Don't Call Them Progressives

The Lefties are at it again. Having completely destroyed that fine word, “liberal,” along with the enlightened 18th century sensibilities that went with it, they have now moved on like locusts through the lexicon, and want to be called “progressives.” An astonishing number of conservative commentators are going along with it.

It is always easy to point out the flaws in liberal ideology so big you could drive a truck through them. But recent events keenly expose the utter absurdity of referring to liberals as “progressives.” The policies they advance, the behavior they display in support of them, and their inevitable consequences are taking this country backward, not forward, as these same policies have every time they have reared their ugly heads throughout human history. If liberals want a new moniker, they should be called regressives.

Bubbling up within last week’s media paean to Teddy Kennedy was a running theme of the regressive: if your death advances the party line, you’re expendable. Teddy Kennedy left poor Mary Jo Kopechne to drown in his sinking car 40 years ago. But she is collateral damage; just “a controversial footnote in a dynasty’’; a necessary casualty of the larger worldwide struggle for the proletariat. Huffington Post blogger Melissa Lafsky even went so far as to surmise that Kopechne might have thought her death was “worth it” for Ted Kennedy’s “life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.”

Well, gee, given the 100 million other people who died in the fruitless pursuit of contemporary collectivist dystopias, what’s one more? I’d call this Stalinesque, but even Stalin was more tempered. He reportedly said, “One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” Apparently, today’s regressive does not even view the single death as a tragedy, at least if it is a stepping stone to the greater good.

Regressives also showed their true colors two weeks ago when Whole Foods CEO John Mackey offered a libertarian free market alternative to Obamacare. Did they defend his right to free speech? No. They howled “betrayal,” screamed obscenities on YouTube, and called for nationwide boycotts of the stores. That is their right, but demanding ideological lockstep is not. In one characteristically asinine remark, a (former) patron said, "I think a CEO should take care that if he speaks about politics, that [sic] his beliefs reflect at least the majority of his clients." (CEOs now join beauty pageant contestants on that score.) Good luck with that one.

Critics may raise the spectre of right-wing hostility at August townhalls. Ah, but there is a difference. Townhall protesters are angry about the money that is taken from them by force; no one threatens Whole Foods customers with jail time if they don’t shop there.

For all of the regressives’ self-righteous posturing, John Mackey is their moral superior many times over. Did he ask them to take a loyalty oath or administer a litmus test of ideological purity before he let these people in the door to shop? No. They wanted fresh, wholesome, organically grown and healthfully produced foods. John Mackey obtained and sold these to them, and all he ever asked in return was the voluntary exchange of their money for his goods. So we see the regressives’ deceit exposed again. It isn't really about businesses producing healthful products, or supporting sustainable agriculture. It isn't about free exchange. It isn't even about "corporate social responsibility." It is, think like us, or we will destroy you.

But nothing demonstrates the regressive nature of liberals’ beliefs like their participation in and encouragement of the cult of Obama. Surrounded by temple columns, billowing clouds, or Photoshopped halos, Obama is hailed as a Caesar, a god among us; his every pronouncement heralds a better tomorrow for all; opposition is heresy, and opponents are insulted, smeared, vilified, and denigrated in the Pravda press.

What is “progressive” about America is its grounding in individual liberty and human freedom. We hear Obama talk about many things, but liberty and freedom are rarely among them. He has no particular love for the American Constitution, which he views as “flawed.” He displays an astonishing and inexcusable ignorance of the Founding Fathers’ knowledge of history and understanding of human nature, and their corresponding reasons for drafting the Constitution the way they did. He resents the prosperity produced by individual initiative and free exchange, seeing it rather as the ill-gotten gains of those who have stolen from others in a racist system. These are disturbing and destructive ideas in the leader of the freest, most prosperous country in the world.

He also seems to be a conflicted man who has personally profited from living by the values his white grandparents instilled in him (love, hard work, academic achievement, financial autonomy, and individual personal responsibility), while resisting their applicability to those whose lives he hopes to improve. If Obama cannot embrace the African father who abandoned him, at least he can embrace the man’s failed collectivist philosophies. And he does it all amidst the clamor and tumult of adoring throngs, who hear precisely what he wants them to hear.

This is not brilliance. It is political megalomania fueled by ideological schizophrenia.

Despite Obama’s obvious philosophical inconsistencies (and his apparent inability to speak without a teleprompter), the media and other chattering regressives still try to maintain the tired trope that Obama is supremely, uniquely gifted. This is idiocy, intended for the masses that the media view as idiots. Praising Obama for his political brilliance is like complimenting the naked emperor for his sartorial style: it’s not skill if you decide to be deceived.

So let’s recap: incensed mobs demanding collective adherence to failed ideologies; the abolition of personal freedom; millions of impoverished individuals dependent upon a handful of self-appointed elites; the confiscation of more and more individual wealth to satisfy the appetite of an insatiable and bankrupt government; the elevation of deeply flawed human leaders to the status of gods, and the willingness to sacrifice other human beings to appease them. You can call these behaviors many things, but “progressive” they are not; one need know only a little history to see the frequency with which they occur.

That is not to say that there is nothing “progressive” about liberals’ policies: our public schools are progressively worse, and our population is progressively more ignorant. Our families are progressively more shattered, and more and more of our children are fatherless and illegitimate. Our citizens are progressively more dependent upon a government which is progressively more fiscally irresponsible, unaccountable, and profligate.

Most of what liberals espouse has not only not brought progress, it is sending us hurtling back into Neanderthal territory (with apologies to Neanderthals). Regressives have already disproven their belief in free speech, tolerance, individual liberties and personal responsibility. They had better take care – at this rate they will disprove the theory of evolution as well.

The progressive movement has been around for well over a hundred years.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1061.html

The Progressive Movement

Ideas and Movements, 19th century
The Progressive Movement was an effort to cure many of the ills of American society that had developed during the great spurt of industrial growth in the last quarter of the 19th century. The frontier had been tamed, great cities and businesses developed, and an overseas empire established, but not all citizens shared in the new wealth, prestige, and optimism.

Efforts to improve society were not new to the United States in the late 1800s. A major push for change, the First Reform Era, occurred in the years before the Civil War and included efforts of social activists to reform working conditions, and humanize the treatment of mentally ill people and prisoners.

Others removed themselves from society and attempted to establish utopian communities in which reforms were limited to their participants. The focal point of the early reform period was abolitionism, the drive to remove what in the eyes of many was the great moral wrong of slavery.

The second reform era began during Reconstruction and lasted until the American entry into World War I. The struggle for women’s rights and the temperance movement were the initial issues addressed. A farm movement also emerged to compensate for the declining importance of rural areas in an increasingly urbanized America.

As part of the second reform period, Progressivism was rooted in the belief, certainly not shared by all, that man was capable of improving the lot of all within society. As such, it was a rejection of Social Darwinism, the position taken by many of the rich and powerful figures of the day.

Progressivism was also imbued with strong political overtones and rejected the church as the driving force for change. Specific goals included:

The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines;

the effort to include more people more directly in the political process;

the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.

The success of Progressivism owed much to publicity generated by the muckrakers, writers who detailed the horrors of poverty, urban slums, dangerous factory conditions, and child labor, among a host of other ills.

The successes were many, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) and the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Progressives never spoke with one mind and differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some favored an activist approach to trust-busting, others preferred a regulatory approach.

A vocal minority supported socialism with government ownership of the means of production. Other Progressive reforms followed in the form of a conservation movement, railroad legislation, and food and drug laws.

The Progressive spirit also was evident in new amendments added to the Constitution, which provided for a new means to elect senators, protect society through prohibition and extend suffrage to women.

Urban problems were addressed by professional social workers who operated settlement houses as a means to protect and improve the prospects of the poor. However, efforts to place limitations on child labor were routinely thwarted by the courts. The needs of blacks and Native Americans were poorly served or served not at all — a major shortcoming of the Progressive Movement.

Progressive reforms were carried out not only on the national level, but in the states and municipalities of the country as well. Prominent governors devoted to change included Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin and Hiram Johnson of California.

Such reforms as the direct primary, secret ballot, and the initiative, referendum and recall were effected. Local governments were strengthened by the widespread use of trained professionals, particularly with the city manager system replacing the all-too-frequently corrupt mayoral system.

Formal expression was given to progressive ideas in the form of political parties on three major occasions:

The Roosevelt Progressives (Bull Moose Party) of 1912

The La Follette Progressives of the 1920s

The Henry Wallace Progressives of the late 1940s and early 1950s.

They have been vicious anti America left wingers for a long time. World War I drove many of them back into the shadows until they helped FDR get elected.

Regressives is not bad, but these rats are working to implement something that has well known aspects of political systems we're already somewhat familiar with, those are extreme Fascism and Communism. However, they are looking to implement something with the worst of both- It could be called "Global Fascism", or "non-Egalitarian Communism"

The goal of the current "Progressives" that are in power is one-world government, and this is one part of their strategy to achieve it. They are nearly Fascists in the government they espouse.

- - - -

People are now realizing just what the word "Progressive" means. The leftists needed a new name in America when the voters permanently soured on the direction "liberals" were pulling the country.

These super-liberals who call themselves "PROGRESSIVE" espouse a new form of government that is actually a synthesis of two previously existing government forms: Communism and Fascism.

When many use the word “fascist” they are simply using it as a pejorative. When people were calling Bush “fascist”, that was simply a smear. When I challenged them to define fascist, and they were unable to respond, I educated them. That reduced them to calling him monkey instead. Dear Leader has been RULING as a fascist (most recently demonstrated by his town hall antics) as I will demonstrate.

However, when using "Fascist" here, I am NOT using it as a pejorative. It's an attempt to describe as accurately as possible the system of government they espouse and are trying to bring about. I ran into a problem, though, when researching the question.

I excerpt part of http://open-encyclopedia.com/Fascism as a base for the analysis.

The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that

exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
espouses nationalism and sometimes racism or ethnic nationalism. ,

... The purpose of the government under fascism proper was to value itself as the highest priority to its culture in just being the state in itself, the larger scope of which, the better...

... The Nazi movement spoke of class-based society as the enemy, and wanted to unify the racial element above established classes. The Fascist movement, on the other hand, sought to preserve the class system and uphold it as the foundation of established and desirable culture...

...Fascism rejects the central tenets of Marxism, which are class struggle, and the need to replace capitalism with a society run by the working class in which the workers own the means of production. ...

[Fascism includes] capitalism ... This was a new capitalist system, however, one in which the state seized control of the organization of vital industries.

Look at the agenda the Progressives have undertaken since gaining control of Congress in 2006, and indeed before that time. Control of business, reduction of personal liberty, using propaganda and censorship to suppress opposition, social regimentation, higher taxes which again reduces personal liberty, expanding national government everywhere, even severe regimentation passing laws about light bulbs and on and on. Much of their agenda and methodology is VERY fascist.

However, bullet points 1 & 4 give us a problem whether we use nationalism or racism. Progressives certainly never goad people into a frenzy by extolling the virtues of the United States so are not nationalists in the typical sense of the word. They don’t use racism that way, either- they merely use it as a pejorative. Thus, we are not quite accurate in equating Progressivism with Fascism.

A digression concerning Nazi (National Socialist) vs. Fascist: Nazi is a subset of Fascist, but that subset does not include any more Progressive traits than Fascist.

What actually is needed to describe Progressives is Fascism that is NOT nationalist, at least nationalism in the sense of promotion of their nation as superior.

They are not Socialist (Marxist), either. When have you EVER heard a Progressive politician or any of the Democrats extol the virtues of having a classless society? Certainly they don't desire that for themselves or their rich donors! They are definitely in favor of a classes, with themselves in the highest class.

This brings up the following, from the same main source: http://open-encyclopedia.com/Communism

In terms of socio-economic systems, communism and socialism are two different things. For example, socialism involves the existence of a state, while communism does not...[and] abolishes private ownership altogether.

I’ve heard it argued that Communism has never been implemented, as a result. Apologies to Marx and Engels, but it is the supporters of communism who make that argument. Communism as it is now defined requires that there be NO “state”.

This helps us gain some ground. Communism shares this major feature of "no state" with Progressivism! So, where are we now?

These super-liberals, including Dear Leader and those who are currently running congress, have been pushing CapNTax, ObamaCare, apologies for the US, making nice with sworn enemies, international law, eliminating military superiority, etc.. In nearly EVERY area of our culture or economy that they have been pushing most fervently, they push for a leveling of the US with other nations, and attempt to remove national differences and boundaries. These fit with Communism, except that they have NO DESIRE to eliminate "classes" of people, or that the state OWN business- they only wish to CONTROL business as in Fascism (they have stated that they don't want to run the banks or auto companies) and they don't mind that their favored elites are billionaires, just as in fascism. Like fascism, they desire to control individual thought and behavior and forcibly suppress dissent.

Either we stipulate that the “whole world” is the “nation” for Dear Leader et al, to accurately describe their government philosophy, and state they are "ONE-WORLD FASCISTS", or we need a new word to describe their desired governmental system.

A word that would accurately synthesize their thinking is:

CommuFascist

The important point, though, is that whether this philosophy is labeled CommuFascist, or “Progressive” or One-World Fascists, analysis reveals that Dear Leader, Pelosi, and these super-liberals are espousing a MORE EXTREME FORM of Fascism and VERY extreme form of liberalism. Dear Leader is a “one-world” Mussolini.

Far from being pejorative, analysis reveals I was being generous when I was describing them as Fascist, not pejorative. I might be calling them something more extreme instead, “Progressive” or equivalently, CommuFascist.

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.