Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.
In prior articles, I have already discussed the fact that the left/right spectrum is a myth. I have also described the problems with terms like “conservative” or “right-wing.” We know that conservative, right-wing, and Republican (within the US) all mean exactly the same thing and refer solely to an adherence to a political alliance, regardless of what one believes. One can also say the same thing about the terms liberal, left-wing, progressive, and Democrat. I won’t rehash that here, as you can check out the previous articles to see my explanation of that particular fact.
Instead, I wish to cover a different angle here and point out that while the terms conservative, right-wing, and Republican are effectively identical (as it stands now), their counterparts have some important nuances. Calling someone a leftist is exactly the same thing as calling them a Democrat. Strictly speaking, “leftism” is indistinguishable from membership in the Democratic Party. In most circumstances, the same applies to anybody deemed a “liberal” or a “progressive.” In modern discussions, all four terms are entirely interchangeable. However, progressive and liberal both have usages that refer to something different from what exists today. This is where there is more nuance than their counterparts on the “right.”
Modern-day liberalism has become synonymous with the Democratic Party. When people use this term, they’re either referring to the Democratic Party as a political affiliation, or they’re making a similar error as they do with conservatism. They are wrongly referencing a made-up and arbitrary belief system. The error of treating a belief system as distinct from the political alliance it’s part of. There is no belief system of “liberalism.” People cannot be more or less “liberal” because it is now nothing more than an alternative term for Democrat.
The problem is that liberalism used to refer to an ideology with a more distinct set of beliefs. Classical liberalism refers to the beliefs and subsequent movement that emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries. Though the reality is more complex, people often credit John Locke as the originator, but no single founder can be said to have originated this belief system. The best way to understand classical liberalism is to view it as the direct ancestor and prototype of current libertarianism. Classical liberalism is a movement emphasizing liberty, personal rights, consent of the governed, political equality, private property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. It is best understood in contrast with absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings, hereditary privilege and partiality, feudalism, and aristocracy. Classical liberalism (in various forms and with several other very important influences) is what motivated the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
The way people use liberalism now has nothing to do with that. The people who believe in the liberalism that we associate with the 18th century are called libertarians now. However, we should point out that libertarianism developed from classical liberalism and is one resultant form of that philosophy. They are not perfectly comparable. It is better to think of them as neoclassical liberals. Modern-day liberals and classical liberals differ significantly.
This is because modern liberals advocate for statism, social welfare, socialism, hedonistic social movements such as the “LGBTQ+” movement, abortion, and transgenderism. None of which classical liberals would support. Modern liberals would not be allies of people like John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson (think of the hatred directed towards Jefferson in accusing him of being a racist, white slaver), Benjamin Franklin, or George Washington.
Therefore, it is an error to link liberalism (as a philosophy) to the political left, since authentic classical liberals and libertarians (who are the actual successors of classical liberalism) would more often be associated with the Republican party and be classified as “conservatives” in today’s political landscape. Instead, this term, as it is used currently, is just a synonym for Democrat. There are no fundamental principles tied to it. It is this confusion that makes the term “liberalism” problematic when applied to an ideology or belief system. True liberalism is not at all compatible with the beliefs of the people who claim that label now.
Progressive is another term with a similar history. Modern-day “progressives” (again, just Democrats/leftists in reality) do in fact share ancestry with the Progressive movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, modern progressivism is very different. Though it has roots in the social gospel and social welfare movements that came from the late 19th-century progressives, it has evolved considerably. So much so that it is a mistake to even use that term as if it were meaningfully different from leftist/Democrat/liberal.
The core beliefs of the progressive/liberal/leftist movement are best understood as stemming from multiple distinct religions that now form the majority of the political left/Democratic party. Of these religions (note how I define religion here) the most dominant right now is Distrephism. The others are mostly different forms of Humanism and/or Neo-paganism. The religion and worldview of Distrephism is the impetus behind the belief in homosexual identities, transgenderism, promotion of abortion, climate apocalypse eschatology, and the prevailing victimhood culture within institutions dominated by people on the political left (academia, for example).
A perfect example of this is the problematic, and ultimately disingenuous, label of “Progressive Christianity.” There is no such thing as “Progressive” Christianity because that is the same thing as saying “Democratic Christianity,” which doesn’t actually make any sense. If we are trying to describe a belief system, then we need to portray them as syncretists and Distrephists. So-called “Progressive Christians” are not Christians; they are Distrephists wearing a Christian disguise. They are syncretists at best. Syncretists who have created a heretical pseudo-Christianity that has discarded actual Christian doctrine for Distrephist beliefs. They have done this while deceptively presenting themselves as “Christian” only because they use pseudo-Christian language and talk about “Jesus” in vague ways.
In the end, we have to stop the bad habit of conflating political allegiance with a singular religion or worldview. Just because political tribes lead to increasing homogeneity and conformity among their members does not mean that the parties are actually based on a coherent belief system. This fallacious way of framing things is why tribalism is as bad as it is, and why there are so many bad-faith arguments. Christians need to stop playing into this deceptive and contradictory narrative. We need to stop using the language that perpetuates these myths and avoid the simplistic and superficial tribal designations that “conservative” media keeps repeating.
This problem is not a minor one. Many arguments made by conservatives rely upon the false portrayal of the political spectrum and direct their attacks against “leftists” or “liberals”. By doing so, they weaken their force by falling into the trap of an incoherent portrayal of their opponents. Just like with the political right, the political left is an alliance of many religions. Some of these are very different and at odds with one another.
Notably, the political right contains a significant number of humanists who reject the Christian religion. They believe in things that exist on the political left. Although the political right is dominated by the Christian religion (at least mostly) it is at most a majority, not the totality. The political left is likewise dominated by Distrephism but it is only the majority religion, not the totality.
By attacking “Leftism,” you are lumping in disparate beliefs that inevitably make your argument false. Because there are arguments that would also apply to groups and beliefs that exist in both political alliances. Not simply the political left. To make the target of your argument “leftism” or “liberalism” you are simplistically conflating belief with political alliance.
Let’s take a look at an example of this. Several authors have used the term “New Left” to describe what came out of the 1960s. This was meant to distinguish the beliefs that dominated the political left prior to the 60s from the beliefs that dominated the political left after the 60s. This term is not really accurate. What really occurred was the rise of Distrephism and its eventual takeover of the political left as the dominant religion. Along with the rise of Distrephism were several loosely allied religions like proper Marxism, or forms of Humanism that did not hold to the same things that Distrephists did.
Mislabeling people as “leftists” ignores the true belief system that they hold and falsely equates their religion with a political alliance. This might seem like it is no big deal, but it has several negative repercussions. By saying “leftism” instead of Distrephism (just as an example) you give people the impression that the object of your argument is a political actor rather than an adherent of a religion. The motivating factor behind DEI, promotion of abortion, and transgenderism in the political left is the religion of Distrephism (or other similar religions) not leftism. By making this association, Distrephists have successfully convinced society that they are political and not religious!
When conservatives ignorantly apply the political spectrum and fail to portray their opponents correctly, they have inadvertently given their opponents cover to spread their religion. It has also made it so that people think political leftism inevitably means Distrephism or Humanism. Before the 1960s and the infiltration of Marxist beliefs, the political left clearly did not hold this association.
Christians need to make proper distinctions. We need to understand liberalism properly as something associated with classical liberalism and reject the labeling of Distrephists as liberal. We also need to recognize the variety of religions that exist within the political left and stop conflating them with the political alliance itself. Even if just to prevent the propaganda that does the same thing against conservatives by conflating “far-right” beliefs with conservatism overall.
When describing the left, take care to distinguish between the actual belief systems that exist within the alliance. Direct arguments and claims towards only the religions or beliefs that are relevant. Just because a majority exists does not mean that majority is inevitable or representative across the entire alliance. Simplistic and reductionist portrayals are not acceptable for Christians or conservatives. We can do much better than that.
The sensible person’s wisdom is to consider his way, but the stupidity of fools deceives them. (Proverbs 14:8)