I plan on writing several posts about this idea: that the left, in its own way, is as bent on the repression of the common man as the right is. This is, surprise, surprise, a central idea that comes up when reading Chesterton. (Who is he? Check here. There's a solid introduction to him as well as a lot of his work.)
Generally the idea is this. Once upon a time people owned things. They owned land, their own businesses, their own houses. That time has passed, and with it a lot of the autonomy that people used to enjoy. Chesterton blames this on big industry and big government, and you shouldn't be surprised to read more about that later.
What I'd like to focus on is a certain feel on the Left that's hard to pin down, as if the common man isn't to be respected. Think of the very term "common man." It used to be something you could refer to in stirring tones, as if it were the common man holding things together (which was and is often the case.) Or consider the ideas of common wisdom, common law, common sense. They all used to have a certain weight to them. No longer. And why?
There are probably a few answers to that question. One is certainly the slow failing of Tradition in the West (along with its prophets, the elderly, who here like no place else are mocked and marginalized.)
Another big one is the marginalization of the common man himself (and -ahem- herself.) To say common implies things in common, meaning normalcy. And normalcy itself has become a taboo word to the Politically Correct crowd. The Progressive stands for progress, which means Change, which means that simply doing with people has always done has to go, whether it was good or not. And the fruits are heavy: relativism, transhumanism, some would say the impending demographic crisis in the West (more than impending if you're Russian.)
These are the days, I believe, in which the West either falls are somehow redefines and reinvigorates itself (and it has done so in the past.) The upcoming posts on the Common Man will outline why I think the normal, everyday people we pass on the streets will have more to do with that than any dubious cultural elite.
3 comments:
"The Progressive stands for progress, which means Change, which means that simply doing with people has always done has to go, whether it was good or not."
I'm not sure I understand this. What I'm getting is that progression will happen regardless if it's good or not. If this is what you mean I definitely agree but how can we determine if a certain change is right or not? I contend that this can only be found out by looking at the change itself and what it's changing and the effect of the change. Who does it benefit? Who stands to lose? What position were these people in before the progress took place? Just some thoughts...
Progressives today tend to be relativists. That's a fact. They would question my right to put forward one system (like Christianity) at the expense of other truths. That seems fine, but it's like a bunch of people insisting on forward movement but not agreeing on what direction to go.
Our society claims that we cannot know Truth, that we can't choose one moral system over another. But it insists on progress, by GOd, without agreeing on the standard by which we judge what is "better."
First off, I agree with this post, and Johnson's counter post, sorry keith. I'd like to comment on the last paragraph. The West, in the past, has always found a way to turn itself around, otherwise, we wouldn't be the global power we are today. But, specifically in Europe, Catholicism has been the system of redemption I believe. But our world has become so secular and anti-religion, or so fanatically religious with prodestant heresies, and yes, I believe they are, that it will be a very difficult and tedious search to find our roots again. We might have strayed too far from the path. "There may be no hope for men"
Post a Comment