Issues & Insights
Rosa Pineda

Progressives’ Carpet Bombing Of America

Russia has changed its war strategy in Ukraine from direct confrontation to simply reducing cities to rubble, often killing civilians. Avoiding indiscriminate death, destruction, and misery no longer matters to the Russians so long as it facilitates their conquest. Sadly, progressives here have adopted a similar approach to imposing their policies and ideologies.

A civil society must be willing to confront disagreement head-on, issue by issue, even though it can be challenging. The goal should be to reconcile different perspectives constructively without unnecessary collateral damage. But progressives seem willing to die on every hill, with their desired ends seeming to justify any means and any pain along the way.

Overreach is everywhere. Progressive climate policy may be the most egregious. Even without knowing the extent of climate change or humans’ impact, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) has become a widely accepted goal. But progressives are like children who want what they want now. They demand immediate, indiscriminate controls on fossil fuels, or even their abolition. They oversell renewables and conceal their true costs and environmental impact. Promoting electric vehicles, they harbor delusions of unlimited natural resources and magically appearing infrastructure. They pay no heed to the limitations of the power grid. They ignore other countries’ non-cooperation, and on and on. The American public pays a steep price for all this, now and for the foreseeable future.

Congress provides munitions in the form of trillion-dollar programs too large to allow for proper monitoring. Pet causes are slipped in – as if a small percentage of trillions of dollars is inconsequential – by hiding them in the fog of war. The resulting inflation lays waste to many businesses and lives.

A justifiable concern for indigent minor criminals incarcerated for lack of bail and the overrepresentation of minorities in the criminal justice system has become an excuse to release dangerous criminals who then reoffend. Many serious crimes are pled down to misdemeanors and escape recidivism statistics. Victims are paid little attention. Disincentives to crime are buried in the rubble.

The murder of George Floyd in 2020 ignited widespread destruction. Businesses, government and public facilities and neighborhoods were quite literally bombed and sacked while police were withheld, demonized, and defunded. This civil disobedience was based upon the rare occurrences of unjustified police shootings of unarmed blacks. In fact, the excesses were committed by the progressive mob.

The push by government for “equity” – the assurance of equal outcomes – may be the napalm of this campaign. It is the institutionalization of discrimination as a solution for discrimination. The movement is disingenuous at best, denying decades of rooting out discrimination and establishing myriad programs aimed at equal opportunity.  Also, it ignores school choice, which is perhaps the best long-term solution for inequality.

Equity, by contrast, is incompatible with America’s fundamental principles of fairness and equal treatment and opportunity, but for progressives, the social compact embodying them is no more valued than buildings in Mariupol.

Another example is immigration policy, a complex web of economics, morality, resources, and conditions beyond U.S. borders. Civil discourse to unravel this knot is desperately needed. Instead of participating in civil discourse to address the problem, progressives simply obliterate the border, aid and abet human trafficking, and ignore the costs of drug smuggling and supporting illegal immigrants. The concept of national sovereignty and the critical distinction between asylum and economic migration are just more rubble littering the landscape.

Most of us vehemently condemn Russia but too often remain passive victims in our own social war.  We need to resist. We can, and should, refuse to be bamboozled, bullied, or cancelled.

Of course, there is always the ballot box. But too many politicians profess reasonable views during election campaigns but abandon them once confronted with party discipline – for example, the loss of campaign funding or committee assignments. Personal integrity and sound public policy are the casualties.

If nothing else, we should recognize that the carpet-bombing mentality in America today is just as immoral as the kinetic equivalent we see in Ukraine. We need to put an end to policies that do so much harm to so many.  

Andrew I. Fillat spent his career in technology venture capital and information technology companies. He is also the co-inventor of relational databases. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. They were undergraduates together at M.I.T.

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.

Share

3 comments

  • an interesting article but not really any thing new or profound. what we need are ideas on how to rid ourselves of these progressives and the problems they are incurring on us. if we wait much longer, there will be only one way left and too many of us don’t have the stomach for doing it. time is growing short.

  • Much as an earlier contribution by the author and another of his classmates at MIT spoke to the growing dysfunction at MIT, here the authors note the policy dysfunction among political progressives (let’s not kid ourselves progressives are overwhelmingly left Democrats). Unfortunately they spell out symptoms and consequences of the disease but little else.

    In the case of MIT the authors seem to bank on a new president being able to release MIT from the shackles of wokeism. However, it is more likely that any new president will not break shackles but become shackeled themselves. Any president likely to interfere with currently popular magical thinking will find themselves in the eye of a figurative hurricane as hundreds, if not thousands, of faculty members, staff, alumni, graduate students, descend into an adult tantrum.

    As I mentioned in my comment to the earlier article the route to shaping up MIT is through its governing board — someone needs to scare them. But what I found upon researching the governing board is disheartening. The board is far too large to be effective or frightened: it has ex-officio members, emeritus members, lifetime members, and a much smaller group of limited term (five year terms) members. What seems worse is the board self selects its new members — a prescription for groupthink. This looks exactly like the Energy Reliability Council of Texas (Ercot) who did such a fine job anticipating and then handling the February 2021 disaster. All I can say is good luck MIT.

    With regard to the progressives carpet bombing the U.S. the only legal solution is to banish progressives, or candidates beholden to progressives to the political wilderness until they grow up. But this means voting against Democrats, I mean voting hard against Democrats, a political party not even mentioned in this essay. Moreover, the authors disparaged the ballot box solution. So, while the authors conclude we need to end the destructive policies of progressives, the only legal means to deal with the problem won’t work. All i can say is good luck USA.

  • Carpet Bombing: To bomb in a systematic and extensive pattern, so as to devastate a large target area uniformly. Well, the title certainly works for every media encounter today. I realize this comment may seem tangential in relation to the article. But take for example the Marxists new hate group “Christian Nationalism”. I first heard of this in mid-July on “1A”, a Wisconsin Public Radio program. Shortly after, it crept into conversations on MSM, then Fox, then Marjorie Taylor Green was on Tim Pool talking about “them” labelling her with their new favorite hate name. This stuff is old, very old and was brought to life again by BLM around 2013 I think? And fostered by Obama before that. It’s deliberately godless, sorry if that offends, but it’s always been important to know where worldviews comes from. To be armed in this battle, I think we need to know whose side we are on.

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on donate button above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!
Share
%d bloggers like this: