Suppose you are having a conversation with a progressive. He is presenting a case for one course of action, and you are presenting a case for a different course of action. What is always so frustrating about having such a conversation with a progressive is that it is never possible for him to admit that there are two possible courses of action, each with arguments for and against it. Rather, his presupposition from the outset is always that his course of action is the only valid one and that anyone who defends the other course of action is just wrong: a stupid, anti-science denialist or a racist, sexist, homophobic (apply other labels here) bigot.
But the progressive mindset is even worse than that. Ordinarily in our republic, certain procedures are followed in order to decide which course of action the state will take. For example, legislatures deliberate about which laws to pass; voters vote on state ballot initiatives; courts adjudicate various cases. But, to the progressive, his preferred course of action always seems so morally superior to him and he is always so epistemologically certain that this is the case that, if the position he advocates for is defeated in these normal governmental decision-making processes, he feels himself justified in rejecting that outcome and going outside the law to obtain his ends. In fact, it becomes a moral imperative, a matter of conscience for him to do so, with his conscience, of course, being the only valid arbiter in the matter. He is unable to view his defeat as the defeat of a mere opinion, but rather he sees it as an event that, if allowed to stand, will compromise his personal integrity and destroy the natural law and moral fabric of the universe.
Wikipedia defines moral imperative as follows:
A moral imperative is a strongly-felt principle that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason. Later thinkers took the imperative to originate in conscience, as the divine voice speaking through the human spirit. The dictates of conscience are simply right and often resist further justification. Looked at another way, the experience of conscience is the basic experience of encountering the right.
The absolutism of moral imperative is what one finds operating, for example, in progressive attitudes about abortion or gay marriage or climate change. The merest possibility that it might be appropriate for the government even to restrict abortion or gay marriage in some way cannot be admitted. The merest suggestion that the dangers of climate change might be exaggerated simply cannot be tolerated. The result is that if the Supreme Court were ever to overturn Roe v Wade or Obergefell or if Donald Trump were to repudiate Barack Obama's (illegal, by the way) acquiescence in the Paris Climate Agreement, progressives would not simply accept that their position had (perhaps temporarily) been defeated through the normal operation of the processes of government, but instead would consider resistance (the new mantra) as a moral imperative, overriding all other imperatives, even the imperative that we all obey the laws of normal constitutional government; they would take to the streets, smashing windows, burning cars, macing all who held different opinions, viewing themselves not as law-breakers, but rather as noble conscientious objectors. Because their cause is so noble, they think, they are freed from the ordinary constraints of civil society.
If anyone proposes an idea that is unacceptable to this progressive orthodoxy, that person must be shouted down and not allowed even to speak (as we have seen happen recently at UC Berkeley and Middlebury College), or forced out of the company he founded (as we saw in the case of Brendan Eich). If the legal and completely normal operation of the Electoral College results in the defeat of Hillary, why, we should think about eliminating the Electoral College or seceding from the Union. And finally, if the normal operation of the courts does not deliver the outcomes progressives want, we should pack the courts with judges who will use novel methods of constitutional interpretation (for example, substantive due process arguments) and appeals to the higher progressive morality to arrive at results that the enlightened progressive moral agenda not simply prefers, but demands.
Particularly egregious examples of progressive proclamations of the moral imperative to oppose Donald Trump can be found here and here. Another aspect of the same behavior are the screeds advocating resistance to the "normalization" of Mr Trump, such as are found here and here. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this behavior is the media's rejection early on of that other moral imperative, namely, to cover candidates impartially (see here). Ezra Klein's attack on Trump is particularly revealing:
But this is a dangerous game. We are a nation protected by norms, not just by laws. Our political parties should be held to certain standards in terms of the candidates they nominate, the behaviors they accept, the ideas they mainstream. Trump violates those standards. By indulging him, the Republican Party is normalizing him and his behavior, and making itself abnormal. [emphasis added]
Here we see the same old tiresome progressive move: we cannot depend on mere laws; there is a higher justice (norms, standards); and we progressives, being more intelligent and moral than the mob, are, of course, the natural arbiters of what these norms and standards, this higher justice, should be; and, once we progressives have identified what these higher norms and standards should be, there may be no compromise; in fact, it is our moral duty to resist. Such absolutist attitudes are simply inimical to and at odds with the checks and balances (the need to compromise) that our peculiar American form of government imposes on its citizenry.
But with progressives, to be checked by the necessity of compromise is never considered to be a normal outcome of governmental processes; rather, compromise is a sell-out of the progressive's higher moral principles, principles self-righteously elevated in the progressive mind to a higher plane than those of mere deplorables, clinging to their guns and religion. This is why I find progressives so disgusting.
