How Today’s Liberals Betray Yesterday’s

The meanings of words change over time. “Gentleman” once meant a person privy to the person of the king; eventually, it meant a man of wealth and station; now, it adorns the entrance to a toilet intended for males. This devolution has done no noticeable harm. However, “liberal” — Thomas Jefferson was one — has decayed in similar fashion. Ditto progressive — Theodore Roosevelt [a Republican and not to be confused with his distant cousin FDR, a Democrat] was a progressive, and were he alive today would probably be outraged at the current usage. These are, unfortunately, common devolutions. It is offensive to understanding and to common decency to usurp words and twist them beyond recognition — apparently, to benefit without the substance from the pleasing coloration associated with what they once meant. It is little better to apply once-honorable labels to such people. And worse, perhaps, the sloppy use of such words prevents the communication of even clear thoughts, facilitating misleading harangues.

President Obama is a neo-liberal neo-progressive, neither a liberal nor a progressive as the terms were used back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries — and as they should be used now. Many of President Obama’s mentors, including William Ayers, were and remain radicals who would have run guillotines quite well at the time of the French Revolution. President Obama has his own vision of the destiny of the United States, a twisted and dangerous vision. What would have been TR’s response to Islamic terrorists and jihad? I have a pretty good idea. President Obama has demonstrated his. He apologizes to our enemies at every opportunity and seeks to minimize not only the good she has done but her future potential as well. His words can — and already have to some extent — become self-fulfilling. He seems to think that weakness is better than strength and that submission to evil is better than the pursuit of good.

The United States is divided — almost half slave and half free, half desiring slavery and half desiring freedom. The question is whether the desires to be slaves are greater than the desires to be free. President Obama’s neo-liberal, neo-progressive base apparently feels that there may be cause for joy rather than for concern. Papa ~~Doc~~ Obama and his wise, beneficent czars will care for us all if only we will just shut our yaps and go along. Resistance is useless and besides, who are we to question their superior wisdom and kindness? They give us — out of the kindness of their overflowing and empathetic hearts — all the freedoms we need and can properly use — sometimes too much. Ungrateful Uncle Toms and other racists spitefully reject what they are given and want something else. They insist that their obstreperous and intemperate voices not only be heard but also have an actual impact.

He as is progressive as George Bernard Shaw or Magarite Sanger.....

And progressive still means the SAME thing...

Collectivism and death by decree of the “unfit’.

The progressives loved facism.....still do...

——half desiring slavery and half desiring freedom——

The point is well made but the numbers need adjusting.

I would argue 40/40% with 20% not really knowing what they want.

It is the unknowing 20% that gave us Obama/Reid/Pelosi

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.