Progressive Activists Are Not Inherently on the Right Side of History
Source: Jonathan Chait. "Progressive Activists Are Sometimes on the Wrong Side of History - The Atlantic." May 5, 2026. www.theatlantic.com
The Gist
Chait argues that progressives wrongly assume their activists are always on the right side of history, which prevents proper criticism of bad ideas and behavior. He points to pro-Palestine activists at University of Michigan as an example of how this blind reverence enables problematic actions and positions.
Conclusion
The left's assumption that progressive activists are inherently on the right side of history is a pathological belief that enables bad ideas and behavior to escape scrutiny
Premises
- The narrative that progressive activists are always on the right side of history suffers from survivorship bias - it only remembers successful causes while ignoring failed ones
- Left-wing activists have historically supported problematic causes, including opposing aid to Allies in WWII, blocking nuclear power, and defending totalitarian regimes during the Cold War
- This reverence for activism elevates progressive activists above criticism into a 'priestly class' that others can only learn from but never question
- Michigan's pro-Palestine activists have engaged in intimidation tactics and endorsed the October 7 attacks, yet are still praised by faculty as inherently just
- The belief in one's immutable righteousness becomes a license to abuse power, as demonstrated by both the activists' behavior and Professor Peterson's commandeering of the graduation ceremony
Assumptions
- Historical precedent and moral righteousness are not automatically conferred by being a progressive activist
- All political movements, including progressive ones, should be subject to critical scrutiny
- The methods and specific positions of activists matter as much as their general cause
- Academic institutions should maintain neutrality rather than endorsing particular political positions