[nhanq]

Ctrl+F "reaction" highlights half the article.

"not being a progressive makes you a cretin" is not a good argument, maybe you should look at yourself to see why Modi is winning. This notion that progressivism is inherently and unquestionably good is a blight that comes from the West and has to stop.

[austincheney]

I believe both the behaviors in the article and your point are well summarized by the word: conformity. The danger is when the behavior of conformity becomes more important than the subject matter regardless of how noble or moral that subject matter may appear or whether or not the conformist behaviors are apparent to the participants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity

[wallace_f]

If you ever have the misfortune of being on the wrong end of injustice, particularly where perpetrated by greater authority, or number of authorities, you start to really quickly realize how pernicious conformity can be.

It's still possible for one to be infected with the kind of unjust hatred that turns one into a bad or wrong kind of person. Perhaps our collective consciousness tells us that is not possible anymore--we are not really persecuting witches, anabaptists, the poor, racial minorities, etc, etc. It's deceptive because there's truth we have made lot of progress there. But what is still true is that these human behaviors that made all of this constantly possible throughout history are still a part of us. Hatred and wrongness is extremely infectious under the right circumstances and you would be amazed by how many people immediately conform to that, no matter how unjust, rather than at least ask questions. In that way the shadow of our unacceptable past still lives on in the present.

If it were not for this experience, I believe I would be ignorant of this and unbelieving in it: that the willingness to conform to unjust authority--perhaps the vital ingredient in all of the mass injustices in the world--is still something that most of the human population possess, not unlike in our past. Which is really scary. I hope I'm just particularly unlucky and wrong about this conclusion.

[austincheney]

Perhaps the most finite ingredient (or virtue) is selflessness. Is the action or opinion expressed primarily for your own emotions or for something completely external? I suspect most people cannot honestly discern those two criteria and that indistinguishable quality is what allows people to conform unknowingly or fear originality.

[pjc50]

> why Modi is winning

So why is Modi winning then?

What do you mean by "progressivism" here?

[Hasknewbie]

Interesting take, since the BJP comes from the RSS who modeled themselves after the Italian fascists, to enact anti-minorities views, which themselves come from the British: the empire relied on the good old "divide to rule" scheme to control India after they discovered Indians would rebel together, regardless of their religion. They then started to privilege minorities in order to stoke religious resentment and prevent an unified front. It took a Mahatma Gandhi to break that cycle (until he was himself killed. By a RSS activist).

The BJP is doing the bidding of a colonial master that is now long gone, using brown-shirt mentality. So who exactly is importing "blight from the West" here?

[ben_w]

I had to google “progressivism”. Improving society by reform, apparently. Isn’t that a description of everyone who wants to write any laws at all?

[repolfx]

It can also describe improving society by repealing bad laws, so presumably no. Reform does not equal writing new laws.

[ben_w]

I had thought all repeals were also laws? The Wikipedia page says this of the USA, but is more ambiguous about my own country (UK, for now).

[repolfx]

No. You can't delete a law by making a law, that's obviously a contradiction.

All repeals are acts of Parliament. However, Acts are essentially diffs to the existing body of law. If you read one you'll see they're full of "insert paragraph X after paragraph Y" type language. An act that repealed a law would just be an act that stated such-and-such a paragraph in the law was to be erased.

[JohnStrangeII]

What do you mean by "progressivism"? Could you give a definition?

The reason I ask is that I'm not at all convinced that it is that meaningful as a political term. For example, I believe that many problems have and can be solved by technical progress. Depending on the nature of technology involved, this position has been defended by conservative politicians (e.g. nuclear power, space race) and by liberal politicians (e.g. stem cell research, solar power). Hence, no political position corresponds to this aspect of 'being progressive'.

At the same time, what one group of people considers a genuine progress in the social domain, e.g. international human rights laws and conventions, is not considered progress by other groups of people.

So it seems after all to me that the term 'progressive' does not describe a group of people with very homogeneous political views. This is also a critique on the author of the essay who seems to identify 'progressive' with 'left-wing views', as is usual in US politics.

To give another example, in one sense of the word establishing a new Space Command is certainly very progressive. It may be a colossal waste of money, but that doesn't mean that it's not progressive.

That's just a minor semantic quibble, I do admit that in the US 'progressive' basically means 'left wing, leaning towards policies of the Democratic Party'. My point is just that it's misleading and confusing terminology, like most political terms in the US. (e.g. liberal != classical liberalism in the US, another weird naming tradition)

[ajkjk]

Why do you think that?