The Progressive Quandary

“Why do we hurt the people we love?”

It’s an age-old question one might ask of today’s progressive movement. Progressives are committed to helping women and children, racial minorities, the poor and the endangered. Yet in many instances the policies for which many progressives fight are fundamentally inconsistent with the goals of the movement.

Progressives see themselves as champions for the rights of women, yet many deny the existence of biological sex, demanding that transgender women be treated as biological women, whether in sports, the choice of public restrooms, or even in prisons. In California—and nationwide if Congress passes the Equality Act—biologically male prisoners can transfer into women’s prisons based on “individual preference,” without regard to hormones, surgery, or time spent living as the opposite gender. One can imagine the potential danger to which biological women might be exposed if forced to share a cell, or just to be in enclosed spaces, with a transgender woman.

While transgender women using a women’s restroom may not be as potentially dangerous as the forcing together of biological women with transgender women in prisons, many women are uncomfortable with the idea that they may be sharing the intimate space of a restroom with a biological male they do not know. Many progressives even oppose notifying women that biological males may be using women’s restrooms. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Tennessee law that requires businesses and government facilities to post signs if they permit transgender people to use public restrooms of their choice.

Progressives have been known for their work on behalf of the rights of children. One would expect that preventing children from making irreversible surgical and medical changes to their body when they are not emotionally or psychologically mature enough to make these decisions would be at the forefront of their activism. Progressives, after all, recognize that teenagers are often mentally and emotionally immature—indeed, they insist that individuals under age 21 who commit crimes should be tried as minors because they are not mature enough to be held responsible for their actions–while still arguing that teenagers should be permitted to make permanent changes to their bodies.

One would expect that preventing children from making irreversible surgical and medical changes to their body when they are not emotionally or psychologically mature enough to make these decisions would be at the forefront of their activism.

In her controversial book “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” Abigail Shrier suggests that in many cases young girls are not seeking surgical gender reassignment due to transgenderism or gender dysphoria, but as a result of other mental conditions or simply because of the allure of the social capital that comes with being transgender in a society that values marginalized positions. Shrier does not argue that surgical gender reassignment procedures should be off limits, but rather that children should not be able to make these decisions before they reach an age at which they are more psychologically mature. Many progressives, on the other hand, demonize perspectives like Shrier’s—perspectives that, ironically, protect children—in favor of positing that children have the right to modify their bodies in irreversible ways.

Schools are another battleground where progressive politics have an immense impact. Progressives want to improve educational outcomes for minority and low-income students, yet many oppose charter schools even when those schools provide education superior to public schools, and even when they serve primarily minority and low-income students, as in Newark, New Jersey, where 80% of the 20,000 students in charter schools are black and 16% are Hispanic, and 8,000 students are on charter waiting lists.

In the Los Angeles Unified School District, where tens of thousands of students have been on waiting lists for charter schools, progressives criticized charter schools because only 72% of students in those schools are living in poverty, while the percentage was 16% higher in non-charter schools. They also argue that charter schools take funding from public schools, although studies differ on this, with some indicating that in most states an increase in the percentage of students attending independent charter schools was associated with a significant increase in their host districts’ total revenue per pupil, total spending per pupil, local revenue per pupil, and per-pupil spending on support services.

While expressing concern for the safety of minorities, progressives argue that police funding should be reduced (initial rhetoric used the term “defunding,” but this proved to be a highly unpopular way to frame the argument) because of police misconduct toward people and communities of color. Yet a 2019 Vox poll found that despite being the racial group with the most unfavorable view of the police, most people in the Black community nevertheless support hiring more police officers. A June 2020 survey, taken after the killing of George Floyd, found that 50 percent of Black respondents still said that more police officers were needed on the street. This is hardly surprising, since according to a National Neighborhood Crime Study, predominantly Black neighborhoods average five times as many violent crimes, and Latino neighborhoods average about two and a half times as many violent crimes, as predominantly white neighborhoods.

In addition to hardline stances on domestic culture war issues that are contrary to their general philosophy, many who call themselves progressives have an increasingly problematic view of Israel. Although President Biden states, “I think that my party still supports Israel,” high-profile progressives such as New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders have harshly criticized Israel in connection with the recent Gaza war, frequently noting the disparity in casualties, calling Israel an “apartheid state,” and questioning the $4 billion in aid the U.S. gives Israel as well as a recent $735 million arms sale. As noted by Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser in the Obama administration, “There was never this kind of pressure vocally from the left on issues related to Israel.” Never mind that Israel’s enemies are hardly models of democracy, respectful of their citizens’ freedoms or even their lives, or that less aid or reduced arm sales could render Israel—which President Biden says his party supports—less able to defend itself.

In addition to hardline stances on domestic culture war issues that are contrary to their general philosophy, many who call themselves progressives have an increasingly problematic view of Israel.

So why do progressives, while professing support of women, children, minorities, and even Israel, often favor policies that are inimical to the very people they seek to help?

Perhaps the progressive focus on the concept of equality, which has recently been replaced with “equity,” provides an explanation. Equity has less to do with ensuring that all people start from a place of equal opportunities and resources than it does with ensuring that all people end up at the same place regardless of personal choices. In other words, if some children get a better education than others; or if transgender women are not treated in the same way as biological women; or if police treat minority communities differently than middle-class white communities; or if children do not have full control over their bodies; or if Israel has overwhelming fire power when compared to its adversaries, the answer is policies that lessen the disparity without regard to the broader consequences of those policies.

Are educational opportunities unequal? Limit better opportunities. Does inequality between adults and children exist when it comes to control of one’s body? Emphasize freedom of choice even for children whose choices may later be regretted. Are transgender people treated differently from those whose genders align with their biological sex? Treat the two groups exactly the same, pretending that differences do not exist. Do police focus inordinately on minority communities? Reduce the number of police. Is the power struggle between Israel and Hamas characterized by inequality? Support policies that disadvantage Israel.

The quest for equality is at the core of progressive ideology. It may sound like a noble pursuit, but ideological purity often results in policies that damage real human beings, and even the people we love.

Gregory R. Smith is an appellate attorney and occasional contributor to the Jewish Journal.  He is of counsel to the Los Angeles firm of Lowenstein & Weatherwax.