It should surprise none of us that if we have adopted a position, philosophy or view of life, we naturally believe that it is the “right” way to view the world and ourselves. By definition, therefore, any other position, philosophy or view of life is, of course, the “wrong” way to view life. That might in large measure explain why there seems to be so much contention in our world – and perhaps there always has been. If I’m right and you don’t subscribe to my beliefs, opinions or views, you are clearly a muddle-headed person with no grasp on reality.
But what if we made a sincere effort to set aside our own views and try to get into the other person’s mindset and, setting aside our preconceived conclusions, attempted to see the world through his eyes?
There is something inside us, or at least inside me, which resists doing this in a sincere and wholehearted manner. After all, I’ve been viewing myself and the world in a particular way as a result of my upbringing, schooling and many years of observing how the real world works – at least as far as it affects me. But in this post, I’m going to attempt to set that aside and see how a person who has a life view that is diametrically opposite mine might think.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a specific document to which a person might turn to get a clear grasp of what the progressive platform is. No doubt much of what Karl Marx wrote in “Das Kapital” or Mao penned in his “Little Red Book” have been modernized to eliminate that which might have sounded good in theory but didn’t work out so well in practice. So in a respect, the easiest and perhaps most objective way to define what it means to believe in a “progressive/liberal” philosophy, is to examine the issues that subscribers who self-identify as belonging to that movement find most important and to which they devote their efforts to bring about.
Perhaps the most coherent way to understand the liberal philosophy is to speak of it in terms of large generalities rather than individual instances. By that I mean, there is more attention paid to groups or classes than there is to individuals. The outrage that exists when liberals discuss capital punishment, as an example, is less focused on the person who was executed than it revolves around the disproportionate number of minorities who are subject to it.
The execution is not an expression of society’s ridding itself of a murderer. Rather, the liberal views this as yet another example of how a racist society has meted out yet another “injustice” – first, through the police apprehending the person – possibly using racial profiling; second, through the court system in which a black man, for example, simply cannot get a “fair trial”; and finally, through the white racist system exacting its ultimate retribution – an expression of its contempt for minorities generally.
Returning to my premise that the liberal mind thinks in broad brush strokes, it often defines people not in terms of the person himself, but rather in terms of how that individual makes up a part of a collective group to which he or she is assigned. That is why we do not consider the plight of the individual inner city black person who is condemned to a life of ignorance because of lack of education or has a shorter life span than his black suburban counterpart, whether that is due to poorer health care, diet or violence. All of these situations the liberal attributes to a society that is inherently racist. And the successful black man or woman is not only summarily dismissed as an aberration but is actively derided by those who view inner city blacks as victims because their success suggests that the narrative is wrong.
This mindset is clearly evident throughout the liberal philosophy. It is not merely the black minority that is a focus of liberal attention. Women, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, the poor, those working for minimum wage all are further examples of those whom the liberal views as “oppressed.” And that further culminates in yet another world view about the most oppressed and abused of all – our planet Earth.
If we accept that President Obama is presently the spokesman for the liberal movement (though according to some not liberal enough), we should take heed from his announcement that in his view the greatest threat to the world is “climate change.” If we acknowledge that statement as one which accurately reflects reality, all other issues lose their importance. After all, if we “kill off our environment” making it uninhabitable for mankind to continue on, then the plight of the poor, the minority, one gender or people of a particular sexual orientation all pale in terms of significance since mankind will have succeeded in eliminating itself.
At the heart of the “global warming” thesis is the assertion that it is humanity who is impacting our environment at a level greater than the Earth can accommodate through natural change and response. Clearly, the more people that there are, the greater the impact on our environment is likely to be. If we ask the question, is there a common theme in the liberal narrative which is consistent – the answer to that question is, “Yes.”
While we await science to develop significant sources of green energy which can be implemented and which can seriously impact our dependence on traditional carbon based fuels, it is clear that overpopulation has its impact not only on the environment but in the daily lives of people both in this country and globally. According to the United Nations, about 21,000 people, the majority of whom are children, die each day because of malnutrition or because of nutrition related reasons. Obviously, we either produce an insufficient amount of food or simply do not have the foresight to know how to deploy it to those most in need. To look at this from a totally clinical perspective, had those people never been born, that would have eliminated the suffering that they endured in their brief lives. Might this clinical analysis be at the foundation of the liberal philosophy?
Consider two issues which are currently in the vanguard of liberal talking points – “Women’s rights to make determinations regarding their bodies,” (which primarily revolves around the issue of reproductive rights) and the endorsement of a gay or lesbian lifestyle as a matter of equality. We know with certainty that abortion results in the “non-production” of another human life and we also know that if a person follows an exclusively homosexual life style that will also result in no new people being born. Might that explain why endorsing both of these would be consistent with the greater picture – the desire to minimize mankind’s impact on our planet through population control and reduction?
If we view the matter of population in an historical context, it is simple to make an argument that the reason that there were proscriptions against homosexuality that appear in the Bible. Consider a Hebrew population, beset by hordes of enemies on all sides. The most effective way to survive was by encouraging a large population. But today, we don’t have a lack of people but rather a superfluity of them. And those who are most expendable are those who contribute least to society – but rather take the most from it – specifically, the uneducated and the poor. We see this in many of the conversations about illegal immigrants from Central America making their way into the country today.
When the waves of immigrants came to this country in the late 19th and early 20th century, they were also largely uneducated. But the country willing absorbed them because there were many unskilled jobs that needed them. Similarly, the blacks who had been imported originally to work as slaves in the agricultural fields served a purpose at that time. But most unskilled positions whether in infrastructure or agriculture have been eliminated by mechanization. Whether intentionally or unwittingly, the progressive agenda of population limitation seems to work. It is the poor and minorities who abort a significantly higher proportion of future generations than do whites or Asians – while at the same time the progressives continue to make their case as the champions of the unheralded.
There is a possible and reasonable conclusion about how we might tie this
“gift package” together under one large bow – saving earth through population reduction; effectively attacking the question of malnutrition and eliminating those who are condemned for lack of skills to work, if at all, at the lowest income margins of society. No doubt the progressive movement, if they have not specifically iterated it, have at least considered it. That is offering people a stipend and an annual lifetime income at a reasonable level if they are willing to undergo voluntary sterilization.
The problems caused by overpopulation did not suddenly erupt on the scene recently but have, through the natural laws of mathematics been developing over time. Other than through an atomic war or a pandemic, we will not resolve that issue overnight. But as horrifying and Orwellian as a voluntary program might seem, it is not too hard to imagine a “progressive Utopia” in which the state finally triumphs over the individual and what might have once been a voluntary option becomes a mandatory compulsion. We’ve seen that in other societies before. Hopefully, we will not see it here in America.