The first thing to say about the term “regressive left” is that it rolls off the tongue like a giant hairball. It is unrhythmic, unmusical and wholly unpoetic. The next thing to say is that it is a cringeworthy attempt by liberals to distinguish progressivism from some of the more destructive trends of its modern adherents. When a “regressive leftist” defends Islamism they are not – at least beyond extreme examples – betraying reactionary theocratic sympathies but attempting to smooth over the glaring contradictions of a comically irrational Enlightenment universalism that sees all people as being essentially if not superficially equal in terms of desires, standards and possibilities. Yes, this is regrettable but no more so than the denial by liberals that such contradictions exist in the first place, which inspires them to do silly things like, say, support the “democratisation” of countries with no democratic institutions and no democratic will among their citizens. Also, “regressive left” has come to mean anything than its deployers want. Why are “trigger warnings” regressive? Were books of the 1930s dutifully prefaced by details regarding their potential to provoke trauma? No, this is a progressive move and liberals who describe it as “regressive” are just embarrassed to be conservative.
-
Recent Posts
Interesting People
Things I Make
Archives
- February 2020 (2)
- December 2019 (2)
- October 2019 (1)
- September 2019 (1)
- July 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (1)
- April 2019 (1)
- January 2019 (3)
- December 2018 (4)
- November 2018 (2)
- October 2018 (2)
- September 2018 (2)
- July 2018 (4)
- May 2018 (1)
- April 2018 (1)
- March 2018 (2)
- November 2017 (3)
- September 2017 (1)
- August 2017 (2)
- July 2017 (5)
- June 2017 (5)
- May 2017 (7)
- April 2017 (3)
- March 2017 (8)
- February 2017 (9)
- January 2017 (13)
- December 2016 (15)
- November 2016 (15)
- October 2016 (17)
- September 2016 (4)
- August 2016 (11)
- July 2016 (11)
- June 2016 (11)
- May 2016 (4)
- April 2016 (6)
- March 2016 (6)
- February 2016 (4)
- January 2016 (6)
- December 2015 (1)
- November 2015 (4)
- October 2015 (1)
- September 2015 (3)
- August 2015 (9)
- July 2015 (13)
- June 2015 (3)
- May 2015 (2)
Categories
- America
- Anarchism
- Animals
- Appreciations
- Behaviour
- Belief
- Bias
- Blog
- Books
- Britain
- Communism
- Community
- Conservatism
- Economics
- Ethics
- Europe
- Extremists
- Family
- Fascism
- Fiction
- From the Archives
- Futurism
- God
- Health
- History
- Identity
- Ideology
- Language
- Liberalism
- Libertarianism
- Literature
- Love
- Media
- Mental Health
- Multiculturalism
- Nazism
- Organised Crime
- Personal
- Personalities
- Poetry
- Poland
- Politics
- Psychology
- Rationalism
- Religion
- Reviews
- Rhetoric
- Ritual
- Scepticism
- Science
- Sex
- Uncategorized
- Utopianism
- War
Meta
Good points, but most of the people who use this phrase on the internet seem to be conservatives tired of being called regressive, so they attempt to push it back on the left.
LikeLike
Hm. Perhaps. I’ve heard it most from Real Progressives(TM) like Dave Rubin, Maajid Nawaz and Peter Boghossian.
LikeLike
Adding to the confusion is that the cultural relativism popular on the post-modernist left actually originated with a *conservative* German historian named Oswald Spengler.
His argument was that every culture adapts whatever moral/religious values and social structure that is necessary to survive in the specific geographical environment it originates in, so it wouldn’t make sense to call different cultures more or less advanced – just adapted to different physical survival necessities. This was under his view also what made every country’s unique culture worth preserving, even though he admitted that was basically a fool’s errand in the long run. I imagine what happened was that nationalist movements in Africa and Asia read Spengler, with his ideas then making into the left aisle by way of cultural osmosis when they allied with Western left-wingers during de-colonization.
If the above sounds familiar, that’s because it’s an updated version of G. W. F. Hegel’s ideas about national character that I wrote about earlier in another comment on this very blog. Not that most countries’ real cultural heritages line up into coherent systematic ideologies anywhere as easily as nationalist ideologues like Hegel and Spengler assume, but you can’t deny that’s been an extremely influential idea in political history – even among people who don’t think of themselves as nationalistically inclined.
LikeLike
Excellent comment, as usual, and I believe there is a lot of truth to the idea. What the left has added is the nation that cultures adapt to the unfavourable circumstances left to them by colonialism, Zionism and more recent warmongering. I believe that it is common to hear, for example, that Arabs only embrace Islamism as a reaction against the imperialistic West.
LikeLike
“It is unrhythmic, unmusical and wholly unpoetic.”
Is it? You might not like the rhythm, but it is clear. Unstressed, stressed, unstressed, stressed – “reGRESSiveLEFT” . Beethoven did wonders with it in his Fifth Symphony, especially in the final movement, and makes much of it in his Egmont overture. Without the first stress (“regressive LEFT”) we have the famous opening of the Fifth, plus the added bonus that a slight pause before the first unstressed syllable provides the suggestion of quote marks, which is entirely appropriate for a phrase that some might think requires them.
Assonance, too.
Are there many terms from modern political discussion which do a lot better?
LikeLike
Heh heh. Fair points, well made. It often sounds terribly clumsy in a sentence, though.
LikeLike