More or less, a person whose life is lived in faithfulness to the 10 Commandments can expect to flourish in this world (not always of course). But this is the proverbial pattern. And radical progressives hate that. I’m convinced that so much of what passes for an academic theory known as Critical Theory is largely born of hatred of social conformity. When Charlie Kirk signs off with simple instructions for the good life, he was on to something that is embedded in the creation order. Love God; Love Neighbor. People who follow this basic life pattern do relatively well in life empirically speaking. Love and serve God, work hard, get married, have kids, stay together. Statistically, this is the best safeguard against poverty and misery, and that fact is frustrating to many on the left.

Now, there was a time when everyone knew this (even non-Christians). And so the “left” and “right” were divided on how to make sure this pattern is accessible for everyone (American Dream language, if you will). Those on the left wanted a little more government help for it, but not to change it. Those on the right, wanted to rely more on the private sector (church for instance) and personal responsibility. But for the radical progressive movement (Woke, Critical Theory, postmodern Neo-Marxism, cultural Marxists, whatever you want to call it) the pattern, the norm, expected conformity, itself became the enemy. If this traditional conservative pattern produces inequality, then the goal shouldn’t be how to get others on it (conformity), but how to liberate everyone from it. To them, the pattern, the design, shouldn’t matter. One should not have to conform to the morals or norms of a particular family structure tradition, religious social teaching, etc. to flourish economically or socially. One should not have to “behave” so to speak. One should not have to discipline or control one’s instincts, desires, appetites (which is what happens in things like serving God and traditional family settings) in order to get ahead. Sexual passions especially don’t need be controlled but liberated. So if the norm produces success and the abnormal produces failure (thus, inequality), then the problem can’t be with the abnormal but with the normal. It’s the problem and it needs to be destroyed, rendered irrelevant.

Much of this has to do with the difference in how one views duty (if at all). For radical progressives, one’s duty is primarily if not exclusively to oneself. Decades ago, most folks thought differently. They had a duty to others primarily before themselves. If dressing a certain way and acting a certain way was expected, then one’s duty to others was supposed to trump personal desires or instincts (which were thought to be corrupt anyways). So if you want to be a bank teller, you had to look the part and that was thought to be not only rational but moral. Looking the part for the sake of others was seen as one’s social duty. Marriage, parenting, even service in the military should the country call, was just expected. Lay aside self for the sake of others. God, family, country first. Then self. But radicals today see things very differently. One owes no one anything. No one has inherent duties (Love God, Love Others exchanged for Love Self). In fact, the moral duties are inverted. If one wants to be a bank teller, the bank and society needs to accept the person’s self-expression no matter how it makes others feel. Rather than the individual having a moral obligation to accommodate himself to others, others have a moral obligation to accommodate themselves to the individual’s ever evolving tastes and desires. The problem is, that’s a social glue made of water.

Credit the BLOG theforemedmind

Pensiamento Peligroso