University of Colorado philosophy professor Michael Huemer is a publishing entrepreneur, issuing Knowledge, Reality, and Value in 2021. Now he’s out with Progressive Myths. People may be skeptical of a self-published book that doesn’t have the imprimatur of an academic press, but Huemer has distinguished himself as a scholar who can self-publish responsibly, submitting his manuscript to peers for criticism. The book may not have appeared for another year or two if he had followed a more traditional publishing route, and that would have been a tragedy because it is very timely.

As the title indicates, Progressive Myths takes on false beliefs held by many self-described progressives. He defines a progressive myth as “an empirical, factual claim” that is:

  • “believed by many progressives,”
  • “seems to obviously, strongly support an element of progressive ideology,”
  • “and yet … is demonstrably false or highly misleading.”

Huemer presents almost two dozen such myths, which he separates into myths about individuals, race, sex, gender, economics, and science. The book concludes with analytical chapters examining why these myths emerged, why they persist, and what we can do about them.

Why does he write about progressive myths rather than conservative or libertarian ones? Huemer writes candidly that he thinks conservative myths about things like the “stolen” 2020 election and the global warming “hoax” are so obviously wrong that they do not merit discussion. Beyond that, he has an ideological purpose, explaining near the end of the book: “I did not write this book only to persuade you to reject the specific myths listed in the previous chapters. I wrote this book to undermine progressive ideology as a whole.”

Progressive myths dominate the academic and cultural discourse—the areas upstream from culture—so Huemer challenges their epistemic and empirical foundations. “Why not let people have their mythology?” he asks rhetorically. “Two reasons: One, because it is factually false. … Two, the progressive quasi-religion is an extremely divisive and malevolent force in our society.” In place of these progressive myths, he wants to “center” reason and truth-seeking.

Individuals and racism / Huemer begins by discussing false beliefs about Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Kyle Rittenhouse. Activists launched the Black Lives Matter movement after Martin, a Black teenager, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman after a scuffle when Zimmerman confronted Martin for acting suspiciously. Brown, a Black man, was shot and killed by a police officer in 2015, sparking riots in Ferguson, MO. Another police shooting of a Black man, Blake, galvanized the movement and led to riots in Kenosha, WI. During those riots, the teenaged Rittenhouse, who traveled there from Illinois, shot three people, killing two.

Huemer argues that each of those cases was more complicated than the commonly repeated narrative. Martin, Brown, and Blake were not killed in cold-blooded acts of racist fury, nor was Rittenhouse trying to commit a race-driven mass shooting. This is not to say the homicides shouldn’t be troubling and even criminal, but rather that more was happening in each incident than what is commonly believed, and that understanding the details yields a different understanding of the shooters’ motivations.

Huemer also examines the police killings of three other Black people: Eric Garner, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd. Those cases do seem to be unjustified police homicides, but Huemer argues they were not race-motivated. Rather, the police acted negligently and carelessly; as he describes George Floyd’s death, “Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd accidentally but culpably.”

The individuals chapter is followed by one on race matters, which opens with a discussion of recent police killings of unarmed Black people. Huemer argues that it is wrong to attribute those deaths to broadly held racism among police officers because such deaths are so rare; roughly the same number of unarmed Black men are killed each year in an “officer-involved shooting” as Americans are killed by lightning strikes.

That is not to say there aren’t disturbing police incidents, and the death of anyone—especially a wrongful death—is tragic. But in this chapter Huemer wants to discuss common public perceptions of general trends, not individual incidents, and at the beginning of the book he asks readers not to ascribe to him views he does not hold. Some readers might get to this point in the book and think he is saying something akin to “It isn’t a tragedy when a Black life ends,” but he isn’t. Rather, he argues that progressive claims of a wave of racism-motivated police shootings are false. Also, policymaking based on incorrect beliefs about aggressive policing runs the very real risk of allowing crime to fester and hurting the people criminals threaten the most.

There is an analogy in Huemer’s discussion of the drug war, which has disproportionately affected low-income minority communities and created the carceral state. Was it a racist conspiracy? No, Huemer writes, because the drug war had strong bipartisan support and enthusiastic backers among urban activists.

Why do these myths persist? / The book is a series of claims and counterclaims, and on issue after issue, Huemer shows that the progressive worldview has weak foundations. Do implicit biases and stereotypes explain economic and social discrepancies and inequalities? It’s doubtful. The gender pay gap? The more you compare apples to apples, the clearer it becomes that women aren’t “paid less for the same work.” Gender is purely a social construct? No. The rich inherit their wealth and then don’t pay their fair share of taxes as they exploit people in an unregulated economy? Coherent theory and empirical evidence say otherwise. Global warming is an existential threat that might end life on Earth by the end of the century? No. “The science is settled” on masking to stop Covid? Maybe not. The academy collects disinterested truth seekers who would never compromise for the sake of a political agenda? Again, no.

One by one, the shibboleths crumble. It turns out the United States isn’t a racist, oppressive, patriarchal society. This isn’t to say the country hasn’t done many horrible things squarely at odds with our founding principles (particularly equality), but as Huemer points out, much of the rest of the world outright rejects those principles. Which is better, he asks: to have a society that imperfectly honors the principles of liberty and equality or a society that rejects them altogether?

So why do myths stick, and what should we do about it? As Huemer argues, political beliefs aren’t like many other beliefs in that they can be indulged at essentially no cost. Believing that sticking a fork in a power outlet will give you superpowers is an incorrect belief that is costly to hold. You can, however, believe that capping credit card interest rates will help borrowers and have no ill effects because you likely will barely feel any of the negative consequences. Embracing the belief will not swing an election. Discarding it means alienating friends for no public policy payoff.

Calling for credit card interest rate caps differs from believing that you get from Birmingham to Nashville by driving south. As Huemer puts it, “What I suggest is that identifying the most rational beliefs about controversial subjects is difficult work, and most people will not exert the effort required, partly because they do not fear any significant costs from being wrong.” Extreme beliefs also signal group affiliation and tribal loyalty, which produces pressure to espouse ever more extreme versions of a view and calls for ever-more vigorous punishment for heretics and occasional purges.

After a not entirely uplifting 24 chapters laying out progressive myths and explaining why they are, in fact, myths, Huemer concludes the book with a chapter explaining how to be better cognitive citizens. He offers six strategies: be skeptical, verify, learn how to verify, listen to critics, identify reliable individuals, and question ideology. He also offers nine habits of reliable thinkers: They give arguments that aren’t circular, qualify their claims, acknowledge limitations and arguments pointing elsewhere, discuss objections, disagree with both major political parties on some issues, check their emotions, discuss evidence seriously, reason rigorously, and explain clearly.

Huemer, himself, is an island of reliability in a sea of unreliability based on these criteria. Progressive Myths makes its case clearly and persuasively, which sadly means it probably won’t find its way onto many syllabi. Nonetheless, it is an important and timely contribution as we reckon with the current wave of progressivism and work to limit the damage it does.