Posted on 02/13/2021 8:15:28 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
Because it is a meaningless term, able to be sculpted to what ever you want at the moment.
Progressive = socialist-communist-Marxist
End of discussion.
Finally, it would be a masterstroke if those great powers honestly bent on peace would form a League of Peace, not only to keep the peace among themselves, but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others. The supreme difficulty in connection with developing the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of any executive power, of any police power to enforce the decrees of the court.
For progressives, all there is is government. Nothing else matters.
Progressive = socialist. So a nationalist progressive = national socialist. The common contraction is nazi.
Yes, separately, and in their writings the NSDAP also worshiped the government. Nothing was more paramount than that to them. When they said love the country, they also meant you should love your government. That’s how they got away with calling themselves “nationalists”.
They love the nation - it’s government.
Progressive thought brought to you by Woodrow Wilson and other communists
Before “nationalism” was used as a slur against patriotism, it meant quite explicitly, “centralized government.”
Somehow this is lost on leftists who call Trump a fascist.
TR’s “New Nationalism” was about centralizing, or “nationalizing,” government, economy, policing, etc. under the federal, or centralized, governance
And, yes, “nationalism” — in this sense and only in this sense — was picked up by the fascists in Italy, Germany and the U.S. in the 1930s, which was called in the US the “New Deal.”
Fascism = centralized control of the economy, society, and law in partnership with select, centrally-approved big businesses.
Gee, where are we today, again?
If all men are created equal, that is final.
If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final.
If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.
No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.
For the record; the word "democracy" never appears in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.
Additionally; none of the Constitutions of the 50 states contain the word "democracy".
Ah, yes - The RODINA.
Motherland
Works a lot of places
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0xGimfwDL4
Dunno what the ChiComs use locally, but I’m sure we’ll hear about it before long
It is well understood, which is why this article takes the position that it is not understood.
The progressive agenda advocates that the government must have more power than the framers of our Constitution allowed. The reason the Framers limited the government’s powers is they knew that once man is given power he will tend to abuse that power over time. The progressive movement asserts that it is okay to give government more power over people’s lives because today’s politicians are more honest than they were when the Framers saw merit in limiting the powers of Congress.
Madison in Federalist No. 45: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
Another correct way to view Article 1, Section 8, is to compare it to configuring a packet filter - General rules - least privilege, All that is not expressly permitted is prohibited.
Great question; do you believe today’s candidates are more honest than when the framers constituted America?
This is exactly right, your first and second lines.
Essentially, Trump did violence to Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy and we’re better off because of it.
Today's Progressives reject him as too far right.
That's progressivism.
Back in the middle of the Eisenhower Administration, a HS teacher gave a homework assignment: “Do we have to do what society says?”That night I agonized over the question and came up with the conclusion that the answer was “No,” on the basis of freedom.
The next class I verbally gave that answer, and the teacher replied, “We like to say ‘society’ when we mean government.” I instantly recognized that as ProgressiveThink. But I was, unfortunately or perhaps fortunately for my grade, struck dumb for a way to express my disagreement. The actual answer is, IMHO, given by Thomas Paine in the first two paragraphs of Common Sense:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one . . .the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.
The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest . . . — Thomas Paine,Common Sense (1776)
Uh, no.
na·tion·al·ism /ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/ noun
1. identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations: "their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union"
Statism wasn't seen as that big a threat to Roosevelt, since he hadn't experience of how powerful governments could get. The dangers of too-intrusive, too powerful governments top our history syllabus in a way that they didn't at the Harvard of TR's day. Before the First World War many in his generation admired the efficient bureaucracy of the Kaiser's Germany and the docility of the population. They didn't see the dangers in that, or in imperialism or racism.
Anyway Roosevelt was the guy who said, in a quote that was repeated a lot in our own century:
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
I'm not saying you're wrong, but TR's starting point and the challenges he thought he faced were different from ours.
This is one of my favorite passages of all time. Not just in its simplicity but also with its philosophical depth. I don’t remember when it was (as you do) that I realized that “society” is not a synonym for government in any way, but once I was able to visualize it I couldn’t and didn’t want to go back.
I think the confusion between government and society has been an important ingredient to all of the biggest government atrocities not just within the relative grasp of our time, (I know this last part isn’t possible) but I would not be surprised if we had a time machine and could go back and ask the world’s biggest tyrants - Khan - Pharoah - Caesar - King George III; they would all agree. Government is society. I bet they would all agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.