Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It Started with World Peace
I’ve decided to start writing in hopes to take a journey of understanding to delve into why progressives hate conservatives and, evidently, the idea of America. I don’t have all the answers yet, but I hope some on this site with take the journey with me.
When I was a kid in the ‘80s, I often heard the prayer, the hope, and the goal of “World Peace” repeated. I believe that most, if not all of the progressive efforts of the last century and a quarter are aimed at achieving this goal. If we can understand the underlying reasons for this, we can better understand what progressives hope to accomplish and why they hate us.
Why?
Its roots probably start with Pax Romana or even before, but the modern desire probably traces back to the wars of imperial expansion that marked the 18th and 19th centuries. This led Immanuel Kant to write Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch late in the 18th century. Others began to embrace the idea, such as Theodore Roosevelt, and various thought leaders in Europe got behind the idea of banding governments together to fight bad actors.
After the Great War that would end all wars, the desire increased and led to the formation of the League of Nations, discussed later. When the second world war ravaged Europe, Asia, and Africa, progressives knew that peace must be achieved and that the means were not terribly important.
How?
Globalism or One World Government is the best way progressives can imagine ushering world peace. The 20th century is an epic account of various efforts at a global government. The League of Nations made an early and failed attempt, but it led eventually to the United Nations. The European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the rise of expansionist Communism were all efforts to address an end to war through the defeat of nation-states.
All the other “isms” that come from the left can trace their roots back to the desire for world peace. Ask yourself any question about motivation and you can track the answer back to this central desire. The main one is, what about Socialism and the injustice movement? Socialism is a means to achieve globalism by seducing the majority of the population that things will be better if the government is given control. Global government needs a lot of control. What else? Overpopulation? It’s hard to control a lot of people. Corporatism? It’s easier to govern a few big companies than millions of small ones. Immigration? If populations mix all over the world, national identity is watered down.
So, what about America? Why is it so bad? The answer is that America is the main thing that stands in the way of global government. Why do progressives hate Reagan still? His approach was pretty solidly vindicated. Saving America and keeping it great ruined the rise of Socialism across the globe. Guns? Americans will never submit to a global government if they can rise up and defend themselves. The concept of American exceptionalism is counter to the very idea of a one-world government.
One begins to understand why progressives seem to hate America while also claiming to love it. America is the main obstacle to a global government, so whatever can bring it down is deemed good.
So, how’s it working out?
You can see the issues with the European Union. If it were all about a single currency and providing for the common defense, it might have worked, but big governments can’t help but flex their muscles. They ask for more control and do their best to further the globalist goals.
Free markets keep working out better than anyone ever expects, and so state-enforced socialism never stood a chance.
Where do we go from here?
I don’t have an easy answer. As I said, I am starting a study on this subject and I’ll write about what I’m learning. However, I will say this: the goals of the peace movement are similar to many of our own. None of us wants war. We just think it is sometimes necessary. Would we like global prosperity? Yes, but it’s not something a government can mandate or legislate. I think we ought to focus on what the problems are that progressives hope to solve and agree that we see them as problems too. It may still irk them that we don’t go about solving problems the way they want (like our reduction in greenhouse gases), but we may be able to get back to disagreement and away from hatred.
Published in History
It’s because the Brits still suffered from a critical mass of common sense.
@jameslileks — People become progressives for the feeling of virtue they get. As a result, when you criticize any aspect of progressivism, you are attacking the basis of their self-esteem.
How to be a Billionaire and Not Feel Guilty About It (after Steve Martin):
1. Get a billion dollars.
2. Advocate giving other people’s money to the poor.
That’s why progressivism is “cheap virtue“.
@jameslileks — Progressives tend to have a worldview that is not just wrong, but inverted. (“Black lives matter” is just one example of this.)
Because they see themselves as largely having transcended traditional ethics, they see nothing wrong in deception for a good cause, i.e., progressivism. As a result, each builds on the lies and deceptions of other progressives until, after a few go-rounds, the progressive account no longer bears any relationship to reality.
The fact that the progressive movement is self-misinforming gives conservatives and classical liberals an angle of attack. Bring up to them the inconvenient facts and statistics that their fellows have been hiding from them.
P.S.: I would have done these two comments as a reply to yours, but the reply mechanism seems to be broken.
Odd.
You’ve been awarded with a MFP. Well done, young Jedi.
I’m up for it. No worries.
I agree that many if not most of the leaders of the movement are in it for power, but what about the rank and file? What about your left-wing neighbors? I think many of them have a genuine belief that they’re in a righteous cause.
With very few exceptions, everyone would like peace. Where peace is difficult is with who controls within the peace.
I don’t believe this is true. Yes there is disagreement, but not “hate”. I have 3 children who are very progressive, we disagree but there is no hate. Reagan wanted world peace and pursued it in the best way he knew how. Ditto Obama, Bush and other world leaders. Even Lil’ Kim-il.
One component necessary for peace is to not have people in want who have no way to satisfy their legitimate wants. I believe capitalism does this, others favor socialism, even communism. I do not believe that giving my stuff to those with less stuff assuages their wants. This is how people differ.
There will always be those who have wants. Sometimes individuals, sometimes groups, sometimes nations and sometimes despotic rulers of nations. Our efforts as humans is how to many these people and their wants. Conservative/progressive, capitalist/socialist, these are just different methods. A liberal democracy uses open discourse to manage these views. Other forms of government use different methods.
World government just puts the people with wants into different boxes, the EU as an example, where there were still people with severe wants, just divided them up differently. This is why the UK opted out, the people with wants now were in the same governmental group as UK citizens and the UK government had lost the ability to manage these new “citizens”.
@jamesgawron, thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I didn’t mean to throw Kant under the bus. I don’t disagree with the idea of world peace either. I just mentioned him as the modern author of a goal of world peace. Obviously, if we had adhered closer to his road map, we’d have made a lot more headway toward achieving it.
Great insights and background. Thanks. This is what I need and am looking for. I think the philosophy today has just devolved into hating Trump, but if we can understand them maybe we can help them understand themselves.
I do overgeneralize when I say they all hate us. I don’t hate them and I think conservatives and libertarians in general don’t hate liberals, just think they’re wrong. There is a lot of political hatred out there right now, though, and it’s worrying me.
He’ll just have to deal with two Kants as only Kant can.
Dan,
You have done a very good job of stating what’s wrong in the woke politics of our time. Kant created a large and comprehensive system. For about 100 years (the 19th century) he was studied and highly respected. In the 20th century, things started to go downhill as the new nihilists had no patience for Kant’s full system. This is too bad for us as we fall victim to the really bad ideas like Marx or the current woke deconstructionists. We don’t realize that Kant’s full system would dynamite these pretenders. Kant’s ideas really reinforce Locke’s great fundamentals that are so much part of our own constitutional tradition. I am quite sure that Kant intended this. He had the highest regard for the American Revolution. He had high hopes for the French Revolution but they were quickly dashed. The ideas that I presented in my comment came from his last and most mature work “The Metaphysics of Morals”. This was published in 1797. He had seen the Reign of Terror in France by then and had read the new American Constitution. I’m sure the difference was clearly evident to Kant. Although always referred to as an idealist, he was much more of a realist than most understand.
Regards,
Jim
A major influence on the Progs is the belief that *larger* governmental entities are both more effective and more just…the Union was better than states rights, the EU is better than individual countries in Europe, world government is better than national governments, etc.
An argument sometimes made to support this is a form of technological determinism..as the world becomes more interconnected, the structure of government must change to fit the environment. An early version of this was suggested by the Confederate general Porter Alexander, who after the war became a railroad president, in a speech where he suggested that the South’s loss of the war had not necessarily been a bad thing:
Well that (state’s rights) was the issue of the war; & as we were defeated that right was surrendered & a limit put on state sovereignty. And the South is now entirely satisfied with that result. And the reason of it is very simple. State sovereignty was doubtless a wise political instution for the condition of this vast country in the last century. But the railroad, and the steamboat & the telegraph began to transform things early in this century & have gradually made what may almost be called a new planet of it… Our political institutions have had to change… Briefly we had the right to fight, but our fight was against what might be called a Darwinian development – or an adaptation to changed & changing conditions – so we need not greatly regret defeat.
But, of course, the populations he was speaking had a common language and to a considerable extent a common history and culture. See What are the limits of the Alexander analysis?
Also, there are certain kinds of problems that surface or become much more serious when larger entities are created from smaller ones: not only in the case of governments and societies, but also things like power grids. See Coupling.
Oh yeah, that’s the koolaid. They are the useful idiots to usher in the oligarchs.
Can Kant?
Mrs. Kant couldn’t, because she wasn’t.
I’ve never read The Metaphysics of Morals. But as a guy who goes to the text for teaching lessons from the Groundwork for a Metaphysics of Morals pretty much every semester, I strongly concur with Gawron on this.
When you go to the text instead of to whatever oversimplifications of Kantian ethics we’ve been taught to repeat, it turns out Kantian ethics can be as thoroughly attentive to circumstances as we need it to be.
It’s nice that so many works are easily available on Gutenberg.
In some respects, we live in wonderful times.
We have short memories. I have a terrible memory for details like “When did you last pay the water bill?” but I do recall the hatred of Ronald Reagan. I was in middle school at the time but I remember what was said. I remember the hatred of George HW Bush and especially his Vice-President. I remember being told during the Clinton presidency “It’s the economy, stupid!” I remember the hatred of George W. Bush. I remember being called a racist when I questioned the policies of Barack Obama. And of course, it should be no surprise that they hate Trump. Is the hate worse? Does it burn more? If it appears so, it’s only because of social media and the always-on news cycle and the advent of the snowflake. They hate Trump no less than they hated the others, whatever they may say.
The Poles have also kept their own currency. I’m not sure if they’re dragging their feet on an earlier intention to switch to the Euro, or what.
It seems all consuming now. It’s all they can think about. I remember the old hatreds too. Maybe the difference is how aggressively Trump fights back.
Discussions of World Peace always remind me of this scene:
@percival, if Kant Kant then no one can. Which leads to the inevitable question: Can Kant can-can? If Kant Kant can-can, then who can can-can if Kant Kant? However, IF Kant can can-can, can “Kant Kant” be considered mere cant?🤔
Either you’re overdoing it, or I’m just no good at this. Either way, I Kant keep up with this level of Kant puns.
Kant can only can-can if can-canning can be found consistent with the Catagorical Imperative. Otherwise, Kant can’t can-can.
If so, in order for a non-Kant can-canner to can-can, they can’t follow Kant. This would also imply that if Kant can can-can, a non-Kant can-canner can’t can-can, Kant they?
You see, @danimal_47, it always gets to this point sooner or later. Wouldn’t miss it, myself. How about you?
You guys have destroyed the man’s post. He’ll likely quit Ricochet.