Progressivism’s Simplistic Morality Leads to Ineffective Extremes7 min read

The tendency to frame complex issues and morality in stark, binary terms shapes many progressive policies, preventing nuanced, balanced solutions.

Progressivism often emphasizes ideals like social justice, equality, and humanitarianism, but then typically leans toward moral absolutism, simplifying issues into rigid categories of right and wrong, ally and adversary. This mindset can be seen in many modern public challenges, from immigration and foreign relations to domestic economic policy. Below is an outline of how this one-sided moral thinking manifests in various policy areas.

1. Immigration and Border Policy

Progressive approaches to immigration emphasize compassion for migrants, advocating open or lenient borders and pathways to citizenship. This position prioritizes the welfare of the immigrant, but almost entirely neglects broader social and security concerns. Often, it ends up endangering migrants and the host country more than helping.

• Challenges: A one-sided open border based on “compassion” fails to address the economic and physical safety of citizens of the host country, increasing crime, drug trafficking, and human trafficking. The unmanaged border has surrendered the border to the cartels, who now make more money trafficking women and children than drugs. ¹
• Balanced Approach: A balanced stance would aim to combine humanitarian support with a sustainable immigration framework, where nations can be compassionate yet maintain boundaries to ensure societal well-being rather than cede power to criminal organizations.

2. Foreign Policy and Relations with Authoritarian Nations (e.g., Russia and China)

Progressive policies toward countries like Russia and China often oscillate between moral condemnation and diplomatic engagement, sometimes veering towards extremes.

• Demonization: Progressive stances on foreign policy sometimes paint authoritarian regimes in black-and-white terms, viewing them solely as oppressive and dangerous. This can manifest as sweeping sanctions, isolationist policies, or economic decoupling, with little room for diplomacy. This is their approach to the Ukraine/Russia conflict, and has arguably led to ongoing death and war. ^{2 3}
• Pacification: Conversely, progressives also promote “peace at any cost,” leading to appeasement or unbalanced concessions to avoid conflict. This makes our nation appear weak, emboldening these authoritarian regimes. ⁴
• Balanced Approach: A more nuanced foreign policy would involve strategic partnerships, setting clear boundaries through selective sanctions or trade limitations, while also building bridges for dialogue, aiming for influence without either demonizing or fully pacifying.

3. Social Justice Movements and Cultural Issues

Progressive policies in social justice frequently focus on addressing systemic inequalities, more recently casting historically dominant groups as oppressors.

• Polarization of Identities: In issues such as race, gender, and sexuality, progressive politics portray certain groups in fixed roles as either oppressors or oppressed, leading to identity-based policies that unnecessarily divide rather than unite, all the while blaming others for division. As many have argued, CRT is just Marxism with race stratification instead of class. ⁵
• Suppression of Dialogue: This intersectional, racist victim approach marginalizes more hopeful and effective viewpoints, where those questioning the progressive stance are labeled as harmful or regressive.
• Balanced Approach: A healthier approach to social justice would encourage open dialogue, recognizing systemic issues while respecting individual differences. It would aim to address inequalities without broadly demonizing any particular group or marginalizing dissent. It would also emphasize the power of personal agency and responsibility.

4. Environmental Policy and Energy

Progressive policies advocate and legislate coercively for renewable energy sources and policies aimed at combatting the chicken-little fearmongering, manufactured crisis of climate change, emphasizing urgency and sacrifice. But this is a tool of manipulation, not an urgent challenge.

Running an electric car off of coal energy, with rare metals mined from slave and child labor in unsafe conditions is not the moral high ground.

• Single-Minded Urgency: The progressive emphasis on green energy can overlooks the economic impacts on industries and communities reliant on fossil fuels, as well as the limitations of current renewable technologies. Running an electric car off of coal energy, with rare metals mined from slave and child labor in unsafe conditions is not the moral high ground.
• Resistance to Pragmatic Solutions: There is often resistance to transitional strategies, such as natural gas as a bridge fuel or nuclear power, both of which could potentially ease the shift toward renewables in a way that is both environmentally and economically viable.
• Balanced Approach: A balanced environmental policy would advocate for renewable energy alongside practical transitional strategies. It would also consider the social and economic impacts of climate policies, ensuring that changes are equitable and feasible.

5. Economic Redistribution and Taxation

Progressive economic policies typically favor wealth redistribution, emphasizing social safety nets and high taxation for the wealthy.

• Moral Absolutism on Wealth: Wealth inequality is often framed as an inherent moral failing, with high taxes on the wealthy seen as inherently just, while business success may be viewed skeptically.
• Risk of Economic Disincentivization: This approach can risk discouraging economic growth by overly penalizing wealth accumulation, entrepreneurship, or even middle-class investment.
• Balanced Approach: A balanced economic policy would address income inequality through fair taxation and welfare programs while fostering an environment that rewards innovation, hard work and responsibility, and investment. It would aim to support the vulnerable while also respecting the contributions of successful individuals and businesses, and empowering people instead of saddling them with low expectations and learned helpless dependency on the state. 

6. Healthcare and Public Health Policy

Progressive healthcare policies generally advocate for universal healthcare or extensive public health initiatives.

• Single-Payer Absolutism: Progressive stances often idealize single-payer healthcare as the only morally acceptable solution, viewing private healthcare options as morally inferior or unjust.
• Risk of System Overburdening: A one-sided focus on universal coverage can sometimes underplay the risks of overburdening public systems, especially without sufficient infrastructure or funding. Removing competition lowers quality, increases costs, and stifles innovation, leading to long waits and lower quality.
• Balanced Approach: A balanced healthcare policy would work toward universal access while incorporating private sector efficiencies. It would focus on achieving quality and accessible care through diverse, sustainable funding models.

Summary: The Need for Balanced Morality

The tendency toward one-sided morality in progressive politics, whether in immigration, foreign relations, social justice, or economic policy, results in policies that are ineffective, cause new, sometimes worse problems, and are unsustainable. A more balanced approach would blend idealism with pragmatism, pursuing ideals of justice and compassion in ways that also consider practical limitations, diverse viewpoints, and long-term stability. This approach would support actual progress while avoiding the false promises of utopianism.