Progressives prefer social affliction to social justice
Today’s progressivism believes that “social justice” is “afflicting the comfortable.” The ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius knew this could only lead to horrific injustice.
Today, the progressive movement’s ultimate buzzword, slogan, and statement of faith is “social justice.” The term is, in its way, an excellent choice. It seems to encompass an ethos, a systematic ethics, and an overall goal. Yet it is vague enough to mean almost anything. Indeed, I very much doubt that, if challenged, any progressive could explain it if they tried.
The term is also advantageous in that it implies a distinct moral imperative. Progressivism, it all but explicitly states, is not in favor of specific policies but rather essential goodness. This is essential to a movement whose overall worldview is distinctly antinomian, especially in its attitudes toward sex, gender, and the family. “Social justice” grants the imprimatur of morality to a movement that advocates for what many people consider grotesquely immoral.
Above all, the slogan makes people feel good about themselves. It allows progressives to feel that they are not simply political partisans with contingent policy goals. Instead, they are part of a redemptive movement working toward a blessed society (“social”) in which all are treated fairly (“justice”). Like most radical political movements, progressivism enhances its adherents’ self-esteem and gives them a sense of meaning they both lack and deeply desire.
It is important to acknowledge, however, that the idea of a more just society is not by definition a bad thing. In many ways, it is driven by an understandable and instinctual revulsion in the face of human suffering. The sight of poverty, homelessness, prejudice, and oppression is troubling to any vaguely empathetic human being. Bearing witness to it is to bear witness to the terrible vagaries of fate. In such a situation, one’s natural instinct is toward rectification.
Nonetheless, empathic reaction is only part of any coherent understanding of the world. Thus, the attempt to encapsulate such an understanding in a two-word slogan is bound to fail. Indeed, once examined in any depth, the progressive understanding of “social justice” collapses in short order.
What, after all, is “social”? What is “justice”?
For example, to live in poverty is most certainly a terrible thing. No one who does so should simply be discarded. Nonetheless, there are a great many people who, in full possession of their faculties, have made poor choices that inevitably lead them into poverty. They accepted the moral hazard of their choices and are now suffering the inevitable consequences. This does not mean one should be indifferent to their suffering, but one must acknowledge the moral complications involved.
For instance, if the burden of relieving such suffering is placed on society, the consequences of one person’s bad choices are inherently imposed on others. After all, someone has to pay the bills. It can be argued that, by imposing such costs, one is committing an injustice. The “social” is not at fault, but is nonetheless made to subsidize “justice.”
To most progressives, all this is irrelevant. Justice is justice and justice must be done despite the social costs. However, this brings one back to the question of what “social” and “justice” actually mean in practical terms. What is the mechanism by which “social justice” is to be achieved? After all, if costs are to be imposed, one has a right to know what one is paying for.
At best, the practical recommendations of progressivism amount to a standard left-wing policy agenda mixed with a vague deracinated Christianity. Progressivism has a certain overriding preference for economic and political egalitarianism, though it is certainly not socialism in the classic sense of labor owning the means of production. It sympathizes with the “underprivileged” of society, though the understanding of who is “privileged” and who is not is somewhat arbitrary and fluid.
At its most extreme, this extends to sympathy with the demimonde and a reversal of moral polarities. For example, victims of crime effectively become the perpetrators and vice versa. Today, this has increasingly strong and disturbing elements of racialism and antisemitism, usually through conceiving of certain racial and ethnic groups as privileged and therefore essentially criminals.
Above all, however, “social justice” amounts to a politics of general discontent. “Justice” is never “social” enough and the “social” is never “just” enough. Because “social” and “justice” are vague and ever-shifting concepts, discontent can always be maintained and the motive force of all activism—the desire for radical change—ensured. This is essential to any political project but has no particular appeal to those who are not discontented.
As a result, progressivism is perpetually in conflict with the content. In fact, it views contentment as something like a sin. For example, an oft-quoted aphorism popular among left-wing journalists holds that the media’s job is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” This persecution of the satisfied is a profoundly important principle to progressives and it is doubtful they could function without it. The result, however, is a disturbing one, because it means that progressives must be constantly at war with their own society. In such a situation, the consequences for that society can be very grave indeed.
II.
These consequences, quite often, are not just detrimental but profoundly anti-social and unjust. For example, during the recently concluded Democratic National Convention in Chicago, retail establishments—including many small businesses—closed shop and boarded up their windows for the duration. They did so because of their fear that anti-Israel protester-terrorists and other progressive “activists” would run riot and destroy their property. Thankfully, this did not occur, but the fact that such actions were thought necessary was horrifying.
There is a reason this story went largely unreported: Among progressives, who make up much of the media, small business owners and the lower-middle-class in general are not just expendable but beneath contempt. While not as aggressively demonized as large corporations, small business owners are generally seen as exploitative property owners who oppress their workers and thus prop up a system that is both anti-social and anti-justice. The notion that the lower-middle-class is a social group that might deserve justice as well is deemed unthinkable. They are comfortable and therefore must be afflicted.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to No Delusions, No Despair to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.