To Change or Not to Change: The Paradox of Progressivism

It seems that everyone is calling for change of some manner or another - the news is a great place to see this play out in real time with thousands of examples at the touch of a button. As a reader, if one looks long enough, they will soon discover individuals and groups on both sides of the aisle advocating for change, for accountability, sometimes even for complete takeover or at the very least overhaul of the current system of government. Slogans like “be the change you want to see in the world,” “advocate for change,” and others along a similar vein preach the goodness of change as if it is the only thing that saves.

The progressive movement itself is particularly guilty of this emphasis on the power of change. Irrespective of party lines, progressive elements make themselves apparent in both Republican and Democratic circles and liberal and conservative ones, adopting, be it purposefully or unintentionally, a mantra focused on change. Centered around the idea that the human species is always evolving, always improving, always discovering new solutions to problems that have plagued mankind for millennia, they charge ahead with their banners held high on a crusade for change only to reach the battlefield and discover they have a problem bigger than Huston can solve.

What enemy are they fighting against and how are they trying to change it?

When asked, some might say they are fighting racism, big government, wealthy politicians, fraud, corruption, and the list could go on, yet when asked what their battle strategy is, the room goes silent. How exactly does one fight an enemy of which they have always heard yet never learned about its history or studied how best to combat it? These scary words and whatever images they are meant to conjure in our minds have been and can be harmful things; however, when they are parroted as talking points rather than issues that need solving, they lose their meaning. Progressives are missing a key component of working toward solutions to any problem: a positive, strategic vision.

It is important to note before going any farther that a desire for change is not inherently bad. Change is a constant part of life, regardless of whether someone believes in progressivism or not. Change also is neither wrong nor right – examples such as aging demonstrate that it just happens, whether one wants it to or not. However, change discussed by progressivism or any social movement when dealing with morality and moral issues should be evaluated by its end result and whether or not it is aligned with truth. That result might be physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual, but every encouragement of change in this area is either bringing that person or people closer to God or farther away from Him.

The modern progressive ideology, though it appears positive and futuristic on the surface, results in confusion when people begin to realize the mirage in the desert that the concept of an evolving society creates. Whether society wants to acknowledge and accept it or not, deep down every single individual knows they are not perfect, that their inner nature is sinful, despicable, and dirty. When the progressive ideology meets this deep-seated knowledge of oneself, a fundamental internal struggle occurs because people ultimately realize both things cannot be true. They know they cannot work towards change if they are already perfect because it would be unnecessary, yet they know they can never be perfect because they mess up daily and therefore working toward a utopic change seems fruitless.

This is the “progressive paradox” – unsure of what is true yet needing a mission or life purpose, they advocate for “change.” Ultimately, this internal struggle produces a desire for illusory change as the ultimate goal – either to change oneself to meet the progressive standard of ever-evolving good or to change some aspect of the progressive standard so it more fully fits with one’s inner nature.

Therefore, working for “change” is an elusive goal because change is not a goal but a journey. Just like on a road trip, if there is no map and no destination, eventually one’s destination will be unplanned and oftentimes not what one was anticipating. This analogy holds true when discussing progressivism’s idea of change. Progressives on both sides of the aisle saying they are working towards “change” on a certain issue gives them no road map and no destination, resulting in confusion, chaos, and contradictory beliefs.

For example, many in the modern progressive movement who stand in support of “change” today – be it taxing the wealthiest members of society or ending climate change, although many others could be named – have a destination in mind, they do not know how to reach that destination. Typically, the end goal is so far away that it is frankly unpractical and unrealistic, so they content themselves with "doing my part" by driving an electric car, using reusable shopping bags, and complaining about those who do not. What they fail to realize, however, is that they are simply driving in circles on a cul-de-sac because change in this area of their own lives is doing nothing to reach the elusive destination for which they claim to be aiming. They are too focused on how doing these "environmentally friendly" things make them feel rather than if these things are putting them closer to accomplishing the supposed goal they have of ending climate change. While many would readily agree they cannot end climate change on their own, they would then argue they are a part of the change (there's that word again) to make the world a better place for the future: again, a pie-in-the-sky, no concrete-step-reason that frankly means nothing. However, they do it because it makes them feel good and as if they are mastering the "progressive paradox" we talked about earlier - in an effort to create purpose they create an unattainable destination so they can spend their entire lives working towards it and feel as if they have done something productive at the end of their lives when in reality, they have accomplished as much as a hamster running on a wheel.

And that unattainable destination, encapsulated by "change" in whatever subject they are passionate about, begins looking a lot like an idol that the progressive worldview worships and allows to slowly consume their lives in an effort to reject the only One Who is worthy of worship.

The progressive’s fascination with change then becomes not a matter of advocating for it but rather what kind of change they want. Going back to our earlier discussion, the progressive agenda requires someone to change themselves to fit into it or to change the agenda to fit their narrative – as long as something is changing, all is well. However, when God Himself and absolute truth cannot change, claiming to work towards this supposed goal of change cannot produce good outcomes. This is why contradictory statements and values abound among the progressive agenda because working towards change with no morally upright destination is fruitless; working towards change through a positive vision of encouraging Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, however, is a wonderful endeavor with eternal rewards.