A number of readers have written to me specifically about the "Tribe And 
Tribalism" segment in this series. Their missives have suggested both 
alternate approaches to "tribe" and a great many additional examples of 
recognizable tribes within this nation and others. It's the sort of 
feedback that makes me pleased to have elicited it, because it indicates 
that people are thinking seriously about fundamentals.
One "tribe" that's drawn particular attention is the ideological tribe 
of hard-left "progressives." We can see from the criteria in that 
earlier essay that self-nominated "progressives" do constitute a tribe:
-- It possesses a set of criteria for determining who is (and who is 
not) a member: Identification is by political alignment and the use of 
the proper "shibboleth" words.
-- It demonstrates a substantial degree of cohesion over time: 
"Progressives" virtually never defect from their tribe.
-- It prefers members to non-members in significant ways: Have you ever 
known a "progressive" who would willingly associate with 
non-"progressives?"
-- It enforces a code of conduct upon members, whether formally or 
informally: Mandatory attendance at a certain number of public protests 
and demonstrations per year.
-- It regards interaction and interpenetration with outsiders as 
occasions of elevated danger and opportunity: Mainly to meet 
"progressives" of the opposite sex for, ah, extra-curricular dialogue.
When Eric Hoffer wrote of "a compact and unified church" of "true 
believers," he might well have had his era's "progressives" in mind.
However, it's fairly clear that, whatever "progressives" might truly 
value, progress, at least as we regular humans understand it, is no part 
of their agenda:
"Progress is the improved satisfaction of human desires, morally, with 
less input." -- Kevin Cullinane
Indeed. Even if those "human desires" included all the ostensible policy 
goals "progressives" claim to cherish, they can't claim progress toward 
those, either. As a recent humorous example, consider that wind farms, 
long a totem of the enviro-Nazi faction of the "progressives," are now 
believed to contribute to "global warming." 
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17871300) That puts the 
"warmistas" at war with the renewable-energy bunch and the Left's cadre 
of crony capitalists! Superb!
As matters are trending, "progressives" might soon become an endangered 
species. The tribe is incapable of advancing on its overt goals, ever 
more deeply riven by internal discord, completely dependent on a 
relatively small group of "sugar daddies," and frowned upon by an 
increasing fraction of the American electorate. America still shelters 
enclaves within which it's safe -- nay, required -- to pose as a 
"progressive," but those habitats are relatively well demarcated 
geographically. More, their denizens seldom venture out, unless it's by 
aircraft to another such habitat.
Perhaps it's time to get the EPA involved...
 
4 comments:
"As matters are trending, "progressives" might soon become an endangered species."
Francis, you're wrong. I live in California. Neither truth, fact, history, debt, catastrophe nor warfare will wipe out progressives.
Progressives are the social cockroaches of our time. They will only be curtailed by lessons in history, economics and real (not social) justice.
California is one of the "progressive" habitats I had in mind, Fur. Indeed, if we could just get up the funds for a fence around California, the infestation problem would be nearly solved!
Fran and Furball,
Your assessment of the situation in my birth state of California is correct insofar as the large metropolitan districts and the coastal counties are concerned. The vast interior regions however, are populated by decent and conservolibertarian citizens. The same holds true of both Oregon and Washington state. I suspect that New York shares similar demographics. It is the tragedy of "democracy" that these otherwise utopian areas are considered "flyover country" by the collectivists who misgovern them.
I think Leonidas' comment can be extended to other states as well. Having been a conservative living in both far Northern California (Yreka) and in Oregon (north of Grants Pass) - the mythical "State of Jefferson" - I recognize a similar phenomenon in Montana.
How else explain the continuing presence of two progressive Democratic Senators - Tester and Baucus - in a state that is otherwise filled with farming, ranching, and oil industry folks. There are far too many liberals living and voting in Missoula, Helena, Bozeman, and Billings, as well as the many liberal former Californians who have settled around places like Kalispell and the Flathead Lake area. As in CA, OR, WA and elsewhere, those liberal multitudes overrule us conservatives out in the countryside.
Post a Comment