The Perfectibility of Mankind and the Left
One of the basic differences between the Progressive Left and Conservatives/Classical Liberals is on whether or not humans can be, or be made, perfect in this world. The perfectibility of mankind.
To Conservatives humans can never be perfect in this world. For religious conservatives man achieves perfection only when joined with God. In this world perfection is to strive for, but will never be achieved. Failure happens to all and is forgivable. One should acknowledge one's failures and vow to avoid repeating the mistake. Apologize to those injured. Seek forgiveness. Show remorse. Make amends. Be punished if society deems it necessary. In politicians, as in others, perfection is not sought. The perfect not being possible, Conservatives then seek the best available in an imperfect world of choices.
For the progressive Left and the socialist Left, humans are perfectible. The imperfections seen are explained as due to the circumstances that people are in, how they were brought up, how they were educated, or how they were treated and seen by society. To the left people would be perfect if the world around them could be transformed to retain their innate perfection. This is the Utopia sought. The world must be perfected so all humans will be perfect.
Politics is the means used to structure this perfect world for all humans. Force, of course, is required to change the world into the perfect state so that all will live in perfection. This brings up an interesting dichotomy.
In order to change the world so that humans will be perfected, it must be that someone has discovered the method that will perfect all humans. That person will have to be perfect.
They will have either lived a life where the circumstances of their life allowed their innate perfection to remain pristine and thus their whole life is the method to perfection. Libraries of books are devoted to minute examination of the immaculate life of the "Dear Leader" in these cases. Conversely, they may have discovered the way to transform their imperfect life into a state of perfection. This leads to books describing the path to perfection. Either way they are the perfection of humans. Being perfect they will naturally rise to the leadership of those seeking to perfect humans, i.e., the left.
All charismatic leaders on the left are assumed to be a perfect human incarnate. They can do no wrong. They are infallible. And they must be perceived as perfect always, every time, everywhere. If shown to be fallible, then their leadership must be rejected.
Failure, in a leader, is not an option on the progressive left. Any failures brought up by their political enemies must be vehemently -- even violently -- rejected as lies. The leader's failure surely lies farther down the management chain with some minion who will be chastised and then summarily dismissed. Because acceptance of a fallibility on the part of the leader is certain cause to toss that person aside in a resumption of the search for “The One” who will lead mankind to perfection.
This also leads to the belief that asserting or proving the fallibility of leaders on the conservative side will cause those leaders to be rejected by conservatives. When this doesn't happen, because conservatives don’t consider their leaders to be anything other than fallible humans, the left finds it inexplicable.
We must be in perfect harmony with every move, every position, every word spoken by a Reagan, a Cruz, a Limbaugh, a Levin, or any other person seen as a leader on the right.
When we aren't, and instead find their perplexity amusing, the left is flummoxed. Likewise, we can't comprehend their rejection of any imperfection in whoever is the perceived leader on the left. Obama in 2008, Bill Clinton in the nineties, and countless leftist leaders of days past. So much time and energy of the left is spent rewriting all of reality to conform with the belief in a leaders perfection.
It is the main occupation of many academics, journalists, and most trolls.
Read more at Camp o' the Saints.