How secular progressivism became morally regressive ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Friday, March 28, 2025

How secular progressivism became morally regressive

(A continuation of essays on my theory of supersessionism as a driving factor of virulent antisemitism.)

The early twentieth century was known as the Progressive Era. Both Democrats and Republicans said they support progressivism, and a new Progressive Party was started. While similar in some ways to the social justice movement, progressives were more likely to support societal reforms, wanting the government to make the changes they deem necessary. Progressives also supported workers' rights and they believed strongly in scientific and technological progress.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell was a leading progressive thinker, supporting causes such as women's rights, pacifism and secular humanism, challenging religious dogma. He argued strenuously that morality can be derived from logic and does not require a religious framework. His ideas were influential in the movement, although not universally accepted.

At the same time, many progressives turned their ideas into dogma themselves. The "Progressive Creed," written in 1912 to summarize the positions of the Progressive Party, is striking in its language of "creed" and "belief" within a secular framework.

That seems to be a consistent theme for humans. Russell-type grappling with determining the correct moral position as new circumstances arise is rare among the public. People are often attracted to philosophies, political ideas and other secular systems for the exact same reasons people are attracted to faith: they want to be part of something larger than themselves. This is why the Progressive Creed uses that language - it is presenting itself as no less a dogma as religious systems.

The problem with secular philosophy is that reasonable people can use logic and come up with different moral laws. And when people are not intellectually honest, the conclusions they can arrive to can be immoral.

Progressives were generally Zionist before the 1948 war and even after the Six Day War. That changed over time as progressives started prioritizing other moral imperatives, defining colonialism as an ultimate evil, for example. When colonialism could not accurately model some societies like America, Australia and Israel, they made up a new kind: "settler colonialism" which was, again, defined as an ultimate evil. Once you say that, then fighting "settler colonialism" must be moral, and then you can go down a slippery slope where that battle can be fought by any means necessary - including murdering civilians as long as they are considered "settlers."

In 2000, Israel agreed to a peace plan with the Palestinians. It would result in a Palestinian state on nearly all the territory it wanted, plus additional territory. It split Judaism's holiest city Jerusalem and defined some areas where Jews would not be able to visit. It seemed poised to bring peace.

The Palestinians rejected it. More to the point, leading progressive outlets and writers like The Nation and Edward Said rejected the plan as well as a "sham" and "humiliating." Even worse, they celebrated the subsequent terror spree known as the second intifada and justified it as a "natural response" to perceived Israeli crimes.

Ten years earlier the progressive consensus was that there should be a Palestinian state next to a Jewish state, peace is the most important goal and terrorism was flatly wrong. In 2000, with Arafat's rejection of the peace plan (and later an even more generous plan), that consensus changed almost overnight, and the new morality was enshrined in 2001's infamous Durban conference, where even the most outrageous pro-terror Palestinian and Hamas positions were embraced and any peace that allowed Israel to continue to exist as a Jewish state was derided.

This new progressive morality didn’t fade; it evolved into a playbook for demonizing Israel today. Once Jews in Israel can be defined as "settler colonialists" and therefore have fewer rights than other humans, it is easy to make up new definitions of "apartheid" and "genocide" that accuse Jews of even more heinous crimes. It is all done using a moral framework that is genuinely immoral.

The Progressives of a century ago, including Russell, would be aghast at how their philosophy could be twisted and perverted in such a way. Yet all of it was done within their own framework of morality adapting to new circumstances.

Why has Israel has received such outsized negative attention from the progressive influencers? It seems too flippant to just blame antisemitism. My theory that rabid antisemitism is the result of supersessionism holds here.

Israel is a vibrant, successful country. It gives more rights to its Muslim minority than Switzerland (which regulates minarets and the Muslim call to prayer) or France (which bans Muslim modest swimwear.) It does all of this while ignoring progressive principles: it allows its Muslim minority to have, if they want, separate communities with separate schools and even Sharia courts. It is not a melting pot but a salad where everyone adds something to the nation.

Even though it is a secular state, Israel is a Jewish state. It uses centuries-old Jewish ethics to help decide the thorniest issues.

The moral dilemma of the IDF when fighting an enemy that literally doesn't care about its own people are quite unprecedented, and would be challenging for the most brilliant philosophers. The incredibly difficult question of how best to save hostages while not paying too high a price is one that rabbis have struggled with for literally thousands of years and there is already an existing base of literature on that topic.

Because Israel has a deep moral and religious history from which to build a society and to deal with these issues, it rejects simplistic modern progressive tenets.

Israel does not accept a simplistic binary of everyone being either an oppressor or oppressed. There is no "equity," no affirmative action. Even while rejecting these current progressive tenets, Israel has very liberal policies toward its Arab minority, women, gays and those with disabilities.

Compare this mature and sophisticated moral concepts with the puerile mindset that today's progressives lean on to justify their immorality. Their utter perversion can be seen from their reactions to the October 7 pogrom. Israel’s response is pilloried as a crime against humanity, while Hamas’s actions are excused or even celebrated as "resistance" by organizations like Columbia University's CUAD.

These claims are self-evidently disgusting, but they are ostensibly working within the progressive tradition of morality being fluid and being redefined for every new circumstance.

The most difficult moral questions are the ones that require the most thought and care, and the progressive framework is simply ill-equipped to deal with them in a way that cannot be perverted and subverted.

Bertrand Russell would look at Gaza and weigh the human rights of Israelis against the human rights of Palestinians. Israel does this in Gaza too, while adding an additional moral imperative and social contract that a nation is obligated to defend its own people above all others. On the other hand, today's progressives made up an entirely new edifice where Jews have no human rights at all, and where Hamas is a progressive, anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, freedom fighting force which is allowed to "resist" Israel by any means necessary.

Israel, and a long history of Jewish religious thinkers grappling with the most difficult moral choices, is living proof that progressive morality is wrong and that Judaism can provide a superior moral code. That is why today's progressives cannot stomach it. It is a direct challenge to their entire worldview. The more Israel thrives and meets unprecedented challenges, and the more it shows that it can be liberal under the most trying circumstances, the more hateful its progressive critics get - and the more they want to replace it.

Israel's existence shows that the progressive emperor has no clothes.