What Kind of Person Calls Himself 'Progressive'?

American Thinker ^ | September 14, 2007 | James Lewis

[neverdem]

We all want progress. We may disagree whether gay marriage or drug legalization constitutes progress or not. But we all want better things for the world -- better food, better health and well-being, scientific and technical advances, wiser political systems, more peace and freedom,  more happy children, more humane treatment of animals, more tolerance, more prosperity for the world, you name it. That's called being a decent person.

So what kind of person has to label himself "Progressive?" Obviously somebody who believes he (or she) understands real progress better than the rest of us. Because if you are a Progressive it implies that everybody else, let's face it, is a Regressive, or maybe just a Stagnant. It's a smirky, self-flattering way of saying you're a lot better than the rest.

So what kind of ego needs do you have to have to call yourself that? And what do you believe about others? In fact, Progressives must believe that other people are worse than they are; that  only they can Save the Planet, or create Peace on Earth, or Solve Inequality, or whatever sin bedevils mankind.

Like the preacher who is focused on nothing but sin, Progressives must emphasize the alleged flaws of other people. They need to pinpoint those flaws, to feel important. Because Progressives make it clear that the real obstacle to Progress is Other People. In fact, if you really ask a "Progressive" what other people are like, you're likely to hear that much of humanity is either ignorant or evil.

The word Progressive first became popular in the late 19th century, but has now been adopted as a popular synonym for "socialism."   Americans tend not to like socialism, associating it with the Soviet Union and other bad characters. But "Progressivism" sounds fine. So it is a euphemism for something people fear; a cover-up label.

The odd thing, of course, is that real progress in the world  is almost never achieved by self-proclaimed "Progressives." They generally make things worse rather than better. (See all the mad utopian schemers from Bin Laden to Stalin and Ahmadi-Nejad.) As a group, they are strikingly ill-equipped to even understand the world in any depth. Rather, it's farmers, business people, engineers, teachers, laborers, scientists, soldiers, cops, doctors, writers, inventors, all of whom create real progress --- or who keep the world from sliding back into barbarism.

All the radicals in the world together have not created as much economic progress as the inventor of Diet Coke or the Post-It Note. I'm sorry, but it's plainly true. So the "Progressive" ego trip is really only  an ego trip.

The same thing goes for "post-modernism," and so many other labels on the Left. If you're a "post-modernist," you plainly imply that everybody else is past it: dead and gone. The Progressive part of the world has moved beyond modernism, or whatever ism is to be surpassed. Well, why would you believe something as obviously false as that? Basically, to flatter yourself and your fellow deludees.

The "in" thing is to be "post." Various Left movements love to call themselves "post-industrial," "post-structural," post this, post that. It all means, "you're a dead White male, and your time is past and buried."

So what kind of person needs to believe that? What kind of shriveled self-respect makes you want to feel that nobody is as Progressive and "post" as you are? What school curriculum has taught you to have such contempt for others?

Or take "anti-racism." If you define yourself as an "anti-racist," it means that a lot of others must be a racists, right? But how do you know that? Not many people go around wearing Kluxer sheets. You have to want to believe it, or to be more ready than the rest of us to point your finger at suspects. You're a racist! You're a homophobe! Ultimately, in many cases, being a white middle aged male is enough to make one suspect. Since the Archie Bunker series All in the Family, Hollywood and television have adopted a visual code for evil (white, fat, middle-aged, male) and good (non-white, slim, young, and/or  female). Watch CSI and you'll see the code working.  And with that little piece of "Progress," the Left has created its own racism, judging people purely by their appearance. The new racism is just as invidious as the old kind, and it is much more pervasive, being propagated by high-tech media.

It's all very childish, with very pernicious effects. It cultivates an accusatory, suspicious sense of victimhood and rage at the rest of humanity. And being based on mere appearances, it is incredibly superficial.

All of Political Correctness, the dominant cultural theme of the Left, depends upon such allegations and accusations. It is incredibly shallow and superficial - but it is also very effective as a power-play. If you can put the world at a disadvantage by implicitly accusing them of sin, you can also manipulate and oppress others, conscious of your own moral superiority. Evidence is not required. It is the pervasive McCarthyism of the Left.

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. If they don't talk like haters, I'm happy to believe they're not haters. Most people want the best for humanity, and appealing to their goodness seems kinder than accusing them of evil.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

[chilepepper]

persons who self-label themselves as "progressive" display not superiority, but merely the same narrow-minded arrogance toward every other point of view which they claim to be overcoming...

only the beliefs with *they* happen to hold are deemed to be progress, that's why it is so entertaining to see progressives go at each other on minute differences in the details of their dogma...

the only real common point they seem to coalesce on is that a totalitarian system is necessary to shove the "progress" they are seeking down everyone's throat.

the tyrannical nature of the anti-tobacco laws, the fear of being arrested for saying something that is not "politically correct" and the genocide of Pol-Pot are no accident and shows the natural outcome of all "progressive" thought...

[Beckwith]

Here's 70 of 'em -- and they're all in the U. S. Congress

[MarkL]

Unfortunately there's a concerted effort to "rehabilitate" the history of the Rosenbergs. HBO showed some sort of a show trying to "clean up" their memory. I didn't see it.

Mark

[PGalt]

Rather, it's farmers, business people, engineers, teachers, laborers, scientists, soldiers, cops, doctors, writers, inventors, all of whom create real progress --- or who keep the world from sliding back into barbarism.

Great article and outstanding FReeper comments. Thanks for the ping.

Where do I join up for the collective called "Progressives"? What, how, when, why and where are we progressing? Take me to your leader./sarcasm

[Grampa Dave]

Boundless, you have done a great job in defining the old progressive movement and the current liberal B$ word smiths, who are afraid to admit what they really are, communist.

“No, it was adopted as a cover by commies back in the
1920s, just as reality of the various experiments was
beginning to become a bit too obvious.

“Those who presently call themselves “progressive” are
either ignorant of political history, or know full
well and hope the listener is. Frankly, it’s usually
the former, since yer typical collectivist, having
little use for actual truth, is weak on actual history.”

Our grandparents knew in the 1920’s that progressives were communists who hated America, loved the communism in Russia and wanted our country to be a communist country.

Now the leaders of the American Progressives are often super rich elite left wingers, who are more Fascist than communist. They promise the Communist Eden to their dumb voters and supporters to increase their Fascistwealth and power. They hate capitalism as it is a threat to their inherited wealth.

[TexanToTheCore]

People who are stuck in the 1890s....

[Cincinna]

There is a re-edition with new material of The Rosenberg File 2nd edition by Ronald Radosh and Joyce Milton.

http://www.amazon.com/Rosenberg-File-Second-Ronald-Radosh/dp/0300072058/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0696065-0969637?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189895261&sr=1-1

An excellent read. All new information released after the fall of the USSR proves conclusively that they were guilty of espionage for the Soviets.It also proves that their defenders, even their lawyers at the time, knew they were guilty.

What their apologists are zaying is not that they are innoicent but “So, they did it... so what?”

[xJones]

When I defined the positions of Progressives, she didn’t agree with a single one. BUT SHE STILL LIKED THE NAME, AND THOUGHT OF HERSELF AS ONE.

Words are powerful, and the left knows that better than the rest of us. For instance, whatever you believe on the abortion issue, the name pro-aborts was ditched by the MSM in favor of 'pro-choice', while the anti-aborts became 'foes' which is aa middle English word.

Pro-choice sounds really great, just like progress(ive). We all like to have choices and to progress forward. But those are left wing window-dressing phrases to hide the actual reality.

Semantics, don't you just love 'em:)

[xJones]

When I defined the positions of Progressives, she didn’t agree with a single one. BUT SHE STILL LIKED THE NAME, AND THOUGHT OF HERSELF AS ONE.

Words are powerful, and the left knows that better than the rest of us. For instance, whatever you believe on the abortion issue, the name pro-aborts was ditched by the MSM in favor of 'pro-choice', while the anti-aborts became 'foes' which is aa middle English word.

Pro-choice sounds really great, just like progress(ive). We all like to have choices and to progress forward. But those are left wing window-dressing phrases to hide the actual reality.

Semantics, don't you just love 'em:)

[xJones]

When I defined the positions of Progressives, she didn’t agree with a single one. BUT SHE STILL LIKED THE NAME, AND THOUGHT OF HERSELF AS ONE.

Words are powerful, and the left knows that better than the rest of us. For instance, whatever you believe on the abortion issue, the name pro-aborts was ditched by the MSM in favor of 'pro-choice', while the anti-aborts became 'foes' which is aa middle English word.

Pro-choice sounds really great, just like progress(ive). We all like to have choices and to progress forward. But those are left wing window-dressing phrases to hide the actual reality.

Semantics, don't you just love 'em:)

[xJones]

Pardon my internet posting hiccups. Thank you.

[Coleus]

progressive, democrat, marxist, enviromentalist, communist— it’s all the same to me.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Ain’t that the truth!