The Paranoid Style in Modern Progressivism
January 28th, 2008 by joe
David Horowitz’s incisive little essay notes succinctly what we have attempted often to explain here:
Rhetorically, they are passionate proponents of “equality” but in practice they are committed enthusiasts of a hierarchy of privilege in which the highest ranks are reserved for themselves as the guardians of righteousness, and then for those they designate “victims” and “oppressed,” who are thus worthy of their redemption. Rhetorically they are secularists and avatars of tolerance, but in fact they are religious fanatics who regard their opponents as sinners and miscreants and agents of civil darkness…
This entry was posted on Monday, January 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm and is filed under Philosophy, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
joe,
You do have a way. Fanning the flames of another fire I see. Article sounds just like what goes on here. I especially like this line: “Efforts by the targets of this malevolence to correct fabrications and mis-statements of fact are guaranteed to fail nearly every time, in part because progressives don’t regard their judgments as opinions but as a received moral (and therefore incontrovertible) truth. Eventually an alternative reality is created by this process which no one would even think to check.” Alternative reality. Imagine that!
January 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Polite debate and good-natured joshing is all I ever expect to see here.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Oh the humanity!
January 28th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Where?
January 28th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
“Efforts by the targets of this malevolence to correct fabrications and mis-statements of fact are guaranteed to fail nearly every time, in part because progressives don’t regard their judgments as opinions but as a received moral (and therefore incontrovertible) truth. Eventually an alternative reality is created by this process which no one would even think to check.”
Funny thing. Replace the word “progressives” with “right-wing nuts” and the sentence becomes truth!
January 28th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
inSanity,
you are sooooo clever! Wow. Such wit. Such panache. Such drivel.
It is currently the left that tries to stifle speech. For example the barring of global warming skeptics from conferrences, and labeling them ‘deniers’. Classic bit of Orwellian-thought there.
It is left wing nuts who visit campus events and stop speach of conservatives. Many have been assaulted. This is actions of people who consider their judgements as opinions?
You are overlooking the ‘inconveneint truth’ inSanity. Both sides have their loons boy, but things have gotten interesting in your camp the last few years.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Obviously this is a sensitive topic.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:40 am
jacob,
Just remember the line “alternative reality”. That is truly progressive thinking.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:09 am
well that’s just perfect, esp. considering that paranoia has been a hallmark of american conservatism this entire millennium.
when I read, “they are religious fanatics who regard their opponents as sinners and miscreants and agents of civil darkness…” I thought he was talking about Jack-ob!
ahahahaha
January 29th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“The question is not whether you are paranoid or not, but whether you are paranoid ENOUGH.”
January 29th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Marshmallow,
Pistols at dawn. You have implied that I am Jack. Them’s fighting words ya varmint.
As for paranoia, if ‘they’ _are_ out to get you, are you not prudent if you are paranoid? As you appear to be a paragon of all knowlegde, could you please tell this poor conservative who the ‘they’ are?
January 29th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
oh conservative marshmallow one,
I think you are flying under a false flag. Unless conservatism has come to encompass disdain for the unborn, victory on the battle field and control of our borders. Those are the position of the hippie fruit loop.
Could you please begin to explain this new monacker(sp?). Or are we back to humor? It is giving me a headache. I know this will only serve to encourage you, but I am not ready to start applying child psychology in your case.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
puft the Con,
Billy Clinton carried paranoia over from the last millenium into this one. You wouldn’t begin to tell me he was a conservative like yourself, would you?
January 29th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
who are ‘they’? why, Billary, of course! Don’t you read the Bible?
…and for the record, I have no disdain for the unborn, any more than I have disdain for the diseased. There’s nothing sweeter than victory on the battle field, (assuming you’re talking about the Big House) Border control? I wouldn’t have it any other way! What’s that got to do with anything?
January 29th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
stay puft paragon of all knowlegde,
Oh great fluffy one who is all knowing, you misspelled ‘knowledge’.
Thank for telling me what I suspected all along. I knew Billary was out to get me, socialist scum that they are. I found direct reference to them in the 2nd book of Fred 6:66 ‘Beware of the Bubba, for were he is there is the shrill one’. There are other numerous references in the Billary secular version of the Talmud a.k.a. the NYT.
On to some of your other points oh fluffy one:
1. disdain for the unborn equates to abortion son, you have supported this practice in the past. Have you received enlightenment?
2. disdain for victory on the battlefield, if it is sweet for you, would not entail redeployment to Diego Garcia or some other forsaken atoll. I thought you were for getting out of Iraq.
3. Border Control is currently an oxymoron. Considering some of your arguments in this area, oxymoron works well your befuddledness.