Do So-called Progressives Understand or Hide the Logical Implications of Their Principles?


I’ve often wondered if so-called liberals and progressives (neo-Marxist “Fabian” revolutionaries) fail to understand the logical implications of their stated principles or if they do understand them but refuse to openly discuss them, presumably out of fear that doing so would wake people up and put the brakes on their cultural revolution.  A 2008 interview with Van Jones, who once served as President Obama’s Special Advisor for Green Jobs, suggests the latter explanation is closer to the truth.  In that interview, Van Jones all but gave away the store when he said,

“One of the things that has happened too often to progressives is that we don’t understand the relationship between minimum goals and maximum goals.

Right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said, ‘OK, now we want reparations for slavery; we want redistribution of all wealth; and we want to legalize mixed marriages,’ if that had been their…, if they’d have come out with a maximum program the very next day, they’d have been laughed at.

Instead, they came out with a very minimum program. You know, ‘we just want to integrate these buses.’ The students [inaudible] came out with a very minimum program. ‘We just want to sit at the lunch counter.’ But inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1954 to 1968, complete revolution was on the table for this country.

And I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we’re saying we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco-capitalism where you know, at least we’re not, you know, fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet.

Will that be enough? No, it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond systems of exploitations and oppression altogether, but that’s a process. And I think what’s great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we’re going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

With the above in mind, below is video of a recent debate between Tucker Carlson and DNC strategist Zac Petkanas on the question of transgenderism.  During the interview, Tucker confronts Mr. Petkanas with the logical implications of his subjectivist view on gender.  But instead of getting an honest and straightforward answer to his simple question, he gets evasion and obfuscation and the viewer is left wondering if Mr. Petkanas is stupid or crafty.  That is to say, the viewer is left wondering if Mr. Petkanas fails to see the logical implications of his view on gender or, per the advice of Van Jones, refuses to honestly discuss them, so as to not jeopardize the progressive cultural revolution.  Watch the video and makeup your own mind,