Review: Progressive Myths Rebuts the Left's Histrionic Takes

The author argues America is still "among the freest, most egalitarian, and most open-to-progress societies in history."

Michael Huemer's new book Progressive Myths aims to inoculate readers against what the author calls the "progressive mind virus": an infection, he writes, that "deactivates one's truth-seeking capacities" and teaches "us to identify with some group other than the whole society." While Huemer locates this "virus" on the left, his core message is nonpartisan: "We need to know what is true if we are to make progress on any of the actual, real problems we face."

Huemer combs through the specious statistics, data, and testimony progressives peddle to persuade Americans to cede more power to the state—to rectify historical injustices, to correct systemic biases, or to avert armageddon. Huemer himself is an anarchist who argued that states are morally indefensible in his 2013 book The Problem of Political Authority, but he nonetheless believes, and tries to convince his readers, that America is still "among the freest, most egalitarian, and most open-to-progress societies in history," warts and all.

Huemer concludes a long list of dire warnings issued by histrionic progressives by wryly noting: "Just in case you missed the theme here: None of those things happened." For just two examples, he points to scientists in the 1970s who predicted a new ice age in the early 21st century, and the United Nations warning in 1989 that entire nations would be submerged by 2000 due to global warming.

Huemer is overly dour, however, about the risks posed by progressive orthodoxy. The man on the street scoffs at land acknowledgments, hasn't heard of "stereotype threat," and trusts his primary care doctor.

Comments

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

scientists in the 1970s who predicted a new ice age in the early 21st century, and the United Nations warning in 1989 that entire nations would be submerged by 2000 due to global warming.

Trust the science.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Trust The Science (in 21st century left-elitist form) to ignore data and uncertainty and twist analyses and conclusions to support official narratives (and get more grant money).

[mtrueman]

"Too cheap to meter"

That was Lewis Strauss, Oppenheimer's nemesis, in 1954, promoting nuclear energy and consolidating state power. He was certainly a progressive myth maker but no Leftist, though. Wikipedia tells us he opposed the New Deal and the Zionist state, perhaps the two biggest projects of the Left in his day.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Opposed the Zionist state? Do he also oppose the Hashemite state?

[mtrueman]

"Do he also oppose the Hashemite state?"

He do conservative. What do you think?

[SRG2]

Except it wasn't the science then either. The "ice age" idea was the subject of a couple of magazine articles and books, but was never remotely close to a majority opinion, nor were too many papers published advancing the hypothesis.

However, it does mean that when someone claims that the science in the 70s was that there was going to be an ice age, we can dismiss him as any kind of authority, or even informed layman, ab initio.

[Use the Schwartz]

"Except it wasn't the science then either."

Really? The "Global Conveyor" theory is still taught and according to the theory, the end result of a disruption of the conveyor is an Ice Age.

Maybe it depends on which college you attended?

For me, studying the Vostok ice core data in class is what red-pilled me about AGW.

[mad.casual]

For me, studying the Vostok ice core data in class is what red-pilled me about AGW.

Mauna Loa after Instrumentation and Statistics in Analytical Chemistry. It's literally a "greenhouses trap radiation"-level toy-example of signal analysis and Fourier Transformation, but if you elucidate it on those terms it demonstrates that the ecosystem is adapting near-perfectly to our adding CO2 and/or that we're adding CO2 to the atmosphere in near-perfect synchronization with the ecosystem.

Like, our completely unplanned "shoveling" of CO2 into the ecosystem has, from the perspective of our ecosystem's output, been more consistent and reliable than just about any steam locomotive engine and even the vast majority of ICE engines.

[Minadin]

"Huemer is overly dour, however, about the risks posed by progressive orthodoxy."

Oh? What about:

"scientists in the 1970s who predicted a new ice age in the early 21st century, and the United Nations warning in 1989 that entire nations would be submerged by 2000 due to global warming.

Yeah, none of that shit happened, but this did:

"specious statistics, data, and testimony progressives peddle to persuade Americans to cede more power to the state—to rectify historical injustices, to correct systemic biases, or to avert armageddon."

And we now have all sorts of government-imposed restrictions to avert these supposed impending disasters, and have funneled billions of dollars in public funding toward the people doing this research, promoting the agenda, or 'fixing' the problem. And the people doing the research, the activists, and the ones producing 'fixes' all of course conclude that the government needs more funding and more power to tackle the issue, and the cycle repeats.

Meanwhile the government has more power, these charlatans have our money, and we the people have less freedom AND less money. Turns out the purpose of a system is what it does. And we're just supposed to not worry about it because the average moron on the street is oblivious?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Dour dour dour. Say it often enough and it sounds doury, but I think we're the brides getting fucked and losing the dowry to boot.

[Rick James]

Imagine stepping out of your time machine in 1998 and telling the then-Reason staff that internal combustion vehicles would be set for elimination by government fiat by 2035, you read them Europe's 'net-zero' laws and regulations and that internet companies conspired with government officials to engage in mass-censorship across the globe while pointing to the Communications Decency act as a shield allowing them to do so, and Reason magazine was on a list of bad actors created by a set of former deep state officials.

[mtrueman]

William Gibson, father of the cyberpunk genre, was writing about similar matters back in the 1980s.

[Rick James]

Huemer is overly dour, however, about the risks posed by progressive orthodoxy. The man on the street scoffs at land acknowledgments, hasn't heard of "stereotype threat," and trusts his primary care doctor.

Overly dour? So cities burning in 2020-2021 isn't something to be alarmed at. The entire education system being captured and throwing out merit in exchange for minority representation and diversity isn't something to be alarmed at. Flat earthing it up and claiming there is no such thing as 'female' and being a woman is really just a vibe-- oh and teaching this shit to your kids from Kindergarten is nothing to be alarmed at.

[Rick James]

What would the reaction be if I said that Reason was "overly dour about the risks posed by right-wing orthodoxy"?

[AT]

"We need to know what is true if we are to make progress on any of the actual, real problems we face." ... The man on the street scoffs

And if he says he's not a man, when he clearly is one, he should be thrown into an asylum. Forever.

The opportunity to follow that line by pointing out that all of Gender Ideology is total BS was missed here. And not only is it not progress, it's toxic to any efforts toward progress.

[Chinny Chin Chin]

For just two examples, he points to scientists in the 1970s who predicted a new ice age in the early 21st century, and the United Nations warning in 1989 that entire nations would be submerged by 2000 due to global warming.

If these are the best examples from the book, it's not worth reading. Especially if the purpose of the book is to "... know what is true if we are to make progress on any of the actual, real problems we face."

The 1970's scientists said an ice age was possible. That was the extent of the prediction. And "the UN" didn't predict flooding by 2000.

Huemer seems intent on proving he doesn't understand the actual, real problems we face.

[Neutral not Neutered]

They predicted the sea levels to rise and The Maldives to be submerged by 2020.

What happened? Billions poured in and 3 new airports and many new resorts were built.

And of course the sea level went down a smidge and NO COASTAL SEA LEVEL RISE defense mechanisms were built.

The real problems we face is the environmental destruction caused by those supposedly trying to save the environment.

Al Gore convincing countries to destroy their old growth forests, jungles and rain forests to grow useless for the environment and harmful to humanity Oil Palm trees for "Bio-Fuels" when clearly it was for the processed food, make up and other industries.

These regions now are having drought conditions due to the destruction of the forests by BURNING.

Pakistan cut down and burned 85% of it's forests since the 1970's. The Amazon and in Africa millions of square KM's of destruction killing species humans did not know existed.

All while saying driving cars and heating homes with "fossil fuels" is going to destroy the earth and cause the oceans to boil and stealing tax payers dollars and producing NO results but fear mongering and lies.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

*The author argues America is still "among the freest, most egalitarian, and most open-to-progress societies in history."*

I think I would agree with most of the points made in this book. But if he's actually arguing that modern America is one of the freest nations on earth, he's fucking delusional.

Ask your favorite AI engine to rank the nations by individual freedom. Massage the data any way you want. Only developed, "safe" nations. Placing heavy weight on the country's response to COVID. Whatever.

Every single time, the US is going to come in somewhere around 25th. When you see counties like New Zealand in the top 10, that should let you know exactly how far we've fallen.

[Michael Ejercito]

How is New Zealand freer?

[Wizzle Bizzle]

I had the exact same reaction. You don't have to accept every argument, and you should push AI to defend / massage the data. I specifically make it overweight Covid response, which drops some countries way down the list and nudges others up.

But, at least for me, what you read will challenge a lot of your assumptions. Like Switzerland being at or near #1. Granted they have made trillions off of laundering money for the most objectionable people on earth. But a lot of their governance structures are infinitely better than ours. Like the fact that they can override anything their government does by popular referendum. Which made their national Covid response far more reasonable.

[mad.casual]

I had the exact same reaction. You don't have to accept every argument, and you should push AI to defend / massage the data. I specifically make it overweight Covid response, which drops some countries way down the list and nudges others up.

It is a very bad idea to consider this as true or factual. You're on the verge of asking AI which flavor of ice cream has the most liberty in it. Especially if you consider the paradox of "Jack of all trades, ace of none." 25 out of 200 isn't bad or even low, especially if it's consistently 25 whereas NZ bounces between 1 and 50. The AI simply cannot make a decision between 25 +/- 1 and 25 +/- 24 and, when it does, it does so by the weird or arbitrary notion that people seem to like, or just talk about, 25 +/- 24 more or more positively.

The transgender movement is pretty crystalline about this: The choice between Men, Women, and "Other" restrooms is a 33% increase in freedom and the inability of teen girls to shower separately from (duplicitous) boys and compete among themselves pushes it to 33+%. SCOTUS returning the "right" to abortion to the states represents a loss of freedom. The US is less free because healthcare is more expensive *and* infant mortality is inordinately high even though much of the reason for that is because other countries simply don't count the deaths of, even encouraging the abortion of, babies that would've survived to healthy adulthood in the US.

You can't make the AI drill down hard enough to elucidate this because the documentation isn't there or is there and is widely dejected. Moreover, this is recursive between AIs. ChatGPT and Gemini are more popular but won't/don't drill down as objectively as Grok and Claude do because Gemini and ChatGPT are more geared towards feeding opinions to people who need an AI to help them write popular, feel-good Christmas card greetings rather than (e.g.) structure healthcare decisions.

[mad.casual]

You essentially wind up prompting the AI to give your conclusion back to you because the underlying training set has been collected with such contra-prompting and/or bias as foregone conclusion.

To wit: AI’s safety features can be circumvented with poetry, research finds. How "free" can an AI be, let alone able to conceptualize freedom, if you have to talk to it poetically in order to circumvent its own "safeguards"?

[MWAocdoc]

"The man on the street scoffs at land acknowledgments, hasn't heard of "stereotype threat," and trusts his primary care doctor."

I agree with most of the previous comments about being "overly dour" and would add that the ignorance of the man on the street about the myths is not a good thing, nor does it bode well for future power grabs by politicians and officials. Also, it's not just progressive orthodoxy that poses this threat - national socialism orthodoxy (in the form of MAGA etc.) has also reared its ugly head again recently and not only threatens further centralization of power but the struggle between the two wings of the socialist agenda threatens violence to come over control of the authority.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Purposeful oxymoron attempt to paint a lie into reality. Seek help.

"national socialism orthodoxy (in the form of MAGA etc.)"

[mad.casual]

trusts his primary care doctor

WTF?

First, lots and lots of people didn't really trust medicine 30 yrs. ago because 30 yrs. before that, doctors were just beginning to suspect that smoking might be bad for you.

From there, I lost my primary care doctor after I was told I would be able to keep him when the ACA took effect.

From there, my primary care doctor died of COVID. The ones that didn't were too busy undermining their social and medical expertise by making TikTok dance videos and shaming the unvaccinated during the pandemic.

From there, my primary care doctor retired early because of all the bullshit piled on from the above.

People don't trust their doctor. Medical searches on search engines are as popular than ever and Minute Clinics and Nurse Practitioners are cutting into their racket. People trust their doctors inasmuch as they took 12 yrs. to figure out how to use the right ICD-10 code.

Even people who've been more-or-less psychiatrist-hopping for the last 30 yrs. because of their own insecurities don't trust their own doctors that they voluntarily and intentionally subject themselves to or engage with.

[Neutral not Neutered]

People should be celebrating the progress of humanity, understand where we are today and secure it and clean up the messes we know to have made until now rather than constantly fomenting fake cries, fear, hate, and lies to try and destroy the "other" and chasing the next amazing shiny object off a cliff without a parachute.