Posted by
KittyMac on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:36:57 PM
Political labels and their defining characteristics necessarily evolve with the passage of time. Modern conservatism and libertarianism were actually known as liberalism, once upon a time. However, even today these terms are not easily defined. For example, there are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, with many people fitting into only one category. Further, some may agree with socially conservative values in their personal lives, but don't believe that government power should be leveraged in order to impose those values on others.
Today, we have a seemingly new term gaining in popularity on the American left - Progressivism. It is anything but new, however. The term dates back to the early twentieth century, and characterized presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. As more common labels have taken on new meanings in recent years, progressivism has remained true to its original ideology, in most respects. The ideals of progressivism are generally well-intentioned, basically advocating for reform in the name of the "common good." However, if there is anything to be learned from the mistakes of the twentieth century throughout the world, it's that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The early twentieth century progressive agenda was mostly promoted by Christian do-gooders, women especially, who sought to impose their own morals on society at large. One of the defining moments of the early Progressive Era was Prohibition. Alcoholism was rampant across the country, especially among men, following the Civil War. When enough women got tired of the good-for-nothing drunks they were married to, they joined forces and lobbied for government intervention. Politicians, never at a loss for ways to line their pockets with the unrighteous mammon, recognized a prime opportunity when they saw it.
While modern progressives have abandoned such religiously influenced policies, alcohol now having been displaced by more fashionable foes such as banks, insurance and oil companies, their idealogical cornerstone has never gone out of style - Most people will not make the right choices for themselves or the good of society. Therefore, the power of government should be used by those more capable of making such decisions.
Ironically enough, one of the in-vogue progressive/liberal traits these days is "tolerance." Oh yes, it's all the rage. Although modern rank-and-file progressives, and leftists in general, fancy themselves as "tolerant," the most outspoken among them are in fact political teetotalers. Basically, their "tolerance" only extends to those who have a vested interest in promoting their agenda, and they want everyone else to shut-up so they can get on with making the world a "better" place. As President Obama put it to a friendly audience earlier this year, “But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking. Am I wrong Virginia?” Wow. Tolerant and humble.
The face of modern progressivism is George Soros, and his arsenal of ideas and organizations is The Center for American Progress (CAP). I am going to outline the basic principles of progressivism, as described by CAP, and present the hidden facts behind the rhetoric.
First off, CAP defines a progressive as "someone who is idealistic enough to believe that things can be better and practical enough to get it done." Now, isn't that special? Notice they don't say "practical enough to think it can be done." How can one honestly claim to be practical when what they are championing is at best, theory, and at worst, a system that has led to the deaths of at least 100 million people in just the last century? The founders of our country were smart enough not to be seduced my romantic idealism. We should never forget the reason they were successful in spite of all the odds against them... they were realists.
Yet another question one must ask is, what exactly constitutes "better?" Well, for the early progressives that meant, in part, a society free from the evils of alcohol. Although I wouldn't say they were practically, or impractically, successful in "getting" that "done." In the end, it really makes no difference what you or I believe might be "better," because CAP's patronizing definition of progressive is not intended to relay any sort of useful or legitimate information. It's simply a cheap marketing gimmick designed to manipulate the ignorant masses and encourage support for their totalitarian blueprint.
Progressive Principle 1: Creating progressive growth that is robust, broad-based, and restores economic opportunity to all Americans.
To begin with, why is it necessary to "restore economic opportunity to all Americans?" It's not necessary, because all Americans already have economic opportunity. Opportunity doesn't equate with success, and that's the problem in the progressive mind. One can be given all the opportunity in the world, but without a combination of desire, talent, effort, and determination, success is not guaranteed. Even then, many have failed countless times before finally succeeding.
If what they mean by "economic opportunity" is that there is one good-paying job for every citizen, then we have a whole 'nother set of problems, as they say back in Kentucky. Who will be providing these jobs, and what will be their incentive for doing so? Is it one job for every citizen? Or every citizen that wants a job? Or every citizen that needs a job? Problems, problems...
Assuming that it would be possible to make one job available for every citizen, there is no guarantee that they will all need one, or want one, much less be capable of holding one down. If we go another route and provide one job for all who are in need of one, there is still the issue of whether they will want or be able to keep it. If we do not allow anyone to be fired, then we come full circle in our question as to who will be employing these people... is it private industry?... the government?... or are we clearly talking about fascistic control?
While I'm not sure that even CAP has an answer to all of the above questions, their policy initiatives indicate that their intention is to use government regulation to "create growth and opportunity." By centralizing control of the economy, they will achieve their basic progressive objective: putting decision making power into the hands of those "most capable" of making the best decisions for the greater good. Okay. We've already seen what happens when the government undertakes such grandiose tasks. One need look no further than the various boondoggle projects and Blue Eagle compliance requirements of the New Deal. What was intended to spur growth and opportunity during the Great Depression led to even harder economic times.
Progressive Principle 2: Restoring America's global leadership to make America secure and build a better world.
This objective is described in a CAP article titled, "A National Strategy for Global Development: Protecting America and Our World Through Sustainable Security." After reading through the article, which can be easily accessed on CAP's website, it is clear that this idea is nothing more than a shrouded attempt at taking economic centralization beyond our borders. Even before the smoke can clear on their magical happyland here at home, they already have the audacity to think that they can guide and enforce economic development in the rest of the world.
The underlying idea behind this is that America's security is at risk because we have exploited other countries to our own benefit. Thus, they have a reason for hating us, and their acts of terrorism are at least in part justified. The problem is that the predominant terrorists are not mainly motivated by retaliating against oppression. Governments that finance and harbor terrorists have no intentions of promoting or creating the sort of utopia that progressives are peddling. The one thing they do have in common, however, is a desire for control.
I guess progressives think that they can team up with dictators around the world, make some concessions in their favor, and then beat them at their own game? Your guess is as good as mine. For example, we have President Obama bumping fists with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, accepting a book titled, The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent, by Eduardo Galeano, and we hear not a peep since. The author's most notable quote, "People were in prison so that prices could be free," is ironic considering the Marxist/Communist ideology of the book. What are we to assume is President Obama's opinion of such material since he has yet to comment?
We also have leaders like California Congresswoman Diane Watson making statements like this: "And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met... And, you know, the Cuban revolution that kicked out the wealthy, Che Guevera did that." Need I say more?
...to be continued.