Progressives have become the new reactionaries: why the movement now defends the status quo

Politics in recent years has been a study in reversals: alliances that once made sense no longer do, old foes find common ground, and ideas that seemed settled are now hotly contested. A string of violent incidents and campus controversies has exposed seams in the progressive coalition, pushing debates about gender, race, and free speech into new and often uncomfortable alignments.

The result is a landscape where identity-based movements, long described under umbrellas like “intersectionality” and “woke,” increasingly clash with practical concerns about safety, speech, and who speaks for the working class. These tensions have produced surprising political shifts, heated cultural fights on university campuses, and a revived argument over whether modern progressivism has drifted into authoritarianism.

How identity politics created unexpected contradictions

What once felt like a coherent progressive platform—support for sexual minorities, racial justice, and international solidarity—has frayed where its components collide. Activists who champion transgender rights and those who support Palestinian causes sometimes find themselves at odds, and moments of violent extremism have forced a reckoning. For many observers, events like the attack at a Pride gathering in Berlin crystallized these internal contradictions, raising questions about whether some political alliances were built on shaky moral ground.

At the same time, public figures once associated with the left have shifted positions. Prominent authors and commentators who previously identified as progressive now speak out against what they see as the excesses of modern identity politics. Their journeys reflect a broader phenomenon: disillusionment among people who feel the left has become intolerant of dissent and dismissive of the concerns of ordinary workers.

Campus clashes and the crisis of free expression

Universities have become central battlegrounds in this cultural realignment. Students and faculty debate which ideas deserve protection, and which should be marginalized in the name of inclusivity. Documentaries and investigative reports have chronicled cases where classical liberal commitments—open debate, rigorous argument, and a shared standard for evidence—have been replaced by methods of policing language and identity.

Redefining “white supremacy” and standards of learning

One troubling development is the broadening of terms like “white supremacy” to describe cultural habits or academic norms rather than organized racist movements. Educators who insist on teaching standard forms of language or objective methods have sometimes found themselves accused of perpetuating structural bias. Critics argue this shift undermines the very foundation of education: a neutral standard for assessing knowledge and performance.

When accusation becomes the primary method of argument, debate collapses. Students intimidated into silence and faculty fearful of recrimination make for an environment where curiosity and disagreement cannot thrive.

Realignment on the right: new defenders of women’s and gay rights

As parts of the left moved toward stricter speech codes and more rigid identity frameworks, some conservative voices began to embrace causes traditionally associated with liberalism—women’s rights and LGBTQ safety among them. This is not a wholesale ideological conversion so much as a tactical and moral response: when progressives appear to abandon core principles or tolerate hostility toward certain groups, opponents seize the moral high ground.

Several public personalities have publicly shifted away from the left in recent years, citing concerns about freedom of expression and the treatment of dissenters. Their stories vary, but the common thread is a perception that the contemporary left has become top-down and doctrinaire.

• Some cite personal experiences of ostracism after questioning prevailing campus orthodoxy.
• Others describe a gradual realization that rhetorical tools meant to protect vulnerable groups were being used to silence debate instead.
• Still others highlight political developments—like opposition to Brexit or trade policy—that amplified the sense of a disconnect between elites and the working class.

What happens when moral language becomes political power

There’s a long history of movements that begin with moral urgency and end with coercive tendencies. When a cause grants its adherents a sense of moral superiority, it can also empower gatekeepers who police language, behavior, and allegiance. Over time, those gatekeepers can form a new elite, less accountable to democratic norms than to doctrinal purity.

Ideologies that float above everyday life often produce intolerance rather than compassion. The desire to remake society can corrupt the rhetoric of care and turn it into a justification for exclusion.

Signs of cultish dynamics

• Elevating intention over outcome: judging people’s worth by their declared motives rather than their actions.
• Purity tests that exclude broad swaths of potential allies.
• Public shaming as enforcement, which discourages honest debate and encourages performative allegiance.

Historical echoes: virtue-signaling from antiquity to modern activism

There is nothing new in people using moral language to distinguish themselves from others. Ancient critics labeled certain sects for their sanctimonious displays, and modern thinkers have compared contemporary moral posturing to those same patterns. The comparison is not about theology; it’s about human behavior—how moral posturing can replace substantive argument, and how social status can be won via visible displays of righteousness.

When political performance becomes a key currency, the incentives favor spectacle over substance. That can produce a politics of gestures instead of programs, of proclamations rather than policy details.

Odd places where performative compassion appears: gull rangers and animal rights debates

These dynamics don’t remain confined to big-city campuses or social media debates. They crop up in local controversies too, like how communities manage wildlife and public space. A coastal reserve recently introduced a “gull ranger” to teach people how to avoid conflict with aggressive seabirds—an unusual example of resources spent on managing minor irritants through symbolic gestures as much as practical measures.

More broadly, debates about animal rights often hinge on a mixture of empathy and performative moral claims. Intelligence is frequently offered as a justification for granting special status, but intelligence alone is a poor criterion for ethics.

Three criteria are more defensible when thinking about rights and protections:

1. Sentience: the capacity to have subjective experiences.
2. The ability to suffer: whether beings can feel pain or distress.
3. Non-threat: whether granting protections creates severe harm to humans.

Using these practical thresholds helps ground ethical discussions in real-world consequences rather than fashionable rhetoric.

Ongoing debates and the media’s role

Documentaries, opinion pieces, and investigative reporting have all played a part in exposing the tensions within contemporary progressive movements. Careful journalism can illuminate how language shifts and institutional changes affect ordinary people, while sensational coverage can further polarize. Readers and viewers must distinguish between reporting that uncovers trends and media that simply amplifies outrage.

Public discourse needs both courage and humility: courage to confront harmful ideas, and humility to admit when political tools do more harm than good.

Patrick West is a columnist for spiked and the author of Get Over Yourself: Nietzsche For Our Times (Societas, 2017). Follow him on X: @patrickxwest.

You might also like:

• Backlash against tolerance reshapes politics and culture
• Cancel culture enforced with gun threats and real-world violence
• Piers Morgan: is woke really dead?
• Crybully culture silences debate and fuels cancel culture
• Islamists and progressives: surprising common ground and why it matters

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.