Thursday, September 23, 2010

Defending Progressivism

A nice reexamination..

Dissent Magazine - Online Features - Defending Progressivism -

In other words, for the umpteenth time in the last two decades, the American Left doesn’t know what it stands for. As has become customary, progressives are waiting for their more organized opponents to define the debate, its terms, and their role in it. They are routinely on the defensive in public debate, even when the facts overwhelmingly support their positions.

10 comments:

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Pretty weak.

The entire article is an articulation of what Progressives are not and name calling of critics--the precise thing denounced earlier in the article.

If this is a definition of "progressivism", it truly is a bankrupt world view.

sofa said...

Stalin was a 'progressive'.
Pol Pot, Mugabe, Castro, Che, Chavez, Mengistu, Mao.

Progressive's arguments boil down to excuses for why they need to take liberty and property from people at gun point.


Silly progressives- Liberty remains the only 'system' that creates massive prosperity.

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Mpeterson said...

Stalin was "progressive"?

Are you using a Russian dictionary?

James Dionne said...

Just look what "Progressiveness" has done to diversity in America's cities:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/sets/72157624812674967/detail/

Mpeterson said...

James, that doesn't make any sense. Republican votes to send jobs overseas and shift the tax burden to working people resulted in essentially all of those illustrations and, these days at any rate, I wouldn't characterize Republicans as progressives.

sofa said...

Dems and GOP = same thing. Big Government telling every business and every individual what they can and cannot do = "Progressive".

America fights tyrants. Buckle up.

Mpeterson said...

Progressive means government stepping in as referee when corporations violate the rules of a free market, duh.

You call it interference. Working people call it fairness.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

"fairness" as defined by you?

So its "fair" to take from someone who works 80 hours per week to give it to someone who decided to have 3 kids out of wedlock, with 3 different fathers, who has not held a steady job in 15 years?

Is this how progressives define "fair"?

That's the question I find interesting that you sweep under the progreessive handbook.

sofa said...

We constituted a limited government of a few enumerated powers. The government now steals property and thinks they can tell everyone what they can and cannot do. It's a long train of abuses, worse than in 1775.

The communist dialectic has workers depending on government, a top down relationship with 'Papa' who gets to decide winners and losers (usually based on kickbacks).

In America, we limited our fed.gov to specific enumerated powers. The government does NOT get to decide winners and losers. And it does not get to take property and grow itself into a police state. There have been recent steps against the Constitution, but the people have seen communism for what it is and will not let it stand. Buckle up.


Sic Semper Tyrannis.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."
- Frederic Bastiat

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and our interests."
- Patrick Henry

Grant said...

Since we're throwing all rhetorical caution to the wind, I'll nominate this for the first annual Leni Riefenstahl Cheddarhead Film Fest.

Goodness gracious.