A key failure of American progressivism is that it places style above substance.
But this is what happens when a movement has little hope for tomorrow and no love for today. When the past is the only period from which a person draws his inspiration and sense of moral certitude, that person will begin to romanticize and even fetishize the past, litigating endlessly that which has already been resolved, misunderstanding modern conflicts through a specifically narrow historical lens, and even going as far as to roleplay as historical characters.
REPUBLICANS NAVIGATE CULTURE WAR SETBACK ON ABORTION
For the American progressive, there is no more exciting and honorable a period than the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s. They want desperately to experience for themselves the righteousness of those days — so desperately, in fact, that some have even adopted the mannerisms of civil rights icons, including the Southern preacher-style dialect . The problem is that America now is not the America of those decades, and the villains of yesteryear are now in short supply. As a result, we’re left with the ludicrous spectacle of modern progressives misapplying the rhetoric and strategies of the civil rights movement to modern problems, regardless of the situation or the facts, and waging increasingly ill-conceived and largely pointless wars against mostly invented social ills.
Looking ridiculous, however, is not even the worst of it. The worst of it is this: Modern progressives are lazy. Their rage against the machine is heavy on the style and light on the substance.
The civil rights movement required hard work. It was also dangerous, both personally and professionally. The modern progressive, however, doesn’t want to be bothered with all that. He wants the benefits of being a hero but without any of the associated risks. He wants the praise — so long as it doesn’t interfere with his job, his networking possibilities, and his ability to land a six-figure job defending corporations for Big Law .
Take, for example, the more than 100 congressional staffers who staged a walkout this week, demanding an immediate ceasefire from Israel following Hamas's Oct. 7 massacre of 1,400 Israelis, most of whom were civilians.
“We were horrified by the brutal October 7th attacks on Israeli civilians, and we are horrified by the overwhelming response by the Israeli government that has killed thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza,” the group, which calls itself Congressional Staff For A Ceasefire, said in a statement. “Our constituents are pleading for a ceasefire, and we are the staffers answering their calls.”
Our constituents?
These gofers are out here mistaking proximity to power for actual influence. No one knows who they are. No one cares. No one voted for them. They aren't special. Their bosses barely qualify as such, and they have actual power! These activists are simply the people who answer the phones. Yes, Washington is run by 20-something-year-olds — but very replaceable 20-something-year-olds.
“Most of our bosses on Capitol Hill are not listening to the people they represent,” the statement continues. “We demand our leaders speak up: call for a ceasefire, a release of all hostages, and an immediate de-escalation now.”
We demand?
You have no power! You have no leverage! You are a nameless congressional staffer. In fact, you ensured your obscurity when you insisted on covering your face with a mask for your walkout. It’s true: When the staffers congregated in front of the Capitol to deliver speeches, pose for photos, lay flowers, and make their demands, they did so while wearing masks. They didn’t want their identities revealed. That would be risky. And don’t forget: The masked walkout comes not long after supposedly 400 congressional staffers anonymously signed a statement calling on Israel to cease all military operations in Gaza.
For people who roleplay so often as civil rights heroes, progressives don’t seem to have absorbed any lessons from that era. You cannot stage a meaningful public protest, leaning on the full weight and authority of your office, if you have no authority in the first place. It’s even more ludicrous to attempt such a demonstration while also hiding behind a mask. They may talk like civil rights activists, but they don’t seem to understand the first thing about successful dissent.
But success rarely seems to be the point with these people. Principles likewise seem to be an afterthought. Self-aggrandizement is, apparently, the real purpose.
Don't like your boss's position on the conflict? Don't think he's doing enough? You can always quit. Do it! Quit if you find the gap between his position and your principles so great. You don't even need to worry that the "pay is too good." This is Congress, after all. But these staffers won't quit. They won't go that far. They’re unwilling to show their faces or put their names to statements. They’d rather engage in performative acts of resistance where they get to play the star but where they’ve also insulated themselves from any possible criticism or consequence.
It’s one of the laziest and least consequential forms of protest imaginable, yet many progressives seem to believe they’re genuinely making a difference. This is what happens when one mistakes style for substance. This is what happens when a movement relies so heavily on the past for nostalgia, inspiration, and meaning, even if the past was a decidedly less progressive, peaceable, and just time. The result is an ethos filled to bursting with righteous indignation and unearned confidence but bereft of new ideas, original thinkers, and meaningful action. And this is to say nothing of the dwindling supply of actual villains and social evils against which the movement may direct its righteous fury.
Yet a lack of purpose and a clear misconception regarding what constitutes meaningful action doesn’t stop progressives from roleplaying as civil rights icons.
From thrusting upon the nation anti-gun activists groomed from childhood to deliver short-lived viral moments to elevating electoral losers and legislative backbenchers who hop on every social justice bandwagon they can, modern progressives want so badly to have their own civil rights experience.
It’s almost a pity that the aesthetic is all they seem to understand.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Becket Adams is a columnist for the Washington Examiner, National Review, and the Hill. He is also the program director of the National Journalism Center.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
