Creating a new thread to continue a discussion from the Kirk thread, because I think it warrants it. This doesn't mean you should click away if you're unfamiliar with the previous discussion. Not much was said yet and I will add a little background summary here. I hope we can get more participants, because it's an interesting subject.
Background
In the Kirk thread, sahgwa posted a piece of writing by some guy Andrew Torba on Gab (uh oh) where he argues that liberalism is a death cult full of hatred yadda yadda yadda. I called it sensationalist non sense and a couple of short posts later the discussion seems to have mostly moved on from the unhinged claims about death cults and hatred, into a more healthy place where actual conversation (about the merits of progressive liberalism) is possible. Hence this thread.
____________________
First of all, I find it quite worrying that this sort of rhetoric is apparently appealing to people here. Imagine if everyone was characterizing the entire other side of the political spectrum as a death cult full of hatred. How long would it take for civil war to break out? Less than a month, probably. I would hope that we can all find it within ourselves to condemn this dangerous, hateful (yep, he's projecting) rhetoric. Anyway, happily moving on from that, to the more interesting bit:
So there are a couple of claims/questions here which I'll respond to:
Response to (1)
Let's get an assumption out of the way: I think in the claim is the implicit suggestion that progressive liberalism has sort of "won" and we are living in a progressive liberal world. It caused our current problems, and if it hadn't "won" we'd be better off.
I don't think it has won, and we are living not in a progressive liberal world but in a culturally confused world where progressives are slowly gaining ground socially but losing ground economically, and social progress remains hard-fought by conservatives at every turn. But let's leave that aside for now.
My claims
Progressivism is one modern interpretation of liberalism. The main difference between classical liberalism and modern progressivism, I think, is in economic policy. Progressives support redistributive policy and bigger government in general. I believe this is mostly a difference of opinion about the importance of equal opportunity. Progressives are very big on this idea (I'm with them on that), whereas classical liberals are concerned with equality before the law but not so concerned with "helping the little guy" in the pursuit of equal opportunity. This is, I think, where many disagreements about economic policy between the left and the right originate. While this is important to mention, I don't think it's a central issue in this thread. After all, the complaint lodged against progressive liberalism is deeper than economic policy. In fact I would argue it's not about economics at all. The complaint is about social progress. It's a repudiation not just of progressivism but of liberalism and all it stands for.
Why do I say that? Let's start with a quote from one of Torba's writings from the other thread:
Conservative traditionalism, particularly in Torba's writings but also in the follow up posts made by sahgwa and others, is heavily influenced by religion, in this case christianity. In this quote, Torba looks back with great longing at a "masculine" christianity which brought dissenters to their knees and built legal systems based on God's law. This is, to anyone who believes in the core values of liberalism as I do, highly problematic. It's directly against freedom of speech, equality under the law, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and numerous other important principles that American culture was founded on. It is explicitly anti-freedom.
Well, maybe the foundations of American culture and its focus on freedom and liberal ideals were wrong. Maybe it's good to be anti-freedom. Maybe God's law should be the law, etcetera. Torba seems to think so.
My opinion is:
An extreme version of this religious tradition is sharia law. I don't think anyone here is in favor of that. Societal cohesion is great in Saudi Arabia, wouldn't you say? Is it worth it? I say no, for obvious moral reasons, but also for economic reasons. It should surprise no one, after all, that including an additional 50% of the population in the work force and in political decision making is economically a good idea [2]. If it does surprise you and you would dispute it, let me know, I can explain my position in more detail.
I chose not to respond to the bit about mental and physical health for now, because I'm out of time and think this post is long enough already. For now, I'll leave it here.
Response to (2)
I think this point is born out of a misconception about what DEI is. DEI isn't racism, it's anti-racism. DEI laws don't say that companies must hire people of all colors, genders or whatever. Instead, they outlaw discrimination. It's not "you must hire a black guy", it's "your company policy can't be to never hire a black guy".
As for whether DEI creates an us vs them mentality: Let's be real, that mentality was already there. DEI is intended to counteract it. And sure, it causes political polarization but that's just because the right has such an enormous rage boner about it. To me it's a no-brainer policy and really not a big deal. The fact that it is considered such a big deal in politics is actually a sign that it's necessary.
[1] @sahgwa I know you haven't said much on the subject, and if this is misrepresenting you please correct me. I am presenting an argument based on what I believe is your position from what you wrote so far.
[2] This is convincingly argued by nobel prize of economics winners Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in "Why nations fail".
Background
In the Kirk thread, sahgwa posted a piece of writing by some guy Andrew Torba on Gab (uh oh) where he argues that liberalism is a death cult full of hatred yadda yadda yadda. I called it sensationalist non sense and a couple of short posts later the discussion seems to have mostly moved on from the unhinged claims about death cults and hatred, into a more healthy place where actual conversation (about the merits of progressive liberalism) is possible. Hence this thread.
____________________
First of all, I find it quite worrying that this sort of rhetoric is apparently appealing to people here. Imagine if everyone was characterizing the entire other side of the political spectrum as a death cult full of hatred. How long would it take for civil war to break out? Less than a month, probably. I would hope that we can all find it within ourselves to condemn this dangerous, hateful (yep, he's projecting) rhetoric. Anyway, happily moving on from that, to the more interesting bit:
(09-23-2025, 11:10 AM)sahgwa Wrote: No one was railing against women's independence and choice, they were pointing out that Progressive liberalism has obviously led to a breakdown in societal cohesion and mental and physical health. Just look at the news and this thread.
You asked which policies, even ignoring abortion, how about DEI for starters? You dont think that creates an us vs them mindset and values racist qualities like skin colour over quality of work?
So there are a couple of claims/questions here which I'll respond to:
- Progressive liberalism (i.e. "the left") has led to a breakdown in societal cohesion and mental and physical health.
- DEI creates an us vs them mindset and values racist qualities like skin colour over quality of work.
Response to (1)
Let's get an assumption out of the way: I think in the claim is the implicit suggestion that progressive liberalism has sort of "won" and we are living in a progressive liberal world. It caused our current problems, and if it hadn't "won" we'd be better off.
I don't think it has won, and we are living not in a progressive liberal world but in a culturally confused world where progressives are slowly gaining ground socially but losing ground economically, and social progress remains hard-fought by conservatives at every turn. But let's leave that aside for now.
My claims
- Torba and supporters are anti-freedom.
- If "societal cohesion" and mental and physical health can only be achieved by trampling on individual rights, it's not worth it.
Progressivism is one modern interpretation of liberalism. The main difference between classical liberalism and modern progressivism, I think, is in economic policy. Progressives support redistributive policy and bigger government in general. I believe this is mostly a difference of opinion about the importance of equal opportunity. Progressives are very big on this idea (I'm with them on that), whereas classical liberals are concerned with equality before the law but not so concerned with "helping the little guy" in the pursuit of equal opportunity. This is, I think, where many disagreements about economic policy between the left and the right originate. While this is important to mention, I don't think it's a central issue in this thread. After all, the complaint lodged against progressive liberalism is deeper than economic policy. In fact I would argue it's not about economics at all. The complaint is about social progress. It's a repudiation not just of progressivism but of liberalism and all it stands for.
Why do I say that? Let's start with a quote from one of Torba's writings from the other thread:
Torba Wrote:Look to the men who built Christendom. They were not managers of decline. They were not anxious pleasers of the world. They were conquerors. They were kings, knights, saints, and martyrs who carved civilization out of wilderness and darkness with the sword of truth and the shield of faith. They understood that the Gospel was not a suggestion; it was a mandate to reclaim every inch of creation for Christ the King.
This was a masculine Christianity. It spoke of order, justice, duty, and victory. It built cathedrals that scraped the heavens, universities that pursued divine wisdom, and legal systems based on eternal law. It tamed empires and baptized cultures. It did not ask for permission from the world; it commanded the world to bend the knee.
Conservative traditionalism, particularly in Torba's writings but also in the follow up posts made by sahgwa and others, is heavily influenced by religion, in this case christianity. In this quote, Torba looks back with great longing at a "masculine" christianity which brought dissenters to their knees and built legal systems based on God's law. This is, to anyone who believes in the core values of liberalism as I do, highly problematic. It's directly against freedom of speech, equality under the law, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and numerous other important principles that American culture was founded on. It is explicitly anti-freedom.
Well, maybe the foundations of American culture and its focus on freedom and liberal ideals were wrong. Maybe it's good to be anti-freedom. Maybe God's law should be the law, etcetera. Torba seems to think so.
My opinion is:
- It's morally reprehensible. This one is obvious, right? Who are you to tell me what God to believe in, and to impose on me your worldview?
- History shows quite clearly that illiberal structures of government are economically ineffective [2].
An extreme version of this religious tradition is sharia law. I don't think anyone here is in favor of that. Societal cohesion is great in Saudi Arabia, wouldn't you say? Is it worth it? I say no, for obvious moral reasons, but also for economic reasons. It should surprise no one, after all, that including an additional 50% of the population in the work force and in political decision making is economically a good idea [2]. If it does surprise you and you would dispute it, let me know, I can explain my position in more detail.
I chose not to respond to the bit about mental and physical health for now, because I'm out of time and think this post is long enough already. For now, I'll leave it here.
Response to (2)
I think this point is born out of a misconception about what DEI is. DEI isn't racism, it's anti-racism. DEI laws don't say that companies must hire people of all colors, genders or whatever. Instead, they outlaw discrimination. It's not "you must hire a black guy", it's "your company policy can't be to never hire a black guy".
As for whether DEI creates an us vs them mentality: Let's be real, that mentality was already there. DEI is intended to counteract it. And sure, it causes political polarization but that's just because the right has such an enormous rage boner about it. To me it's a no-brainer policy and really not a big deal. The fact that it is considered such a big deal in politics is actually a sign that it's necessary.
[1] @sahgwa I know you haven't said much on the subject, and if this is misrepresenting you please correct me. I am presenting an argument based on what I believe is your position from what you wrote so far.
[2] This is convincingly argued by nobel prize of economics winners Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in "Why nations fail".
