The Yin and Yang of Progressivism, The Buffett Rule, CO2 and Dan Savage

The Yin and Yang symbol is used to show how the beginning of one thing resides in the full being of its opposite.  It’s origins, black beginning in white and white beginning in black, goes back to the notion that the coming of night begins at high noon and the coming of day begins at midnight.

Progressivism is usually defined as trying to change things for the better.  Trying to create something new.  That’s a good thing, something human nature is attracted to.  However, when something is created, something else is destroyed.  In the case of buildings, green fields or at least old buildings are destroyed.  In the case of gay marriage, it’s traditional marriage.

I find the concept of Yin and Yang is a quick convenient way to think about progressive positions.  Whenever a progressive says, “I am for X” think about what has to be destroyed for “X” to come to be.  In the case of universal healthcare, individual choice and insurance companies are destroyed.  In the case of forgiving student loans, individual autonomy, the benefits of family savings and systematic accountability are destroyed.

Some progressives are truly attracted to the positive things that progressivism wants to create.  I find that most of the hard core progressives though are motivated by destroying.  You find this in Obama’s talk about the Buffet rule.  He’s not interested in pulling people up or bringing down the deficit.  He’s interested in sticking it to rich people.  On the global warming front, all objective observers agree that limiting only America’s CO2 emissions would do little if anything to limit global emissions yet Obama still takes every opportunity to kill the oil, gas and coal industries.  This week we have a leader of the Anti-Bullying campaign go off on an anti-Christian screed.

So the next time you listen to a progressive talk about a new program or tax, think about what they are trying to destroy.  It’s a quick way to turn the discussion from something positive, i.e. universal healthcare, to their negative motivations, i.e. sticking it to insurance companies.

When they argue based upon their negative motivations, they lose as it is also human nature to avoid negative people.