• 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...

Again, I don't think many people who have claimed communism as their government did anything more than abuse the good intentions of those less educated or too impassioned to realize the lies.
I don't have a cite handy, but I recall a quote from Che Guevara saying that he was only interested in Communist revolution if it were to create "New Man". If it were merely about increasing the standard of living, capitalism was doing adequate job.

If true, it was Che's backhanded admission that Communism is not suited to humans as thay actually are.
 
Backhanded how? Far from being an "admission" I'm pretty sure it's an openly-avowed point of pride with progressives both that human beings are perfectible and that progressives have just the program to perfect them.

Marx's theory was that it would happen naturally, inevitably. Lenin's theory was that it could be ruthlessly (but nobly!) forced to happen. And it's the theory of progressives everywhere that if you could just impose the right conditions--by persuasion if possible, by force if necessary--you could not simply minimize the impact of humanity's flaws as you see them (which is the conservative ideal), but rather eliminate them altogether.

That's the "progress" in "progressive": The progression of humanity from its current flawed nature to a perfected nature through enlightened human agency.
 
Last edited:
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.

I like it when you approach political discourse in this manner, Brainster. I agree completely, by the way, which is one of the things that frustrates me most in practically all of the arguments in this subforum: rarely do folks on one side of the fence have the rationality to point out the usefulness of the other side.
 
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.

An old political joke:

The definition of a Republican is a Democrat who's been mugged.
 
Neoconservatives describe themselves as "liberals who've been mugged by reality".
 
As those two forces operate in America, the progressive aggenda is driven by science and justice
Some progressive ideas that did not work out:

New Math in 1970's.
"No child ever lies about abuse" in 1980's -- that one turned out very badly indeed.
Very vague but influential conviction among psychiatrists in 1960's that punishment is outdated and all criminals can be cured -- which may end up true, but was way ahead of actual science at the time.

The above ideas were driven at least in part by desire for justice and fairness. But the science was terrible.

"Progressives always turn out be right" because when a conservative idea fails, it is remembered as "conservative". When a progressive idea fails, it is remembered as "nonsense" or "fad". Or, if it was inconsequential enough, just disappears from collective consciousness, and is not remembered at all.
 
Last edited:
Backhanded how? Far from being an "admission" I'm pretty sure it's an openly-avowed point of pride with progressives both that human beings are perfectible and that progressives have just the program to perfect them.
Just what I said: that communism is not suited for humans as they actually are -- they must be perfected first. Belief that humans can be "perfected" artificially is an example of progressive fail -- noble idea, bad science.
 
"No child ever lies" was a progressive idea?
Evidence?
Its proponents were going against "traditional" principle of not questioning authority. They took questioning too far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria

I have no cites that any prosecutors or psychologists who brought up bogus charges of child abuse called themselves "progressive" -- well, Janet Reno did, but not necessarily in this context. Still, it was change and overturning of tradition. It was progressive by definition.

Unless your definition of "progressive" is "change that turned out to be good"?

[Edited] These prosecutors and psychologists were defending the traditionally powerless -- the children, -- which is as progressive as you can get. (Or thought they did -- I'd give them benefit of the doubt and accept they really believed the children were abused.)
 
Last edited:
It seemed to me that many of the church-going conservatives were the ones who argued that children would never lie about such things, especially during their rants calling for justice.
 
banning hard liqour was a Liberal/Progressive idea?

this is the first time I heard this. I thought it was led by Religious purists who wanted to protect America's "moral fiber".

Prohibition was a Conservative idea.

Prohibition was an important force in state and local politics from the 1840s through the 1930s. The political forces involved were ethnoreligious in character, as demonstrated by numerous historical studies.[8] Prohibition was demanded by the "dries" — primarily pietistic Protestant denominations, especially the Methodists, Northern Baptists, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Quakers, and Scandinavian Lutherans. They identified saloons as politically corrupt and drinking as a personal sin. They were opposed by the "wets" — primarily liturgical Protestants (Episcopalians, German Lutherans) and Roman Catholics, who denounced the idea that the government should define morality.[9]

In the very wikipedia article you cite is this:

Although it was highly controversial, Prohibition was widely supported by diverse groups. Progressives believed that it would improve society as generally did women, southerners, those living in rural areas and African-Americans. There were a few exceptions such as the Woman’s Organization for Prohibition Reform who fought against it.
 
It seemed to me that many of the church-going conservatives were the ones who argued that children would never lie about such things, especially during their rants calling for justice.
Just like with prohibition, and occasionally with attacks on pornography, progressives who see "victims" everywhere find themselves allied with Christian fundies. Andrea Dworkin was at one time allied with Ed Meese -- talk about strange bedfellows!

Also, you think Janet Reno and Martha Coakley are conservatives?
 
Last edited:
BTW Thunder:

http://international.loc.gov:8081/learn/features/timeline/progress/prohib/prohib.html
The temperance movement, discouraging the use of alcoholic beverages, had been active and influential in the United States since at least the 1830s. Since the use of alcohol was often associated with such social ills as poverty and insanity, temperance often went hand in hand with other reform movements.

...

Prohibition exhibited many of the characteristics of most progressive reforms. That is, it was concerned with the moral fabric of society; it was supported primarily by the middle classes; and it was aimed at controlling the "interests" (liquor distillers) and their connections with venal and corrupt politicians in city, state, and national governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of reform that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s.[1] Keeping corruption out of politics was a main goal of the progressive era, with many Progressives trying to expose and undercut political machines and bosses. Many Progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power based in saloons. At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena.[2][3][4][5]

Your quote shows that you are operating under a false assumption. You list a bunch of religious groups that supported prohibition and attempt to use that as evidence that progressives didn't support prohibition. The assumption is that progressives weren't religious. That assumption is, in large part, wrong. The Social GospelWP movement was closely entwined with the Progressive movement.
The Social Gospel movement is a Protestant Christian intellectual movement that was most prominent in the late 19th century and early 20th century. The movement applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially social justice, inequality, liquor, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, weak labor unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. Theologically, the Social Gospel leaders were overwhelmingly post-millennialist. That is because they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort.[1] Social Gospel leaders were predominantly associated with the liberal wing[clarification needed] of the Progressive Movement and most were theologically liberal, although they were typically conservative when it came to their views on social issues.[2] Important leaders include Richard T. Ely, Washington Gladden, and Walter Rauschenbusch.

...

In the late 19th century, many Americans were disgusted by the poverty level and the low quality of living in the slums. The social gospel movement provided a religious rationale for action to address those concerns. Activists in the Social Gospel movement hoped that by public health measures as well as enforced schooling so the poor could develop talents and skills, the quality of their moral lives would begin to improve. Important concerns of the Social Gospel movement were labor reforms, such as abolishing child labor and regulating the hours of work by mothers. By 1920 they were crusading against the 12-hour day for workers at U.S. Steel.

Many reformers inspired by the movement opened settlement houses, most notably Hull House in Chicago operated by Jane Addams. They helped the poor and immigrants improve their lives. Settlement houses offered services such as daycare, education, and health care to needy people in slum neighborhoods. The YMCA was created originally to help rural youth adjust to the city without losing their religion, but by the 1890s became a powerful instrument of the Social Gospel.[7] Nearly all the denominations (including Catholics) engaged in foreign missions, which often had a social gospel component in terms especially of medical uplift. The Black denominations, especially the African Methodist Episcopal church (AME) and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion church (AMEZ) had active programs in support of the Social Gospel.[8] Both evangelical ("pietistic") and liturgical ("high church") elements supported the Social Gospel, although only the pietists were active in promoting Prohibition.[9]

In the United States prior to World War I, the Social Gospel was the religious wing of the progressive movement which had the aim of combating injustice, suffering and poverty in society. During the New Deal of the 1930s Social Gospel themes could be seen in the work of Harry Hopkins, Will Alexander and Mary McLeod Bethune, who added a new concern with African Americans. After 1940, the movement withered, but was invigorated in the 1950s by black leaders like Baptist minister Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement.
 
Just like with prohibition, and occasionally with attacks on pornography, progressives who see "victims" everywhere find themselves allied with Christian fundies. Andrea Dworkin was at one time allied with Ed Meese -- talk about strange bedfellows!

Also, you think Janet Reno and Martha Coakley are conservatives?

I would consider their views on those points conservative.
 
Its proponents were going against "traditional" principle of not questioning authority. They took questioning too far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria

I have no cites that any prosecutors or psychologists who brought up bogus charges of child abuse called themselves "progressive" -- well, Janet Reno did, but not necessarily in this context. Still, it was change and overturning of tradition. It was progressive by definition.

I think you're working with a very strange definition of "progressive" here. New ideas are not necessarily progressive - neoconservatism, for example, is a relatively new, regressive ideology.

Trying to shoehorn Satanic ritual abuse paranoia into the progressive/conservative continuum just seems to be a mistake to me, much like trying to argue that homeopathy is conservative or crystal healing progressive.

Not everything needs to go into one of those two categories.

[Edited] These prosecutors and psychologists were defending the traditionally powerless -- the children, -- which is as progressive as you can get. (Or thought they did -- I'd give them benefit of the doubt and accept they really believed the children were abused.)

I don't think progressives have any kind of monopoly on "think of the children!" rhetoric. The psychologists in this case were acting under the colour of protecting children, and that is a very different thing from trying to emancipate the traditionally powerless. Children already had the right not to be sexually abused before they came along, and they did nothing to further that right.

Sometimes dumb ideas are just dumb ideas, they don't have to be politically motivated or appropriated as political talking points.

If you enjoy talking down progressive ideas for whatever reason, I'm sure there are plenty of better ones to talk about for your purposes.
 
I think you're working with a very strange definition of "progressive" here. New ideas are not necessarily progressive - neoconservatism, for example, is a relatively new, regressive ideology.
Actually, my definition of "progressive" is exactly that -- new ideas. Which sometimes are dumb.

What is your definition of "progressive"?
 
Backhanded how? Far from being an "admission" I'm pretty sure it's an openly-avowed point of pride with progressives both that human beings are perfectible and that progressives have just the program to perfect them.

And that idea always leads to someplace pretty ugly.
The later stages of the French Revolution ..The Reign Of Terror..was the first modern example of this. Robespierre and his "Republic of Virtue" was the prototype for the fanatic revolutionary.
But I don't think that all progressives hold to that idea, to be fair. But there is a radical minority that do..and they are to be regarded as dangerous. It is no coincidence that almost all of the political movements that ended up in mass slaughter in the 20th century were Utopian in nature. Utopia Throught The Guillotine..the original version..has never worked.
 

Back
Top Bottom