The Bigotry of ‘Progress’

Posted on | May 4, 2010 | 26 Comments

“Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”
— Viscount Falkland, 1641

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.”
— G.K. Chesterton, 1923

“I can empathize with everyone I cover except for the anti-gay marriage bigots. In 20 years no one will admit they were part of that.”
— Dave Weigel, 2010

Well, as the old Sesame Street song says, one of these things is not like the others. Falkland and Chesterton were conservatives, unafraid to defend sturdy tradition against the impetuous demands issued by advocates of Progress, so-called.

It was an opposition to this radical sense of Progress — i.e., the inexorable overturning of every existing institution as a necessity of “social justice” — that informed Bill Buckley’s famous description of National Review‘s mission as standing athwart history, yelling, “Stop!”

Buckley confessed in 1955 that such resistance was unfashionable, that he was yelling “Stop!” at a time when “no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” And it ill-behooves conservatives more than a half century later to begin fearing the impatience of the apostles of Progress.

Equality vs. Liberty

Weigel proclaims that he will “happily entertain arguments for the contrary,” but why should he? In the manner of all bien-pensants, he believes he is not merely right but good, and therefore that those who disagree with him are not merely mistaken, but evil.

As I have said of others, Weigel’s basic problem is that he is young. The young generally know only what they have been taught, and teaching nowadays is a profession increasingly monopolized by those who subscribe to dogmatic notions of egalitarianism, the established faith of academic today. Dissenters are as rare as witches in 17th-century Salem (whereas witches are now quite plentiful on campus, as Larry Summers could attest), and we need not marvel that few dare speak heresy.

According to the egalitarian view, inequality is always synonymous with injustice. From such a perspective, those who insist that homosexual relations should be treated differently than marriage — an institution ancient and universal, held by Judeo-Christian tradition to be a holy covenant in accordance with divine commandment — are benighted, prejudiced and, as Weigel says, “bigoted.”

Weigel long worked for the libertarian journal Reason. Despite my own profound libertarian tendencies (being an admirer of the Austrian economists Mises and Hayek), I’ve often found myself at odds with those Reasonoids who see same-sex marriage as a libertarian issue when the arguments for it are in fact egalitarian.

Rather than merely insisting that homosexuals be left alone by government — free from legal compulsion — advocates of same-sex demand that government make war on an established institution in order to compel recognition of a disputed equality.

Having examined the data, I feel no need to expound on sociological statistics demonstrating that this is just another erroneous egalitarian argument. We cannot make different things the same, merely by pretending that they are the same. (This is, after all, National Offend a Feminist Week.)

Goose-Stepping Toward Utopia

Is all opposition to this egalitarian demand of same-sex marriage a function of “bigotry”? Is the inexorable march of Progress so hasty that in 20 years, as Weigel says, no one will admit to having opposed it?

Certainly it may seem so to the young, who have very little experience of history. Yet Weigel will learn, if he does not already know, that history is not a matter of irrestible, impersonal trends, but can be changed by courageous individuals who decide in obscurity on a course of action that leads them to fame.

Who had ever heard of Whittaker Chambers, before he decided to expose Alger Hiss? In abandoning communism to become an anti-communist, Chambers believed he was joining a cause doomed to defeat. Yet his example inspired others, famously including Ronald Reagan, and within a half-century the Soviet empire had been consigned to the ash-heap of history.

If it seems to Weigel that cultural acceptance of homosexuality makes same-sex marriage inevitable, this is because he makes the mistake of thinking of Progress in terms of extrapolating the recent past. True, gay-rights radicals have made tremendous inroads in the last 20 years and, if they continue at that pace, their opponents will be utterly vanquished in another 20 years.

By the same token, however, if my 11-year-old son keeps growing at his current rate, he’ll be 14 feet tall in 20 years. Even successful political movements do not grow forever, as Karl Rove learned the hard way when his “permanent Republican majority” collapsed in 2006-08. The tide of gay-rights radicalism may have already advanced so far so fast as to outstrip its political resources so that it will now begin to recede, consolidating as part of the status quo, rather than to maintain its revolutionary momentum. And it is not easy to see why such a point may have been reached.

Identity and Demagoguery

Insofar as homosexuals sought only liberty and tolerance, they met little resistance, as even the most conservative Americans take pride in their “live and let live” attitude. Yet Americans balked when it was argued that the logical extension of such tolerance required recognition of homosexuality as the basis of a legal and political identity.

Over the past few decades, Americans have developed a dyspeptic reaction to identity politics and a distaste for the endless legal harassment incited by claims of discriminatory victimhood. The resemblance between the most obstreporous advocates of same-sex marriage and such identity-politics demagogues as Al Sharpton is sufficient to inspire quiet resistance even among those who publicly deplore “homophobia” (a term requiring scare-quotes due to its bogus assertion of diagnostic certainty).

Conservatives need make no slippery-slope arguments about polygamy and pederasty to justify opposition to same-sex marriage. It is sufficient to cite Falkland’s maxim in saying that, the necessity of change having not been demonstrated, it is therefore necessary not to change. If liberal Wednesday should in fact give way to radical Thursday, conservatives can cite Chesterton in ceasing to argue with the advocates of Progress — although polite silence ought not be confused with fearful assent.

You can’t repeal the law of unintended consequences, and good intentions still pave the road to an unpleasant destination. It is only the bigotry of Progress that denies these durable truths.

Category: Gays

Comments

26 Responses to “The Bigotry of ‘Progress’”

ewb
May 4th, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

One of your best, most reasoned posts. Excellent.
ewb
May 4th, 2010 @ 3:45 pm

One of your best, most reasoned posts. Excellent.
Bob Belvedere
May 4th, 2010 @ 11:44 pm

Bravo, Stacy, well put.

Mr. Weigel is a perfect example of an ideologue – someone so taken with a concoction developed in the laboratory of his mind that he cares not for how well it will work in the real world.

Some libertarians live in the real world, others, like him, prefer to live in their craniums where they can while away the hours shaping their fantasy world to suit their own likings and whims.
Bob Belvedere
May 4th, 2010 @ 6:44 pm

Bravo, Stacy, well put.

Mr. Weigel is a perfect example of an ideologue – someone so taken with a concoction developed in the laboratory of his mind that he cares not for how well it will work in the real world.

Some libertarians live in the real world, others, like him, prefer to live in their craniums where they can while away the hours shaping their fantasy world to suit their own likings and whims.
Joe Marier
May 5th, 2010 @ 12:04 am

I like Chesterton, but he’s not exactly a conservative. It’s complicated. The specific quote is quite conservative, though.

And folks who read TIME knew who Whittaker Chambers was (at least, they knew his writing).

In any case, people have been saying the Catholic Church will abandon its teachings on contraception any day now for… what? 50 years now? And somehow we that agree with the Church are not derided as bigots for it. Or I haven’t cared enough to notice. And that’s really the point.
Joe Marier
May 4th, 2010 @ 7:04 pm

I like Chesterton, but he’s not exactly a conservative. It’s complicated. The specific quote is quite conservative, though.

And folks who read TIME knew who Whittaker Chambers was (at least, they knew his writing).

In any case, people have been saying the Catholic Church will abandon its teachings on contraception any day now for… what? 50 years now? And somehow we that agree with the Church are not derided as bigots for it. Or I haven’t cared enough to notice. And that’s really the point.
Paco
May 5th, 2010 @ 1:39 am

“In the manner of all bien-pensants…”

You know, I was reading quickly, and at first I thought you had written “bien-pissants”. I guess it works either way.
Paco
May 4th, 2010 @ 8:39 pm

“In the manner of all bien-pensants…”

You know, I was reading quickly, and at first I thought you had written “bien-pissants”. I guess it works either way.
Adobe Walls
May 5th, 2010 @ 1:41 am

The main reason the militant gay left insists that gay marriage is a civil right, that they are entitled to as opposed to civil unions which they could easily attain is that they want validation. They want those whom homosexuality deeply offends to be forced to accept them and their lifestyle. They want to rub the faces of the “Straights” and those they consider Religious bigots in their existence. They want to be allowed to punish those who opposed their lifestyles by forcing them to bite their tongues or face being fired or denied advancement in their careers. This goal has been achieved to some extent by making gays a victim class. I believe they like the rest of the left have overreached again.
Adobe Walls
May 4th, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

The main reason the militant gay left insists that gay marriage is a civil right, that they are entitled to as opposed to civil unions which they could easily attain is that they want validation. They want those whom homosexuality deeply offends to be forced to accept them and their lifestyle. They want to rub the faces of the “Straights” and those they consider Religious bigots in their existence. They want to be allowed to punish those who opposed their lifestyles by forcing them to bite their tongues or face being fired or denied advancement in their careers. This goal has been achieved to some extent by making gays a victim class. I believe they like the rest of the left have overreached again.
Why the Washington Post Sucks : The Other McCain
May 4th, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

[…] or “favoritism”?Is David Weigel prejudiced against social conservatives? Obviously. And that makes him different from other WaPo reporters . . . how?At least Dave is honest about […]
WJ
May 5th, 2010 @ 4:07 am

Just wanted to say a very well written post.
WJ
May 4th, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

Just wanted to say a very well written post.
24AheadDotCom
May 5th, 2010 @ 5:58 am

I barely scanned this because – mostly likely like most people visiting the page – I don’t have all day. However, it’s more than a bit hilarious that after *years* of smearing those in RSMcCain’s orbit it takes one tweet to get people’s attention. Rather than a tweet that really doesn’t mean all that much, how about pointing out that Dave Weigel is a liar?

On a personal/journalistic note, he wrote about me on his personal site and then – even after I’d registered – refused to approve a comment I left in reply. The unwillingness to provide a “right of reply” shows what type of person we’re dealing with (I then wrote about him and a comment he left in reply – as well as my comment showing how he’s wrong – is still there).

P.S. I haven’t checked in a couple days, but if RSMcCain can get back to my email (from “hotsop”) about “Chip” that would be appreciated.
24AheadDotCom
May 5th, 2010 @ 12:58 am

I barely scanned this because – mostly likely like most people visiting the page – I don’t have all day. However, it’s more than a bit hilarious that after *years* of smearing those in RSMcCain’s orbit it takes one tweet to get people’s attention. Rather than a tweet that really doesn’t mean all that much, how about pointing out that Dave Weigel is a liar?

On a personal/journalistic note, he wrote about me on his personal site and then – even after I’d registered – refused to approve a comment I left in reply. The unwillingness to provide a “right of reply” shows what type of person we’re dealing with (I then wrote about him and a comment he left in reply – as well as my comment showing how he’s wrong – is still there).

P.S. I haven’t checked in a couple days, but if RSMcCain can get back to my email (from “hotsop”) about “Chip” that would be appreciated.
Thomas L. Knapp
May 5th, 2010 @ 6:16 am

“Is all opposition to this egalitarian demand of same-sex marriage a function of ‘bigotry?'”

Yes.

The egalitarian aspect of the fight against marriage apartheid is a function of state involvement:

Christian rightists want their sacraments sanctioned by the state, complete with tax-supported benefits.

Those same Christian rightists want dissenting clergy who perform sacraments they disapprove of thrown in jail (that’s the penalty for “solemnizing an illegal marriage” in Missouri, at any rate).

If Christian rightists merely wanted to maintain control of their traditions and sacraments, they’d withdraw from the institution of civil marriage altogether instead of demanding a monopoly on it.
Thomas L. Knapp
May 5th, 2010 @ 1:16 am

“Is all opposition to this egalitarian demand of same-sex marriage a function of ‘bigotry?'”

Yes.

The egalitarian aspect of the fight against marriage apartheid is a function of state involvement:

Christian rightists want their sacraments sanctioned by the state, complete with tax-supported benefits.

Those same Christian rightists want dissenting clergy who perform sacraments they disapprove of thrown in jail (that’s the penalty for “solemnizing an illegal marriage” in Missouri, at any rate).

If Christian rightists merely wanted to maintain control of their traditions and sacraments, they’d withdraw from the institution of civil marriage altogether instead of demanding a monopoly on it.
RES
May 5th, 2010 @ 6:22 am

I had a friend who was a real gung-ho home remodeler. One day his wife arrived home to find him taking out a wall in the living room, except as it developed that particular wall was a load-bearing one. I have learned to be very cautious about remodeling our society, as you can rarely know before hand which walls are load-bearing. Even more have I learned to be cautious of those who, in their cheerful ignorance, assert there’s no harm tearing out that wall, it’ll open the place up and make it far roomier and more comfortable for all.
RES
May 5th, 2010 @ 1:22 am

I had a friend who was a real gung-ho home remodeler. One day his wife arrived home to find him taking out a wall in the living room, except as it developed that particular wall was a load-bearing one. I have learned to be very cautious about remodeling our society, as you can rarely know before hand which walls are load-bearing. Even more have I learned to be cautious of those who, in their cheerful ignorance, assert there’s no harm tearing out that wall, it’ll open the place up and make it far roomier and more comfortable for all.
Guest
May 5th, 2010 @ 12:35 pm

“If Christian rightists merely wanted to maintain control of their traditions and sacraments, they’d withdraw from the institution of civil marriage altogether instead of demanding a monopoly on it.”

First; if you engage in homosexuality then you are not banned from marriage-for example former Gov McGreevy married twice, divorced twice and now is in a relationship with another male.

Second; what is the meaning of same-sex union between opposite sex?

Third; what about Yin and Yang (feminine-masculine)-which existed long before Christianity came into the picture-as applied to the Laws of Nature ?

That said; forget religion for a moment-when I am required to accept ‘Yin-Yin union between Yin and Yang’ then I am being forced to deny the Laws of Nature. In order to deny the Laws of Nature then irrational laws of Man must be dictated buy force; this is how totalitarian tyranny rules.

Now do tell who is controlling whom?
Guest
May 5th, 2010 @ 7:35 am

“If Christian rightists merely wanted to maintain control of their traditions and sacraments, they’d withdraw from the institution of civil marriage altogether instead of demanding a monopoly on it.”

First; if you engage in homosexuality then you are not banned from marriage-for example former Gov McGreevy married twice, divorced twice and now is in a relationship with another male.

Second; what is the meaning of same-sex union between opposite sex?

Third; what about Yin and Yang (feminine-masculine)-which existed long before Christianity came into the picture-as applied to the Laws of Nature ?

That said; forget religion for a moment-when I am required to accept ‘Yin-Yin union between Yin and Yang’ then I am being forced to deny the Laws of Nature. In order to deny the Laws of Nature then irrational laws of Man must be dictated buy force; this is how totalitarian tyranny rules.

Now do tell who is controlling whom?
Roundup « Eternity Matters
May 5th, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

[…] The Bigotry of ‘Progress’ — well reasoned post on (oxymoronic) same-sex marriage by the Other McCain Insofar as homosexuals sought only liberty and tolerance, they met little resistance, as even the most conservative Americans take pride in their “live and let live” attitude. Yet Americans balked when it was argued that the logical extension of such tolerance required recognition of homosexuality as the basis of a legal and political identity. […]
Weigelgate… Bigotgate… Let Us All Tweet Our Name For The Gate « Around The Sphere
May 8th, 2010 @ 8:38 am

[…] Robert Stacy McCain: Weigel proclaims that he will “happily entertain arguments for the contrary,” but why should he? In the manner of all bien-pensants, he believes he is not merely right but good, and therefore that those who disagree with him are not merely mistaken, but evil. […]
Steynian 410nd « Free Canuckistan!
May 18th, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

[…] democracies; Dr. Melissa Couthier: The Other Kind of ‘Gay Marriage’ Not So Good, Either; The Bigotry of ‘Progress’ …. […]
I haven’t paid much attention to Dave Weigel situation « DaTechguy's Blog
June 25th, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

[…] calls him a friend, he has gone after him on occasion when wrong (as have I) but he believes in the honey/vinegar principle here, plus since […]
I haven't paid much attention to Dave Weigel situation … | Random News Flash
June 25th, 2010 @ 9:36 pm

[…] calls him a friend, he has gone after him on occasion when wrong (as have I) but he believes in the honey/vinegar principle here, plus since […]