When Justice Becomes Dogma: The Cult of Moral Absolutism on Both Sides
All text copyrighted ©️ 2025 by Lancer Gareth Bailey
So many of us—smart, thoughtful, empathetic people—find ourselves keeping quiet these days, not because we don’t care or have nothing to say, but because we’re afraid of being misunderstood, misquoted, or mobbed for being honest. It’s a sad reality, but that’s not how free expression or meaningful progress is supposed to work.
What I’ve come to realize is that this fear is part of a much bigger issue:
• The loudest voices aren’t always the most thoughtful.
• Nuance doesn’t go viral. Outrage does.
• People are quicker to label than to listen.
But here’s the hard truth: If everyone who thinks deeply about these issues stays silent, the extremes win by default. They dominate the narrative while the middle ground erodes. The only way to change this is by speaking out, even when it feels risky or uncomfortable.
I don’t have all the answers, and I’m certainly not trying to provoke or stir things up for the sake of it. I’m just trying to use my voice—carefully, respectfully, and honestly. And I think that’s more necessary now than ever.
____________________________________________
In today’s hyper-polarized political climate, calling the other side a “cult” has become almost reflexive. Progressives often point to the MAGA movement and say, “Look at them—blind loyalty to one man, refusal to accept facts, demonization of outsiders. It’s a cult.” And in many ways, they’re right. The MAGA movement has undeniably fostered a kind of fervent, unquestioning loyalty that feels more like religious devotion than political support.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth: some activist spaces on the progressive left are not much better.
This isn’t a defense of MAGA, nor is it an attack on liberal values (many of which I passionately support). It’s a recognition of a dangerous pattern that’s emerging on both ends of the spectrum—and especially within movements that claim to champion empathy, tolerance, and inclusion. Because while those ideals sound noble in theory, in practice they’re often replaced by performative morality, rigid dogma, and social control.
Let’s start with the most basic contradiction: many people who identify as “woke” claim to value inclusivity, yet practice ideological exclusion. If you deviate from the accepted narrative—even slightly—or if you admit confusion or uncertainty about a sensitive issue, you’re labeled problematic. There’s no room for error, no tolerance for disagreement, no grace for learning. One wrong word and you’re out.
That core contradiction—the gap between professed inclusivity and practiced exclusivity—is virtue signaling taken to an extreme. Another name for this type of hypocrisy is performative morality: a public display of values without private commitment or sacrifice. It’s the person posting about saving a library they’ve never once visited. It’s the person who posts a black square on Instagram for #BlackoutTuesday, then returns to their regular content without further engagement in racial justice issues. It’s the influencer hashtagging #BLM or #FreePalestine from a luxury resort without offering any material support for the cause.
And perhaps nowhere is this performative morality more visible than among young, progressive voters, who are often highly vocal online but notably absent at the ballot box. Passionate and idealistic, yes—but frequently disengaged from the slow, tedious mechanisms of real change. They’re disillusioned by the system, unimpressed by moderate candidates, and often unwilling to support someone unless that person reflects their beliefs 100%.
But politics is not religion. It’s not supposed to be about purity. It’s about compromise, strategy, and incremental wins. Adults vote for the lesser evil because they understand that moving the needle slightly forward is better than letting it snap backward. Expecting a candidate to embody every personal belief before supporting them isn’t just idealistic—it’s politically immature. It’s like refusing to take antibiotics unless they come in your favorite flavor. The infection doesn’t wait for your palate to be satisfied.
This refusal to engage with compromise or imperfection creates a culture where ideological purity is the only currency, and any deviation is punished with moral condemnation. That, in turn, breeds groupthink, social pressure, and even fear. It leads to performative expressions of solidarity—retweets, hashtags, aesthetic posts—rather than meaningful action. It demands total allegiance to the movement’s latest values or vocabulary. And if you fall behind—even unintentionally—you’re no longer “one of us.”
At some point, you have to ask: isn’t that kind of behavior cult-like?
Cults often exhibit moral absolutism (“You’re either with us or against us”), punishment for dissent (shaming, ostracization, cancellation), insider language as a gatekeeping tool, rigid social hierarchies based on devotion, an us-vs-them mentality, suppression of doubt or discussion, and blind loyalty to a central figure or idea.
Because these same patterns are visible in both MAGA and certain woke circles. One side wears red hats and chants slogans. The other shares infographics and cancels anyone who asks too many questions. Different aesthetics—same psychological structure.
Both claim to be fighting oppression. Both speak the language of righteousness. And both end up creating systems that reward conformity over thought, allegiance over curiosity, purity over pragmatism.
What’s most tragic is that these movements often start from a place of real pain and real purpose. Marginalized voices deserve platforms. Racial and economic injustice are real. LGBTQ+ rights, climate change, healthcare inequality—these are not fringe concerns. They’re urgent. They matter. And yet, when the pursuit of justice becomes indistinguishable from the demand for ideological obedience, the cause loses its heart. It becomes about optics. About clout. About punishing the imperfect instead of persuading the unsure.
Ultimately, movements that demand total purity will cannibalize themselves. They turn potential allies into enemies. They alienate moderates. They reject compromise. They lose elections. They sabotage progress.
Real progress doesn’t require cult loyalty. It requires critical thinking, compassion, and humility. It means being able to say, “I believe in this, but I’m still learning.” It means showing up to vote even when the candidate isn’t perfect. It means listening to people who disagree—not to “own” them—but to understand them.
We don’t need more cults.
We need more citizens—independent thinkers with moral courage and open minds.
Maybe—just maybe—it’s time to stop pointing fingers at “them” and start asking what parts of the problem we’re silently upholding ourselves.
