Have you ever wondered why it is that progressive liberalism has managed to achieve such political hegemony in Britain – in most of the western world in fact?
Why is an ideology that is essentially nothing more than another form of socialism – an ideology that has been proven again and again to fail – able to reach the point where a country like Britain can be effectively turned into a one party state? This should not be possible given our constitution, our parliamentary system and our political structures. But it has happened anyway.
Well, for starters it did not happen by accident, but nor was it organised or coordinated – at least at first. The process began even before the Second World War, but it was only in the 1960′s and 1970′s that it became an organised and coordinated movement and yet, in the space of a generation, it has all but wiped out political dissent and discussion in the mainstream leaving just the fringe elements – such as political blogging – as the only challenge to its dominance.
There can be no argument that progressive liberalism has failed. This is apparent everywhere – in schools, hospitals, the streets, our homes, in towns, cities, villages, in the countryside – everywhere. It is apparent to all of us who do not have the money or motivation to cloister ourselves behind the false facade of exclusivity.
The failure of progressive liberalism is underlined daily in the news – the explosion in crime, the crisis of our youth, the problems with drug addiction, family breakdown, societal breakdown and yet the news media invariably fail to attribute the cause of the problem to the real culprit.
Because they are part of it.
So how did it get this way?
As I mentioned, the process began in the 1930′s. Progressive liberalism is, essentially, the political ideology of the Frankfurt School which is often referred to as "cultural Marxism". Many prominent and not so prominent "intellectuals" were seduced by the promise of a Utopian society that progressive liberalism as espoused by the Frankfurt School appeared to offer and these intellectuals began to spread that message of a new world through various essays, pamphlets and speeches prior to the war.
Their message was ignored by many, but picked up by some who would then spread the message themselves slowly building the base that was to launch the destructive onslaught that has now wreaked such havoc across our nation. Their influence spread particularly to the universities – where intellectualism has it’s spiritual home -and once embedded in these institutions it was then just a matter of time before that message was passed on to those who were educated at these universities – people who were to become our political leaders, our teachers, our journalists – the very people who have the greatest influence on thought.
That was always the plan and it was a plan that F. A. Hayek tried to warn us of in his essay "Intellectuals and Socialism" when he said …
In every country that has moved toward socialism, the phase of the development in which socialism becomes a determining influence on politics has been preceded for many years by a period during which socialist ideals governed the thinking of the more active intellectuals.
… though I’m not sure that even Hayek envisaged the speed or degree to which "socialism" would obtain political hegemony through the western world.
The political ideology of progressive liberalism is clearly a flawed and failing one. For a start, the Utopian society it strives to attain, though laudable as an ideal, is of course unachievable as it overlooks the one important factor that makes it such a fallacy.
People are not perfect – they have faults, imperfections, flaws of their own. Most will always try and be the best they can, but many will take advantage of a society that allows them the freedom to do so and this is the fatal flaw of progressive liberalism. Worse still, the fundamental basis of the ideology increases the likelihood that more and more people will stop trying to be the best they can and instead use the opportunity to be the worst they can.
And so we have the erosion of respect for law, the collapse of morality, the disappearance of manners and in their place we have an explosion in crime, falling moral standards and an abundance of rude and ill-mannered behaviour.
But surely, if progressive liberalism was such a failure it would by now have collapsed in on itself? Under normal circumstances it would have, but this is where the progressive liberals have been successful as they have created a support structure so huge, so crucial to millions of people that it means they lives are as dependent on the ideology as the ideology is on them.
This support structure is called the "public sector".
The expansion of the public sector was always crucial to socialism, but in previous incarnations of the ideology it was mostly through the acquisition by the state of industries. At the time this was because socialism was not just a political ideology, but also an economic one – and the control of industry was part of that economic ideology.
Of course that failed enormously. Not just in Britain, but in the most socialist of countries – USSR and China. Progressive liberalism took a different approach. It accepted the fundamental belief that the most successful economic ideology is capitalism – but with caveats – and subscribed, on the face of it, to the economic principles that capitalism promotes.
Freed from the need to obtain industries to create the support structure necessary to support the vacuous ideals of socialism, progressive liberals created a new industry – multiculturalism – and embarked on a programme to build the infrastructure which would sustain that industry and therefore their ideology.
They did this for other concepts too – sex equality, sexual rights, abortion rights, children’s rights, human rights – all created for one reason; to expand the support structure that stops progressive liberalism imploding.
These concepts spawned new organisations of "expert bodies" – QUasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations; Quangos – whose purpose was to initiate and create regulation related to their supposed "expertise".
And these regulations needed to be monitored, inspected and enforced – so the various regional governments were required to employ more and more people in more and more roles related to monitoring, inspecting and enforcing these regulations.
And so the public sector expanded and new concepts were brought in – often to tackle problems that progressive liberalism had caused. Drug abuse, truanting, family breakdown, mental illness and many many others. The number of quangos expanded (they alone are now costing Britain £180 BILLION every year – more than double the amount spent on the NHS) and with it the regulatory bodies and the regional support structures in local government.
And thus a new industry was spawned – an industry created for the sole purpose of maintaining the hegemony of progressive liberalism. A hegemony that can not be challenged or overturned as the very livelihoods of so many people are now so heavily invested in the maintenance of the ideology – the myth of progressive liberalism.
Even if, unlikely as it is, a truly conservative party were to obtain power, they could never change this without a virtual revolution. Any attempt to begin to dismantle this support structure that progressive liberalism has put in place will be met by massive resistance by those people who depend on it.
Even so, eventually – and inevitab
ly – progressive liberalism, just like every other brand of socialism, will collapse and fail. I can only hope that when it does, Britain is not too far gone to repair the damage, but I fear we are already past that point.