Over the years I have had interesting conversations, and not a few heated discussions with progressives of all stripes. Far too often their arguments devolve into what they feel about something rather than what they think about it. Other times it's one lame talking point after another, many which sound good on the face of it but aren't backed up by personal experience, or history. It's all theory and feel-good sound bites. Failures in practical applications of their beliefs are explained away with excuses like "It was implemented poorly" or "Everyone has to be brought into the fold otherwise it doesn't work" or "We won't make the same mistakes the others made."
That last one is always my favorite, allowing me to use one of two rejoinders, those being: "Yeah, you'll make worse mistakes!" and "Do you know the definition of insanity? It's doing the same thing over and over, but expecting the results to be different this time." That always brings them up short.
But I am not the best person to speak on such matters. That title belongs to those who lived under the oppressive regimes of "progressive" or "socialist" utopian countries. More often than not they're capable of skewering ever single talking point or nonsensical utterance brought forth by the 'enlightened' progressives because they suffered under the very system the progressives wish to force upon us.
One such is ex-Soviet immigrant Oleg Atbashian, who poses a number of questions progressives are loath to answer:
Here are a few questions gleaned from the comments:
(H/T Maggie's Farm)
That last one is always my favorite, allowing me to use one of two rejoinders, those being: "Yeah, you'll make worse mistakes!" and "Do you know the definition of insanity? It's doing the same thing over and over, but expecting the results to be different this time." That always brings them up short.
But I am not the best person to speak on such matters. That title belongs to those who lived under the oppressive regimes of "progressive" or "socialist" utopian countries. More often than not they're capable of skewering ever single talking point or nonsensical utterance brought forth by the 'enlightened' progressives because they suffered under the very system the progressives wish to force upon us.
One such is ex-Soviet immigrant Oleg Atbashian, who poses a number of questions progressives are loath to answer:
Dear Americans, these are some questions I have collected in 16 years of living in your country. Please see if you can answer them for me:Indeed. Read the whole thing and if there are any questions you can think of that might also annoy progressives, add them to the comments of Oleg's post.
If all cultures are equal, why doesn't UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?
If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?
Once a politician labels the truth as hate speech, can anyone trust him to speak the truth afterward?
If a politician gets elected by the poor on a promise to eliminate poverty, wouldn't fulfilling his promise destroy his voting base? Wouldn't he rather benefit from the growing numbers of poor people? Isn't this an obvious conflict of interests?
How did the "war on poverty" end? Has there been a peace treaty or a ceasefire? Who is the occupying force and who are the insurgents?
Why weren't there demonstrations with anti-feudal slogans under feudal rule? And under Stalin, no anti-communist demonstrations? And under Hitler, no anti-fascist demonstrations? In a free capitalist society, anti-capitalist demonstrations are commonplace. Is capitalism really the worst system?
If the poor in America have things that people in other countries can only dream about, why is there a movement to make America more like those other countries?
If diversity training benefits everyone, why do those classes mostly consist of white heterosexual males?
How come those calling Sarah Palin a "bimbo" often look like part of Paris Hilton's entourage?
How come the unselfish Americans hate their country out of personal frustrations, while the selfish ones defend America with their lives?
If being a winner in nature's struggle for survival is selfish, does being extinct make you an altruist?
How come so many anti-American radicals are wearing American brands, listen to American music, watch American movies, and play American video games on computers designed by American engineers?
And finally, if all opinions are equal, how come a liberal who disagrees with a conservative is open-minded, but a conservative who disagrees with a liberal is a bigot?
Here are a few questions gleaned from the comments:
Why are gun control advocates so violent?And the list goes on and on. Can any of you think of questions that would annoy progressives?
Why is it that the Left's mantra is "Celebrate Diversity" yet they all think the exact same and anybody who has a "diverse thought" is taken to the town square and hung?
Why is it I've never worked for a poor person?
If Communism was such a shining example for everyone, why didn't they put up a "Picture Window" instead of an Iron Curtain?
If all cultures are equal, then why are the liberals down on red-necks and conservatives?
Why do all leftist states have to build walls to keep their own people in, whereas rightist states have to build walls to keep other people out?
Why is leftism never judged by its reality but only by its lofty promises?
(H/T Maggie's Farm)
Sadly I'm still a minority among all people, progressives included, in having no allegiance to the bible or any other religious text. Not sure why you include the constitution in that. It's the law of the land, it just is.
I feel, therefore I am.
Progressives have no [allegiance or loyalty to] texts like the Bible or the Constitution, as Dennis Prager wrote about recently for his syndicated column.
I feel, therefore I am.
Progressives have no alliance for texts like the Bible or the Constitution, as Dennis Prager wrote about recently for his syndicated column.
Fiscally conservative but socially progressive may well be a contradiction in terms, but is nevertheless a very common statement in my experience. It may be an attempt to reach some sort of middle point, a point of balance between growth/freedom and responsibilities. In the end, it's probably the best we can hope for.
It's interesting you mention being a student of history. In my experience of studying history in three different countries, it surprising how the history of the same events depends on who is telling it. I was very frustrated with history for a long time because it's telling is so subjective. Where there should be one event, one set of facts, there are sides and interpretations. Probably why I ended up in science. Much more straightforward. The war on poverty that you mention, for example, has it's critics but has it's proponents too. Are the poor worse off? Would they have been better off under a different system? Does wealth, for instance, trickle down? I don't think it does much, as is evidenced for example by the distribution of wealth at the moment. Interesting charts here: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph I suspect that the movement and accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few is a natural trend. I suppose the next question is - should we be ok with this or take the money from the rich and give to the poor, as it were, if so how much and why should we do this frankly unfair act?
My problem is that I cannot in good conscience do nothing when there are people starving. I just can't. But I'm open to all possible solutions. Do I believe in a communist ideal of everyone being equal? No. But I think those of us who can and do should take care of those who can't. Not sure what to do about those that don't... It's not all black and white as always.
That ex-Soviet fellow suggested it is insanity to keep repeating something expecting other results. But isn't there space for learning from your mistakes? Trying to do better? I suppose it all comes down to what world you'd like to live in, and then fighting for it. That's what I do. I may be misguided, I may be ignorant, but I can live with myself. And opinions are subject to change.
I find it hard to believe that "many people nowadays consider themselves fiscally conservative but socially progressive." It is a contradiction in terms. Progressive, as it is defined today, cannot be both. With the ideals many progressives tout (and I know quite a few), the social programs they demand cannot possibly be funded and still remain fiscally conservative. It is impossible...unless your definition of fiscally conservative is to spend only 31% of the nation's GDP on social programs rather than 32%.
Unless I have misunderstood the modern progressive movement, I have found progressives to push for more government control of every aspect of American life (though they call it 'thoughtful regulation'). More than once they have told me they truly believe government is the answer to all our ills. The ones I know are blind to the fact that many of our social ills are because government screwed things up. A perfect example: LBJ's 'Great Society" and its little brother, the "War on Poverty". Both short circuited the rise of the disadvantaged out of poverty and trapped two generations in never-ending soul-grinding poverty with no way out. The welfare reforms LBJ promoted actually made it more difficult for our poorer citizens to work their way out of poverty, in the process destroying the social fabric of those he wanted to save. It had just the opposite effect of that intended. He ignored human nature and the consequences of his Great Society so many of his opponents warned him about.
One thing history has taught me: Government is no better than the people in it, and the people in government are neither smart enough or wise enough to have the kind of control over society it seems too many of my progressive acquaintances think they should have, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding. They have a tough enough time running their own lives, let alone everyone else's.
And while you personally may not want to have that kind of control, I know a lot more that do, and wouldn't mind having an iron-fisted socialist state to achieve their aims. Of course, a lot of that kind are not students of history, nor experienced in the way of the world, or are just outright bigoted morons with over-priced credentials, little actual education, and too much time and money on their hands.
Actually, this really bugs me... I know I went off on some sort of esoteric tangent but let's discuss the capitalism/communism slant of Mr. Atbashian's questions. And Cathy's point as well. We all agree that capitalism is a decent system and that seems to work best. But progressives feel that there ought to be rules, restrictions, laws, oversight etc etc of this capitalist system. Why? Here is an example, and I hope it's not too far off base. Let's say there you a person with some mental/developmental problems. You are a painfully slow learner, you have a bunch of disabilities, whatever. Where do you fit in this system? You are probably not capable of finishing school without extra help, but who is going to offer this help if it's not mandated? Perhaps some kind soul would, but what about the other disabled kid down the street? You are probably not cut out to start your own business, to be innovative, to make it in any financial sense. You are a slower worker than others and employers would rather not hire you if they aren't forced to. You might be great at bagging groceries but not as great as the high school kid next to you. Maybe your family takes care of you, maybe your health care costs are greater, maybe they can't afford to take care of you, maybe you don't have a family. It would surely just be in everyone's best interest that you be euthanized at birth, so you are not such a burden on society. And there were those cultures who did just that. We don't do that anymore, we have a bunch of laws to take care of these people, but they are taken care of by the rest of us, out of OUR precious money, and OUR hard work, and why is that fair? And it all comes around to what you think is right and wrong, and it is a nebulous place to be, especially if you don't have a god telling you what's what.
As a progressive, the only thing that annoys me is your lack of understanding of what I believe in. Perhaps it is a problem of generalizations, and I too am often guilty of lumping conservatives into a whole that many of them don't deserve to be in. But I would venture to say that progressives in the US are very much pro-capitalism (with regulations), and have no interest in becoming a communist country. One distinction I hear made is where one falls on fiscal vs social issues. For instance, many people nowadays consider themselves fiscally conservative but socially progressive. Even that is not entirely helpful. For instance what if you couldn't give two hoots about a person's race, but think homosexuality is an abomination.
The problem with all the ideological questions that we argue over is the very problem of humanity - that we are animals but try to behave in a non-animal manner. To what extant we should be unlike animals is the question. Should we care for our sick or let them die? Should the new male in our lives kill our offspring from another father? Should we kill each other over territory or mates? Should we be a society? Work? Marry? Many people believe (foolishly so in my opinion) in a higher power and in some form of superiority of humans. As far as I'm concerned the only thing we have going for us is our ability to speak, which gives rise to the ability to think and remember long term (aka teach). But with it does not come any obligation to behave in a particular way. Morals and laws are entirely the bi product of people trying to live together in societies. And here there can not be a right or wrong, there is just convention and current thinking. Cannibalism was cool at some point (and perhaps still is somewhere), as was racism, as is homophobia to this day. But it's a spectrum, and we each choose where we stand and the rights and wrongs we choose to believe in. As I look over history it seems to me that what we aspire to, what we consider good at the moment, are things more associated with socially progressive ideas. To take care of each other, to allow women the same as men (that is not give, just allow the choice/possibility), etc. There is nuance, there are caveats, but it's a morality I can live with.
what exactly is it about capitalism that has hurt Michael Moore, Al Gore, and the other celebs worth millions of dollars who espouse the evils of it?