The Progressive Flight From Reality

Progressivism isn’t just an ideology; it’s also becoming a mental health condition.

Spiraling past the tendentious spin and lies that have long shaped American discourse on both sides of the aisle, the loudest voices on the left are losing the capacity to grasp reality. As a character in a recent Wall Street Journal cartoon put it: “You’ve got it all wrong. What I’m saying isn’t misinformation. It’s denial.”

Take Illinois Governor JB Pritzker’s recent denunciation of “White House senior aides” for “sowing fear, intimidation and division” by, among other things, calling Democrats “fascists.” Given not just his party’s but his own frequent use of such rhetoric – comparing ICE agents to Nazis who disappear immigrants and vowing that Republicans “cannot know a moment of peace” – the jaw-dropping irony of his complaint was lost on no one, except, apparently, Pritzker and his allies. It raises the question: How did he think he could get away with this?

He is not alone. In recent weeks, progressives have been assailing President Trump’s very real attacks on free speech, without wrestling with the fact that they have long been the driving force behind cancel culture, hate speech codes, and broad-based censorship efforts.

They have been attacking Trump for weaponizing the justice system against his political enemies without coming to grips with the fact that they did exactly that during the Biden administration.

These efforts seem darker and more disturbed than the old political tactic of telling small lies to achieve larger truths. More than simply Trump Derangement Syndrome on steroids, they reflect the progressives’ flight from reality, into a world of their own making, a belief that the visions inside their heads are truer than what the rest of us can plainly see. Where sane people try to work through the ineluctable contradictions of their own thoughts – which many of the right are struggling to do in response to Trump’s overreach – progressives have abandoned this mental effort.

Poisoned by leftist arguments that there is no truth, only power, they believe they can make things so simply by saying them – which is crazy. How else to explain:

• An August article in the New Yorker that stated: “Liberals used to be the counterculture; today, they’re the defenders of traditional norms and institutions.” That, of course, might come as news to those who disagree with the liberal view that sex is assigned at birth and who always thought equality, not equity, was the foundation of American liberty.
• A September column in the New York Times that quoted a University of Pennsylvania historian who claimed that Obama and Biden “didn’t think they had the power to disregard statutes passed by Congress and the text of the Constitution. They didn’t think they had the power to do things like treat the presidency as an office that permits its occupant to use the power of the state to reward friends and punish enemies and engage in self-dealing and enrichment.” Evidently, Professor Kate Shaw is unaware of the multiple cases brought against Donald Trump and his allies, the business dealings of Hunter Biden, or the first son’s pardon.

Consider Jimmy Kimmel’s infamous claim that Charlie Kirk’s left-wing assassin was actually MAGA. Given the mountains of evidence to the contrary, including the killer’s own words, it boggles the mind that anyone would come to this conclusion, much less say it in front of millions of people. But the talk show host was, in fact, articulating an unmoored view embraced by many voices respected on the left. Kimmel wasn’t simply trying to spin the news to help his side, he was repeating a story that makes sense if you have convinced yourself that only right-wing people engage in political gun violence and that your side is inviolately virtuous.

Unfortunately, this phenomenon gets even more troubling. As fears of political violence have intensified since Kirk’s murder, the New York Times has posted several pieces assassinating his character. One of its star content creators, Ezra Klein, for example, provided little pushback on a recent podcast as the racialist writer Ta-Nehisi Coates repeatedly labeled Kirk a “hatemonger.” The newspaper also published a long essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones, who led the paper’s controversial 1619 Project which tried to put slavery at the center of American history, which repeatedly called Kirk a bigot.

Her only evidence to support this inflammatory portrayal is one 168-word paragraph in a 2,568-word piece that cherry-picked, out-of-context snippets – he said ‘there’s a war on white people in this country’ he referred to a transgender athlete as an ‘abomination’ – to cast Kirk’s opposition to the woke agenda, gender affirming care and his concerns about black crime and Islam as “unabashed bigotry.”

To assess the quality of evidence, note that she repeats the long-debunked claims that Trump “called the white supremacists who rallied in Charlottesville, Va., ‘very fine people.’ ” To demonstrate that her views have wide currency, she writes that “Last year, The Washington Examiner, a conservative news outlet, published a column calling the organization Kirk co-founded, Turning Point USA, ‘one of the most destructive forces in Republican politics.’” What she ignored was that the author of that piece, Ben Rothove, published a short piece in the New York Times 16 days before her essay was published that declared, “I was wrong about Charlie Kirk.”

Hannah-Jones is, of course, entitled to her views – but not her own facts. It is telling that she and her editors thought it was appropriate to print a piece that made no effort to contextualize Kirk’s statements, or to try to understand why so many people in the world admired him. Their goal, instead, was to demonize an adversary by assertion. This is our truth. Perhaps more disturbing are two quotes in the piece that suggest Kirk’s murder was acceptable. “I cannot have empathy for him losing his life when he put mine at risk,” one black educator told Hannah-Jones.

“I firmly believe that no one should be killed for their beliefs, no matter how harmful those beliefs might be,” another person told her. “But we are watching our rights being stripped away. 

Such views, of course, resonate with those of thousands of others who celebrated Kirk’s murder; just as many progressives have cheered Luigi Mangione’s cold-blooded murder of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson last December.

I hesitate to say that the Times was sanctioning Kirk’s assassination. But it is clear that progressives are proceeding down a dangerous path where facts, truths, and human decency are being overwhelmed by their dark desires.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.