The Wrong Bandwagon

Don't Be Fooled by the Right Side of History

Some contemporary progressives divide people into two groups: those on the “right side” of history and those on the “wrong side” of history. Predictably, those on the right side are the ones who agree with so-called progressive causes, and those on the wrong side are all those who disagree. But is there a right side and a wrong side of history? And is an appeal to the right side of history an appropriate justification for a social or moral cause or the truth of some claim?

The idea that there is a right side to history assumes that history follows a trajectory towards justice and goodness. Martin Luther King, Jr., seemed to support this view when he said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”  But the idea that history moves toward justice is a philosophical claim that itself needs to be justified before it can be put forth to justify some cause or truth.

Indeed, its truth is neither apparent nor self-justifying. Appealing to “what we believe now” as correct and just simply because it is believed in the present is fallacious. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case: a belief is not made true, nor is a cause made just, simply in virtue of the time period in which it is believed. Rather, beliefs are true and causes are just only insofar as they correspond with objective reality. Given this, instead of simply accepting a cause because it is trending now, one ought to examine the cause itself to evaluate if it is just.

Chronological Snobbery

C. S. Lewis, in Surprised by Joy, labeled this fallacy chronological snobbery. On this fallacy, one accepts things as true or just because they are currently fashionable and rejects them as false or unjust because they are out of step with the times. We might also categorize it as the bandwagon fallacy because it implies that since most people support something, the rest of us should as well. Regarding political progressivism, moreover, it’s not clear that most people support that agenda even among the United States’ population alone. Considering all of humanity, it is even less clear. Nevertheless, even if everyone did back progressive causes, that would not in itself make them true or just.

We should also point out that political conservatives are prone to a similar error—not that of prioritizing the present over the past but of the opposite. Just because something is ancient or traditional does not make it true or right, either. Truth and justice are not determined by long belief and practice. Rather, truth and justice are determined by their correspondence with reality, whether that reality has long been recognized or not.

As it turns out, there is a sense in which there is a right side of history: at its culmination, Christ will return to judge the living and the dead. Those who lived for God’s kingdom are ushered into its completeness, and those who did not are turned away. God’s side is the right side, and he will vindicate himself in the end. Until that time, the world may or may not get better; many believe it will grow worse. So even though Christ will ultimately prevail, we cannot simply assume at our point in history that our beliefs and actions are trending towards justice rather than away from it.

The takeaway is this: the notion of a right side of history cannot simply be assumed and then used to justify one’s favored social cause. Rather, the cause needs to stand on its own.