one of the funniest things (Funny odd) about Progressives, is their constant talk about the need for more Diversity and Equality. Diversity, obviously means that you don't want one homogenous group. There's actually a pretty good reason you want a society that has more than one place to trace its roots. Equality. . . well that is actually a bit more difficult. Factual Equality would mean that everyone is the same height, sex, and whatever other characteristic you can think of. That's not only impossible, its actually the exact opposite of Diversity. Now think about the idea of human beings, no two humans are the same in ability, or even their desires, which one could reasonably argue play a large role in what people can and more importantly will do with their lives. Income Equality? That means everyone earns the same. Sounds great at first, until you realize that there is no incentive to succeed, and even, no measurement for success. Equality of Opportunity? While a level playing field is preferable, how exactly would you define for objective measurements a level field. The only place where you can (realistically) make sure the "playing field" is level is in actual sports and even then there isn't equality. Ask your high school football team to go up against the San Diego Chargers and see what they say. In truth efforts to "level the playing field" end up making said field look more like WWI no-man's land complete with mines and craters.
Indeed, if you listen to a Liberal/Progressive talk there is actually a lot of buzz words, but chances are at one point or another in a conversation you will get two of the major ones, Diversity and Equality. They, are, logically mutually exclusive, but do not try to point this out. Look at Economic Diversity. That's actually what we have right now. We have a diverse workforce that take its many skills and applies it to a diverse number of tasks. Indeed the outcomes of these labors is not the same leading to the many "classes" that we have. The virtue of American classes (as opposed to those described by Marx) is that an individual is not born into, or really forced to stay in one particular subset.
What about Cultural Diversity? Well actually that one is vastly more difficult, and ultimately impossible. Quick name a mulct-cultural society. If you said present day America, you'd be. . . wrong. While we are an amalgamation of many different societies, keeping what Americans as a whole feel is beneficial, and ditching the traditions we feel are not, we are one society, and one culture. If you really wanted to see a multicultural society, you'd have to look at turn of the 20th century New York, or Chicago. An Irishman wouldn't be caught dead anywhere near an Italian, and god help you if you were caught dating a Pole. Indeed there were not one, but several race and culture riots in the major cities, and a low grade gang war that lasted almost up until the 40's. Why did it end? Well after a generation or two, there really wasn't any difference in the cultures. They had adopted the larger American culture. While it is true that America welcomes all, it is only through integration, and the adoption of the host culture that we have really avoided the large scale strife seen in France. Unfortunately this is one of the main weaknesses of the "diversity" argument, that has largely been ignored.
Both words are remarkably simple in their meaning, and remarkable complex in their actual implementation. To be clear I think that Egalitarianism is a dead end. It is only a matter of time before an attempt to enforce "equality" becomes destructive to the individual civil liberties we so enjoy. Rather, we should not focus on making sure that everyone has an equal share of resources, opportunity, or income, we should labor, for moral reasons, to ensure that everyone has enough. Likewise while diverse worldviews can lead to unique solutions, there is also an extreme danger of increased conflict, both internationally and societal, when one starts trying to enforce such a thing. I can see Economic Diversity, not as a policy, but rather a reality of the situation. Not everyone can be a millionaire, and while it is unpleasant to think about, someone has to do the scut work.
It seems clear to me that our society has bought into myths that the Progressive Era desperately wanted to instil (but couldn't because reality caught up with them). Indeed the Progressive Ideals on the surface seem so alluring, because they play on our higher moral beliefs. Unfortunately they fail to play out the "they should just make sure everyone has an equal shot" idea. If you really want to follow that to its logical conclusion you end up with really horrifying regimes, and consequences. Why did the Progressive Era end? Prohibition. They went one step too far (actually three if you ask me), and tried to make people more moral. The end result. . . people got pissed and found a way to drink anyway. Had the Progressives retained power, it is possible that we might've seen a more Soviet like way of making sure people acted "morally".
Thus, in the end, though the Equality, and Diversity talk starts out from a good place, an actual desire to help their fellow man (or woman as the case dictates) what ends up happening is quite disastrous. This is why it is important to always make sure that when a Progressive talks about such things you always press them for more than the "we'll do this and everyone will be happy" mien. Chances are that everyone will be very much miserable (to include those that suggested it in the first place). How do I know this? Leon Trotsky. 'Nuff Said.