The Collectivist Mentality of the Progressive Ideology

Michael Smith

As a lover of liberty and freedom as defined in the Declaration of Independence, perhaps my mindset just cannot allow me to accept the outcome of the collectivist mentality of the “progressive” ideology. “Progressivism” is preached as a path to Utopia, to a place where everybody is made equal, that all wants and desires are met and there is a unicorn in every paddock.

Maybe it is just me, but where I separate from this “reality” is the methodology of attaining this bliss, this collectivist Nirvana. To me, it seems to be an ideology that is too filled with contradiction to be legitimate.

If my wealth comes as a result of the redistribution of another’s wealth, the taking of the fruits of the labor of another without an equal exchange of value from me, how can I call this my wealth? How can I own the labor or creativity of another person without an exchange of the same from me?

I simply cannot grasp how freedom means taking anything from anyone or any entity that I didn’t earn. Perhaps it is a guilt reflex from some bygone childhood trauma but I even feel discomfort when someone gives me a gift that is in excess of what I feel I deserve. Perhaps it is just what has been historically described as the Puritan work ethic that was taught to me by my family.

In sociology, the Puritan work ethic is based upon the notion that the Calvinist emphasis on the necessity for hard work as a component of a person’s calling and worldly success is a visible sign or result (not a cause) of personal salvation. I came from a farm family where we were taught that a hard day’s work was its own reward.

If my “right” to do something comes as a result of restricting the rights of others, how can I call myself free?

It seems so simple to me to grasp that to ask a Catholic organization, one that clearly opposes contraception, to provide this against their beliefs…but some think that as long as Catholics don’t have to pay for it, they are absolved of that responsibility.

If I take the life of a child in an abortion because it has no value to me, how can I not support “death panels” who will decide who is worth treating, thereby placing a dollar value on life?

“Progressives” will say that it is better that the guilty go free than one innocent be convicted. If that is true, does it not follow that it is better that all should be free rather than one be constrained by the desires of another?

“Progressivism” dwells on the worst in mankind and in true Hobbesian fashion, assumes that the worst is the norm, not the exception. There are many assumptions, some of which are:

• That life is a zero sum game – the successful in life only achieve success at the expense of others – to have more wealth than another means that it was illegitimately taken, not created by value.
• That people can be brought up by simply bringing others down.
• That life can be planned, that it can be controlled and they are the only ones who are intelligent enough to do it.
• That people are helpless and ignorant and must be ruled by a benevolent force, that we must be told what to eat, how to live and what to do.
• That there is no such thing as Christian charity – that men will not be motivated by kindness and act with compassion toward the downtrodden – therefore they must be forced to contribute their treasure to the government for the purpose of redistribution.
• That the individual cannot prosecute his life in the best interests of himself or that of society, that in Hobbesian fashion, he must be “guided” by a “sovereign” or some elite compelling force.
• That a law is correct just because it is a law.
• That everything is relative, that there is no objective truth; it is only what the contemporary societal arbiters say that it is.
• That equality can be created by treating citizens unequally – i.e. affirmative action, minority set-asides, de-segregation.
• That there is no individual responsibility, that life is an exercise in “no-fault” living, that bad acts can be excused by circumstances of life.
• That freedom and equality can coexist – they cannot in a truly free society.
• While many would argue, it does assume that there is no God, only secular humanism. Man is God and the laws of man trump natural laws, the laws of God.

“Progressivsim” purports to be about hope and change – it seems to me to be about hopelessness and conformity.