Redefining the Political Spectrum: How Shifting Goal-Posts are Used to Slander

Thumb on the Scale.png

If you had asked me a decade ago if I thought that someone who was politically left-of-center could advocate for racial segregation, I’d have said you were stark-raving mad. Despite this, with increasing frequency, we find a desire for some who call themselves left-wing to make such demands. We see calls for minority-only spaces, we see people derided for their race and their gender, and yet, the people doing so still seem to suffer from the delusion that these ideas are, somehow, “progressive”.

I must question a world in which these people, these ‘champions of progressive ideology’, would turn back the hands of time and view President John F. Kennedy’s enforcement that schools be desegregated, a move he brought about via use of the National Guard, and say that such efforts were racist, and that segregation should’ve continued.

Of course, I doubt any of them would, and yet we still see advocates for “minority only” spaces in publicly funded institutions, effectively mirroring the attempts at segregation made by southern states in the opposite direction. One wonders how they might manage to hold on to these two fundamentally contradictory ideas at the same time.

In keeping with liberal tradition, of course I recognize the right of individuals to freely gather as they choose, and to associate with whomever they choose. However, I must question the use of state funds to create racially segregated areas, as this fundamentally violates civil rights non-discrimination protections which the state is supposed to enforce unilaterally.

More than this, though, I must question the desire of those who seek to create such spaces, to identify with a political ideology that would have, decades hence, seen such ideas as utterly reprehensible.

We live in a time where what is “Left” and what is “Right” is dictated not by policy position, as it traditionally has been, but by whoever is in control of the narrative. Traditionally Left-wing policies, like equality and secularism, are playing a backseat to issues of race and racial prejudice. Meanwhile, those in the Center-left are being branded, ever increasingly, as “New Right” “Far Right” and “Alt-Right” for not aligning on these issues of race, even as these racial policies from the supposed left spin ever Rightward in everything but name.

After all, what else can it be called when a minority group is given special privilege above the rest of society, other than aristocracy?

The predominant ideology possessing these radicals, is often referred to colloquially as “The Progressive Stack”, a system used to figure out which group is most victimized, and thereby assert a hierarchy and method of seeking repayment for grievance based on that group victim-hood.

What I find fundamentally questionable is that the hierarchy is fundamentally a concept that, politically speaking, is most often found within the backbone of conservatism and right-wing ideologies.

Liberalism has always argued for equality under the law, an attempt to level the hierarchy, at least legally speaking, so that all citizens were treated fairly, and thus the hierarchy of the right would sort itself out in the most just manner, as decided by the laws put together by the common people and their representatives.

This new “Progressivism” seems to demand almost an inverted hierarchy, where the lowest should demand the most from society as a lever to forcefully level the hierarchy. This idea, even theoretically, only works in a system where all grievances are legitimate. and we have a fair reckoning of just how prone to lying that human beings are.

I do not believe it is of benefit to humanity to build a racially identitarian system, predicated on the idea that whites as a group are in a better position than everyone else, and that they need to be torn down by the oppressed. To say that, is to say that we have given up on the idea of equality, of liberalism, and of a reasonable political center, one where we all do our best to sort out the system we live in, and we all reap the shared benefits of a system that lets us share them to mutual benefit.

I refused to be claimed as “far right” because I recognize that capitalism is a beneficial tool to society, so long as its influence on government is kept in check. I refuse to let identitarian ideologues label me, and others who think like me, as conservatives or otherwise. I am a socially liberal libertarian, whose views most closely align with Milton Friedman. I will not be told that because I hold these beliefs, I am somehow Hitler or the equivalent adjunct, least of all by someone whose fundamental ideological assumption starts off by positing that white people are in a superior position in society by virtue of their skin color.

I am an individual first. I see others as individuals first, and I believe that it is through individual accomplishments and personal responsibility that we will solve the crisis currently affecting our society. I do not believe large scale ideological shifts are what we need to sort out our problems. I think honest conversations, hard work, and a commitment to keeping in line with our principles and in bettering ourselves are the first steps in a long series towards fixing things, and setting right this attempt to shift the narrative.