Why there is no Dharma in Progressive Liberalism ?

Last week while penning down the Tale of Two Tortoises, Offstumped had another epiphany. This time on the oxymoron called “Progress Liberalism”. Multiple stories in the Mainstream Media over the past few days have only further validated it.

Here is a sampling.

CNN-IBN asking this question – Will America elect a Black President ?

The Telegraph asking this question – Tears for film and verse, not a drop for riots ?

So what do these questions tell us about Progressive Liberalism ?

To better appreciate this let us pose these questions in a different way.

Can America elect a President being blind to his skin color ?

Was Mr. Advani guilty of not discharging his constitutional duty in response to riots ?

The difference between the above questions and the previous set, posed by the mainstream media that professes by “progressive liberalism”, lies in the premise. Where the above questions were mainly concerned with righteous conduct, the previous set of questions were mainly concerned with the outcome and more specifically a certain kind of outcome while being unmindful of how exactly that outcome was arrived at.

That friends is the fundamental nature of “Progressive Liberalism”. It does not ask you if your conduct was righteous but instead asks you if a certain goal was achieved.

So what are these goals??

These goals are mainly of two varieties and both of them are rooted in emotions and not in fundamental truths.

The first variety is commonly found in the psuedo-intellectual few and stems from a deep sense of guilt. This sense of guilt arises largely because of an inability to reconcile hard and bitter truths. So you have this pursuit of moral equivalences to dither on capital punishment, or this talk of root causes to rationalize and apologize for terrorism?and of course the ultimate guilt trip – political correctness.

The second variety?found in the ignorant many?ususally follows the first and is a result of the psuedo-intellectual’s need to assuage his or her sense of guilt by instilling outrage and indignation in the masses by painting them the victim. It is this victimhood that has spawned the culture of entitlement and a false sense of justice called Social Justice. The results?range from?Communal Socialism, Minority appeasement, ?Vote bank politics and the incendiary politics of affirmative entitlement.

It is on these twin emotional pillars of “guilt” and “victimhood” that Progressive Liberalism rests causing it to care more about outcomes and goals thus failing the “desireless action” test of Dharma.

This has to be the defining distinction between the Left and the Right.

Often many to the Right, especially those who primarily care about economic issues, argue that Freedom is the defining principle governing the Right. In this moment of epiphany it must be said that in the natural order of things, it is Dharma or that ultimate sense of Justice which ought to be the defining principle governing the Right. For there can be no Freedom without that ultimate sense of Justice or Dharma.

Still others to the Right often fall to the trap of confusing Dharma with what they call “moral obligations”. A recent speech by BJP Leader and the NDA’s Prime Minister-in-waiting L.K. Advani at the ASSOCHAM is a case in point. The moral obligations Mr. Advani alludes are but progressive liberalism by another name, for they care about outcomes and goals and arise from a sense of guilt which becomes apparent when Mr. Advani quotes this statistic

the earnings of 20 richest Indians is more than that of 30 crore poorest Indians

Mr. Advani calls for Indian model of economic development. Offstumped couldnt agree more. However such an Indian model ought to be premised and derived from Dharma while not falling into the “moral obligations” trap of Progressive Liberalism.

More on the subject of Dharma and an Indian model of economic development in subsequent posts.

Filed under: Flat World Hindutva, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, Uncategorized