« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Progressives? What Are You Progressing Towards?

I have asked this question for years. First it was just the musings of a grumpy Soldier and then out loud on Twitter and to my rather disturbed leftist “friends”. There is a lot to be said about the progressive movement and how it affects our nation and its history. We have a lot to “thank” the Progressives for: Prohibition, AFL-CIO, The New Deal, Great Society, Jimmy Carter, Community Reinvestment Act, SCHIP (yes, yes, yes), Obamacare, Financial Regulation Reform, Obama’s foreign policy, and more to come I’m sure. That being said, some of that has benefited the United States of America, namely the consumer and worker protection laws to ensure safe, secure, and sustainable commerce. The rest… ties to to the government that holds the Sword of Domiciles above the citizenry since the entitlements are paid in cash not backed by anything more than a failing credit rating for what as once the world reserve currency.

So… what are Progressive progressing towards. I want to avoid the small guys, or else we’d be here all day, so let’s look at the main leftist/progressive message boards and the mission statements they give themselves:

Moveon.org: “…we work together to realize the progressive promise of our country” “MoveOn.org Political Action, one of the largest Political Action Committees in the country, brings real Americans into politics to fight for a more progressive America and elect progressive candidates.”

What does “brings real Americans into politics to fight for a more progressive America…”? Who’s a “real American?” Sounds familiar to the Sarah Palin comment about “two Americas”, but the left threw a hissy fit over that now didn’t they?

Media Matters.org: “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”

Again, I am puzzled as to what a “progressive research & information center” actually consists of. I know a thing or two about analysis (namely intelligence type) and I know that you can’t effectively give an analysis of anything without finding both sides of the issue. So they acknowledge they neglect the actual substance of what conservatives and right wing pundits and politicians say to further their “progressive” agenda. Again, what are you progressing towards?

We see here Hillary Clinton, then a candidate for President in 2008, prefers the word “progressive” to “liberal”. She is accurate in that the word liberal now means that one supports big government, a government knows best, government is good and fair, government is here for you. She goes on to say that she calls her self a “modern American progressive” who feels that we work better as a society when we work together. She leaves out the government part though. So I have to find someone else who can define for me what a “Progressive” is and what they want. I turn to “The Progressive” a left-wing magazine in publication since 1909:

It steadfastly stands against militarism, the concentration of power in corporate hands, and the disenfranchisement of the citizenry. It champions peace, social and economic justice, civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, a preserved environment, and a reinvigorated democracy

Finally, I’m getting somewhere. This makes sense. Even sounds good. Great actually. Don’t we all want these things? But something is scratching at the back of my skull about the word “progressive” and these feel good phrases, I want to believe but something just won’t let me. A link on The Progressive’s site is titled “McCarthyism Watch” and I know from my rather exceptional Georgia public school education that McCarthyism could only mean Senator McCarthy’s evil Red Hunts of Hollywood and higher education for communists.

So this means to me that I can link being “progressive” with being a communist right? Or why else would a magazine who calls itself “The Progressive” dedicate a whole page to watching out for another Red Hunt? So let’s look to the founder of communism which grew from socialism (don’t let your leftist friends fool you). Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels derived the idea of a Worker’s Paradise that removed the means of production from the aristocratic power elites to the workers of the New Age of Machines in the Industrial Revolution. Most are familiar with the tenants that Marx and Engels challenge their readers, the “workers of the world” to achieve and they demand the following:

  • Central banking system
  • Government controlled education
  • Government controlled labor
  • Government ownership of transportation and communication vehicles
  • Government ownership of agricultural means and factories
  • Total abolition of private property
  • Property rights confiscation
  • Heavy income tax on everyone
  • Elimination of rights of inheritance
  • Regional planning

Is this the end of the progressive movement? To achieve these goals all for the betterment of society as Hillary Clinton put it? What does all this government control mean? It means enforcement, fines, penalties, consequences for not obeying the rule of law of the land. This is nothing more than enslavement to a faceless bureaucrat or soulless central government who bribes the masses with tidbits of the comfort.

To the progressive, the socialist, the progress seems to never end. All socialist (i.e. communist) regimes have come through violent revolutions which, in the last hundred years have killed an unknown number of people the world over. To some of these regimes, they have not achieved their “Worker’s Paradise” that Marx had attempted to achieve so to them the revolution, the progress, is never over. They must constantly work to achieve a perfect utopia for their citizens, their workers. In reality it is nothing more than the crush of a rich, power elite who created an aristocratic class to rule a nation, by any other name… its slavery. Socialism/Progressivism kills the human soul it kills initiative and denies man’s passion for life. Why? Because there cannot be a utopia, there can not be a fairness if one is happy. TheSophist wrote a great RedState blog about it earlier this year and how socialism has begun to fail in Sweden. Captain’s Quarters compared Germany’s GDP and how it relates to Arkansas’ and how the Germans, despite being known for their engineering prowess and industrial might (and home of Karl Marx) are neck and neck with the state known best for pretty wooded mountains and Bill Clinton.

Now President Obama has come along. He talks of progress. The leftists all talk of how we’ve progressed to having a black President and how Obama is going to move America into a new era… So far this era has looked a lot like those 10 Principles of Communism previously listed.

So take this blog with you. Its got some minor points of argument to make with your leftist friends and those who went along to get along in 2008 by voting for Obama. For the love of this sacred Republic don’t let them make that mistake again. Ask the progressives who are doing this what they want to progress towards. When they respond with all those “feel good” initiatives and ideals from “The Progressive” you should respond simply by saying, “Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Laos, Vietnam, Mexico, Cuba, Venezeula, a good 1/2 of Africa, Eastern Europe…” they are all socialist nations that have come and gone or are around and are failing. But they all have one single thing in common: progress has come at the expense of freedom and the liberty to enjoy life as free human beings.

So… again, progressives, what are you progressing towards?

COMMENTS

  • APA Guy

    This is why they crow for a “living wage” for every unskilled, uneducated worker across the nation. It’s also why they despise merit-based hiring, promotion, and compensation structures.

    Democrats want everyone to be treated the same, regardless of productivity and motivation. It’s why they love unions and hate CEOs. Their end-game is a classical communist society where EVERYONE shares ALL land, resources, factors of production, and wealth.

    • ultraconservative

      After all…some of them are more equal than others. Undoubtedly the ruling class progressives will be so much more equal than us “little people”. That is, if we aren’t all re-educated or put to death.

    • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

      Candidate and 18 election workers kidnapped on eve of election.

      “Conflict doesn’t excuse massive fraud and it doesn’t excuse not being able to hold the election in every district and they should do everything they can to ensure they can do that.”

      “I heard that thousands of fake voting cards have been discovered. This means there will be fraud and good people will not be elected.”

      Wait……. You thought……… No, not in America…….. Afghanistan.

      —————–

      The Taliban kidnapped an Afghan parliamentary candidate on Friday and were blamed for snatching another 18 election workers, as President Hamid Karzai warned of “irregularities” in the weekend poll.

      The Taliban claimed responsibility for abducting Abdul Rahman Hayat, a candidate from eastern Lagman province, and an electoral official also blamed the other kidnappings on the Taliban, who have already killed three candidates.

      “We have kidnapped Hayatullah Hayat,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a message to an AFP reporter.

      ==============

      Replace “Taliban” with “Center For American Progress” and/or “Organizing For America”………. Replace “Zabihullah Mujahid’ with “Robert Gibbs”……… Replace “Hayatullah Hayat” with “Christine O’Donnell”…………. Replace “AFP” with “NY Times”………….. Other than actually physically grabbing people, the occasional beheading and normal visible murder rate, what’s the difference ?

      Oh right……… I keep forgetting………. “It can’t happen here.”

      • Kudzu

        I don’t know why but the name Hayatullah sounds familiar. I pray to God that he’s not the same name I’m thinking of.

        Beyond that, we know that the progressives will do what is necessary to achieve their goals of a perfect “worker’s paradise”, remember Marx’ call for a violent revolution. There are parallels that can be made between groups such as ACORN and the non-violent wings of insurgent and terrorist groups we see world wide. The progressive/communist groups often act in cohesion with their non-violent/assistance wings in order to provide a carrot and stick approach. Hamas and all the other Palestinian, Iranian backed terrorist groups do the same thing. Its astonishing how apparent they are and people still support them… not really.

        The uneducated will flock towards the bumper sticker progressives and the payouts they get from those groups. When they see that these people want government power they realize that the payouts/handouts/entitlements that come from the group could be coming from the government… they jump at it.

  • sosecsurplus

    Any more than Bush was a conservative. They are both slightly different shades of neo-con.

    Progressives and conservatives may have many ideals in common, one of which is an aversion to wars of convenience which do not actually defend our borders. Why in the hell do we avoid putting a million troops on our porous border, and instead ship them across the world? Certainly not to defend ourselves. That would make too much sense.

    Progressives are not ‘progressing’ towards anything, that is not a clever way of looking at it. It is instead similar to the environmental movement, in that we fight a losing battle, but one that must be fought. Against government infringing on the people, corporate buyouts of our greedy politicians, and any infringement upon the constitution which is the source of our law. The progressive movement, and the conservative movement, have been co-opted by the politicians to win elections. Don’t believe their words, follow their actions.

  • izoneguy

    Coons took ‘bearded Marxist’ turn

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36726.html

  • Kudzu

    Progressives and conservatives don’t have a lot in common. The ideals that lead to what is the “progressive” movement in 1880s Europe and that of the 1990s in the US are not the same as what lead to William F. Buckley and the rise of a Responsible Republic. While a non-interventionist foreign policy might be a similar goal, the reasons are not the same. Furthermore, no two representative democracies ever engaged in war with one another… progressive/socialist nations have.

    Agreed that Bush and Obama are similar in that their philosophies lead to similar results but Obama is far from conservative while Bush was far from being liberal yet was progressive in his domestic agenda.

  • sosecsurplus

    Bush ran as a conservative, and was proven to be a liar. Obama ran as a progressive, and was proven to be a liar.

    There is so little difference between their actual policies, it’s not worth debating who is better or worse. Words are empty, and Obama’s words will not save him this time around. Though he may be many things, he has not acted in a manner that suggests he is a progressive. Quite the opposite, in fact. Can you imagine if Bush’s chief of staff called conservatives “F****ng retards” ? Or Bush’s press secretary going off on a tangent about the “Professional Right” ? The only thing Obama does with any conviction is attack the people that helped to elect him! He’s a snake.

    If you want to have a conversation about conservative vs. progressive policies, that’s a great conversation, gimme a link and we’ll have at it. Bush v Obama? Nothing to do with progressivism or conservatism, they are the same man in different colors. One was in bed with defense contractors, the other with bankers.

    Were Obama a progressive, we would have had universal healthcare or at least the public option. Obama, catering to the insurance AND pharmaceutical industry (boy this guy can cater), gave all of America to both industries on a silver platter. It’s now the worst of both worlds: A market monopoly forced on us by the government! Would it be to much to ask for either complete government healthcare, or a completely free-market solution? Why do we have the worst available option? Because Obama is not a progressive, he’s a corporate puppet.

    The tea party movement, though I’m not a fan, should be commended for speaking truth to power, and more so for actually winning primaries for the conservative base. I hope progressives will have a comparable movement to help turn the Democratic Corporatist Greed party back into the party for the people.

    And stop bringing up the straw-man of communism, please. The communist party in America is so tiny it’s laughable. There is a vast distinction between the progressive movement, and the failed communist experiment. When you talk about communism, you take away from real issues like the fact that our politicians are a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America with no exceptions, and our two party system consistently gives us a choice between two evils. I know our movements do not come together on many issues, but surely the issue of total government corruption is something we can agree on?

  • Doc Holliday
  • Doc Holliday

    “progressives” want a huge government that hates corporations AKA capitalists. I don’t see much similarity there.

  • aesthete

    Public choice theory

    Rationally ignorant voters

    Research all three, and it will become apparent that unrestrained democratic government is necessarily corporatist. If you want less of big business stepping on the small businessman, you must have less big government stepping on the little man — something that progressives are loath to give up.

  • Tbone

    This guy is another poster child for making skateboarders wear helmets.

  • Kudzu

    a progressive because I smell the disdain for the freedom to associate and perform commerce in your words: “wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America” . Really? Have you noticed who has been controlling whom in the past 3 years?

    And I’m not nor did I make a Bush v Obama comparison. You’ll notice my reference to SCHIP, which was a Bush program.

    Communism, is real my friend. Its as real as you and me and its in the form of its socialists bearers such as Obama and his merry band of Chicago style Trotskites.

    Obama sees the corporations as obstacles in his way to provide what he sees as the only saving grace for America: a fair and equitable system that distributes products, income, and justice down to everyone and the term “justice” is subjective to the progressive.

    You fail to actually see the philosophical differences between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives don’t believe the government is the best option for liberty to ensure its success. Progressives do. I do believe you’re proving the point. Your getting into a strawman argument about how both ideologies are in bed with different industries. Yet you show your disdain for any industry

  • gekster

    it should sink him by then..

  • sosecsurplus

    @Tbone: But the TOS is irrelevant to you, because you have nothing valuable to add to the discussion. But please keep personal attacks to yourself, thanks!

    @aesthete: Not all progressives. You speak of politicians. Surveys have shown that many people that self-label as progressive on social issues also self-label as fiscal conservatives. There are not only 2 types of Americans.

  • Tbone

    Don’t you socialists ever get tired of telling other people what to do and spending other peoples money to make them do it?

  • onerichmonddoc

    So–your argument is based on this: “I found a magazine online (which I never read in real life) called The Progressive. This magazine has a recurrent column called “McCarthyism Watch”. This must refer to the Red Scares, which means that …The Progressive magazine (and, by extension, any and all movements and people who call themselves progressives) must be communists”. This is an absurd line of reasoning, and is lazy–you didn’t even look into your argument further once you determined it supported your preconceived ideas.

    This is not a line of reasoning, so much as an opinion buttressed by enough “research” to make it look as though you thought this through.

    My lazy answer: my MacBook dictionary describes a progressive as “a group, person, or idea favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas” and liberal as “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values…favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms…favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.” So I can define a progressive as one who is willing to challenge the status quo in order to move society in a direction favorable to individual rights and liberty.” Does my definition make any more sense than your argument did? Maybe not, but that’s the point.

    This article is not an attempt to learn about or better understand opposing views. Its simply an effort to couch preconceived ideas within a nest of “reasoning” that makes it seem legitimate.

    If you actually wanted to answer the question, you could have found someone with progressive ideas and ask them what they believe in. Instead, you found online groups’ mission statements and tried to build an argument off of that. This represents the worst form of discussion, because you never intended for their to be an honest appraisal from the beginning.

    If you would like to know what progressives believe, ask. And when they answer, don’t mock or interrupt. Listen.