Authored by William Robert Barber
The principle policy of diversity as practiced throughout the institutions of our nation is harmonious with today’s mores of political correctness. Diversity as defined in factual implementation is (solely speaking for myself) the new virtue; its actions parallel the ideals of collectivism — Lenin would surely approve and socialists rejoice. Its meaningfulness in utilitarian terms has had a profound effect upon every aspect of American society. Its legislative or judicial enactment conjures and evokes socio-political concepts and theories such as social justice, societal inequality, equalitarianism, and scientism; these premises are considered (by diversities advocates) synonymous to progressive governance.
The elected leader of diversity is President Obama. The guiding philosophy is progressivism. The means to achieve diversity as instigated by the president (and progressives’ tagalong socio-economic-political connotations) is boundless in temerity. The president considers Machiavellian extralegal tactics as actionable both in scope and methods. For the common and ordinary (person) the president consistently promises more than he can deliver. He creates a non-existent problem so to publicly boast his profound solution; one such problem was “the war on women”… his solution: Vote Democrat. He rhetorically theorizes his willingness to either incur more debt or extort cash from those that have so to (supposedly) give to those that have less. He repeatedly declares, “I have a pen and a phone”, effectually dictating that by executive order he can and will circumvent congress.
The progressives believe that as with Hammurabi’s Code the U.S. Constitution is an antiquated non-applicable document requiring an extensive rewrite. Additionally, a highly thought-of progressives’ ideal is that the legacy of individual freedom and liberty, the principles, spirit, and definition of traditional American values are, as with the philosophy of individualism and existentialism, a menace to their concept of a sophisticated equalitarian society.
The ideological divide between a conservative and a progressive is so divergent, compromise is impossible. This chocolate will NEVER mix with the vanilla; conciliation requires concessions and there will be no substantive give and take. There will only be confrontation, conflict, and frustrated bitterness… until one political philosophy wins dominance.
Interestingly, I believe that even if the progressives should win they will lose: Their ideas just don’t function fluidly in a free society.