There you go – Progressivism explained in six minutes flat. Anyone – A N Y O N E – who has managed to graduate from a University has been inundated with Liberal ideology by a ratio of 10-1 as compared to their right wing and libertarian counterparts. Therefore, conservatives and libertarians get through their education having their ideas deeply challenged, while liberals do not. This leads to a fundamental difference in the level of depth in thinking between the two ideologies. This is not a tactic of the left only, and shouldn’t be portrayed that way, but yes this behavior, which used to be almost exclusive to the right (calling liberals communists, and stating that people who are anti-war are traitors, or don’t support the troops etc.), has been embraced unfortunately by many on the left whose positions on a number of issues I still generally agree with. I think part of the problem is the frustration many on the left feel when trying to get their point across, the way their opponents position theirs. The progressive position isn’t as black and white, and thus doesn’t resonate with the lowest common denominator, ie many who are in fact racists, bigots, homophobes, and sexists, not to mention religious freaks.
When all is said and done, tolerance is relative, not absolute. Some things deserve greater tolerance, while some things deserve zero tolerance, but most things fall somewhere in between. The tolerance something deserves is relative to the degree of benefit or harm that it will produce, directly or indirectly, now or in the future. We all have to choose. A non-choice is a choice. There really is no such place as the middle. Think of a road. Standing in the fictional middle gets you run over from both ways. I never have believed or been fooled by the myth of the middle. What I do see though is people groping for a side to stand on. And that becomes the end of it.
Progressivism explained in six minutes flat.