Reply to comment

It's important to avoid defining terms when you are acting as a footsoldier of a movement larger than yourself. An enlisted man in the military is well advised to shut up about matters of principle if they directly relate to ongoing military campaigns. He should not take it upon himself to define the conditions of peace or war, victory or defeat, and should not take it upon himself to decide who is friend or foe. He takes orders and it is for others to say what's what. If he defines terms in a clear way, then he is making decisions that are supposed to be made by the higher ranks, all the way up to the commander in chief. Using an "I know it when I see it" definition allows the soldier leeway to "see" whatever he is needed to see.

A movement like progressivism has no leader but is identifiably a movement, with observable direction, like a flock of birds. Observable yes but not so predictable that a member of the movement can fully internalize where it will go next. Best, then, to avoid clarity and definition as much as possible. Since the movement is irrational and emotional, best to pursue irrational arguments that appeal to the emotions. The partisan humor of a Jon Stewart is a good tool, because it strokes the vanity of the audience, who are so flattered and delighted to be implicitly told that they are superior to the daily target of ridicule that they are unlikely to notice any deficiencies of reason. The humor that consists of ridiculing other kinds of people is not the only kind of humor, but it is what draws the young audiences, who are desperate to feel superior, desperate to win the status game.