Progressivism Eats Away at Everything Eventually

I've been reading Fr John Fahy: Radical Republican and Agrarian Activist by Jim Madden, a biography of an Irish Catholic priest who was a political radical.

He was friends with Peadar O'Donnell, one of the most prominent Irish radicals of the twentieth century, and editor of the much-revered (by Irish leftists) Bell journal. It's hard to get a clear picture of O'Donnnell. I read somewhere once that he actually had the rosary said every day in his house, although I can't remember where I read this so I can't verify it.

In any case, the point is this: it's extraordinary that these Irish radicals of the twentieth century lived quite conservative lives, for the most part. Most of them remained married to one spouse and they generally had a respect for religion even when they were anti-clerical. (I treasure the story of Big Jim Larkin, the trade unionists and Comintern Member, who was told by a priest on his death-bed to turn to the Mother of God. "I never did anything else, Father", he said.)

I'm not a very observant person-- sometimes I'm spectacularly unobservant-- but I'm baffled that anyone can miss the historical pattern whereby progressivism turns against everything eventually.

I don't think this is because progressivism is directed by some sort of secretive cabal, whether that be Freemasons, Illuminati, or lizard people. I think it's simply the internal logic of progressivism.

To take an example: during the Troubles, the international left was generally sympathetic to the Catholic and nationalist population of Northern Ireland, since they were cast in the role of oppressed. And progressively-minded nationalists in Ireland sometimes even converted to Catholicism, examples being Maud Gonne and the Labour TD David Thornley. (I don't doubt their sincerity; I'm talking about the historical tides they were swept up in.) But this progressive sympathy to the Catholic-nationalist side didn't imply any esteem towards Catholicism or Irish nationalism in itself.

The "oppressed" category is all that counts for progressives. But this is always changing, both because historical circumstances change and because progressivism needs to find constant new injustices. The very word "progressivism" indicates a progress through different stages.

Progressives can't love anything in itself. I'm talking about progressives in their capacity as progressives. I'm sure individual progressives love their cats and their mothers and their favourite sports teams. But the progressive element in them can only love the oppressed and only love them in their capacity as oppressed-- not for themselves.

Renunciation in itself seems to be a virtue for progressives. "Twenty years ago we thought it was progressive to be such-and-such, but now we realize it's not good enough."

The progressive left is always changing its positions. I can remember when it was against censorship and war, for instance-- where today it cheers on "hate speech" laws and apparently wants to drag us into World War Three. The British and Irish left (including Peadar O'Donnell) strongly opposed European integration at first, whereas today they are its most enthusiastic advocates (apart from some on the far left). I'm sure you could supply your own examples.

I'm not naive enough to think the same thing doesn't happen with conservatives. For instance, American conservatives in the 1960s would have been very pro-Vietnam War, whereas today they're more likely to see it as the first in a series of "forever wars" pushed by the Deep State. I've changed my own opinions on many things, too.

But conservatism in principle seems more attached to tangible, real things-- nation, family, marriage, religions, traditions, the organic web of society with all its imperfections and particularities. For progressives, the fact that something is a tradition is a mark against it (although they can show a fondness for particular traditions, like everybody else. Irish progressives tend to be pro-Irish language...for now, at least).

John Stuart Mill was an unusually honest and self-reflective progressive, as this passage from his autobiography shows: "It occurred to me to put the question directly to myself: "Suppose that all your objects in life were realized; that all the changes in institutions and opinions which you are looking forward to, could be completely effected at this very instant: would this be a great joy and happiness to you?" And an irrepressible self-consciousness distinctly answered, "No!" At this my heart sank within me: the whole foundation on which my life was constructed fell down. All my happiness was to have been found in the continual pursuit of this end. The end had ceased to charm, and how could there ever again be any interest in the means? I seemed to have nothing left to live for."

(Mill's breakdown was cured by reading the poetry of Wordsworth. But, of course, neither liberals nor conservatives read poetry today, so that balm is no longer available. Poetry would be a way out of such relentlessly goal-oriented thinking, since poetry teaches us to love things for their own sake, contemplatively, timelessly, freed from the "what-next" urgency of plot or reasoning. This is why I pleaded with conservatives for so long to care about poetry-- but I've given up that fight as futile.)

I love the scene in the Stephen Spielberg film Munich where the French patriarch of a radical family (who are selling intelligence to the Mossad agents) turns on his own children with this diatribe: "In my despair I fathered madmen who dress like factory workers but never do manual labor, who read nonsense and spout pompous bull**** about Algerians and, and who love nothing, not Algerians or French or flesh and blood or anything living. [to Louis, pointedly]: So I have sympathy for a man who can say "I have a papa." "

(To go a bit off-topic, but not entirely, I also love this speech from the film, delivered by a Palestinian terrorist who thinks who is speaking to a member of the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, but who is actually speaking to a Mossad agent: "You don't know what it is not to have a home. That's why you European reds don't get it. You say it's nothing, but you have a home to come back to. ETA, ANC, IRA, PLO -- we all pretend we care about your "International revolution." But we don't care. We want to be nations. Home is everything.")

Well, I didn't expect this post to be as long as it's turned out to be. I've often tried to make this argument with progressives, by saying: "Twenty years ago you would have considered this [whatever woke madness we happen to be talking about] crazy". But it seems to have no effect.

Incidentally, this subject reminds me of the greatness of Edmund Burke, who supported the American Revolution and staunchly opposed the French Revolution, seeing that they were two very different things in their essences. Would that we all had such discernment!