While the “defund” mantra has mercifully receded, permissiveness on crime in Democrat-run cities has handed the Republicans more political gifts: Progressive district attorneys prioritizing alternatives to incarceration; “sanctuary city” policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; bail reform measures aimed at reducing pretrial detention for non-violent offenders, which may sound reasonable but undermines deterrence. The poster child is San Francisco, where open drug use, homeless encampments, and property crimes like shoplifting have been tolerated, with some stores even closing due to the financial impact.
Another contentious issue is the rise of “cancel culture,” where individuals or organizations are ostracized to the point of societal excommunication for views or actions deemed unacceptable by a vocal minority policing a progressive orthodoxy—which is capable of insisting that non-women can give birth. While accountability is important, the punitive nature of cancel culture often resembles the Reign of Terror’s purges. It may not result in actual killings—but careers and reputations are destroyed with little due process, echoing the revolutionary tribunals’ summary executions.
This culture of intolerance fosters a climate of fear where people are afraid to speak out or engage in meaningful discussions. Just as Robespierre’s reign created a society rife with suspicion, repression, and resentments, so too does cancel culture undermine free speech and debate.
The progressive movement’s intense focus on identity politics—prioritizing race, gender, and sexual orientation above all else. While it’s good to address the unique challenges faced by different groups, this all-encompassing preoccupation can be devastating to building a cohesive society. It is driving away many who might otherwise be partners in the fight for overall social justice.
The progressive stance on immigration, perceived as advocating for open borders, has been another area of overreach. While compassion for immigrants and refugees is understandable, indiscriminate immigration can strain resources and social cohesion, upsetting ordinary people who have concerns about preserving a national culture. Ignoring legitimate concerns about integration and national security can draw a backlash—as is currently happening in France, where the far right is ascendant.
Robespierre’s indifference to the practical consequences of his policies ultimately led to his downfall. A coalition rose against him claiming his methods had become impractical and tyrannical and that the relentless purges were destabilizing France, undermining the very revolution they aimed to protect. He was quickly tried and executed by guillotine on July 28, 1794, along with 21 allies, ending the Reign of Terror and ushering in a period of relative moderation and stabilization.
Some believe to this day that he was scapegoated. But in effect, Robespierre’s “progressives” were whacked by a version of “liberals”—who wanted many of the same goals and once shared his revolutionary zeal, but were more moderate, tolerant, and introspective in their approach.
Progressives in the United States would be wise to heed that lesson. Today, they project a version of indifference and even disdain for the liberals who are still a majority in the American left and center. Because the progressives are a youthful movement, they may indeed represent the future—and so they readily dismiss liberal critics as “Boomers,” an ageist and arrogant slur.
It may not turn out so well for the progressives and their goals if the liberals conclude (perhaps after the excruciating Trump is gone) that they’re more dangerous than the right, and break up the alliance. Moderation is not helpful in all things—it will not bring you a Nobel Prize or a Wimbledon championship. But it is certainly advisable in politics at this turbulent, complex time.
A centrist party for non-Trumpists and non-progressives might save the US
