Progressives: “Sensitivity” and “Compassion”

Progressives have abandoned their values for “signals of virtue.” Those who were once for freedom of religion and the infamous freedom of speech now attempt to censor their enemies with aggressive methods. The aggression is so blind that they are willing to toss out their own and stomp their credibility if there is a disagreement. All in from name of “progressivism.”

The progressive movement is not new to abandoning their own, though, as the whole movement was started as a subset of liberalism. While the word liberal is used as an insult among the political right, it aligns more with the beliefs of the right more than progressives do with the liberals anymore. Liberals were – and are – advocates for using the taxpayer money to better society, but the betterment was generally through lobbying for volunteer participation. All the while protecting the rights of freedom to their party and others who are indifferent or may disagree.

It is that last part where the major difference between a liberal and a progressive can be seen. The progressive movement will advocate for those same societal changes, but in a more aggressive manner. Instead of volunteer movements and persuading others to join their causes, there is a “my way or the highway” approach. Those who disagree are slandered publicly, often times being doxxed and even the focus of campaigns to have them fired or ostracized. Of course, some will disagree silently, and they know this; which is where they use pushes for new legal regulations on the opposing views to gain a more universal following. With the taxpayer money, mind you.

Forcing others to abide by your agenda through guilt or regulation does not invoke true change, however. Similarly, sensitivity does not prove one is more “loving” or “tolerant.” What we see in America today are groups of people protesting – peacefully and violently – to get their messages out. The things they protest for, however, are not things of facts or affecting a majority, but rather a minority. Even more sad, it is a minority that none of the participants taking a stand qualify for by definition, nor the minority group really desiring the sort of change they are advocating so strongly for.

This game of slander and judgement geared toward those who do not feel for “the minority group of the day” has to stop. True change will happen if the cause is true. Wouldn’t it be better to promote a society that listens to the desires of both majority and minority? Rather than thoughtfully oppressing the majority in order to “lift up” the minority, who will ultimately still in in a land where “actions” align in a select few, but not hearts and minds.

I would argue that these acts of “compassion” are more selfish than selfless. By appearing sensitive and speaking loudly, one can rally up excitement in a crowd, a following and even a “sense of purpose.” It is the need for a sense of purpose that is precisely where I think this whole issue begins and ends.

Religion is dying in the groups that uphold these “social justices” so dearly. Religion is, in many ways, becoming a bad word nowadays, so let me hurry to explain why I say this. I will use an example, which is from the religious teachings of the Christian’s Messiah. Christ argues that His disciples (followers) ought-to help the poor, and insists further saying “when you help them, you did it for me.” Here He is not only saying to help the less fortunate, but also mind your heart and mind, knowing what the real purpose of it is for. With His promises of eternity, He makes good deeds here into much more than “look at how good I am.” Instead, it is made into helping others in the interim (this physical life), into eternity (furthering God’s message of love) and keeping our own minds and hearts in check too.

As seen by this religious example, the deed is secondary to the heart’s intention. By allowing truth to guide our motives, our actions are influenced by a truer “purpose.” To misinterpret someone’s “sensitivity to a cause” as “compassion for the less fortunate” would be a mistake. We must reassess our motives as a country, and bring back the focus on personal integrity. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s