Things are getting worse very quickly. However, the process remains piecemeal, one cancelation, one smashed statue, one formerly apolitical organization putting out a pro-sodomy, anti-white manifesto at a time. When the reactionary sees how comprehensively superior is the enemy’s power, he expects something far more sweeping. To take one of the less important issues, why bother with separate protests, investigations, and vandalism before removing each statue of a white person? Why not just remove them all at once? The Left has the power. To take the most important issue, given the essentially unopposed power of the Left, why should they not propagandize children much more aggressively than they do and outlaw any counter-propaganda from parents or Churches? What’s holding them back?
There are three possibilities. JMSmith, in the comments to Alan Roebuck’s post on the legitimacy of political participation by Christians, suggests one.
As a young man you may still look forward to children and grandchildren, and you presumably wish to pass your faith down to them. This will be hard in the best scenario, and you should not snap your fingers at the idea that legislators can make it much harder. Atheist schoolteachers are presently under some restraint in deconversion, but this is only because the school boards that employ them have some fear of Christian voters. Remove that fear and you remove the restraint. What do you suppose would happen if churches were stripped of their tax exemption? What do you suppose would happen if the Bible was banned? There are plenty of people who would do all of these things and more if they were not opposed.
According to this hypothesis, the Left is restrained by the Right. Assuming the Left could move much more swiftly without Rightist obstruction, we must suppose that the Right’s power to obstruct nearly matches the Left’s power of aggression. If this is true, then it is important to maintain this obstructing power.
I wonder, though, if school boards or teachers really are particularly frightened of Christian voters or parents. Why should they be? The Left has the media, which is the only way the public knows about these disputes. If parents get unruly, the media can call them terrorists, and those parents will find themselves unemployed or in jail, either way without a soul to offer them sympathy. If an opponent of deconversion runs for the school board, the media can easily destroy that candidate’s reputation. It doesn’t matter how well you argue, how carefully you control your message, how irreproachable your personal life; all anyone will ever get is the Left’s side of things. Under these conditions, having some powerless opposition might be pleasant for school boards; they get to read in the papers about how brave they are. (That being said, as I discuss below, while the media is always a friend to the Left, it is not an ever-present one.)
A second possibility is that the Left is self-limited; it doesn’t move faster or more comprehensively because it doesn’t want to. Perhaps this is because Leftists have liberal commitments and insist on tolerating those who hold opposing beliefs. Perhaps it is because they refuse to admit to themselves the extent of their own power (and, hence, responsibility), and so they are hampered by the need to retain their pose as plucky outsiders by acting piecemeal and informally. Perhaps there simply is not that much further Leftward to go; we are already living in the Leftist utopia, so they have no great changes to make with their great power. There may be a bit of truth to each of these, although Leftists themselves would deny it. They would certainly not admit that we already live in a world largely to their liking, that they evade responsibility by obfuscating the extent of their power, or that they have a commitment to tolerating “racism” and “homophobia”. I’ve known plenty of Leftists, and individually they are not nearly as bad as their own side boasts. Still, this is an unlikely explanation. There are well-known Leftist policies that have not yet been implemented (e.g. reparations, removing tax exemption from Churches, seizing guns); the Left has wielded national power before without undue stress to its self-image; the claim that dissent is “violence” meets little argument and neutralizes any calls for tolerance or open-mindedness.
The third possibility I call “inertia”. Even without a countervailing political force, it takes time and effort to do things. Return to the example of indoctrination in schools. I can well believe that the ideologues who make up state and nation-level education and teacher associations would be willing even to sacrifice basic literacy for social justice. However, actual teachers have a lot of other things to worry about. Certainly, most will agree that social justice–breaking the spirits of white children and teaching them to hate themselves–is a good thing, perhaps (in theory) the most important thing. However, that’s not really what they went into teaching for, and they know very well that they will actually be judged on their students’ performance on state assessment tests in reading and math. The Left owns all the institutions, and the incentives at the top are to divert those organizations from their original and ostensible purposes to the service of Leftism, but at the bottom incentives usually work the other way. Even at Google, a lowly programmer will probably get in trouble more quickly for buggy code than for taking no interest in social justice. All but the zealots will adjust their time accordingly.
Against this tendency to lethargy is the media, which can put an organization’s feet to the fire if it’s not canceling and struggle session-ing hard enough. However, the media’s eye is not be everywhere at once, a fact captured by Steve Sailer’s expression “the Eye of Soros”. The reason it cannot do this is not a lack of resources. It’s that the whole enforcement mechanism of Leftism is based on socially isolating the target, and everyone else’s fear of being thus isolated. It works really well. No one wants to be singled out as “the racist” and made a penniless social pariah, and no one wants to risk being associated with “the racist” and thus run the risk of being next. Conservatives have grim fantasies that someday soon they’ll just declare all of us racists and send us to the gulag or something. This is actually wishful thinking; the Left will do no such thing. Their method wouldn’t work if a large connected group were singled out for censure. They’re coming for all of us, but it has to be one by one. That takes a while.
Doing it slowly is also part of the punishment. Separately defaming, protesting, and defacing each statue of a white man educates the public in the evil of Western civilization and makes sure each target’s reputation is completely destroyed. As I mentioned before, that Congresslady who wants to get rid of the Father Damien statue just because he’s white is actually being charitable. She’s willing to forgo the usual step of defaming Father Damien first. “You may be an okay guy, but you’ve got the wrong skin color” is a lot nicer than “You’re a monster, and your moral infamy makes your likeness painful to Persons of Color”. That’s one reason there will be no blanket order to remove all statues of white men everywhere in the country; some of those men would then keep their reputations intact. The other reason is the “Eye of Soros” thing: who’s going to bother going to all that trouble of moving big rocks in parks unless the media whips up pressure? But the media can only whip up pressure by isolating a single person, organization, or town and shrieking “There is the racist!” If they point everywhere at once and do that, it won’t work. They’re coming for the statues, but one by one.
This can also explain why there are subjects of Leftist concern where little progress seems to be made. Social status manipulation is powerless, for example, to fight global warming, because that’s an actual physical problem. Their modus operandi works great for deplatforming global warming skeptics, terrorizing children, and enforcing purely symbolic acts, but none of that actually effects humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions.
If any of these other possibilities are the main reason things aren’t getting worse faster, Christian political participation probably is not having much effect.