The Hubris Of Progressive Politics Should Be A Warning To Conservatives.
The change of the political and ideological guard in America may appear as a welcome correction to the hubris of progressive politics but could it also prove in time a swing to a different form of hubris? Or just plain hubris, directed differently? Social philosophers like Hegel and Fichte developed a law of change that can be summed up as 'thesis, antithesis synthesis'. Both extremes must be tried before the middle ground, via media or the sanest option is chosen. Experience bears out the theory. In pulling back from a particular direction which is not working out, there is a tendency to over-correct. Often, when it comes to leadership change in the social and political spheres, a sharp and complete reversal of policy is considered the surest way to head off efforts to return to old ways.
We have seen how so-called 'fact-checking' and 'hate speech' witch hunts have advanced the control of liberal crusaders and suppressed contrary views in social media, over recent years, both here in the US. Elon Musk, the new owner of the main organ of global communication, X, formerly Twitter, has, as a reaction, removed all filters to publication and circulation. He is followed by Mark Zuckerberg who was a reliable ally of the liberal establishment until the ideological winds changed with the second coming of Donald Trump to the White House.
Perhaps, it might have been more prudent to offer a more measured response to the liberal media manipulators? Perhaps, the new order of power might have instead steered the focus from censoring opinion and 'facts' to clamping down on the unarguably harmful content that abuses and corrupts the young in so many ways and depraves young males in particular by valourising violence towards women and minorities - minorities who are identified as the cause of their malaise. In any discussion of censorship, this should always have been the starting point. It never has been. Instead, the liberal leftists have been obsessed with pronoun misuse and challenges to new-minted gender orthodoxies as well driving pile-ons against conservative writers who fell foul of political correctness. From philosophers like Roger Scruton to journalists like Kevin Myers, we have seen many household names fall victim to these concerted attacks that annihilate careers and reputations. Perhaps, instead of just cancelling the mis-directed, self-serving efforts of illiberal progressives, the new leaders should address the issue of dangerous media content in a more measured and reasonable way?
Restoring the biological 'fact' that there are two sexes and only two in the US has met with howls of protest from the liberals, including a public dressing down of the new President in Washington's National Episcopalian Cathedral by the ultra progressive, Bishop Mariann Budde. Again, perhaps these new measures to restore sanity to the issue might be tempered with an acknowledgement that those who are different or wish to appear different for whatever reason should and must be treated with equality and courtesy and made to feel safe in public spaces? Would this bit of give on the issue actually help prevent the kind of pushback we now see gathering momentum with rising force ?
Again, when it comes to the climate question, one should be able to point out gross deficiencies in California's fire prevention services and infrastructure without pronouncing one way or another on the relevance of climate change to this particular catastrophe. From poor woodland maintenance, to depleted reservoirs, to underfunded and diversity obsessed fire services, there are major questions to answer and indeed major charges to be brought against lax public officials. Not falling for the bait that tracks the discussion away from the proximate issues and draws one into declaring a position on climate change, takes dogged focus because the progressives have a double skin in this argument. On the one hand, they want to exploit the disaster to push their climate dogmas but equally they want to protect the DEI ridden, California Democratic order. Moving to the centre is not weakness. Neither is it mere tactics. It's just plain common sense.
This week Mary Robinson, former Irish President launched an attack on President Trump, for telling 'lies', not just of course in relation to the issue of climate in which she has a particular interest even though she is a lawyer not a scientist. Mary would like 'the truth' to be protected on and off social media. Mary would like filters. Of course she would, so long as they were managed by members of the ideological and political elite to which she belongs. Had Elon Musk announced he was replacing the ‘fact checkers he dismissed with a new team of his own appointees, Mary would be even more upset than she is now. It’s not that such things as ‘false facts’, mis-and dis-information don't exist. Of course they do. But identifying them is not necessarily as unambiguous as identifying a flaw in an assembly line. The question is who is free of the complicating and ineradicable filter of bias? The problem with the illiberal progressive elite is not just that they think they are objective and right and others are prejudiced and wrong, it's that they think others are deluded by ignorance and bigotry, demagogues and any number of dog whistlers and horse whisperers they brand as subversive and even malign. Ergo, it is they, the new ubermensch who must be the custodians of facts, truth and of course ‘the science'.
People like Mary Robinson and the majority of Irish politicians make it hard for anyone to make a grounded argument about any issues adjacent to their sacred ideological cows. In Ireland, they themselves are also sacred cows and attacking them on anything at all is considered an impertinence by the rest of the self-revennetial establishment. It’s a bit like the reverse of the old cult of deference to the ecclesial ‘cloth’ in Ireland, no matter how disquieting the questions around their conduct were.
In Ireland today, if someone wants to make a reasonable case for a connection between our housing and homelessness crisis and poorly regulated immigration, they will be dubbed racist. If someone tries to argue that DEI policy works against the minorities it is trying to protect, or that normal people don't really care if their firemen/woman, doctor or teacher is 'somebody who looks like them' anywhere near as much as they care that those people are qualified and competent and inspire confidence. Knowing they were selected on merit is one of the best guarantees of that happening. Again, this does not mean denying that some groups and some individuals are more disadvantaged in our society than others. That will always be the case but historic disadvantage is not necessarily an inherited condition.
Looking at Irish society today, one can see that it is working young people, irrespective of their background who are disadvantaged by a political caste that is indifferent to their need to set up home and family life at the optimum time. One can see how mothers who want to raise their own children in their own homes are ignored and in some cases forced by economic imperatives to hand their babies to strangers while they use up their day in repetitive unfulfilling work for others, including minding other peoples' kids and cleaning their homes. This kind of disadvantage crosses identity markers and so is overlooked or dismissed by those who exploit identity politics to reshape society into a leftist, liberal, secular utopia. The Conservatives in power need to identify these broader swathes of disadvantage and rebrand ‘compassionate' politics with a right or centrist stamp. Acknowledge disadvantage yes, but identify it according to conservative rather than progressive values. It might help take the wind out of the narrowly identitarian sails.
We need to keep a balance in our public discourse. It's not easy as it serves all ideologies to polarise and demonise their enemies. There is a natural tendency to overstate our case in an argument with a hardline opponent because any give in their direction looks like weakness or the kind of concession that allows them to push their way forward in the argument. We need a better form of dialectics. Perhaps, the 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' analysis of social movement can help us move the gears of social and political change so we can draw arguments towards the middle ground where convergence of views is always possible.
Arguing across a wide distance of difference, from one pole to another, allows opinions to amplify into monstrously exaggerated, hubristic versions of themselves. The liberals fell into the error of allowing themselves to be pushed to extreme over-corrections by their conservative denouncers. That is why they are more and more perceived to be absurd and why their support is being more and more eroded. Conservatives must not repeat their mistakes and perpetuate the cycle of pendulum politics if they want to change society in a way that is more likely to endure and keep them in power.
Conservatives are on the rebound but look poised to fall into the same hubristic trap. The far-right are emerging as the brand of new politics. We need to hear from strong, bold and confident centrist voices before they are drowned out by the siren, shrill of extremism.
Our collective future is here together on this Earth, what Pope Francis calls 'our. common home'. It makes sense to try and win sympathy and support from those outside our tribe. We will always find ourselves side by side with each other in the daily grind of living, no matter how divided we are in opinion. Life would be easier if when we were not separated by antithetical views on practically every major issue of our time.