The Progress of Progressivism

In trying to decide for a previous post what version of the Progressive Operating System (POS) we’re currently using (6.0? 8.0?), I just arbitrarily decided to go with 12.0. Oh, now do pipe down; Microsoft Windows is my model here; the acronym POS is a pure coincidence. But in any case I’m sure Progressives will scorn this as “Whole Numberism,” which is defined in the PC Dictionary as a “microaggressive bias against fractions, negative numbers, and irrational numbers.”* (The latter, needless to say, are the favorite kind of numbers for Progressives.)

So herewith an attempt at a proper taxonomy of Progressivism:

• Progressivism 1.0: French Revolution. They should have listened to Burke.

• Progressivism 2.0: Hegel. ‘Nuf said.

• Progressivism 2.5: Marxism, which was just Hegelianism with all the blood rushing to its head.

• Progressivism 3.0: The American Progressive Movement (i.e., Wilson, Croly, etc).

• Progressivism 4.0: FDR and the New Deal.

• Progressivism 5.0: The Great Society: now fixing our “root causes,” instead of just fixing bridges and highways.

• Progressivism 6.0: Baby Boomerism—celebrating itself as the greatest generation ever, with higher consciousness, etc.

• Progressivism 7.0: Identity Politics (feminism, gay rights, etc).

• Progressivism 8.0: Post-Modernism (Nietzsche, Heidegger, and their impenetrable French clones settle in like permanent house guests, the Kato Kaelins of pop culture and philosophy).

• Progressivism 9.0: Clintonian-Obamaism. They really do mark out a new wrinkle to the old socialist campfire songs. Michael Kelly would have understood.

• Progressivism 10.0: Pure Self-Referential Politics. It was only a matter of time before Hillary Clinton’s “politics of meaning” and Obama’s “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” became “I am woman—maybe—hear me . . . what?”

Like each iteration of Microsoft Windows OS, the POS requires more cumbersome code, more flash memory, crashes a lot, and is vulnerable to hackers hacks.

* Yes, I made this up, but who can doubt it would be believed?