The Shifting Sands of the Progressives

There is a wonderful charm about being "progressive", and in the Sinapore national anthem we proudly sing "Progress, Singapore" (Majulah Singapura). Human civilisation depended on the progress in all fronts of society and thought. Some led to war, genocide and terrible destruction, and some led to new products and services that allowed us more time for leisure and want. Progressiveness is as fecund in human society as our desire to aspire and to be better. But is all progression for our better, that is the question; and, is such progression intended for everyone. It rests on the conscience and intelligence of the individual in society to know which to subscribe to, which to utilise and when to do so. Thus, with progress, we need to discuss accountability and responsibility.

Progressiveness is the idea of evolving thought and ability - presumably for the betterment of men. We know too well that economics and profit can drive the agenda on progress. So without some form of check and balance, progress can result in exploitation.

The single biggest issue I have with the so-called progressive lobby is that they have become intolerant, factually promiscuous and inaccurate, and self-serving. In History, the progressive party in the 20th Century were radical modernists which gave rise to many Fascist ideas. Some of that legacy in the 1950s and popular through the 1960s included selective population planinng and breeding programs for the elite and the gifted (dominantly white and with higher education), as well as population control policies - the same we see in China, which saw promising initial success in Singapore of the 1970s-1980s ("stop at two" and getting graduates to marry and breed).

Nowadays the progressives are more recognised as the humanist liberal lobby. They are the ones who clamour for human rights for minority interest groups whether these cross religious lines or not: from female ordination (nothing to do with them), pro-abortion rights to gay union rights.

Notice that these secularist lobby do not care as much for the exploitation of peoples in Africa, the oppression of people in Mynamar or corruption in the Third World or such. Where eco-warrior activism was once run by the hippy radicals in organisations like Greenpeace (and did they so often get their facts wrong because of poor quality research) that nowadays (thanksfully), ecological activism is generally run by educated persons who are both academic and field researchers, aided by naturalists and funded by organisations with proper governance. Even NGOs like Amnesty International had to clean up their ranks before they could be perceived as credible.

Today's liberal lobby will have to undergo the same evolution in order to be credible. The thing about progressives is the groups, their sensitivities, their drive and whatever makes up their pulse is shifting like the sands over time. Today they are mainly made up of atheists and humanists, and not surprisingly their main fight is with the conservative Left and social institutions like the Roman Catholic Church, hence their popular protests and slogans appear at the recent Papal Visit to the United Kingdom for instance. They were calling for reforms in areas which primary did not concern them as non-Catholics, which actually made them a laughing stock. Imagine if they were lobbying for the right of Hindus to eat beef, or for Muslims to eat pork for that matter. Certain matters in life is meant to be left to the conscience and not to suffrage.