For decades, Regressives have been waging a war on Houstonians. The individual battles of that war have been fought primarily in the political area, but the target of the war is not political. The target is the independent thinker.
The political battles—outlawing billboards, zoning, historic preservation are a few examples—have all been based on the same premises. Morally and politically, each of these battles was founded on collectivism. Each was based on the premise that the individual is subservient to the group, such as the neighborhood or the community. Each held that the group—not the individual—is the standard of value.
Politics is not a primary, and political positions are derived from one’s views on more fundamental philosophical issues. Let us consider Regressives as an example.
Regressives believe that the “will of the people” should rule supreme. If “the people” endorse a particular policy, then that policy is proper and just. For example, if the property owners in a neighborhood vote for historic preservation, then all property owners are forced to abide by that vote. The judgment and desires of individuals are subordinated to the group. This, Regressives want us to believe, is proper and just.
But what if the property owners in that neighborhood later vote to repeal historic preservation (which they can do)? According to the premises of the Regressives, this too would be proper and just. How can this be? How can opposites both be proper and just?
To Regressives, this contradiction poses no problems. To them, truth and justice is determined by a vote. The collective consciousness determines reality. If enough people agree, what was true yesterday is not true today.
If truth is determined by the collective, then an individual’s judgment is inherently flawed. The individual is incapable of identifying the truth. The individual must subordinate, not only his actions, but also his judgment, to the group.
The independent thinker poses a threat to this view. He judges for himself, and is willing to stand on his own judgment, no matter how many may disagree with him. He is willing to challenge conventional wisdom and popular ideas, not for the sake of provocation, but because he rationally disagrees.
To the Regressive, the independent thinker is a rebuke of their world view. And that is why they seek to silence him and force him into submission.