Get PJ Media on your Apple

Works and Days

The New Regressives

June 2nd, 2014 - 9:19 pm

So when I hear the president state the science is “settled” and that he is prepared to act, he sounds like a Grand Inquisitioner who won’t tolerate heresies such as a round Earth or heliocentric solar system. No science is ever quite settled, as more data is constantly gathered and theories of exegesis rebound off each other.

When Eric Holder announces an endless affirmative action and leaves it at that, I want a classically liberal defense along the lines of something like the following: “We believe that preferences must be accorded to those of particular ethnic and racial backgrounds to compensate for past discrimination, whose legacy still makes it difficult even in the present age for particular groups to be treated equitably. And more importantly, we in the government have the ability to ascertain which groups are deserving of such preferences and which not, and also know how to determine which individuals meet precise criteria that earn them official minority status.” Instead, we get something tantamount to “either support something nebulous called affirmative action or you’re a racist.”

Then there is illegal immigration. Again, examine the philology, always the tip-off to an Orwellian rewrite. First we had illegal alien, then illegal immigrant, then undocumented immigrant, and now just immigrant. Such linguistic hocus pocus is necessary given the the present indefensible system of not enforcing the border, ignoring immigration law, and peddling the untruth that almost all illegal aliens fit the DREAM Act categories. Language must accomplish what reality cannot.

But modern-day liberalism is still stranger than all that: after crafting a system of open borders and de facto amnesty that has allowed millions of impoverished from central Mexico to reside in California, the architects of such a system then shut down almost all means to provide illegal aliens a livelihood: water diversions from agriculture, the near extinction of the timber and mining industries, taboos against fracking and horizontal drilling, a virtual shut-down of new housing construction, and on and on.

The result is that the Bay Area liberal looking down from his cupola has pulled up the stairway to his perch. He has essentially decreed that the impoverished will have very little livelihood in an overregulated state other than welfare and entry-level government jobs, and will live an apartheid existence in the Central Valley and L.A. basin, shut out from the coastal corridor where new housing is permanently on hold to any other than the top 2% of the state population.

We should not use the word “progressive” or “liberal,” given that on issues like abortion, affirmative action, the environment, illegal immigration, censorship, and a host of others, the left is reactionary to the core.

In the spirit of changing words to reflect reality, I suggest that we call today’s liberals “regressives” — fundamentalists who are wedded to self-serving deductive doctrines that cannot sustain empirical scrutiny and exist mostly as fossilized theologies of the 1960s.

<- Prev  Page 3 of 3   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
They are neo-feudalists.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
For the life of me, I do not understand why people keep using the word "liberal" to describe radical Leftists and revanchist racists.

Why are all these pinky-extended conservatives still insisting on permitting the modern Jacobins to set the ground rules and the terms by which they will be described?

If you let people describe themselves as "progressive" and "liberal," well---progress is good, isn't it? "Liberal" means "generous," doesn't it? What could be bad? Why the hell are conservatives falling into this trap even on their own websites? Call the bastards what they are: Radicals. Revanchists. Racists. Socialists. They are not liberal. They are not for progress, but regress. They are anti-science; they are pro-stasis.

Tell it like it is, man.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I like trigger warnings.

I think any trigger with a pull under 3 lbs should carry a warning.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (113)
All Comments   (113)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Given all that Professor Hanson has written about Krazifornia I just don't understand why he doesn't bail out of there while he still can. There is going to be a point where so many tax payers have left Krazifornia that the state will impose a fine or tax or a regulation making it impossible for a TAXPAYING CITIZEN OF THE STATE to leave. Get out while you can Professor.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I had issues with calling Leftists reactionaries, but since they are essentially neo-feudalists(*), I suppose it is accurate.

(*) We will live in our huge, well-heated mansions, and you will freeze in the dark - or accept charity.
We will have armed guards to protect ourselves, but you must take your chances.
We will run our corporations by the rules we have had government pass, and you will never be able to create any competition.
We will have our health care, and you will take what the government decrees. Oh, and you have to take charity.

Perhaps a better description would be a term from deductive reasoning? I am referring to "evil".
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Nor do I think MSNBC must dump Al Sharpton for his past homophobic, anti-Semitic, and racist rants that have on occasion contributed to fatal violence."

I appreciate your accurate summary of the facts, but the question is why the only Black host MSNBC could find was a man who is basically a Nazi? What does that say of their view of Black people?

And what of a President of the United States who speaks before the Nazi's organization - as does his attorney general, the man responsible for preventing such murders?

I believe all Democrats now have the burden of proof to demonstrate that they are not Nazis.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
By whatever name it goes, the left will always be our enemy.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Trigger warning? Now we are not using caveat lector anymore?
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Has anybody noticed that liberals are not very liberal anymore, at least in the old sense, of supporting civil liberties, due process, free speech, and honest gov. Maybe all the time it was just a false leftie pose, to be used until they got enough power over others that they didnit need it anymore. The only real liberals left are libetarians and some tea partiers.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree with the first part, but libertarians and Randians tend to be anything but liberal, because they believe they have determined through reason what government should or should not do - and thus are very intolerant of other points of view. Personally, I think they have mixed up reason with consistency. Conservatives these days tend to be more liberal than Leftists, which admittedly is not a high standard.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sir, You forgot evolutionism as the most "self-serving deductive doctrine" of all: There is no Creator; therefore, evolutionism must be true.
I highly recommend the book "Outing the Moronocracy: Ending the Rule of the Blind, the Stupid, and the disgraceful in American Society."
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Or the persistence of the steady-state theory.

We have circular reasoning, generally. First we define science as not including God, then we use the results thereof to prove he isn't there (or involved, same difference).
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Even "warmist" David McKay admits it won't work. See SUSTAINABLE ENERGY: WITHOUT THE HOT AIR. Freebie @ http://www.withouthotair.com/
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you as always Dr Hanson. Painful as always but these days the truth is mind boggling. Many of us think we're at a mental precipice...approaching insanity.
Liberal, gay, progressive etc etc....even the lexicon has been hijacked. But you never fail to find the right lexicon to hit back --hard-- with. Carry on Dr Hanson. Maybe some of the sheeple will have a light bulb moment.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
No light bulbs allowed!
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The concept of a flat Earth came from a fiction book, not by people's beliefs. The Bible and ancient Greek science both said it was a sphere.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't believe this is true in the case of the Bible; the model used there is basically a plane with a dome over it. This does not mean that the Bible is not true; it is just a model used by what is essentially a law book, and if the Bible had described the universe as it is, no-one would have believed it. For that matter, neither would we, since science is continually evolving.

On the other hand, the Bible flatly contradicted the what was perhaps the longest-held theory of enlightened people, the steady-state theory. It took perhaps the entire first half of the twentieth century for them to finally accept - kicking and screaming - that the Bible was correct. I believe the theory has come back, but it can no longer be stated that creation is anti-science.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
As the Rabbis said, "the Torah speaks in the language of man", that is, in the vernacular, even when it isn't 100% accurate.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All

29 Trackbacks to “The New Regressives”