So there are ways to tell which political activists actually care about society or are just trying to make themselves appear caring. People who actually care about society go to great lengths to make sure their beliefs are correct. —Michael Huemer, Progressive Mythology, page 16. 212 Michael Huemer believes that some key elements of progressive ideology rest on flimsy empirical foundations. By exposing these as myths, he hopes to distance seekers of truth from the false elements of progressivism. But he is not optimistic. Thoroughly debunking a myth takes much more time and effort than disseminating it to a receptive audience. Most people who have swallowed political myths are not particularly interested in their beliefs being correct, so they are not going to read books like this. p. 215
Huemer, a philosophy professor, is careful in defining terms and anticipates objections. He defines the progressive myth as follows:
Yo. Empirical, factual claims; ii. iii. Believed by many progressives. Although it clearly appears to strongly support elements of progressive ideology, iv. obviously false or highly misleading (p.2)
Progressives believe that racism is a serious problem in modern America. Huemer points out that many myths reinforce this idea. For example, he investigates the cases of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, who, according to the Black Lives Matter myth, were killed simply for being black. After careful investigation, the details believed by many BLM supporters turned out to be false as the alleged witnesses were either not present or were lying.
Why do progressives see racism as so important? Huemer says the civil rights movement of the 1960s, which he admires, couldn’t let go of the need to have a cause. states.
They have stepped up their demands and developed increasingly sensitive racism detectors, raising concerns about how various aspects of American life were actually a form of “white supremacy” and other forms of bigotry. We developed increasingly sophisticated explanations. p. 197
I disagree with the diagnosis that the civil rights movement was too proud of righteousness to declare victory and go home. My interpretation of history is that once discrimination was made illegal, people expected racial tensions to disappear and racial inequality to diminish. Instead, urban riots occurred between 1965 and 1968, and disparities exist between blacks and whites in the United States in terms of average education, income, and wealth. When we don’t see the expected results when racism ends, progressives assume that racism is not over yet.
Progressives argue that studies showing differences in average IQ between blacks and whites are meaningless, reinforcing the theory of systemic racism. Progressives claim that such IQ studies have been debunked. Huemer doesn’t touch on that myth, but I think that myth is more important than the myth he pursues.
Huemer also examines progressive myths about gender relations, science, and economics. He cites prominent progressive media stars and politicians who articulate these myths, then goes on to refute them with facts.
For example, there is little economic mobility in the United States, and there is a popular belief that wealth comes primarily through inheritance. Instead, Huemer writes:
A survey of 10,000 millionaires conducted between 2017 and 2018 found that 79% of billionaires received no inheritance. Only 3% inherited more than $1 million. p. 145-146
“Regardless of ideology, Huemer asked us to be truth seekers rather than seeking respect based on membership in an ideological tribe.”
Regardless of a person’s ideology, Huemer asked us to be truth seekers rather than seeking respect based on ideological tribe membership.
The main thing we should do is be more skeptical. When you hear politically relevant information, ask yourself whether it is the type of information that influences a particular ideological direction. p. 234
I’m saying that by deciding who to believe, people decide what to believe. Huemer offers advice on identifying trusted public intellectuals.
They will cite evidence that neutral parties could reasonably be expected to agree with…. They will say that something is probably true or almost always true, rather than being absolutely right all the time… They will acknowledge why they are looking in a different direction, especially on controversial issues… Tends to discuss opposing views on an argument…does not always agree with one of the following Standard political orientation is…not overly emotional…academic research, government reports, court documents Quotes such as… lead to a logical flow of thought… clear. 238 For more information on these topics, see:
Similarly, we encourage those expressing their opinions to see your work, providing the source of your argument and the logic of your thought process. And argue fairly, recognizing the weaknesses in your position and the best points the other side can make.
Throughout the book, Huemer models these behaviors. That may be the biggest reason why I recommend reading the book.
