Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Adrian Gaty's avatar

Well said, thank you!

I think your post hints at a misunderstanding many “progressives” have about “conservatives.” For example, all the strongest social science for decades is clear that the single greatest risk factor a child faces for unhappiness/misery/suicide/abuse/addiction as an adult is… not being born poor, or being born a minority, but… being born outside a married two parent home. So, when conservatives try to celebrate marriage, it’s not because they’re heartless jerks who hate poor black kids, it’s because they genuinely believe this will help the very children you’re worried about!

Most conservatives understand that liberals care about children, just believe they go about it the wrong way, for example with government payments that incentivize fatherlessness. But liberals genuinely don’t believe that conservatives care about kids, they just think conservatives are evil heartless monsters. Maybe further reflections like yours above will help change that dynamic…

Gaty.substack.com

Expand full comment
GiveItToMeStraight's avatar

I’ve developed an immense respect for Dr. Prasad over the past year. His intellect and the honesty of his writing is refreshing with every read. I am troubled, however, by his characterizations of progressives and conservatives. The idea that the desire for poor children to have access to healthcare, food, and shelter makes one a “progressive” has the correlative that “conservatives” don’t want that. Perhaps conservatives could better be defined as former progressives who realized they wanted the same thing but were doing it wrong. The desire to improve life for both individuals and society is a common feature of both groups, but conservatives have recognized that the methods used by progressives invariably make things worse, over and over again, throughout history, because they’re proposing the wrong solutions. The common thread woven through all progressive movements is the desire to help the underdog. Nothing wrong with that. But with this as the raison d'etre, a lack of victims becomes an existential threat. The insatiable maw will always find another victim. it must. For years, women, minorities, and gay and lesbian individuals have undoubtedly benefited from fights against oppressive majorities. But as their plights have improved, the maw has grown hungry, looking for others. Transgender individuals, obese patients, failing students, “immune-suppressed” individuals, even criminals have taken starring roles as victims for the machine. Previously oppressed groups that would like to move on from victim status are told in ever more convoluted ways that they are, in fact, still victims. For every victim there must be two other characters – an oppressor, and a savior. If an oppressor is not at once obvious, one will be identified. Playing the savior role (always the progressive) generates the true precious commodity of this machine – self-aggrandizement, with its twin offspring of virtue signaling and cancel culture. Over time, grandchildren arrive as censorship, propaganda, and coercion. This “family” must protect its own, recursively, to ensure the continued production of the commodity – self-aggrandizement. Thus the “progressive” ideology leads directly to the numerous problems Dr. Prasad so persuasively calls out in his work. The conservative desires the same outcome. They examine the results of progressive actions, noting that the problem has worsened, and new problems have appeared – the frequent outcome of incorrect solutions. The recognition that the “victim” may share any responsibility for their situation, and that individual agency may have a larger effect on the outcome, results in the disastrous consequence of the victim ultimately helping themselves without the need of a savior. Unthinkable! We used to call this “tough love” – but love, nonetheless. None of this is new or surprising. A lifetime of brilliant scholarship and writing by Dr. Thomas Sowell – especially in his works, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, and The Vision of the Anointed have solved many of these puzzles for us. Dr. Prasad’s brilliant and honest writing, in my mind, classifies him as a conservative.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts