Progressives are always right...

[linusrichard]

Prohibition and eugenics are two issues very closely associated with progressivism at one time. It's dishonest to say otherwise. It might be nice for modern progressives (who honestly want no part in prohibition or eugenics) to say that those weren't "real" progressives, or whatever, but it's not honest.

I do think communism is distinct from progressivism, but progressives do need to own up for some now-embarrassing adulation for the early Soviet Union.

So yes - prohibition, eugenics, and sympathy for communism (though maybe not actual communism) - progressives are not always right.

 

[Mark6]

So you don't have a definition of the world "progressive" but you'll continue to assert what "progressives" do?

I gave my definition in posts #97 and #104. Prohibition, eugenics, New Math, making excuses for Stalin, and childcare sex-abuse witch hunt all fall within my definition.

I want to know YOUR definition, since you keep demanding evidence that any particular idea is progressive.

BTW, there has to be a name for thaiboxerken's debating tactic. What do you call when someone demands evidence that A, B or C are equivalent to X, yet avoids ever defining X? Other that is, than "acting like a troll"?

 

[theprestige]

So you don't have a definition of the world "progressive" but you'll continue to assert what "progressives" do?

My definition of "progressive" can be found in Post #84. By that definition, International Socialism is both the quintessential progressive project, and a textbook example of how progressives can in fact be tragically, disastrously, horribly wrong on an epic scale.

thaiboxerken, I've shown my cards. Now it's time for you to show yours: How do you define "progressive"? How do you explain your extraordinary progressive ability to never come up with a plan that is flawed in its conception or execution?

 

[MaGZ]

Historically speaking, aren't progressives always "right" ...in the sense that their ideas eventually bear fruit? Politically speaking, aren't they always ahead of the curve? And don't reactionary (or conservative) politics always lose over the long term? As the past rarely works as prologue...

Certainly, there are exceptions (e.g., nutters and extreme radicals could be labeled "progressives") But generally speaking, conservative politics don't seem to conserve much of anything (at least for long). The past simply isn't worth conserving (this has been particularly true with social causes, civil rights, economic models etc.).

Thoughts?

They didn't do too well in the Spanish Civil War.

 

[MaGZ]

Wasn’t eugenics a progressive idea?

 

[MaGZ]

Progressivism is a particular movement in American politics. Has nothing to de with Marx.

True, but the Marxists stole the term "progress" as they stole the term "socialist" decades earlier.

 

[MaGZ]

Ooh! Can I play?

Nazism is "conservatism" taken to its logical conclusion.
The FLDS cult is Mormonism taken to its logical conclusion.
Whiskey is beer taken to its logical conclusion.

This is fun!

I know you are having fun, but there was nothing conservative about National Socialism. It was a revolutionary movement, nothing like it has ever appeared in history.

 

[MaGZ]

Good call, although the eugenics movement was an alliance of progressives desiring to improve society, and conservatives desiring to maintain the social status quo by stopping the underclasses from breeding.

When genetics advanced enough to show that genetic disorders were distributed more or less equally throughout society and that the upper classes were not in fact genetically superior to the lower classes, the movement collapsed.

Wrong

It was the Marxist view of man and their takeover of our institutions that caused the collapse of eugenics. The insane claim there is no such thing a race is evidence of this today.

 

[MaGZ]

People who call themselves progressives are often disguised socialists or communists, and since we know those two groups are not always right (in fact, they are rarely right), the answer to your question is a very obvious "no".

Not very well disguised these days I might add.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I thought Progressive was just another tern synonymous to Liberal. That's how the Glenn Becks and O'Reilly's of the world are using the term.

 

[theprestige]

I thought Progressive was just another tern synonymous to Liberal. That's how the Glenn Becks and O'Reilly's of the world are using the term.

Wow. How embarrassing for you! I bet this thread must make a lot more sense to you, now that you know what we've actually been talking about for the last four pages.

Now that you understand what's being discussed in this thread, would you agree that in the context of this thread, progressives are indeed sometimes wrong, and that the examples given are indeed examples of progressives being wrong?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Which definition of Progressive, are you using?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Wrong

It was the Marxist view of man and their takeover of our institutions that caused the collapse of eugenics. The insane claim there is no such thing a race is evidence of this today.

Eugenics as a social movement was declining by the late thirties outside Sweden and Germany, even before WW2 started. So unless your pet conspiracy theory has Marxists ruling the USA since before WW2 you're just making things up out of thin air.

Both sides of politics jumped on the eugenics bandwagon when it was popular: during its heyday they competed to position themselves as more eugenically-minded than each other.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Both sides of politics jumped on the eugenics bandwagon when it was popular: during its heyday they competed to position themselves as more eugenically-minded than each other.

Exactly. Just like prohibition this was one of those ideas that crossed boundries, and in the end is neither a progressive or conservative ideal.

 

[JihadJane]

I thought progress was some kind of techno-fix thing that will allow us all to keep consuming rather than return to the middle ages.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hmmm.. was it a Progressive idea to support alcohol prohibition in order to try to suppress the black vote?

 

[theprestige]

Which definition of Progressive, are you using?

Take your pick; there have been several presented in this thread. Pick one, and go from there. Mine, in post #84 for example.

I mean, you could even pick your own definition of "progressive", if you like. It's right here on this page: Do you or do you not agree with the title proposition, that "liberals, sometimes referred to as progressives by Beck and O'Reilly", are always right?

 

[Patejdl]

Speaking from a point of view of a person who lived a half of his life in a communist country I say that what ever the progressivism by definition is, the individuals representing the stream follow the same exact patterns of childish thinking, that you can somehow make the world a better and more fair place by trying to take over the control of the flawed human nature with set of naive rules and laws.

Progressives will really be progressive only when they finally start openly advocating for genetic manipulation or electronic brain implants to get rid the natural traits they cry over every night in the bed.

Until then they're just a bunch of unrealistic wankers with a completely flawed and incomplete understanding of life and the universe itself.

 

[Skeptic]

Until then they're just a bunch of unrealistic wankers with a completely flawed and incomplete understanding of life and the universe itself.

They weren't that unrealistic.

Practically none of the progressive cheerleaders for the Communist utopia ever were stupid enough to actually move to a a Communist country, you know -- much like none of those who carry the flag of "deep ecology" and the need for a "green revolution" today think for a minute about actually living like a Chinese peasant, so as to really reduce their carbon footprint to something sustainable.

As Richard Neuhaus pointed out, the vocal support of communism, and, today, of environmentalism, is in reality the secular version of the Christian born-again movement's "pre-packaged salvation" or "cheap virtue".

As long as you fulfill the painless, symbolic sacrament (shout a few slogans with a red flag, recycle a few bottles, buy a hybrid car, say in Church that you "accept Jesus") you are automatically one of the elect, your heathen / capitalist / pollution sins are all forgiven, and you can continue to live, well, much like you lived before -- with the mistress, the bank account, or all the environment-destroying technological knickknacks.

The best example of this attitude is a sign I once saw to the effect of, "Public meeting about how we must be willing to make every sacrifice to fight the evil system canceled due to rain". Every sacrifice except minor discomfort, apparently.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Oh whatever. Okay lets put the blacks back on the plantation and women back in the kitchen, because it will take an implant to change things. Oh and lets privatize the national parks, and lets allow one person to control an entire industry. Why? Because a few complete morons on this thread said it isn't possible to do otherwise.

I know one progressive ideal that failed...education.