chapter in Live Not By Lies.]
An ongoing review of Rod Dreher’s book Live Not By Lies by Mark Eckel.
Picture credits: Luke Renoe, Wikipedia, SnappyGoat