I recently re-watched Bill Maher’s Sept. 17, 2022 edition of his show Real Time in which he discussed the absurdity of “presentism.” Citing James Sweet’s article in “Perspectives on History” in which the latter refers to Lynn Hunt’s use of the term 20 years earlier, Maher defines “presentism” as the arrogant insistence of the contemporary Left on applying its 21st Century, postmodern criteria to all of human history.
It is a well known fact that Maher has recently become critical if not downright scornful of many aspects of the woke Left. Certainly not coming out as a “conservative,” most of what he says is nevertheless perfectly in line with the beliefs expressed here and indeed with those of most of the pundits whom I regularly cite. You see, in spite of the media’s relentless suggestion that White racists and misogynists somehow represent mainstream “conservatism,” the latter is fundamentally rooted in Reason and has nothing to do with such biases. It is as a testimony to this intellectual commitment that Black individuals such as Candace Owens, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell have seen fit to overlook their color and gender in pursuit of the truth. While they are true heroes to me, they are typically slandered as “sellouts” by those on the Left whose ethos is defined by the superficialities of skin color and gender rather than a concern for morality and intellectual integrity.
[Coincidentally, I just learned through The Blaze that Black Democratic Senator Emanuel Jones recently denounced Clarence Thomas as an “Uncle Tom.” It is of course the ultimate Leftist indictment of a Black man who insists on thinking with his Mind rather than his melanin.]
“Presentism” is simply a newly coined, derogatory word for something that has always seemed both irrational and self-centered to anyone of common sense. Having not heard the term until recently, I have always seen the pseudo-intellectual vision of history that has come to dominate our culture as grossly simplistic in its refusal to consider historical context in forming its many opinions. Bill Maher goes on at some length explaining the absurdity of judging people who lived hundreds of years ago by postmodern standards. But aside from exposing the intellectual duplicity of this approach to the past, he also indicts the contemporary Left for conveniently ignoring a plethora of facts which do not fit its anti-Western, Neo-Marxist narrative. I have in various blogs mentioned that it was the British who were the first to officially condemn the slave trade early in the 19th century, while it was in fact Black Africans who were selling their own people into servitude. In pointing out not only the dishonesty of its intellectual perspective but also its selective approach to the historical facts, Maher seems to reject the very essence of the contemporary Left’s narrative, that fiction which defines Western Colonialism and Capitalism as inherently evil and the U.S. and Canada as “systemically” racist from their very inception. What keeps him, one wonders, from coming out as a mainstream “conservative”?
The terms Left and Right as they are used in the West today are rooted in the generally accepted Neo-Marxist lie that “conservatives” are ruled by White, Patriarchal biases as opposed to that portion of the species given to love and understanding. It is a grossly misleading vision of the contemporary cultural divide. As I have said repeatedly, mainstream “conservatism” is an extension of traditional Western Humanism whose guiding epistemological tool has always been Reason. As such, it inevitably inclines to the Middle, attempting to include all the relevant facts in its valuations. Clearly modern psychology has led us to appreciate the sometimes debilitating impact our socioeconomic surroundings can have on us. Not one or the “conservatives” I admire would dare suggest Western governments simply cancel those programs designed to help people born into abject poverty and squalor. But at the same time they would never dream of supporting the truly stupid, truly “dehumanizing” Leftist notion that even the most egregious of abominations ought to be forgiven in the name of “social justice.” The concept of “social justice” which pervades contemporary culture deserves to be characterized as a “fringe” belief off to one side, [i.e., the Left], while consigning “conservatism” [i.e., traditional Humanism] to the Right by constantly identifying it with those racist/misogynist loonies on its fringes is no more than a hoax perpetuated by the pervasive bias of our age.
One brief example: A front page article in the Feb. 11 edition of my local newspaper cited the June, 2022 decision of Canadian Justice Harrison Arrell to release Randall McKenzie on bail in spite of his repeated arrests for domestic assault and illegal possession of both firearms and drugs. McKenzie is clearly a violent individual with no respect for the Law whatsoever. In justifying his decision, Arrell explained: “The accused is Indigenous. And it is a well-know fact that such individuals are over represented in our prison system….” Six months later, McKenzie was charged with the unprovoked murder of an OPP Officer who was simply trying to help a motorist whose car was stuck in a ditch. An innocent life ended, a family devastated, all in the name of “social justice”! The fact that the Indigenous here in Canada commit an inordinately high percentage of our crimes is related to human/cultural issues far more complex than the simplistic, Neo-Marxist approach to morality could ever explain. Yet here we had a Canadian judge, not some Left wing extremist but a representative of Canada’s official approach to the Rule of Law, suggesting he had to release a violent, recidivist criminal back into society because the statistics of “social justice” demanded it. It was a decision perfectly in keeping with the irrational, religious beliefs of the mainstream Left. It was a decision which cost Constable Greg Pierzchala his life. It was the kind of decision repeated endlessly throughout the States which has turned many of its cities into hotbeds of crime. It represented the sort of sheer stupidity which has led Bill Maher to relentlessly criticize the contemporary Left.