• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Progressives are always right...

Karl Marx's communist theory is a progressive theory: humanity is inevitably progressing towards a utopic state of socialism.

This progressive theory was taken up by Vladimir Lenin (among others), who proposed a further progressive improvement on the original theory: that humanity's progress towards the socialist utopia could be artificially accelerated.

Lenin had the opportunity to put this progressive theory into practice on a large scale, and he took it. The result was one of the most epic and horrifying progressive failures in all of human history. Progressives are always right? Then please explain the Soviet Union.

For another look at progressives' capacity to be drastically, murderously wrong, we have only to compare the progressive ideals of fascism in the 1930s with the progressive realities of fascism in practice in the 1940s.

Or, again, the progressive views on eugenics promoted by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

If anything, history has shown that progressive ideals work best when sternly moderated by a healthy skepticism towards new and unproven replacements of the existing order.

Not that conservatives are always right, either.

I think that moderates would be more often right than either of the other two, except that today's idea of "moderate" is picking and choosing different items from the conservative and progressive menus: "I'm a social liberal but a fiscal conservative" is the tripe that passes for "moderate" these days.

True moderation would be a careful, gradual approach to change, that valued the benefits of the existing order as much as it sought out responsible programs of improvement.

Oddly enough, most of the conservatives I know are willing to consider thoughtful change, whereas I have yet to meet a progressive who was willing to tolerate even for an instant the proposition that the existing order might have benefits worth understanding and preserving.
 
Last edited:
As those two forces operate in America, the progressive aggenda is driven by science and justice, the conservative by superstition and self-interest.

The failures of conservative policies help drive people to the progressive answers.

The loss of jobs due to piddle-down ecconomics and the wave of deregulation coating the beaches on the Gulf Coast have given rational people something to think about and it will not be good for the GOP, especially for their more conservative members.
 
Depends on what you define as progressive,and if all "Left Wing" ideas are Progressive.
The Marxist concept of the Dictatorship Of the Proletatriat and total State Control of the economy sure as hell did not work out very well.
 
marplots said:
Yeah, that's the problem with the original post. If the traditional way of doing things is conservative, then legal alcohol consumption was the norm and prohibition was the progressive idea.
Click to expand...

nope. Prohibition was pretty much led by conservative forces, who saw alchohol as part of a sinful nation filled with deceit, fornication, and other abominations. Prohibition was a step backwards, not forwards.

Progressives seek progress....not regression. Hence, Prohibition was an act of Regressive forces, NOT Progressive.
 
I wonder why it matters which side is "right" or "wrong," or who "won." End of the day the "winner" should be the country itself becoming a better place.



inb4 "well conservatives blah blah but progressives blah blah"
 
Cobalt said:
I wonder why it matters which side is "right" or "wrong," or who "won." End of the day the "winner" should be the country itself becoming a better place.



inb4 "well conservatives blah blah but progressives blah blah"
Click to expand...

The other side is always wrong, and the country will be destroyed if 'They' have their way.
 
Are the capital "P" Progressives of the early 20th century real progressives?
 
bynmdsue said:
Are the capital "P" Progressives of the early 20th century real progressives?
Click to expand...

abolitionists were Progressives. Suffragists were Progressives. Unionists were Progressives.

Folks who seek to make the human race progress, in terms of human rights, are Progressive. Folks who want to see the human race regress, are Regressive or Conservative.
 
Brainster said:
I think the dynamic tension between the demands for "progress" and "tradition" turns out to work best. Think of the country as a car; the progressives are the gas pedal. Obviously without an accelerator, the country doesn't move forward. Conservatives are the brakes; without them the country would pretty quickly run into a ditch.
Click to expand...
I think this is a rational analogy to discussing fiscal politics.

I do not think it applies quite as well when we discuss social politics.
For instance, why are 'brakes' needed for gay rights?
 
Thunder said:
abolitionists were Progressives. Suffragists were Progressives. Unionists were Progressives.

Folks who seek to make the human race progress, in terms of human rights, are Progressive. Folks who want to see the human race regress, are Regressive or Conservative.
Click to expand...

Then they own Prohibition.
 
dudalb said:
Depends on what you define as progressive,and if all "Left Wing" ideas are Progressive.
The Marxist concept of the Dictatorship Of the Proletatriat and total State Control of the economy sure as hell did not work out very well.
Click to expand...
This probably belongs in a different thread, but that argument (or one similar in its' thrust but worded differently) appears frequently on this forum and others.

It has started me wondering if it is incongruous to assert that the Soviet Union fell due to an intrinsic flaw in socialist ideology (thus demonstrating the inferiority of that ideology) while also asserting that our "cold war" was a success (perhaps exemplified by the rights' belief that Reagan culminated this "victory" with his "tear down this wall")

More simply put (I hope)-
If Socialism/communism is so horribly inefficient, why did we spend forty years, untold lives, and perhaps trillions of dollars fighting it? And shold'nt we at least consider what impact our own obstructionism may have had on the lives of the ordinary Soviet citizen before we point to his political system as the sole cause of his misery?

Mixed socialism seems to work pretty well in nations that are not being actively thwarted by our own intervention.

Before the responses start begging the question- I do not hate America, blame it first, or fail to "support" our troops. I just think it is unfair to spend decades kicking over someone elses' sandcastles- then claiming that they fell because they were bad sandcastle builders in the first place (maybe they were- but we can't make that argument objectively when we only have a pile of sand to examine)
 
Also,abolitionists were Quakers and Christian evangelicals who would normally be classifed as conservative if not downright stupid and evil.

So are progressives only taking credit for what works? or do the stupid and evil occasionally have good ideas?

This is why definitions are needed.
 
marplots said:
Yeah, that's the problem with the original post. If the traditional way of doing things is conservative, then legal alcohol consumption was the norm and prohibition was the progressive idea. If abstinence is the conservative idea, then Prohibition was conservative. It is why I don't think the question is well defined.

For instance, the newer smoking regulations -- conservative or progressive? After all, the restrictions do mirror Prohibition in the sense they are protecting our citizens from harming themselves.
Click to expand...

Forgive my ignorance of US history, but the impression I had was that Prohibition in the USA got up because of an alliance between progressives and fundies, over the objections of conservatives. Back then, as I understand it, the politically active fundies were allies of the left.
 
bynmdsue said:
Also,abolitionists were Quakers and Christian evangelicals who would normally be classifed as conservative if not downright stupid and evil.

So are progressives only taking credit for what works? or do the stupid and evil occasionally have good ideas?

This is why definitions are needed.
Click to expand...

That's my problem with the framework also. If progressive means a new idea that pushes society in a different direction, then Prohibition fits. If it means a new idea that pushes society in a different direction espoused by a particular political group whom I deem to be progressive, then Prohibition does not fit.

I'll ask again. Is the rise of smoking regulations, taxes and rule-making a progressive idea? Maybe it's just neutral.

I think you might find examples of new ideas that have gone by the wayside in the area of Education. On the other hand, how about the Patriot act? New idea that is progressive (but has been modified) or conservative?
 
I want the million dollars. I got quoted (post 35) before I posted (#36).
 
I wouldn't actually throw prohibition into a progressive/conservative spectrum, because the more one studies the overall movement you will find that it is comprised of both progressive and conservative forces. One of the strongest forces behind prohibition were in fact women's lib movements. Also I see an error in the assumption that all Christian or religious organizations at the time (or even today) could easily be placed under the label of conservatism.

Fact of the matter is that the Prohibitionist movement was not an exceptionally popular movement, and in fact gain their influence by being single issue and bringing as many different groups (progressive and conservative) to the table as possible by tying temperance into the issues those groups cared about.

EDIT: I see Kevin_Lowe beat me to it.
 
Everyone is derailing the OP a bit here, so I will too. (sort of)

I think that a lot of smart people jump on the progressive bandwagon, because it is the political party of tolerance and scientific acceptance as opposed to the "bible thumping, homophobic, racist" right.

The truth, like all things lies somewhere in the middle. [edit: the homophobic, bible thumping racist stuff has nothing to with the truth] I consider myself very far right on the political spectrum, but I voted for Obama. The reason I did, is because I thought he would end the war quickly, and bring in a new, transparent form of government that would fight special interest and promote and enable scientific research, and I believed he was a man of reason and skepticism. I question it a bit now. Maybe I'm very naive.

That to me was a tough decision, because I knew he had some hard left tendencies. I knew he would attempt to grow government in other ways, that would slow economic growth, but I felt it was a necessary evil if he would cut spending immediately on the war effort, among other socially liberal issues that I support. (he didn't)

It's hard being fiscally conservative and socially liberal, especially when confronted with market failure, and how to deal with it, without creating even worse government failure.

I do get the feeling that many smart people jump on the liberal bandwagon because they seem like the party of reason. But that reason and tolerance often goes out the window when you breach the subject of economics. And it's not hard to understand: How could someone who thinks the Earth was created by a god, 6,000 years ago, have any clue how the economy works. It is indeed mind-boggling.

And then there are economists like Krugman: If I could have a conversation with any living person, I would chose him. He has a uniquely undefinable worldview. He calls himself a liberal, but many liberals would balk at his views on the role of the market vs. government.

I could name specific issues where the liberal/progressive mentality fails: government housing, unions and their cozy relationship to democrats, minimum wage laws, I could go on and on.

What's more important to me, is that liberals/progressives often fail to even entertain the idea that government action may exacerbate or have no effect on whatever problem they are trying to solve. It bothers me because I feel like liberalism steals many of the smart people that I want on my side. The ones who are actually capable of tearing apart an argument and figuring out what's really going on, without emotion and bandwagon mentality, but I find that many of them just give blanket support for anything on the ticket that sounds compassionate.

This of course excludes a large portion of the people here. You know who you are.

[/soapbox] -> been doing that alot lately...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom