He uses it like Beck does. In the historical, Woodrow Wilson way.
I don’t agree with the usage either but it has some historical validity.
SOME historical validity? It’s the very definition of the word.
It is important to recognize the link between European/American Progressives and Communist/Marxist ideologies in understanding the structure of Americas' bureaucratic government and the actions of the current Progressive regime.
If one takes a look at the Progressive movement that supported Henry Wallace for President you find there is little difference between their philosophy of government and the Socialists/Marxists who dominate the Progressive movement today. By the nineteen forties the Progressives had snatched the left wing mantle from the Democrats. They emerged for a time as McGovernites, but generally found a home with Ralph Nader. Now they are in the driver’s seat.
I would say its use is very significant in that when the Progressives of Wilson’s day were all but vanquished, they changed their ideological name to something else like Liberal or managed to infiltrate their way into both parties knowing they would amass power again to bring their bile back to what many call the mainstream.
Some marched off with orders to the left and others marched off with orders to the right. Now we have this horrible goverment elitist group who are essentially all on the same side and play us against each other with their good cop, bad cop routine over and over again.
By calling them what they really are in no way diminishes today’s labels but only augments them as a way for us to readily identify the Progressives among our ideological center who are chipping away at what being a Conservative really is.
Shall we go through the list? Nixon, Ford, McCain and on and on and on. If we are ever going to rid our society of these wolves in sheeps clothing, we had better start calling them wolves or they will remain in our midst as sheep one by one killing off the flock.