Activists on the left — liberals, leftists, progressives, woke — generically feel victimized or oppressed in some context.  They have been left out or marginalized by the system.  They are unhappy, disapproving, dissident, and quick to anger.  They divide society into oppressor and oppressed factions to create a retaliatory framework in which to resolve their subjugation.  Their M.O. is to arbitrarily view social issues through a moral lens and define them as moral conflicts.  They then assume the mantle of moral superiority and seek "social justice" by attacking oppressive forces as structurally immoral.  Michelle Obama: "When they go low, we go high!"  Nancy Pelosi: "The Democratic caucus exhibited 'outstanding moral courage' in impeaching Trump." 

Leftist policy, driven largely by emotion rather than reason, is enacted with little regard for practicality or outcome.  The true outcome sought is emotional fulfillment in the form of retribution and vengeance against the oppressors.  Defund the police.  Open the borders.  Vanquish white supremacy with DIE and CRT.

Resolution of issues cannot be incremental, as that would preclude immediate gratification.  Deferring of vengeance to one's descendants is not very fulfilling.  So we must immediately transition to E.V.s, the net effect of which is alleged to be to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by two percent.  Incremental transition to hybrid vehicles that generate their own electricity would be more sensible, pending development of safe nuclear fusion to meet the demand for increased electrical energy.  But no.  The fossil fuel specter must be vanquished — now!

The tyranny of their moral certitude is that one cannot counter their agenda with reason, since it is all too frequently unreasonable.  How does one counter that "woman" is undefinable or that gender is a social construct?  If you are white, you are a racist.  If you do not embrace and advocate "gender-affirming" "therapies," you are a trans-hater.

Moralistic tyranny, immune to pragmatic challenge, let alone compromise, succeeds in limiting its target infidels to emotional rather than strategic responses.  Appealing to Utopian idealism strikes a chord in the heart of even the most pragmatic.  One's coefficient of guilt determines the extent to which he accommodates or confronts their moralistic challenges.  Urban white liberals accommodate them with virtue-signaling.  Corporations, fearful of retribution if they fail to align with woke mandates, abandon sound marketing principles.  Using Dylan Mulvaney as a marketing tool has cost Anheuser-Busch $27B in stock value.  Moralistic tyranny exerts its effect by playing on the guilt and fears of its adversaries.

How can it be neutralized?  Can conservative politicians do it?  Perhaps, but too many politicians are opportunists who choose to go with the flow for fear of jeopardizing their political career.  The court system?  Only if jurisprudence presides over judicial activism.  The best recourse probably lies at a grassroots level.  The proletariat is showing signs of rising up.  Parents are taking on school boards.  Over 70% think we need structured immigration policy.  In light of the Budweiser debacle, corporate CEOs and CFOs might begin to turn a deaf ear to their H.R. ideologues.  The insanity of moralistic tyranny's policy outcomes will hopefully dislodge the political pendulum from becoming enmeshed in the left's web of self-serving inanity.

Image via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.