By Zak Mudie
Obsessing over the claiming the moral high ground has opened the left up to a new criticism.
The recent rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and the ironic "opening" of discourse on racial issues brought up a recurring argument which has existed for a very long time. Those who seek to enforce 'Critical Race Theory' (CRT) will bring up an argument rooted in historical truth, which now should act as the definition of both redundant and hypocritical. Their argument is that white people don’t want to accept CRT because it means they lose their power. Given that white people don’t have any power over other races, I’d like to turn this argument on its head and say the left don’t want to accept that this theory is based on a social power dynamic (all black people are oppressed and all white people are the oppressors) and that the theory isn’t true because it means they will lose their “moral” power.
This “moral” power is the concept that the left holds the moral high ground because their morally hollow policies are wrapped in “love”, “compassion”, “inclusion”, “diversity”, and “fairness”. How does the left make it known they have the moral high ground? They never stop shoving it in people’s faces and never stop reinforcing the idea that anyone who disagrees is a morally comprehensible bigot. Unfortunately, it’s worked and now the idea that the left holds the moral high ground is so widely accepted it is becoming far more difficult to appear even as a moderate conservative; this is of course because when you slightly disagree with liberal doctrine you are smacked one of the following labels: racist, homophobic, or transphobic bigot. It is of course a lie; you’d sooner find Atlantis than find a logical moral foundation for a theory which blames all white people in 2021 for actions of their ancestors hundreds of years ago.
This supposed moral high ground is such an abstract concept in our post-modern society. As a society, we no longer hold a foundation for moral values. Now, morality is the term you use when you want to brand anyone who disagrees with you as evil. I don’t believe that those who conform to left-wing ideologies are evil, I believe their policies are, but I don’t claim to hold the moral high ground because society doesn’t accept moral foundations. We accept moral ignorance to the lack of a foundation, but that’s a different issue.
Critical Race Theory actively seeks to demonise one race and empower another, despite being equal. However, it goes further as anyone who supports and publicly encourages CRT gains a societal “buff” as a member of the moral high ground. They are given this societal privilege and power, they are moral icons, they are good people, they are “allies” - and this gives you power. Being an “ally” gives you the power to be free from criticism, because criticising you, or even disagreeing with you means disagreeing with the left-wing collective. Next thing you know, they will descend from the moral high ground using their reality warping powers to obliterate your position in the world and expel you from those who are in the “good” side of the political aisle. Cancellation is real, and of course modern leftist theory wraps up their anti-free speech attitudes in their moral high ground.
What makes this “power” argument hypocritical is that if CRT wasn’t generally accepted or at least “publicly” acceptable, then the left would lose their power and self-appointed moral high ground. Without wrapping up the power argument and this ironically inherently racist theory in a hollow moral high ground, the ability to manipulate people is lost. They wouldn’t be able to cancel those they disagree with; they wouldn’t get away with their personal attacks against those they disagree with and ultimately, they would be open to the evident criticisms of their theories and policies which threatens the chances at ever implementing their worldview.
The “power” argument is redundant because Critical Race Theory is wrong, and it is hypocritical as the people with power are the ones who can’t be criticised without repercussions. Making the distinction and actively attacking the leftist who brings up the “power” argument with this explanation of hypocrisy will hopefully turn the general acceptance of this self-imposed moral high ground, and if it doesn’t then their power is more clear than ever.