The same dynamic plays out everywhere progressives claim to have moderated. On crime. On education. On speech. They adjust their language just enough to avoid total campaigning disasters and PR implosions, but they never question the core conviction that animates everything they do: We are the moral vanguard, and opposition to our program stems from bigotry, ignorance, or malice".
"Until progressives actually abandon this worldview—until they apologize for their excesses, reform their institutions, and rebuild relationships with the moderate majority—the reactionary tide will continue rising. The far right will keep winning. And progressives will have no one to blame but themselves.
The time for reckoning is now. Before it’s too late."
"Here’s what people like Harris, and also Andrew Sullivan, understand that most progressive critics miss: The problem isn’t just that progressives got specific policies wrong. It’s that they’ve constructed an entire worldview in which very basic things most human beings take for granted are deemed “fundamentally and morally wrong.”
That foreigners are not citizens, and citizens’ interests come first. That children are not adults capable of consenting to irreversible medical procedures. That rapid demographic transformation of neighborhoods affects quality of life. That borders serve legitimate functions. That merit matters. That parents have primary authority over their children’s education and upbringing. And that the wrongness of racism & sexism leave no space for social justice carveouts; racism against Asians, Europeans, and Jews is still racism, sexism against men (misandry) is still sexism, and so forth.
These aren’t fringe positions held by extremists. They’re baseline assumptions held by overwhelming majorities across every Western, liberal democracy. And progressives have spent fifteen years treating people who hold these views as moral monsters. They are a political movement that has played footsie with far left extremism for ages, and which believes radical, revolutionary social change is not only permissible but necessary, even against the wishes of the voting public."
"There’s a reason progressives can’t actually moderate, even when they claim that they want to. It’s embedded in the worldview itself. In the critical theory framework that undergirds modern progressivism, all opposition is rooted in “white supremacy,” “patriarchy,” or other forms of structural oppression. This means opponents cannot be reasoned with—because reason itself is a tool of oppression. They can only be opposed, canceled, or demonized.
When Ta-Nehisi Coates says “conversation between [them] and me is probably not possible,” regarding people who disagree on transgender or racial policy, he’s not just being intransigent, he’s being honest. He’s being consistent with critical theory epistemology. If your position stems from structural bigotry rather than legitimate disagreement, what’s there to discuss? You don’t debate with bigots; you defeat them. (“By any means necessary,” said Malcolm X.)"
"This is why Coates can claim that Charlie Kirk’s public life was defined by “hate”—despite Kirk engaging opponents, debating them publicly, and building a massive following through persuasion rather than coercion or violence. To progressives steeped in critical theory, none of that matters. Kirk opposed progressive positions, therefore he was motivated by hate. And, by extension, his life was forfeit. (Although Klein rejected that extreme at least, and Coates mouthed platitudes about disliking murder generally.)
One doesn't have to agree with Kirk’s views, or even his approach to right-wing activism, to recognise his assassination, a deliberately political assassination by a far left individual with strong ties to the trans movement, was beyond unacceptable. That the harassment and murder of anyone for their views, even an actual racist (which Kirk wasn't), is unacceptable. That the type of people progressivism holds up as evil are, all too often assaulted or murdered (because any amount, beyond none, of such politically motivated crimes is too high).
This framework is politically suicidal. Democracy requires the possibility of persuasion. It assumes that people with different views might be convinced through argument, evidence, and appeals to shared values. Critical theory denies this possibility. It treats political opponents as irredeemable carriers of systemic oppression who must be defeated, not persuaded.
So when progressives lose—when Trump wins, when Reform surges, when voters reject them—they can’t respond with introspection or genuine course correction. Their framework doesn’t allow for “maybe we got it wrong” or “maybe they have a point.” It only allows for “the bigots won” and “we didn’t fight hard enough.”
This is the deep structure underneath all the rhetorical repositioning. Progressives will adjust their language because they understand electoral annihilation is bad. But they cannot question the core premise: that they are on the side of justice fighting forces of oppression, and opposition to them stems from moral failure."
