We are Living in The Progressive Age
Rachel Maddow, who I think is the smartest person on MSNBC, read a litany of liberal actions undertaken by President Ronald Reagan. The purpose was to throw all Obama criticism back in the faces of us racist conservatives. It was unbalanced and simplistic, just the way Obama devotees like their propaganda.
If you want some actual thinking Reagan criticism, look no further than libertarian economist Murray Rothbard. He hits the same point Maddow does, damning all modern-day liberalism in the process.
Progressivism is Here
Progressivism was ushered in by Teddy Roosevelt and nurtured by Professor Woodrow Wilson. It was finally rammed home by FDR, who never let a crisis go to waste. The constitution is trampled, our personal freedoms diminished, and government continues to grow.
That is the political environment President Reagan found himself in. That is the only defense I can muster. Ours is a progressive structure, built over the decades, and even a good strong man like Ronald Reagan weilding a sledgehammer couldn't knock the damned thing down, although he did pull us out of Carter's malaise. President Clinton was smart enough to continue Reaganomics, and we had the greatest economic boom in our country's history.
It's not "Liberty versus Tyranny"
Rather, it's "which version of tyranny do you prefer? Republican or Democrat?"
Better stated, it is statist progressivism versus classical liberalism. This is why "progressive" fits the current crowd on the left so much better than "liberal." For they are very illiberal and they castigate all who refuse to pay obeisance to their man-made dogma. As the state increases, individualism decreases. We cede more and more control of our lives to the state and the to the busybody control freaks who infest it.
A Socialist by any other name...
F.A. Hayek rightly calls all of it Socialism. For that is what it is: Chinese and Russian Communism, Italian and German Fascism, and the US Progressive movement embodied in FDR's new deal and Johnson's great society all have theoretical non-party socialism at their core.
Hayek uses the term to include even states that do not physically take over the means of production, but merely redistribute the fruits of those enterprises through the coercive power of government. Why should the bureaucratic overlords get their hands dirty when all they have to do is shake down the producers at the end of each workday?
The end result is the same: The state ignoring its founding principles and confiscating personal property and "spreadin' it around." That is how progressivism leads to totalitarianism.
The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek, Edited by Bruce Caldwell
14 comments:
I am all for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting any one who holds an ideology of Communism, Socialism (which can lump progressive/liberals with that) and fascism from holding public office in this country.
And you don't have to get Congress involved in it either.
It's called a "popular amendment"
We should always remember what Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber: 'spreading the wealth around is good for everybody.'
Yeah, everybody who is on the 'receiving' end of the spreading, but not so good for those on the 'taking' end.
Mark ~ Rather than being guilty of breaking the first amendment by limiting speech of those with opposing viewpoints, it would be wiser for true conservatives to launch an education blitz in every way possible to point out the dangers of Socialist philosophy and to reveal its true agenda. Teaching people (by using real historical events and examples) what Socialism and Communism really mean for common men should do the trick. The historical truth is so vile and terrifying, that revealing it to the public should scare everyone into right thinking. The only question is how to accomplish it. Our media no longer work to support truth and liberty, but have gone over to the dark side. We need to teach the truth to those in our lives...children, family, and friends. Perhaps conservatives working together can change our country...I hope.
Linda- Not saying limit speech, rather than limits on ideology to govern. Obama proves this point as he campaigned from the center (with a few slips of the tongue, "spread the wealth") but governs from the extreme left.
Had the nation vetted this guy, as I did, listen openly, and not took the word of the American media, he wouldn't even had won the Dem primary ticket.
I agree educating the people on the reversal of freedoms under such oligarchy would greatly reduce the chance of radical left from taking power, however, in this past Presidential election, the youth came out in mass and went for the 'rock star' (in their eye) but had NO clue who he really was, and is. They didn't care to vet this guy, they were to in to other things than doing their 'homework' and now look what has happened. They are a super majority and steering the nation towards a socialist society. And there is nothing to stop it until Nov. And a lot of the damage has already been done and it will take years to undo.
I am still for an amendment barring an Oligarchy from governing this nation again.
Mark ~ I agree with everything that you have said. Obama did lie about his record, his experience, his extreme liberalism/progressivism, his associations with known America haters, and his radical agenda. You are right when you say that many young people voted for him. Unfortunately, many people (not all young) voted for him merely because of the color of his skin. Many CONSERVATIVES voted for him because they couldn't pass up the historic opportunity to vote for the first black president. People did ignore warnings from many conservatives about Obama's real ideology. My questions concern the methodology of how to limit the ideology of presidential candidates or parties without compromising the constitution. And if it would be possible to limit those whose ideology and policies lead to oligarchy, then how would that not possibly be used AGAINST conservatives in future elections or at some time in the future when liberals are again the majority. I just think that it is dangerous to make some types of amendments to our Constitution. We need to consider carefully every possible way that the amendment could be misused and abused, especially in light of the fact that Obama so easily won his victory and with so little vetting done.
Linda- Yes, correct, quite a few Americans voted on skin color, even conservative, just so they could be part of history. That's pretty sad.
How to prevent the ideologies I mentioned will take careful wording and research. A strict definition of the ideologies of Oligarchy. And I don't see to many real conservatives straying in to a true definition of those ideologies with in a Oligarchy.
Ever ready the Constitution (I am sure you have) With this type of amendment there would be no repeal of any standing amendments. No infringement of voting rights. You're just adding an amendment to the constitution to ensure that the vision set forth by the framers are adhered to.
Ever notice when interpretation of the constitution is expressed by people of the right, that it's plain, simple, understandable logic.
However, when the left tries, they dissect the meaning and make you think it might mean something completely different. That's a Saul Alinsky move.
As the old saying goes, "You first impression is usually the correct one". So goes the interpretation of the constitution by right of center folks.
Saw a liberal a few days ago not agreeing with the Supreme Court upholding of the 2nd amendment as this liberal tried to interpret it as "The 2nd doesn't give you the right to bare handguns" And that it was "meant for the Militia's"
But what's your first impression of the 2nd? "Well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Now, it doesn't say 'the right of the Militia to keep and bare arms' it says the right of the "People" to keep and bare arms.
The left will always make you think illogically on logical statements or wording.
Anyways, nice discussion we are having.
Thought I would put this out there because I am looking in to penning something like this and see how far I can get it.
Maybe not far with in a constitutional convention, but it's possible with a popular amendment.
Mark ~ I see the 2nd Amendment as clearly guaranteeing people the right to bear arms.
I've enjoyed the discussion, as well!
I stand with Mark Adams.
Linda, an educational blitz can only work if we can wrest control over our public education system from the entrenched liberals, and the only way to do that would be to elect people who have the guts to abolish the NEA. It is either that or have enough parents with the guts and will to pull their children out of the public schools and home school them.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, the liberals have people believing that the Militia is the same as the National Guard. The fallacy there is that the founders intended the Militia to be We the People who will defend ourselves if our government became tyrannical. The National Guard is answerable not only to their state governor, but also to the President of the U.S., so how would we be able to rely on them to defend us against a tyrannical government when they are answerable to that government?
The liberals think they are so damned smart.
Rev. Gregori ~ I honestly see your point with regard to progressives propigating the "militia was the same as the National Guard" myth. Yes, they are very good at deception, and they don't seem to have any moral aversion to lying (or worse) to reach their objectives.
Just a thought, though...if we amend the Constitution in a way that the Founders would not have done, are we not in essence losing our Constitution anyway? The concept of complete freedom of speech was the soul of the document in my opinion. If we, by our own hand, limit the free speech of even our enemies, aren't we hurting the representative republic that we were given?
The difficulty is the nature of the enemy we face. Progressivism has encroached into nearly every facet of our society. Progressives are especially dangerous because of their willingness to use our own system of laws and freedoms to work against us. They pit one class against another, incite racial distrust and fear, and they take advantage of our free society to convince the uneducated and disheartened to give their liberties away.
I would like to continue this sometime tomorrow. It is REALLY late!
SilverFiddle - Excellent post. Western Hero and Rational Nation USA have much in common.
Classical Liberalism (Jeffersonian liberalism)is closely aligned with modern Libertarianism and true modern conservatism.
Today's liberals are actually progressive collectivists and would like nothing more tan to mold America into the Chavez model.
Precisely, RN. I am even willing to grant my lefty friends that much of this in this country may indeed spring from a misplaced sense of maternal benevolence.
btw, this one really pissed off our friends in Left Blogistan, Grung_e Gene and Troofer 101.
Typical of their crayola minds, they accused me of equating FDR with Hitler (At Gene's blog, of course. They rarely venture into this forum.)
>"which version of tyranny do you prefer? Republican or Democrat?"
It's the big government party versus the huge government party.
The decision we have when we enter the voting booth is between a punch in the stomach or a kick in the head.
Thanks for having the guts to tell it like it IS!
Although the Libs seem to be having trouble with your picture,like the saying says, If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen!
Hum wasn't that a democrat who made that great quote?
They sure don't make them like he was anymore.
Thanks Mal! I'll probably repost this at Rational Nation, and see if I can shake any more nuts off the tree.
Post a Comment