Progressives’ Disconnect from Reality

Kool-Aidby Jerry Richardson   6/16/14
Have you noticed the startling disconnect between ‘progressives’ and reality? It’s difficult to overlook. As an example, reread the quote from Barack Obama (the U.S. leader of progressive disconnect) taken from his remarks to the Muslim world delivered in the infamous Cairo speech on June 4, 2009:

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”  REFERENCE1

Pause for a moment and reflect upon the monumental disconnect from reality that is reflected in that statement:

“…the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive…they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

It would be difficult to find any comparison of two political ideologies more divorced from reality than Obama’s bogus comparison between the principles of America and the principles of Islam.

But then, Obama himself has confessed:

“You know, I actually believe my own bull****.”  REFERENCE2

All around the earth, and especially in the mid-east, we are today (16 June 2014) experiencing the destructive damage of Barack Obama’s progressive disconnect from reality (example: The falling apart of Iraq due to being overrun by the ISIS.)

There are several different ways for a person to be disconnected from reality:

Low-info disconnect: A person is sometimes disconnected from reality in a given situation because of a lack of necessary information; people in this posture truly have no idea about what the reality of a certain situation is, and are easily duped into believing something other than reality. Example: The election of Barack Obama, twice, to the office of President of the U.S.

Self-interest disconnect: A person can know what reality is, in a given situation, and simply choose to ignore it because reality does not further their personal ambitions. Example: The continued voting of Democrats, at all levels, to increase governmental spending. This method of redistributing wealth, tax and spend, is continued for the self-interested purpose of maintaining political power.

Ideological disconnect: A person is sometimes disconnected from reality in a given situation because they firmly believe, based upon ideological convictions, that something other than reality is the case in a given situation. These are the ‘true believers’ in a chosen fantasy. Example: The actions of Barack Obama, relative to any and all of his signature initiatives as President (especially Obamacare and foreign policy)—his actions are truly a frightening display of ideological disconnect.

Schizophrenic disconnect: This is a serious mental illness. Example: Mass murderers who take advantage of defenseless victims in so-called ‘gun-free zones.’

We, Americans, are currently suffering from Barack Obama’s damaging ideological-administration, due in a significant measure to the voting choices of low information voters—low-info disconnect.  But my discussion here is intended to be about ideological disconnect—I believe that progressives with ideological disconnect present the greatest, long-term danger to freedom for Americans.


Progressives don’t ‘get’ reality.

And, there is a reason for that: The perception of reality requires rationality.

Progressives are often irrational in their belief-driven actions.

They often do not correctly perceive reality, because they live with an image of a fantasy world that does not and cannot exist—fantasy worlds are based upon unreality.

Progressives’ fantasy worlds can be generally characterized as desired-utopias in which everyone is happy, everyone is equal in all aspects (except with them, the elite), no one has to work, no one has to endure hardships, and everyone is cared-for by a beneficent, omnipresent, centralized government (managed of course by progressives).

If most progressives weren’t so hostile toward God, they might easily recognize this wish (fantasy) as the desire for Heaven.

But their desire is not for the Biblical Heaven, because everyone in Biblical heaven will not be equal, except for their salvation and their contentment (there will be no tears, no envy of the positions of others).  Also, logically there will be worship and work (meaningful activities) else why exist for eternity—certainly not just to sit on a cloud in a white robe and strum a harp; and—big and—there will not be a centralized, bureaucratic government (no bureaucracy thank God); Jesus with all the saints (the saved) will rule directly via perfect love, perfect truth, and perfect harmony.

Is there a Biblical principle involved in the progressive disconnect that always envisions a utopia?


I believe the principle is reflected in the New Testament teaching of salvation:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” (Ephesians 2:8 NASB)

Notice carefully that, according to the New Testament, salvation (ending with residence in Biblical heaven) is not through the efforts of mankind—salvation is the gift of God.

Progressive utopias are an imagined pseudo-substitute for God’s salvation and His heaven.

Progressives’ futile and never-ending efforts to bring about their utopias cause an enormous amount of pain and wasted expense, mostly imposed upon others—progressives always want others (never themselves) to bear the expense and inconvenience of their social experiments—but sometimes the pain falls obviously and harshly upon an individual progressive.

Here’s a tragic case in point:

“Amanda Kijera was on a humanitarian trip to Haiti, when she was violently raped by a black man. The act was both coincidental and devastating, as Kijera was actually in Haiti to dispel the “myths” that violence against women on the island was overstated by women’s rights organizations. The intention of Kijera’s trip was to push back on the portrayal of black men as “savages” in the media. Her hope was that she would eliminate misconceptions and push back against common views imposed by “the man.” [Insert: “the man” means, of course, white-men] However, Kijera’s trip took a turn for the worse when one of the men she had worked to protect cornered her on the rooftop, and raped her numerous times.

The experience was almost more than I could bear,” Kijera wrote about the incident, “I pleaded with him to honor my commitment to Haiti, to him as a brother in the mutual struggle for an end to our common oppression, but to no avail. He didn’t care.
After the tragic experience, she placed the blame on a very unexpected course. Women are not the source of their oppression; oppressive policies and the as-yet unaddressed white patriarchy which still dominates the global stage are,” she explained.

She also went on to argue that it is up to the United Nations to support people who are forced to bear the brunt of black male aggression. Kijera makes the outrageous claim that dependency on white people causes them to act out against them. She alludes that this was the reason for her attack.” REFERENCE1

Yes, the story is truly sad and tragic.  The tragic part is obvious, Kijera was raped.  But the really sad part of the story is the continuing tragedy of all progressivism: the perpetual refusal to deal with reality, coupled with an ideological desire to substitute wishes for actuality.

Kijera’s refusal to deal with reality is demonstrated by two facts in the story:

Fact one:  Kijera was on a mission to dispel a reality that she falsely considered a ‘myth’; in other words, she failed to consider and comprehend an existing reality—even in the face of reasonable evidence.

Fact two: When her private fantasy was crushed by reality—Kijera encountered an evil reality that she refused to accept—she resorted to what progressives always rely-on: She blamed the evil on someone or something other than the actual responsible party. This is scapegoating (of course, Bush is to blame).

This is usually the case with hard-core ideological progressives; it is a two-step process:

Step 1: Denial of reality coupled with acceptance of an ideological fantasy;

Step 2: Inappropriate placement of blame for the failure of the fantasy to match reality.

In short, hardcore ideological progressives are stuck in a mental-warp of denial and scapegoating.

There are virtually endless illustrations, but they are not needed.


Most progressive ideologues refuse to learn from experience, and anyone who avoids living in an ideological fantasy world does not need the illustrations.

Reality and fantasy are both powerful human experiences.  Fantasy has a very useful and enjoyable place in our world.

But while we, conservatives, might wish to step into a Harry Porter world for a brief escape from the everyday—wave a magic wand and instantly change reality—as soon as we see the unmistakable essence of progressive ideology (denial and scapegoating) being used to replace the real-world, we immediately step-back, mentally, into the sane world of reality.

Progressive ideologues are not insane; they are just incapable of taking the step-back from their mentally-fabricated fantasy worlds.

© 2014, Jerry Richardson • (1517 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Progressives’ Disconnect from Reality

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I first encountered the phrase “professional liberal” in Allen Drury’s Advise and Consent series (probably in Capable of Honor). To me, the phrase refers to people whose self-image is defined by adherence to liberal ideology. Such people naturally find it necessary to support the liberal party line regardless of validity, and thus to refuse to see inconvenient realities (or find some way to spin them as some sort of confirmation of their ideology).

    What this means is that the famous saying that “a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged [by reality]” is (as your example shows) not applicable to professional liberals. Their ideology makes them immune to reality.

    This is a consequence of the collectivism of modern liberalism (the old-fashioned liberals were at least individualists in their ineffective way, but they’re unable to see the flaws in the leftists who have taken over liberalism by mouthing the usual liberal pieties, however insincerely). When the group is all-important, individual thought is unacceptable lest it lead to doubting what the group says. An interesting example is found in The Road to Terror, part of the Yale Library on Communism, in which it’s suggested that the Party punished those it purged for denying the charges and thus saying that the Party had erred. Confession to everything might lead to redemption; denial inevitably led to maximum punishment.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The bigger problem is that the disconnect from reality has filtered down through all levels of society as the intellectuals intended. Kijera is clearly a woman of little brain and has bought into the double-talk and lies which Leftists have been spewing forth.

    As Theodore Dalrymple writes,

    “The climate of moral, cultural, and intellectual relativism – a relativism that began as a mere fashionable plaything for intellectuals – has been successfully communicated to those least able to resist its devastating practical effects. When Professor Steven Pinker tells us in his best-selling book The Language Instinct (written , of course, in grammatically-correct standard English, and published without spelling mistakes) that there is no grammatically-correct form of language, that children require no tuition in their own language because they are destined to learn to speak it adequately for their needs, and that all forms of language are equally expressive, he is helping to enclose the underclass child in the world in which he was born.”

    And I would say to try to expand the underclass in general.

  3. David Ray says:

    Just for grins, how about listing a few of the obvious examples.

    (1) Sacco and Vanzetti
    (2) The Rosenbergs
    (3) Alger Hiss
    (4) Communism itself

    The first three invoked hysterical denial by flaming liberals. The reason is liberals fiercely defend Communism itself as a dreamy and wonderful institution. A good book I read was “In Denial” by Haynes & Klehr.
    The communist failure had many apologists indeed. Pulitzer Prize winner/liar Walter Duranty helped hide communism’s horrors from the Western readers.

    Such a shame for liberals that Daniel Patrick Moynihan declassified Venona. He was apparently in denial that FDR and others had let communist spys infiltrate several levels of government and hoped Venona would vindicate. Instead, Venona rather condemned even more liberal domestic policy.

    It appears that Eugene McCarthy was right all along. (He was the real one “black-balled” by history.)

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I believe you mean “Joe” McCarthy. The book “Blacklisted By History” by M. Stanton Evans shows how McCarthy was correct.

      Brad, this would be a good book for the bookshelf tab.

      • David Ray says:

        Damn! I’ve just been confronted with reality! Do I obfuscate or do I fess up to it!? (I’d tailspin into denial, but considering the article that we’re commenting on . . . )

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It’s interesting to note that Duranty came to Russia as an anti-communist. But he soon learned that only pro-communists could collect information (an early example of the way totalitarians can manipulate the news media). So, purely for mercenary reasons, he switched sides — and since he became most infamous for lying that the Terror Famine really wasn’t happening, he couldn’t even justify it in the end on the grounds that he was doing it to inform people. This is why, for somewhere around 20 years, I’ve had an annual Walter S. Duranty Memorial Award for Creative Journalism in FOSFAX. We always have plenty of good liberal choices available.

      • David Ray says:

        Robert Conquest would applaud you. Every now and then some Ukrainians ask why the NYTimes STILL proudly displays a known sham Pulitzer.
        (Oh well. Why not deny that Walter was a fraud? His Prize makes the Grey Lady look good. And after all, Rigoberta Menchu still has her total hoax book required purchasing in many Universities.)

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Actually (and defending the Gray Lady is NOT something I enjoy doing), my recollection is that a few years ago they more or less admitted that Duranty was a fraud and proposed that the Pulitzer Prize (named after a notorious yellow journalist) revoke the award. They didn’t. Does anyone know if the Slimes actually lists that Pulitzer, such as on its website? (I can’t bring myself to look at it.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *