The left claims to believe in “progress.”  What they cannot tell you is what they are progressing towards.  Saying “a better society” is a vague answer, because all people want to live in a better society; this is why we have elections and arguments about the way to shape society.  Nobody has ever said “Vote for me and I’ll make everything worse.”  For progressives the definition of progress revolves around two basic assumptions: the erosion of objective morality and ever increasing the power in the hands of the state.

In explaining why he cancelled a performance in North Carolina, Bruce Springsteen issued a statement that said in part, “To my mind, it’s an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.”  He was referring to the bill that was passed that overturned a Charlotte ordinance that allowed men who identify themselves as women to use the women’s restroom.  Apparently if you think men should use the men’s room you are against “progress” and are a part of a long trail of human rights abusers presumably akin to slave holders and segregationists.  Men pretending to be women to sneak into women’s restrooms is nothing new, but by simply allowing men to enter women’s restrooms based on how they identify themselves gives nefarious characters easy access.

In this respect, progress can be summed up as “Progress=Tolerance.”  We are told that we must tolerate everything anybody does or says, because to say otherwise would be intolerant.  Unless of course, if you are a nunChristian baker or a group high school girls who do not want a male student to use your locker room, then you must have your character assassinated.

When the Party of Science is not trying to convince itself that men can become women, they are advocating for “progress” in the economy.  We are told we need to implement some sort of Canadian or British style of health care because “People before profits” or some such slogan.  Ray Romanow was the commissioner of the 2002 “Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada” and he echoed this point,

 Canadians have been clear that they still strongly support the core values on which our health care system is premised-equality, fairness, and solidarity.  These values are tied to their understanding of citizenship.  Canadians consider equal and timely access to medically necessary health care services on the basis of need as a right of citizenship, not a privilege of status or wealth.

Apparently a key Canadian value is giving the state the power of life and death.  In single payer health care, if the government determines that the cost of keeping you or your loved one alive is outweighed by the cost then you can be denied the potentially life saving treatment, and since the government runs the health care industry, you do not have a second option.  Not to mention that Romanow’s contention about “timely access to medically necessary health care services” is not even true.

The logic of the central planners is “We, the smart people, cannot leave the little people to their own devices, because they would mess everything up, so we must organize things in such a way that they do not.”  This is how Bernie Sanders can rant against people having the ability to choose their deodorant, as if it is the job of a politician to determine how many forms of deodorant are morally acceptable, while still claiming to be for the “little guy.”  For the central planners, if we leave people to themselves, they will make unwise decisions, therefore we must try to ban 20 ounce sodas.

The free market is perhaps the greatest engine of progress in the world, but the progress loving left is always attacking it.   The definition of progress does not mandate the elimination of objective morality or demand that the state’s power be ever increasing.