Why I Left The Left
Transcript:
Do you believe in free speech?
Do you believe that people should be judged by their character, not their skin color?
Do you believe in freedom of religion?
If you believe these things you're probably not a progressive. You might think you're a progressive, I used to think I was.
My show, the Rubin Report, was originally part of the progressive Young Turks Network.
Progressives struck me as liberals but louder.
Progressives were the nice guys.
They looked out for the little guy, they cared about women, and minorities, they embraced change.
In short, who wouldn't want to be a progressive?
But over the last couple years the meaning of the word progressives has changed.
Progressives used to say, “I may disagree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.”
Not anymore.
Banning speakers whose opinions you don't agree with from college campuses, that's not progressive.
Prohibiting any words not approved of as politically correct that's not progressive.
Putting trigger warnings on books, movies, music, anything that might offend people, that's not progressive either.
All of this has led me to believe that much of the left is no longer progressive, but regressive.
This is one of the reasons I've spent so much time on my show talking about the regressive left.
This regressive ideology doesn't judge people as individuals but as a collective.
If you're black or female or Muslim or Hispanic or member of any other minority group you're judged differently than the most evil of all things, a white Christian male.
The regressive left ranks minority groups in a pecking order to compete in a kind of oppression Olympics, gold medal goes to the most offended.
Martin Luther King Junior's dreamed that his children would be judged by their character and not their skin color, was a liberal idea but these days is not a progressive ideal.
And what about religious freedom, the idea that no one else can tell you what you have to believe, surely progressives still support that basic right. Well not so much.
I'm a married gay man so you might think that I appreciate government forcing a Christian Baker or photographer or florist to act against their religion in order to cater photograph or decorate my wedding, but you'd be wrong.
A government that can force Christians to violate their conscience can force me to violate mine. If a Baker won't bake you a cake, find another Baker don't demand that the state tell him what to do with his private business.
I'm pro-choice but a government that can force a group of Catholic nuns literally called the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their faith and pay for abortion inducing birth control can force anyone to do anything.
That's not progressive, that's regressive.
Today's progressivism has become a full moral movement hurling charges of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, and a slew of other meaningless buzz words at anyone they disagree with.
The Battle of ideas has been replaced by a battle of feelings and outrage has replaced honesty.
Diversity reigns supreme as long as it's not that pesky diversity of thought this isn't the recipe for a free society, it's a recipe for authoritarianism.
For these reasons I can no longer call myself a progressive I don't really call myself a Democrat either. I'm a classical liberal, a free thinker, and as much as I don't like to admit it, defending my liberal values has suddenly become a conservative position.
So if you think people should be able to say what they think without being punished for it that, people should be judged by their behavior not their skin color, and that people should be able to live the way that they want to live without government interference then there's not much left on the left for you.
I'll keep trying to explain that to progressives until I'm totally left out.
I'm Dave Rubin of the Rubin report for Prager University.
Tags
Who is online
99 visitors
I believe what I believe and have no loyalty for any movement or group. I base my beliefs on what I see around me, and what the data suggests. I fall on the left side of the political spectrum but do not consider myself to be a progressive. And I do not adhere to any particular ideology, not socialism, not communism, certainly not anarchism. I suppose if anything I could be considered to be more of a social democrat than anything else.
"A government that can force Christians to violate their conscience can force me to violate mine." Forcing a Christian Baker to bake and decorate a Gay themed cake is no different than forcing a Jewish sign painter to paint swastika's or a Black Tailor to sew a KKK hood. No one should be forced to violate their deeply held beliefs by being forced to produce a product that is offensive to them. But on the other hand they can't refuse to serve people just because they don't agree with their lifestyle or beliefs so the Christian baker should sell a wedding cake to gays as long as the product doesn't have any indications that it is pro-gay (no gay theme or Steve and John on it). Just as a Racist restaurant owner has to serve Black folks a Black restaurant owner has to serve skinheads as long as they weren't being forced to host a themed party or meeting and they should not have to produce a special product supporting white or black power. It's real easy to violate the rights of a Racist or someone who is aniti-Gay and it even feels like the right thing to do but it sets a precedence that can and will backfire. Unless we're proposing laws with specific double standards written into them (but they would be Unconstitutional).
Hehe, I was worried about where that post was going, but then thankfully you course corrected. I tend to agree, and I get both sides of the argument, but I have to land on the side of it being illegal to refuse service to someone due to their religious beliefs, race, or sexual orientation etc (within reason of course). This is one area where the slippery slope seems to always end up occurring.
You can't say that! Well you can if I have anything to do with it.