Skip to comments.Right-Wing Progressivism in the U.S. (Must End!)
Posted on 04/30/2010 3:02:32 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
I posted this first to the latest Glenn Beck thread. I think it embodies what Glenn is talking about in a concentrated summary and deserves notice, IMHO:
A right-wing progressive can be defined as one who joins with the left in promoting the all-encompassing all-powerful Commerce Clause in order to push a social "conservative" or religious agenda, primarily today in the federal War on Drugs. (Right-wing Progressivism predates left-wing Progressivism in the alcohol temperance movement of the 1870s and also in the premature ending of Reconstruction and Plessy v. Ferguson institutional and statute-enforced segregation.) The right has been willing to help the left dine out on our substance in tyrannizing and regulating all aspects of our lives in return for the crumb of a federal war on vices, obscenity, violating the 1st Amendmend's "no law", and drugs, having failed miserably with alcohol, perverting the meaning of "interstate" commerce in order to avoid another Prohibition Amendment debacle.
Okay, what has happened to "right-wing progressivism" since the 1930's New Deal right-left coalition? The left has pushed right-wing progressives into smaller and smaller corners, while still able to count on their support for big government.
The right lost almost all control of freedom of association in the 1950s and 1960s when forced segregation, which many were happy with, became forced integration and forced busing. These are two sides of the same big government coin. Had the left been satisfied with de-institutionalizing segregation, that would have been the small-government ideal. But promotion of desegregation became a tool of leftist state control as segregation had been a tool of right-wing control.
On obscenity, the Right has lost almost all control of adult pornography except in public places and public broadcast of the most explicit material. They lost from the 60s to the 90s on public broadcast of the seven dirty words, though they recently regained that. But where is the 1st Amendment authority for that in "no law"?
On drugs, the "Right" lost on alcohol in 1933. In the last decade, the Right's control on marijuana has begun to slip. Soon, only "hard drugs" will be illegal IF that is enough to keep the social right wing in the big government coalition or if indeed the right is still needed in that coalition.
The right did have good reasons for collaborating with the left in federalization. State-by-state temperance laws had failed to get the degree of control over alcohol that the religious right sought because state borders are porous. What was illegal in one state was easily carried to another by individuals and black marketeers. Lax broadcast standards in one state would let language and views bleed over into stricter states. Rather than taking the lengthy process of persuading adjacent jurisdictions, the right opted for the easy answer of federal standards. But the Supreme Court from 1900 to 1920 correctly ruled such efforts beyond the scope of federal power. The 18th Amendment seemed to be the solution for alcohol. But when that promoted violent crime and disrespect for the law, the right surrendered on alcohol and retreated to federal control on issues and values on which there was general public agreement. On of those was marijuana. And the left was able to get the right to join the New Deal left to forge a coalition for big government culminating in the Wickard v. Filburn decision. Then the left set about undermining those values with the goal of one day obtaining sole control of big government power with a majority able to do without a coalition with the right.
The federalizing of religion-based legalistic control on these issues has gradually turned against the right in the left's push for federal exclusion of religion which reaches state and local levels through unconstitutioinal federal funding, mandates and regulation. The right needs to understand that federalizing these issues was always going to be temporary and self-defeating, diverting them from true efforts at persuasion and evangelization for the easy shortcut of coercion while the left used those tools to evermore shrink the right.
The only solution lies in the right pulling the rug from under the left while it may still have the numbers to do so. The right must leave the big government coalition, even if that means setbacks on individual issues. With a collapse of big government, the right must then set about persuading on its issues at the local level. And the right needs to understand that some people are going to be sinners and stop trying to convert by coercion at any level where there is not an immediate and direct threat to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
Now would be an ideal time for Megan McCain to go popping of about all of her Conservative Progressive causes!
That would ensure JD’s win in AZ.
Funny, how she has been out of the picture and silent all of the sudden, you know?
She has not been silent. She was just out there bashing the Arizona Governor.
There is no such thing as a Right Wing Progressive.
There is no such thing as a Conservative Progressive. These 2 idealogies cannot co-exist within the same party, as they are oposites.
There are Progressive Republicans.
DYK that many major cities had public smoking bans around the time of our founding fathers?
Right does not equal conservative when right seeks to use the levers of power to impose its views on individual behavior. Progressive is the coercive left.
A progressive right-winger is one who colludes with the left in their creation of a coercive non-conservative government in return for being allowed to use those tools for bits of the right-wing agenda that the left allows temporarily.
I believe you are confusing “Social Conservatives” with “Progressive Conservatives.” Certainly many Social Conservatives have bought into Progressivist “moral” campaign’s, such as the aforementioned “Temperence” campaign that resulted in the 18th Amendment and Prohibition in the early 20th century. But the motivations were quite different. Social Conservatives were motivated by protection of families, children, life, Progressives were interested in control, order, “social betterment.” I draw these conclusions not merely as a layman, but as a minister of the Gospel and as a Professor and student of History and Religion.
One might argue about the means, but NOT the motives. Social Conservatives clearly do NOT share the motives of Progressives. Incidentally — the very idea of “Conservative Progressive” is an oxymoron. It’s self-contradictory. One is either a Conservative, or one is a “Progressive.” One cannot be both.
To claim that Scalia, Roberts and Alito are “Progressives” is to totally misunderstand and confuse Social Conservatism and so-called “Right-wing Progressivism” (a misnomer, as I’ve already pointed out). They are Originalists and Constructionists, characteristic of Social Conservatism in their view of the COnstitution, NOT Progresivism!
PLEASE note the difference between SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES and these so called RIGHT-WING or PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES. They are very different, just as there are differences between Libertarian Conservatives and Social Liberals...There are differences, aren’t there?
And some states had established religions and slavery.
Yes, I’m aware of many contradictions held at the time.
To obtain a measure of the relative frequency of different criminal charges and the types of punishments imposed, Powers reviewed the General Court and Court of Assistants records set out in the Plymouth Colony Records (PCR) for a ten-year period, from April 1, 1633 through 1643. The following is a summary of his findings, listed by category of crime and in descending order of the number of convictions for those crimes:
* Fornication: 19 convictions, resulting in 2 fines, 9 whippings, 1 bond for good behavior, and 9 stocks.
* Drunkenness: 18 convictions, with 11 fines, 2 whippings and 2 stocks.
* Lewd, lascivious, or wanton behavior: 16 convictions, resulting in 10 whippings, 2 stocks, 2 banishments, 2 burnings on the shoulder, and 2 “other” punishments. Other penalties included: to be whipped and forced to wear an AD for adultery, or to have to give a public account of one’s way of living.
* Liquor law violations: 13 convictions, resulting in 13 fines.
* Vilifying authorities: 12 convictions, resulting in 8 fines, 2 bonds for good behavior, 1 stocks, and 1 banishment.
* Assault and battery: 9 convictions, resulting in 9 fines.
* Tobacco smoking: 8 convictions, resulting in 6 fines.
* Stealing: 7 convictions, resulting in 4 whippings, 1 bond for good behavior, 1 restitution (repayment), and 2 burnings on the shoulder.
* Swearing: 6 convictions, resulting in 2 admonitions, 1 stocks, and 2 prison sentences.
* Extortion: 6 convictions, resulting in 3 fines and 2 restitutions.
* Lord’s Day violations: 6 convictions, resulting in 2 fines, 2 whippings, 1 bond for good behavior, 1 stocks, and 1 banishment.
* Murder: 3 convictions, resulting in 3 executions (Powers 1966: 406).
Powers also counted 68 convictions for crimes he categorized as “Miscellaneous.” Among these, the most prominent in number was “keeping unringed swine” (letting them run loose), with 21 convictions, resulting no doubt in the imposition of fines. Among the other crimes Powers included in this miscellaneous category were a number of infrequent transgressions, such as: “cruelty to servant (1); living alone (1); runaway servant (1); . . . selling powder to Indians (1); scoffing at religion (1); sodomy (death penalty [of Graunger]); adultery (1); neglecting duty about the ferry (1); calling a man a ‘rogue’ (1)” (Powers 1966: 406). These 68 convictions resulted in 46 fines, 5 whippings, 3 restitutions, 1 admonition, 3 stocks, 1 prison sentence, 2 banishments, 1 death sentence, and 3 “other” penalties.
That’s a Rino.
Sure there are degrees are left and right, but I would not consider anyone right wing if they were progressive.
Lindsay Graham, for instance, is a progressive, he’s a Republican, but he is not ‘Right Wing”.
Symantics, perhaps, but I don’t like the way the left intrchanges words and inevitably skews the meaning.
Understand you completely. I am a social conservative. The progressive right is mainly a subset of social conservatives, probably a majority, unfortunately.
Scalia, Roberts and Alito are NOT originalists because they agree with the left’s all-encompassing New Deal interpretation of interstate commerce (or the general welfare, or the necessary and proper clauses) because that is intellectually necessary to continue the federal drug war without a specific Prohibition amendment granting the federal government that authority. If they pulled out of that mindset and became conservatives and originalists, half of the cabinet level departments become unconstitutional.
It seems to me one has to put far too much emphasis on the ICC to get to their objections to the drug war — and anyone who finds drugs legally objectionable must defacto be a progressive BECAUSE they oppose drugs.
As a Social Conservative, I oppose drugs — not based on the ICC, but on a myraid of other legal (and to me more importantly MORAL) reasons. I do not think that ONE example — the “drug wars” — is grounds to deny that three of our Supreme Court Justices are not Originalists. These men are not perfect. I don’t agree with all their decisions by any stretch — but we’ve got to start somewhere and work with what we’ve got.
You have it exactly backwards. You can oppose intoxicating drugs for a lot of REASONS without being progressive. The issue is on what legal BASIS and with what MEASURES you want to use to do something about it.
The ICC is a blunt instrument that if used against drugs, it justifies regulating everything else. What existing Constitutional provision would you suggest using that targets drug use without a massive claim of federal power or distorting the original intent beyond recognition? Or what Prohibition language would you propose that does not result in the problems created by the 18th A. or the problems we have now?
Scalia et al are not progressives because they want to stop drug use even by coercive means. That makes them not libertarian. They are progressives because the tool they want to use, the ICC, also gives power to the progressive left. They do not have the courage and intellectual consistency to leave that decision to the people whether to grant that power by amendment or not, and they short-circuit any impetus by the people to do so by imposing their own views for an unauthorized drug war.
I’ve seen plenty of libertarians cheer on the “progressive” oppression of their enemies. They cheer on the Left forcing homosexuality on the public and especially enjoy the left’s violation of religious liberty for the groups they hate. They cheer on the health nazis. They cheer on corporate upsurption of the spirit of the constitution.
Everyone has mud on themselves in this sick system where people compete to win elite’s all powerful Federal oppression game. No one should be mounting a high horse and especially not libertarians.
You are exactly right. Progressive libertarians would rather give the left free reign than see abandoned either Roe v. Wade or Lawrence v. Texas and the federal power they embody. Progressivism cuts across all political bedfellows and sacred cows.
The only solution that I can see, short of breaking the country into two, is a return to the US constituional government and an overturning of all the law, case law, foreign treaties and Executive Oders that have eroded freedom’s structure of government and individual liberty.
Then no one has a reason to look to the Federal government to “get” their social, economic and political enemies in a centralized way. However, if this is not possible, we need to spilt into two nations - one free and one socialist. Freedom is not reconcilable with socialism and surely not with global fascism.
The other option is to break up into two Nations - one free and one socialist.
:-) I think you understood me exactly backwards. In the case of the “drug war,” however, perhaps they HAVE granted leeway [wrongfully] that has opened the door to massive abuse. Wouldn’t be the first time Conservatives have done something stupid like that. It’s happened for over a century!
Most recent example? Mike Pence and Eric Cantor voted FOR HR 2499, the “Puerto Rico Democracy Act,” which ostensibly will give Puerto Rico the chance to vote for statehood (which they have voted down 3 times before. Only this time, the PR Progressive Party has already RIGGED the process and fixed it WITH the Democrat-Socialists in Congress so that they could actually FORCE their way into statehood within a year! And yet, CONSERVATIVES — REAL Conservatives! — voted for it! Real Conservatives in Each and every branch of Government do STUPID things and make DUMB decisions sometimes. It’s the nature of the business.
That still doesn’t make them thorough-going Progressives....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.