By Lewis Loflin
Modern liberalism has drifted far from its classical roots—liberty, reason, and individual rights—toward what critics call regressive liberalism or identity statism. In 1913, Joseph Stalin defined a nation as “a historically constituted, stable community… formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological makeup manifested in a common culture,” a unity communism sought to dismantle. Vladimir Lenin concurred, noting a “governmental crisis” could “draw even the most backward masses into politics… to weaken the government and make it possible for the revolutionaries to overthrow it rapidly.”
For today’s Left—whether neo-communists or regressive liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton—eroding this cultural core aligns with their agenda, often advanced through a transformed Democratic Party. Once tied to the Ku Klux Klan and FDR’s internment of Japanese Americans, the party has shifted from overt racism to policies that fragment society under the guise of justice.
One tool is multiculturalism, influenced by Martin Heidegger, a Nazi philosopher whose critique of Western reason shaped postmodernism. In works like Being and Time (1927), Heidegger rejected universal norms, laying groundwork for relativism that dismisses cultural cohesion. Regressive liberals deploy this through open borders and mass Third-World immigration, resisting assimilation to create Lenin’s “backward masses”—a divided base for Clinton’s “modern Progressivism.” See Progressives: From Wells’ Vision to Identity Statism. Her 2016 loss signaled public resistance to this approach.
Another tactic, outlined in W. Cleon Skousen’s 1958 The Naked Communist (entered into the Congressional Record, 1963), is crafting victim groups with selective “special rights.” Unlike universal rights, these—e.g., race-based preferences—favor specific identities, weakening institutions and majority protections. Skousen warned this sows discord, a strategy the Left refines today.
Affirmative action embodies this. Upheld in 2016 (Fisher v. University of Texas) but curtailed in 2023 (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard), it prioritizes race over merit. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in 2016:
The Constitution abhors classifications based on race… every time the government places citizens on racial registers… it demeans us all. That constitutional imperative does not change in the face of a ‘faddish theory’ that racial discrimination may produce ‘educational benefits.’
To deflect criticism, the Left redefines “racism” as belief in racial superiority, not differential treatment, excluding whites, Christians, and Western culture from victim status. This shields policies like affirmative action while silencing dissent—criticizing Islam’s treatment of women or gays becomes “Islamophobic,” but targeting Christians for opposing gay marriage is fair game.
These contradictions surface starkly. The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting—49 killed by an Islamic fundamentalist—exposed a disconnect. The Left pivoted to guns and “Christian homophobia,” downplaying the shooter’s Taliban ties and editing 911 transcripts to obscure his motives. Why? Protecting Islam as a “victim” group trumps acknowledging its fundamentalist strains, a pattern seen in Leftism and Islamism: An Alliance Against the West.
Similarly, Catholic priest scandals highlight selective framing. Calling them “homosexual pedophiles” draws “homophobic” labels, despite factual accuracy, because homosexuals are a protected class. Yet critiquing Christianity faces no such restraint—another double standard rooted in identity statism.
Gun control reveals further inconsistency. Cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and New Orleans—under strict gun laws—see hundreds of Black and Hispanic shootings yearly (e.g., Chicago’s 2024 tally: 2,500+ incidents). The Left pushes broader restrictions on law-abiding citizens, yet balks at enforcing laws against gang members, framing them as “victims” of systemic racism rather than accountable actors. This reluctance, tied to avoiding “racist” policing, leaves violence unchecked while clashing with calls for public safety.
Is this disconnect deliberate or ideological? Regressive liberalism, like the oikophobia I explore in Oikophobia: Why Progressives Reject Our Traditions, mirrors a secular faith—degrees as revelation, the state as arbiter—crafting a utopia that defies reality. Orlando’s framing, affirmative action’s defense, and urban violence’s neglect suggest a dogma prioritizing narrative over reason, silencing critics with redefined terms like “racism” or “phobia.”
How can one champion women’s rights yet excuse Islamic fundamentalism’s abuses? How can gay rights matter but not Islamist violence against them? How can racism be banned while state policies enshrine it? These questions point to a deeper rift—regressive liberalism’s rejection of classical principles for identity-driven control.
Modern liberalism’s regressive turn—rooted in Stalin’s nation-breaking and Heidegger’s relativism—uses multiculturalism, selective rights, and redefined norms to fragment Western culture. From Obama’s policies to Clinton’s Progressivism, it trades reason for dogma, as seen in Orlando, affirmative action, and urban violence. This critique, not an attack, asks readers to weigh its costs against the liberty it claims to uphold.
Further reading:
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
