Nihilism and Progressivism

The Inevitable Descent From Progressivism to Nihilism

By Arnold Ahlert

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "nihilism" thusly: a) a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless; b) a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truth.

Perhaps it is indelicate of me to notice, but it would seem the definition of nihilism is interchangeable with the definition of progressivism. One may quibble with the notion that progressives do not consider existence senseless and useless (as long as one ignores the wholesale abandonment of religion by large portions of the secular left), yet witnessing the British riots of last week, and the ongoing flash mob attacks perpetrated here in America, it becomes impossible to ignore the fact that the abandonment of traditional values and beliefs, coupled with the denial of any objective truth, could lead to the conclusion that existence itself is senseless.

This is not to say that the thugs tearing up their own societies are dystopian philosophers. Far from it. If there is one over-riding element that links this type of mass mayhem together it is the sheer thoughtlessness of the participants. They revel in mayhem, but not out of a commitment to a worldview, or a "greater cause." From the most egregious examples of murder, muggings, burning police cars and grand larceny, to the stealing of candy and soda from a 7-11, the common theme is immediate self-gratification.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Being a political writer requires one to follow the news. I happen to do that by reading. This is no accident. This is only so much hysteria one can pack into the written word. The most audacious "the sky is falling!" story one reads can never compare to the trailers, the teasers, the shouting, the ominous accompanying music and every other trick — and they are tricks — used by TV and radio to roil the masses. The word "infotainment" didn't come from nowhere.

Yet even when one reads, it is impossible to escape the prevailing ethos of modern media. And that ethos is overwhelmingly nihilistic. There isn't a single day that goes by without at least one story completely dedicated to the proposition that armageddon — inevitable, unavoidable armageddon — is right around the next bend in the road. And while one story does not a nihilist make, a minimum of 365 stories per year — a wildly optimistic total based on only one sky-is-falling-story per day — can erode the stoicism of even the most dedicated optimist.

And unless one is literally living in a cave on a hilltop, modern media is inescapable. It is almost impossible to remember a time when one could walk into a restaurant or bar and not be assaulted — and assaulted is the correct word — by not one, but several TV monitors, with the sound more often than not turned up to ear-splitting levels. In fact, one is hard-pressed to think of a single location these days, with the possible exception being houses of worship, where some TV or radio isn't hectoring the hell out of us to do, buy — or be afraid of — something.

Toss in a few gazillion cell phones with media-access capabilities, and an entire generation of young (and not-so-young) people who exhibit withdrawal symptoms when their new media is taken away, and you have the makings of an entire society for whom media is as addictive as crack cocaine. And when you separate out that subset of individuals who have never known it to be any other way, add a lack of critical thinking skills courtesy of an "educational" system which couldn't care less if kids learn or not, and mix it all together with a sky-is-falling relentlessness, that society produces exactly what one would expect:

A generation of "what's the point in giving a damn about anything but myself" nihilists.

Which brings us to the second Merriam-Webster definition of nihilism: a) a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake, independent of any constructive program or possibility.

Destruction desirable for its own sake. Hmmm. I seem to recall a presidential candidate who told his followers back in 2008 "we are five days away from completely transforming the United States of America." That, we were told, was the essence of "hope and change." More than a few Americans have figured out it was nothing more than nihilism with some media PR attached to it. And in keeping with the second definition, the person who uttered it has yet to produce a single proposal which might be construed as a "constructive program or possibility" — unless one considers vilifying one group of Americans to placate another constructive.

I sure don't. But I am sure of one thing: you can't run a country when you're attached to the idea that it is fundamentally flawed. That is the essence of nihilism. That nihilism is virtually indistinguishable from progressivism? It wasn't conservatives tearing up the streets of London. Nor is it conservatives determined to inflict mob-style mayhem on America wherever the opportunity presents itself.

The mobs come courtesy of a bankrupt ideology, egged on by a bankrupt media, all dedicated to the proposition that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded, moral truth is non-existent, and that destruction is desirable for its own sake. It is a philosophy whose essential attractiveness lies in the fact that it requires little more than animal instinct — as in, if it feels good do it — to embrace it. Is that ideology progressivism or nihilism?

If you can spot the essential difference between the two, you're a far wiser person than I am.