• 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...

NoScotsman said:
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?
Click to expand...


Theory, Prediction, Result. Ignored because it works but interferes with "The Narrative" of progressives*.



* Not really. It's the basis of the western throbbing economy, compared to everything else, and acknowledged as such. However, it is ignored with statements such as "we're running out of oil".
 
Last edited:
NoScotsman said:
Historically speaking, aren't progressives always "right"
Click to expand...

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". :D
 
Last edited:
GreNME said:
Ah, that's where you're problem is: you're using a very poor (and inaccurate) definition of the term. Here, let me help you.
Click to expand...
First line from your link: Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform

Seems to agree with my definition.

Then it proceeds to specific examples, and points out that while "progressive" often overlaps with "liberal", it is not always the case.
 
Who is "right" and who is "wrong" depends on the era. In the 80s, the conservatives were popularly considered to be right.
 
kevinquinnyo said:
Can you support that? Or do you just think that's the case?
Click to expand...

This is sort of like trying to prove that gravity exists. The facts are so incredibly obvious that if they're not noticed then something is wrong.

In a nutshell, liberalism is about equality for the public while conservatism is about protectionism for the special. History vindicates the former. This isn't really up for debate other than that people have so thoroughly fooled themselves into believing fantasies that they can't even recognize the facts. This is standard for many things
 
wufwugy said:
In a nutshell, liberalism is about equality for the public while conservatism is about protectionism for the special.
Click to expand...

That was certainly true in the 1700s and early 1800s, when "liberals" were against, for example, the divine rights of kings, and for free markets.

Today, however, protectionism for the special groups is far more likely to come from the so-called "liberals": e.g., affirmative action, support of unions at all costs, campus speech codes which give certain groups the right to not be offended by anything, campus sexual harassment codes that assume guilt until proven innocent, "health" "care" "reform" with special interest groups of the "right" sort of people getting others to pay for them, the fight to remove any mention of any religious symbol from anywhere somewhere who isn't religious could see it (religion isn't progressive, you see), "hate crime" laws that punish more severely crimes against certain groups, etc., etc., etc.

For the typical "progressive liberal" nowadays, liberty and equality before the law are mere archaic affectations that are just an annoyance on the way to building the glorious perfect utopia.
 
NoScotsman said:
Historically speaking, aren't progressives always "right" ...in the sense that their ideas eventually bear fruit?
Click to expand...

No.

Mainstream "progressives" were quite sympathetic to italian fascism, soviet communism and central planning in general.

During the depression US "progressives" paid farmers not to grow food, bought food from farmers and plowed it under or burnt it in order to raise food prices. This is idiotic enough in normal times, but it is just inhumane during a period where many are going hungry. During the depression US "progressives" deliberately created cartels and price floors(National Industrial Recovery Act) which was later struck down as unconstitutional.

Progressive is illdefined and ever shifting in the same way as the policies of the US democrats and republicans(which have switched places with each other several times over the years)
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
Sure. Feel free to bring up an actual liberal issue where they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United States. Pooh-poohing the predictions of conservatives that extending welfare and various other social benefits to single mothers would cause an increase in out of wedlock childbirths and a disintigration of the inner city family. Those are two rather spectacular examples, although to be fair, the conservatives of the time underestimated how much damage would be done by extending benefits to out of wedlock mothers.
 
Last edited:
And frankly, the term Progressive is almost worthless. At least the terms 'monarchist' and 'liberal' explained the actual philosophical outlooks of those groups (at least, it did, many years ago), whereas the term 'progressive' is merely a normative judgement wrapped in an adjective.
 
MikeMangum said:
Unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United States.
Click to expand...

I agree this would be a bad idea. Although I've never actually heard it proposed.

Pooh-poohing the predictions of conservatives that extending welfare and various other social benefits to single mothers would cause an increase in out of wedlock childbirths and a disintigration of the inner city family. Those are two rather spectacular examples, although to be fair, the conservatives of the time underestimated how much damage would be done by extending benefits to out of wedlock mothers.
Click to expand...

I doubt the assertions you are making here. Have any evidence?
 
Progressive is a comparative that lacks a superlative -- G. K. Chesterton.

It's precisely this that is the problem: it is one thing to think bad things need to be changed for the better. It's quite another to think change as such is a good thing.
 
MikeMangum said:
Unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United States. Pooh-poohing the predictions of conservatives that extending welfare and various other social benefits to single mothers would cause an increase in out of wedlock childbirths and a disintigration of the inner city family. Those are two rather spectacular examples, although to be fair, the conservatives of the time underestimated how much damage would be done by extending benefits to out of wedlock mothers.
Click to expand...

Also, eugenics; communism; the "self-esteem" view of education, crime, terrorism, etc.; affirmative action becoming a de facto right and the hell with equal treatment under the law; Dewey's catastrophic theories of 'open education' -- wonderful in theory, in reality destroyed standards; etc.

On a more annoying, less serious front, the idea that art needs to be 'transgressive' and 'activist' as opposed to, you know, good or beautiful or inspiring or aesthetic, leading to the destruction of modern art.

The damage done to higher education by the creation of pseudo-disciplines like "gender studies", etc.

I do not wish, again, to imply the opposite -- that everything progressives did was bad. Far from it. I am saying that if it was good it was good in itself, not merely because it was change from a previous situation.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Any evidence that international socialism was actually a proposed progressive idea?
Click to expand...
Are you asking for evidence that international socialism was a proposed idea, or evidence that international socialism was a progressive idea?

If former (that is, you question whether anyone ever proposed international socialism), then you are just trolling.

If latter (you question whether international socialism was a progressive idea), it cannot be answered without defining "progressive".

Thaiboxerken, can you please provide a definition of the word "progressive"?

Every time someone brings up a supposedly progressive idea which turned out badly, you claim it was not actually progressive, yet you never define what progressive actually means. So far it seems "anything thaiboxerken likes is progressive".
 
So you don't have a definition of the world "progressive" but you'll continue to assert what "progressives" do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom