The Moral Vocabulary of Progressives

1,961

Talk is cheap.

“Moral” = Conforming to a standard of right behavior.

“Vocabulary” = words used on a particular occasion or in a particular sphere.

“Progressive” = person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

By “vocabulary” I will refer to words frequently used in that “particular sphere” of human conduct pertaining to “a standard of right behavior,” that is, words about what specific conduct, from the speaker’s perspective, makes people “moral” (good) or “immoral” (bad). Moral vocabularies are powerful instruments of social and political control, which is why the moral vocabulary of the power-clique (promulgated through the legacy media) is a highly enforced monopoly. Those compelled to use your moral vocabulary are those who, morally speaking, will think like you and act like you want them to act.

I have spent many years of my long life employed at a number of universities where the monopoly is strictly enforced. American universities are locales where you will find more than enough “progressive” people – advocates of “social reform” and “liberal ideas” – so as to grasp their high “standards of right behavior,” and the rigor with which they apply them to unfortunates they believe are of the “wrong” kind. I rubbed shoulders daily with them, and, sadly, I must confess, was for a season, one of them. I have a good sense of how they think and talk.

One thing to note at the outset is that progressives tend to be fairly well educated, that is, “educated” in the sense of having collected a “degree” beyond high school at a college or university. That in itself is a fairly reliable progressive marker since the moral vocabularies they deploy are often acquired through the common misnomer, “higher education.” A newly matriculating student at a university who is a Baptist from Kentucky, a Catholic from Louisiana, or a New Ager from California will have a significantly different moral vocabulary when he leaves with a degree, one with “bad people” words he promiscuously attaches to whomever opines differently. The other thing to note is that, unfortunately, women seem especially prone to “progressive people’s syndrome” (PPS), as often displayed in that uniquely shrill female tone of dogmatic, censorious sermonizing.

“The maintenance of an unsullied diction is therefore one attribute of utter dullness.” Hugh Kenner, The Art of Poetry. The “utter dullness,” and predictability, of progressive-speak manifests in its “unsullied diction,” that is, its rote reliance on what I call “demon words.” “Hitler” seems to be number one on the chart.

“Adolf Hitler,” the man, has disappeared – now merely a demon word that conjures up phantasms of unparalleled evil. With little serious reflection, progressives lemming-like attach “Hitler” to whomever members of the “clergy” in charge of shaping (warping?) public opinion have decided is currently most unlike them in their self-celebratory rectitude. And so: how many Hitlers have come and gone over the years – Slobodan Milošević, Saddam Hussein, George W Bush, etc? Still, they keep coming and speaking languages other than German. Now simultaneously two Hitlers threaten good people throughout the world – Putin and Trump – competing for top billing.

“Hitler” also functions for progressives as a frequent centerpiece of performance art. First, you denounce someone currently on the outs with the New York Times, Washington Post or CNN, like Trump, for example, as the latest “Hitler.” That’s the attention getting piece of the act for whomever you want to impress with your moral bona fides. It is the climax of your mini-drama and signals, that you recognize consummate evil where others have failed: “He’s Hitler, for Christ’s sake!” The performance concludes and everyone is supposed to applaud your little truth-to-power skit; and the world is a better place for reasons that remain forever mysterious.

No commentary on the moral vocabulary of progressives can proceed without noting its most lavishly deployed word, a weapon used to exact uncompromised moral compliance from bad people. “Racist” has proved to be a useful tool for mobilizing the enforcers of progressive morality and by sheer repetitive force has come to mean, “a moral failing that surpasses all others,” a failing that makes the non-compliant, as our proudly progressive Hillary Clinton so delicately put it, “irredeemable.”

What exactly makes it an unredeemable moral failing is, of course, what the endless “conversations on race” never quite get to beyond useless tautologies such as: “racism is bad because being a racist makes you a very bad (“deplorable”) person.” So abstract and protean is “racism” that no one sullied by the accusation can prove innocence. In fact, denial is merely confirmation of guilt, and a “struggle session,” conducted by a DEI “professional” might be in order to achieve a dubious absolution.

To bolster anti-racism’s moral imposture, the resort has been to what I call the “adjectival multiplier effect.” The unsung philosopher, Mae West, captured how it works this way: “If a little is great, and a lot is better, then way too much is just about right!”

Here is “way too much” courtesy of United Way National Capital Area:

With its complex history, racism is oftentimes taught to others on a linear scale. The truth is, racism accepts many forms. Though not always communicated, racial inequality percolates at larger levels than between individuals. Racism reaches beyond one simple ideology, affecting society in harmful ways. Read on to explore different types of racism.

Four Types of Racism

I’ll leave it to the reader to decipher what is being said with this barely-literate muddle of a prelude (“percolates at larger levels”?), but let’s quickly move to “explore” the “four types of racism at different levels” before there are five or six to figure out. Oh, yes. Beyond the four levels, there is also something called “classic racism” that is: “often [but not always, I guess] associated with power and white–specific power structures.” When “racism” is said to have a “classic” version you know you’ve stumbled upon people who should not have access to word processors.

• Internalized or Personal Racism – “a pattern that encompasses a person’s private beliefs, prejudices and ideas”
• Interpersonal Racism – “the expression of racism on an individual level, primarily through interactions between individuals”
• Institutional Racism – “the presence of discriminatory policies and processes iwithin an institution, some of which are deeply rooted in America’s history”
• Structural Racism – “laws, rules or official policies in a society that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race. Examples of behaviors include xenophobia, internalized oppression and white privilege” (Note that none of three examples are “behavior,” but cut United Way some slack for trying so hard.)

So, assisted by adjectives, “racism” is: a “pattern,” an “expression,” a “presence,” and a whole bunch of “laws, rules, or official policies.” You get the point. We are approaching peak saturation for “racism.”

In addition, there is mention of “implicit” and “explicit racism.” You can poke around and find other “racisms,” e.g. “systemic,” “environmental,” but we are looking at adjectives running amuck, running wild, comrades. Like an alcoholic thinking that with the next shot of Johnnie Walker he will achieve that high he needs, these bumbling race hustlers believe that adding one more “racism” to the expanding repertoire will completely disarm white America and compel its total submission to the moral extortion racket they have been running since the end of WWII.

The “four levels” reach across the entire spectrum: from the “racism” in the soul (personal) to friends and family to whatever institution one’s a part of, to, well, the whole damn society and government – a government by the way run for eight years by a fast-talking black guy elected by white people. There is nowhere a white American can be without the culpability of his “white privilege” staring him in the face.

“Diversity,” is high-use in the progressive moral vocabulary. It functions in two ways. The first is approbatively, for bestowing praise on things that are not praiseworthy. For example, “diversity in the workplace is a wonderful achievement.” To avoid confronting the reality that such “achievements” may in fact be detrimental requires the second function, the euphemistic one. “Diversity” is the “little bit of sugar that makes the medicine go down,” the medicine being: “we need more women fire fighters,” or “more black actuaries.” “Diversity” employed euphemistically easily converts into slippery tautologies – “a diverse workplace is a more effective workplace” – that evades having to answer uncomfortable, reasonable questions such as: “why aren’t there more black actuaries?” Or, “will more women airline pilots make commercial flight safer and more enjoyable?”

“Hate has no home here” is on placards that festoon the lawns of progressives. 

“Hate” is one of several frequently resorted to words that betrays the unintended irony in its use – the intense loathing of the no-hate home owner for MAGA people, pro-lifers and gun owners – the stunning lack of self-awareness and the psychological projection with which they operate. Progressives have seized on “hate” to stigmatize the “bad” people who think bad thoughts because hatred is a visceral emotion that connotes lack of rationality and control. By labeling those with whom you disagree as “haters,” there is no need to try to understand their thinking or engage with them in discussion. Hate – morally neutral, depending on what you hate – works as another “demon word” for progressives to affirm their own goodness by contrast.

The progressive moral vocabulary is also rich with references to “our democracy,” with the possessive pronoun “our” the key to understanding the political subterfuge that operates with the use of this expression. There is no “our” as in us, “the people,” who possess self-governing power. The purview of “our democracy” belongs exclusively to the guardians of the morally “progressive” orthodoxy for whom the “our” applies only to “some people,” those who embrace the orthodoxy. A different “some people” who might as a majority elect a non-guardian approved candidate to office, are a “threat to our democracy” because only democracy with the “right” people in charge is really a democracy. Our guardians (who clearly know more than the demos) know that Trump is a threat to “our democracy” even though a majority Americans voted for him. The guardians of German democracy are attempting to ban the right-wing AfD party who the German people would put in power in an open election. The Germans, it seems, should be allowed to choose as their rulers only those approved of by the guardians.

Finally, let’s see how “progressive” works in the vocabulary of these ambitious moralists. To call yourself a “progressive” is first and foremost an act of conspicuous self-affirmation – virtue signaling, as we currently refer to it. It announces your rejection of the status quo tainted by the isms – “racism,” “sexism,” “ableism,” etc., about which you routinely fulminate. And, it foresees a “progression” to a better, ism-free society where everyone will talk, think and act the way they should – just like you.
Deep down, you must realize that this is a dream land, utopian delusion. But to sustain the delusion, you resort to a moral vocabulary that supports the evasion of the world you actually live in, an alternative reality. It helps you pretend that if only the right people were put in charge, people like you, “inequality” could be dismantled, the reign of the bad people would be over, and the chains that bind the oppressed, the marginalized and the exploited would be broken. They would could finally be everything wonderful that we (the bad people) have prevented them from being.

“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” 1st Corinthians 13:11. Progressives are like children, but don’t expect them to put away childish things. Don’t expect progressive-men to become men.