Introduction

The term "liberal" is often misunderstood, and I've even asked a liberal friend, "Why do some liberals seem to oppose liberty?"—only to be met with silence. This reaction suggests a need for more precise dialogue. Philosopher Isaiah Berlin wisely noted, "Everything is what it is: liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or culture, or human happiness or a quiet conscience," highlighting the importance of distinguishing core values.

Defining Liberal vs. Progressive

Progressives, a broad group that includes many well-meaning individuals contributing positively to society, sometimes falter when driven by rigid ideology or reluctance to address extremism within their ranks, which can sour public perception. Notably, "liberal" and "progressive" are distinct, though frequently conflated.

With many societal issues resolved, the remaining challenges—potentially addressable through public policy—take center stage for progressives, who often see government action as the key to solutions. Yet, what if the problem itself is poorly defined? Could it reflect a personal quest for relevance or a desire for change rather than a straightforward issue? Some might wonder if this stems from an unattainable utopian ideal or a sense of discontent among progressives.

Identity Politics and Cultural Relativism

Social justice, often linked to critical race theory (CRT), draws from Marxist roots, which some view as "humanism in practice." However, labeling these individuals as liberals is inaccurate—they align more with progressives, rejecting Enlightenment liberalism. See Critical Critique of Critical Race Theory.

The term "Cultural Marxism" is loaded and divisive, so I prefer an alternative to describe this shift from economic class issues to racial frameworks. A more neutral term might be "identity-based ideology." Identity politics, historically a tool for division, has been used to convince groups that the world is inherently unjust or to create new "victim" categories. This narrative often frames a dominant group as exploiting these self-identified victims, fueling ongoing conflict. A balanced approach requires recognizing both the intent behind these ideas and the complexities they introduce.

Identity politics, for some, has morphed into outright racism, and the Democratic Party bears responsibility for this troubling shift. Its leadership now contends with a party harboring Muslim hate groups (like the Nation of Islam and Muslim Brotherhood), widespread anti-Semitism, and anti-white racism. Historically, what was once termed "racial socialism" has been linked to Nazism, which epitomized this ideology, though fascism, as exemplified by Mussolini, wasn't inherently racist, anti-Semitic, or genocidal.

Instead of that loaded term, I'll use "cultural relativism" to describe this tactic, which targets foundational elements of society—Rule of Law, merit, reason, science, and empiricism. To quote Grok 3:

"This term captures dismantling or challenging foundational cultural norms, values, and structures—like the Rule of Law, merit, reason, science, and empiricism—by treating them as subjective or arbitrary rather than universal truths. It reflects the tendency to view these elements as products of specific cultural or power dynamics, aligning with the critique of traditional frameworks often seen in progressive or anti-reason ideologies."

This method portrays gender, race, and biology as mere illusions, manifestations of power wielded by so-called "oppressor" groups.

Anti-Reason and Deconstruction

Progressives often claim to possess unique insights or hidden knowledge that others overlook. They promote the concept of "social constructs" to undermine aspects of reality they wish to dismantle, suggesting the real world is an illusion. This perspective aligns with postmodernism—a vague term—but I'll refer to it as "anti-reason," capturing its essence as a rejection of Enlightenment rationalism and the tangible reality around us in favor of a fabricated moral or spiritual narrative.

Anti-reason forms the core of cultural deconstruction, a concept rooted in the ideas of the Frankfurt School—a group of primarily Marxist German Jewish thinkers—later expanded in the 1970s by French academics, many of whom had Marxist inclinations. The Free Online Dictionary defines 'deconstruction' as the invention of French philosopher Jacques Derrida:

A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: "In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, 'virtual texts' constructed by readers in their search for meaning" (Rebecca Goldstein).

Jacques Derrida, a French philosopher often associated with deconstruction, was not explicitly a communist, but some Marxist thinkers on university campuses adopted his ideas. These thinkers have used his philosophy, which questions fixed meanings and emphasizes the instability of concepts like truth and evidence, to challenge the foundations of Western society. Derrida's approach suggests that facts and empirical proof may obscure deeper, less rational truths, leading to a rejection of traditional frameworks like reason and objective reality.

In this view, technology, empirical science, reason, and equality of opportunity—core tenets of Western thought—are redefined as tools of oppression, historically wielded by the capitalist class, which some now equate with "white people." This perspective frames these systems as perpetuating inequality rather than fostering progress, though such a stance often sparks debate about its oversimplification of complex societal dynamics.

Frankfurt School Influence

Dr. Douglas Kellner, a UCLA professor with a Ph.D., authored "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," a detailed work that, despite its length and density, effectively outlines the essence of cultural Marxism, which some describe as an identity-based ideology. Unlike earlier Marxist thinkers who emphasized economics and politics, the Frankfurt School—a group of thinkers including Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer—shifted focus toward what can be termed cultural relativism.

This approach seeks to challenge and dismantle cultural foundations such as tradition, reason, and shared values, often by portraying them as tools of oppression. Some argue that this strategy destabilizes individuals' sense of identity and cultural grounding, potentially making them more susceptible to ideological influence. Dr. Kellner’s website is at http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/.

Communist intellectuals were frustrated with convincing the masses that communism was good for them. They searched for the answer to why they couldn't sell it. They concluded that the problem was mental—the masses were mentally attached to the cultural norms Marxism sought to destroy. A group of wealthy communist Jews founded the so-called Frankfurt School. Their goal is to study this problem and find solutions based on psychology.

Note that during World War II, the Frankfurt School (also called the Institute for Social Research) fled to Columbia University. They fled Nazism because almost its entire staff was Jewish and communist. This poison became so entrenched in our colleges.

Historical Marxist Failures

One of Karl Marx's core assumptions was that a capitalist society would become unstable and collapse under its contradictions, with workers rising to overthrow the system. This idea resonated with earlier Enlightenment debates, such as those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who, in The Social Contract (1762), argued that legitimate political authority arises from a collective "general will," challenging the inequalities of his era.

However, Marx's ideology struggled to gain traction—few embraced it as living conditions under capitalism generally improved rather than worsened. Marxist success came only when a small, determined group seized power, as seen in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. In 1919, the Communist Party of Hungary, led by Béla Kun, briefly took control but was quickly rejected by the populace and collapsed. Similarly, the Spartacists, German communists led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, were suppressed and failed to win broad support.

Across Europe, communist movements struggled to capture the hearts of the masses, who later turned to alternative ideologies, such as the socialism of fascist regimes, which, though controversial, gained broader appeal at the time. Historically, some radical thinkers from various backgrounds participated in these movements, and their actions sometimes fueled widespread prejudices, including anti-Semitism.

However, the vast majority of Jews, particularly in Eastern Europe and Russia, suffered greatly under both communist and pre-communist regimes. In the Russian Empire, Jews were confined to the Pale of Settlement and faced violent pogroms. At the same time, under Soviet rule, they endured religious persecution and campaigns like the "Doctors' Plot" in the 1950s.

A small group of radical intellectuals, often estranged from their cultural roots, sought to challenge Western cultural norms. This led to the Frankfurt School's focus on critiquing and reshaping cultural foundations through what some call cultural relativism. This history reflects the diverse influences on ideological movements and their complex societal impacts, warranting a nuanced and balanced perspective.

Cultural Hegemony and Gramsci

A key figure in this shift was Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who proposed that cultural hegemony—the dominance of ruling-class ideas—must be undermined by infiltrating and reshaping institutions like education, media, and religion. Gramsci's ideas influenced the Frankfurt School, which, after relocating to the U.S. in the 1930s, began embedding these concepts into American academia, notably at Columbia University. Critics contend this has contributed to a fragmented cultural landscape where constant questioning of traditional values undermines stability. Others see it as a necessary critique of oppressive systems. To quote Dr. Kellner:

In Gramsci's conception, societies maintained their stability through a combination of "domination," or force, and "hegemony," defined as consent to "intellectual and moral leadership." ... Gramsci defined ideology as the ruling ideas which present the "social cement" that unifies and holds together the established social order. He described his own "philosophy of praxis" as a mode of thought opposed to ideology, which includes, among other things, a critical analysis of ruling ideas. In "Cultural Themes: Ideological Material" (1985), Gramsci notes that in his day the press was the dominant instrument of producing ideological legitimation of the existing institutions and social order, but that many other institutions such as the church, schools, and different associations and groups also played a role. He called for sustained critique (attack from the inside) of these institutions and the ideologies that legitimate them, accompanied by creation of counter institutions and ideas that would produce alternatives to the existing system.

Wikipedia notes: "Gramsci was one of the most important Marxist thinkers in the 20th century. His writings are heavily concerned with analyzing culture and political leadership, and he is notable as a highly original thinker within modern European thought. He is renowned for his theory of cultural hegemony, which describes how states use cultural institutions to maintain power in a capitalist society."

Cultural relativism challenges the cultural institutions and traditions that help unify a society, focusing on reshaping them rather than directly dismantling the economy or nation. Proponents argue that this disruption could generate enough social change to encourage a shift toward alternative systems like communism or socialism, though this remains debatable.

Contemporary Impacts

Terms like "democratic socialism" are often misused. Socialism, historically, has led to tyranny—consider Venezuela and Zimbabwe, where "democratic" socialism resulted in widespread starvation and suffering. Economically, socialism has lost credibility. Many Americans, especially whites not exposed to elite college indoctrination, reject it, which explains why some affluent, college-educated individuals support policies that could harm their interests.

However, because tradition still resonates with most Americans, proponents of identity-based ideology in elite universities target students, replacing their cultural foundations with new ideologies. This process strips away their cultural references, making them more susceptible to radical ideas. This indoctrination has led millions of white students to adopt self-destructive narratives, fostering self-hatred and, in some cases, outright racism through the lens of critical race theory. Some even develop hostility toward their own race while paradoxically being taught that race doesn't exist, highlighting the contradictions in this worldview.

This perspective has found a foothold in academia, influencing fields such as law, public education, media, government, and even religious institutions like churches and seminaries, particularly among those educated at elite colleges. Policies like affirmative action that address historical inequities can sometimes conflict with merit-based achievement. At the same time, political correctness may limit open discourse, sparking differing views on its impact.

The traditional concept of family faces significant redefinition and critique, with some viewing the rise of same-sex marriage as both a cultural evolution and a challenge to established norms. Meanwhile, controversies within the Catholic Church, particularly regarding cases of child abuse by some clergy, have drawn sharp criticism, often framed as anti-Christian attacks by detractors. Similarly, debates persist over the inclusion of diverse individuals, including gay Scoutmasters, in organizations like the Boy Scouts, reflecting broader societal tensions.

In recent years, the push for "gender-affirming care," including procedures for minors, has sparked controversy. Critics argue that such interventions, particularly for conditions like gender dysphoria, may not address underlying mental health issues and could be considered harmful, advocating for psychological support over surgical solutions. This stance highlights the ongoing clash between medical ethics and ideological perspectives.

This intellectual framework also gave rise to interdisciplinary fields like women's studies, Latino studies, and African-American studies, which some see as tools for raising awareness of marginalized perspectives. In contrast, others view them as avenues for radicalization. Notably, some 1960s left-wing activists have transitioned into tenured academic roles, shaping today's educational landscape and fueling discussions about the long-term influence of these ideas.

A central tenet of this ideology is the concept of race as a "social construct"—an idea that, while grounded in the understanding that race lacks a biological basis, argues that race, particularly "whiteness," is an illusion to be dismantled. However, this selective deconstruction raises ethical questions: by targeting "whiteness" as an oppressive construct, some proponents use the term in a way that mirrors historical dehumanization tactics, such as the Nazi use of "Jewishness" to vilify and dehumanize Jews, portraying them as oppressors. Critics argue that this approach risks replicating the same dangerous logic of exclusion and dehumanization, substituting one group for another under the guise of justice. At the same time, defenders may see it as a necessary critique of systemic power structures. This comparison underscores the need for careful reflection on how language and ideology can bridge or deepen societal divides.

Conclusion

The roots of progressive identity politics lie in Marxist-inspired ideologies, from the Frankfurt School’s cultural relativism to Gramsci’s cultural hegemony, adapted to focus on race and identity rather than class. This shift, amplified by anti-reason and deconstruction, has reshaped academia, policy, and culture, often fostering division through identity-based narratives. While proponents argue it addresses systemic inequities, critics warn of its rejection of reason, merit, and universal truths, risking societal fragmentation. A balanced perspective requires acknowledging both the intent to rectify injustice and the complex, sometimes contradictory outcomes of these ideologies.

References

Share This Article