Progressivism, despite its name, is really a regressive movement which seeks to sort everyone out into various tribes based on race, gender, income and even sexual proclivity. They seek to attain, and justify the use of, power by pitting each group against the other. By endlessly creating and stoking conflict, and setting themselves up as the central authority for arbitration, they hope to enrich themselves through the supplication that inevitably follows as each group seeks leave to use the force of government upon the other rather than sorting things out amongst themselves.
It is a movement that does not see people as individuals, but rather as mere cogs in either the government, the economy or the groups to which they are assigned. The interests, abilities and preferences of every individual in the group are assumed to be the same as everyone else in the group (and antagonistic to everyone outside the group) even as progressives chide others for clinging to stereotypes. For leftists, everything centers around which tribe one belongs to because their philosophy is wholly atavistic and tribal in nature.
President Barack Obama’s administration has quietly suggested it is willing to create a two-tier race-based legal system in Hawaii, where one set of taxes, spending and law enforcement will govern one race, and the second set of laws will govern every other race.
The diversity proposal is portrayed as an effort to create a separate in-state government for people who are “native Hawaiians.”
Now leftists are explicitly creating new governments based on tribalism and not even adhering to a principle as high as the old racist one of “separate but equal” in doing so. Here they advocate separate and inevitably unequal. They are of course mad. There is no practical way this can work with intermixed populations where each group is not given explicit territories or reservations with boundaries. If there is a dispute between two people of different groups in Hawaii then which law would apply? Which government would have the final say? Would a child of a mixed couple be subject to both governments or neither? What if custody laws differ? There is also the little issue of the whole thing being patently unconstitutional… not that such a thing ever concerned statists, who loath the Constitution with all their being because it was explicitly designed to rein them in. They hate the Bill of Rights for the same reason thieves hate No Trespassing signs and laws against burglary.
You might think that going back to a time where citizenship was decided on the basis of race would be antithetical to a creed which claims to represent progress. But then you would be assuming too much. Indeed, you assume too much when you assume leftism has any guiding principles at all that are not totally tribal in nature and thus dependent on what the tribe wants at a given time. In the end it is always about power and a small group of elitists deciding who gets to wield it against whom… which is to say it is about government.
We are ruled by racists and idiots. If countries truly get the government they deserve, and the progressives are right that we are all responsible for the sins of our group, then as an atheist I can firmly avow that we, as one big tribe, are all going straight to hell on the express escalator (or whatever environmentally friendly alternative transportation it is that Satan uses to torment those who elect the sort of thugs and fools that we do — perhaps solar powered chariots from a hell where the sun never shines).