The Progressive Playbook: One Set of Rules for Them, Another for Everyone Else

On issue after issue, Progressives find themselves in a position of arguing against themselves when it comes to how something should be treated or decided.  For a goodly number of years, the Unholy Trinity (academia, corporate media, and the world of entertainment) has operated with the single operating principle of “we always get to win.”

That same Unholy Trinity has also served as referees.  By making the rules, choosing the game, the ball, and the field, they have long been able to uphold that single operating principle.  What mere mortals might consider a contradiction in terms is of little consequence.  In simple terms, at all times, there is one set of rules for Progressives and another for the rest of us.

A whole lot of this is changing, but not because Progressives or their designated referees have changed an iota.  In fact, they continue to double down.  We of the great unwashed are winning more often due to the new information ecosystem, where the legacy media does not dominate the conversation.

Thank goodness for our new world of information.  If not, many of us would be frustrated to death over debating these people.  Take a gander at just a handful of items recently in the news.

The House Oversight Committee is looking into who knew what and when they knew it when it comes to identifying and dealing with the obvious cognitive decline of President Biden while he occupied the White House.  The Progressive’s first line of defense is that it is in poor taste, and besides, it is all in the past.  So, what many consider the greatest scandal in the history of the White House needs to be swept under the rug and forgotten.  Has anyone thought about it being impossible to investigate anything except by looking backwards?  

Compare all of this to what was proper to do to President Trump after the riots on January 6, 2021.  Then it was, he has to be held accountable; failure to do is a threat to democracy, etc.  Apparently, looking back is a tricky thing.

In addition, in the case of January 6, anyone who fails to condemn it in every respect is complicit, whether or not they were involved in any way, shape or fashion.  At the same time, when it comes to the Biden White House, we are asked to believe that nobody intentionally did a single thing to deceive the public.  Even the powerful Democrats who assured us every step of the way (until the June 27 debate disaster), all was well, get a free pass.  The same goes for the media, which both assured us he was sharp as a tack and that accusations to the contrary were unfounded.  For good measure, toss in that personally attacking those who disagree with you is in bad taste if it is the Progressive who is attacked, but standing up for principle when the Progressive does the attacking.

Next, we have the matter of the courts.  To fail to totally accept the rulings of individual Federal District Court Judges is to threaten the rule of law, not to mention being dangerous.  Somehow, the standards shift when it comes to the Supreme Court.  Not a problem to call it an illegitimate institution.  Protests and attempts to do bodily harm to them?  Well, what did they expect?  If this is not two sets of rules, nothing is.

Burning the American flag is protected First Amendment speech.  Desecrate the LGBTQ flag?  You are subject to being cancelled and, in some cases, sanctioned.  Flying the American flag?  Need to be careful here, because it might trigger someone.

Protecting democracy has so many confusing elements to it when it comes to the Progressive worldview.  Accepting the results of the election is important in 2020, not so much in 2016 or 2020.  That calls for resistance.

80 percent of Americans favor a ban on biological males competing against biological females.  When that ban came to a vote in the House of Representatives, two Democrats voted for it.  That was two more than in the Senate.  What about all that will of the people stuff?  Tossing in to disagree with the 20 percent is being anti-LBGTQ.  No chance everything has its limits.

We could do this all day long and still have plenty of examples left on the shelf.  Intellectual discourse is more than just getting what you want.  The other guy gets a turn in the batter’s box.  If the only way you can prevail is to constantly change the rules, maybe it is time to look in the mirror.  While you are at it, go ahead and eliminate the smug and arrogant view that you are always the one occupying the moral high ground.  Instead, why not try answering the question: Do you folks even listen to yourselves?

Remember this: When there is one set of rules for me and another for you, the debate outcome is fixed before the discussion begins.  Fortunately, as the Unholy Trinity quickly loses its grip on being the referees, things are also changing quickly for the good.  What do you think?