Is it time for a new progressive movement? (Glenn Beck, solution, ideology)

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

First off the meaning of that word has been distorted throughout the last two decades.

I think this definition is the correct definition of progressive. This is what came up for progressive: "Liberal: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties." define: progressive - Google Search

And for progressives "civil liberties" are analogous with the redistribution of wealth via social entitlements administered by a ginormous central government.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: Repealing Health Care Is "Unconstitutional"

[Willsson]

It's abuse of those federal programs you mention in the OP that have got us into the rotten government we suffer today. Progressive socialists are as guilty as any.

[OhioIstheBest]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

First off the meaning of that word has been distorted throughout the last two decades.

I think this definition is the correct definition of progressive. This is what came up for progressive: "Liberal: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties." define: progressive - Google Search

That's what Big Brother told people his goal was in 1984.

Just Sayin'

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by Ebrehm

Does anyone else think a new progressive movement would benefit the country?

I agree with the classic definition of Progressives you cite (as opposed to all the nonsense the hysterical wingnuts always try to describe). But the winger fanaticism and sound-bite reductionism also illustrates the difficulty of promoting any approach that's subtle and nuanced. Until enough folks finally get tired of everything always being in "black and white", a more sophisticated, "rationalist" and "enlightened" approach like Progressivism can never really get off the ground.

Or maybe it just needs a leader who can "market" it better for a "sound-bite" audience. Obama may have had that ability and opportunity at one time, but he's also a good example how the necessity of "pragmatism" ultimately overrides any "subtleties" in such an ideologically charged and polarized environment.

[Frank DeForrest]

Progressive=flat earther

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Ebrehm

For those of you that don't know, the Progressive Movement was a reform movement that happened in America around the turn of the twentieth century until circa 1920. It arose because many of America's problems of 1900 were remarkably similar to those of today, i.e. a growing gap between rich and poor, urban poverty, crime, substandard housing, large ammounts of immigrants coming from poor countries, political corruption, an ineffective education system, banking scandals, food poisoning, bad working conditions, and partisanship.

These guys managed to get a lot of good things done by ignoring the Republican-Democratic divide (progressives were in both parties) and instead focusing on the issues. They created the Food and Drug Administration and increased government regulation of Big Businesses that were exploiting the working class. The also introduced electricity and plumbing to the tenements were the immigrants lived (the average tenement in 1900 did not have electricity, rarely had flushing toilets, and had poor insulation, while the tenement in the 1920s usually those things and better insulation.) They also created the National Parks and the first environmental protection laws. They introduced community centers in the poor neighboorhoods to help youths avoid gangs. All in all America in the 1920s was greatly improved from America in 1900 because of the Progressives.

What I'm getting it is that we are nowadays faced with very similar problems. While the tenements are mostly gone, the high-rise housing projects that replaced them in the 1950s and 1960s aren't much better. Living conditions are not good, crime is a serious issue, and breakdowns in the electrical systems are common. Pollution of our rivers is not as bad is it was during the 1960s and 1970s, but it's still serious. Banks and Big Business have taken advantage of the removal of regulations that occured over the last three decades and are once again exploiting the working class. Food poisoning is an issue again in our stores. Our education system is falling behind the rest of the developed worlds. And we are also experiencing yet another surge of immigration from poor countries.

Let us not forget how our politicians have returned to the ways of partisanship. The media makes this even worse due to one-sided reporting, whether left or right. Not much can be done to improve conditions in this kind of climate.

I think we need another progressive movement, one that can think about the future and where we want our society to go over the course of the 21st Century, just as the progressives of yesteryear did for the 20th. I believe we need new ideas and new regulations of buisness to fight corruption and exploitation. We should put an end to Outsourcing because it is killing our jobs and our industry. We should also increase environmental regulations to help heal the planet. The taxes required to pay for this will not be fun, but they are necessary for life.

We also should do something about the now twelve million illegal immigrants in the country. Those that commit crimes should be put in jail just like anyone else would. Repeat offenders should be deported. Those that show an interest in becoming part of the American workforce should be given citizenship.

The public housing projects and high rises should be demolished and replaced with normal style houses. This will take up more room and cost more money, but that's better than high crime rates.

Does anyone else think a new progressive movement would benefit the country?

I'm not sure rebranding tax and spend liberalism is the answer, especially when the federal deficit has quadrupled in recent years.

[JimMe]

Originally Posted by mateo45

I agree with the classic definition of Progressives you cite (as opposed to all the nonsense the hysterical wingnuts always try to describe). But the winger fanaticism and sound-bite reductionism also illustrates the difficulty of promoting any approach that's subtle and nuanced. Until enough folks finally get tired of everything always being in "black and white", a more sophisticated, "rationalist" and "enlightened" approach like Progressivism can never really get off the ground.

Or maybe it just needs a leader who can "market" it better for a "sound-bite" audience. Obama may have had that ability and opportunity at one time, but he's also a good example how the necessity of "pragmatism" ultimately overrides any "subtleties" in such an ideologically charged and polarized environment.

Progressivism is rooted in Darwin's theory of evolution. At the root of this theory is the idea that there is constant forward "progress" among species, including human beings. This idea grabbed the imagination of idealists who saw evolution as the foundation for a perfected society. Not surprisingly the idealists considered themselves to be on the cutting edge of societal evolution. They could envision the future--a brave new world--and, as the more highly developed of the species, it was their role and destiny to work to bring this vision into reality.

Of course that large a project required power and lots of it in order to accomplish their goals. Only government has that kind of power and so they worked to take over the reins of government where they could experiment without accountability. FDR viewed himself as the director of a great social experiment, for instance.

The fly in the ointment for the Progressives is always the unevolved. Or, as you put it, those who are less sophisticated, less rational, less enlightened. Those people can't be allowed to stand in the way of progress. So they need to be re-educated so they get along with the program. And if that is not possible then they need to be marginalized and eliminated.

At bottom, Progressivism is profoundly undemocratic. After all, it's not realistic to allow people to make decisions that affect the whole of society if those people are on the low end of the evolutionary scale. That is why the communists believe that it requires a "vanguard of the proeletariat" to shepherd the people to the point where they are sufficiently socially aware or conscious to assume responsibility for the governance of the society.

This undemocratic impulse manifests itself in less statist countries (such as ours) by the Left's enthrallment by the "experts." The "Best and the Brightest" and all that. In those societies "complexity" is an ally of the elitists. Every issue is so complex that only experts can sort through that complexity and arrive at the ideal solution for all of us. Certainly the people cannot be trusted to make these decisions for themselves.

In this country the Progressives are becoming more bold and less guarded in their contempt for the people. Obama's quip during the 2008 campaign about people clinging to their guns and religion fairly reeks of the contempt in which he holds common people. Ed Rendell calling people "simpletons" who couldn't see the wisdom of his position on gambling betrays the same arrogance.

And that arrogance is toxic for our republic. Democracy needs for elections to be seen as the will of the people. But more and more the Progressives recognize the legitimacy only of elections that they win. This was seen in 1994 when the Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in two generations. Peter Jennings spoke for the Left when he pronounced on election night that the American people had had a temper tantrum. This was followed by the attempt to de-legitimize the election of Bush in 2000. And when he was re-elected in 2004 a prominent British newspaper asked how the American people could have been so stupid. Presumably they would have demonstrated appropriate wisdom had they elected John Kerry.

Progressives pride themselves on being able to envision a society where all our material needs are taken care of by a benevolent government. Utopia, in other words. There have long been such dreamers. But when the dreamers are given (or grab) the power to make the dreams come true, they inevitably create a hellish, brutish society. That's been the legacy of Progressivism in the 20th century--likely the bloodiest of recorded history. But, apparently, that history never becomes a teachable moment for Progressives who continue to chase their dreams notwithstanding the cost.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Progressive=flat earther

This, coming from someone who thinks that "Sarah Palin has done some good"...?

Originally Posted by momonkey

I'm not sure rebranding tax and spend liberalism is the answer, especially when the federal deficit has quadrupled in recent years.

Although Republicans would like to pretend the Bush era never existed (as would many of the rest of us), and it was a lot of things..... "liberal" wasn't one of them, except for maybe liberal deficits:

After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, $410 billion in 2008, and neared $500 billion during Bush's last full year in office.

Let's give "credit" where credit is due.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by Ebrehm

Does anyone else think a new progressive movement would benefit the country?

Hell yes!! Thanks to progressive ideology and their strive for some sort of metaphysical egalitarianism,The American people witnessed the progressive movement up close and personal, for the past two years, and they summarily rejected them. So the answer is "yes", they need to change the name they call themselves, lay low for a few years, lie and hide their true motives to fool the American voters, and try to wreck America again, only with their new name.

[mateo45]

And what pray-tell, has "conservative ideology" given us (except nitwits like Palin, and the fact that most of the so-called "red" states are always at the bottom of the economic heap)...?