Skip to comments.Inside the Progressive Mind
Posted on 03/16/2020 10:43:27 PM PDT by TBP
The Progressive believes in precisely two things: his own magnificence and the constructive power of brute force. In combination, they lead him naturally from the role of pestiferous busybody to brutal dictator. Where the productive man dreams of the things he might create if only left alone by his fellows, the Progressive dreams of the world he could create if only the lives and property of his fellows were at his disposal. The roots of his pathology lie in that oldest and most destructive of all human vices, the desire for the power to rule over other men.
As naked power-lust is a rather ugly motive, the Progressive rationalizes his desire to rule as a concern for human welfare, seeing himself as a great humanitarian, far superior morally to the lesser beings who pursue merely materialist ends such as their own prosperity and who frequently object to his program for achieving Utopia. This assumed moral superiority spills over into fields of practical accomplishment, and the Progressive imagines himself capable of allocating resources and even directing entire industries far more efficiently than a free market, often despite not even having any business or scientific experience. But despite what the Progressive believes about himself, the desire to compel others to obey his orders is what drives him forward. To satisfy this desire, there is ultimately no limit to what actions he will take, for he respects none of the restrictions on government officials intended to guarantee individual freedom that have been developed and set forth in written or unwritten constitutions.
It is easy to make the mistake of judging Progressivism by its earlier and less-severe manifestations and to conclude that its petty and paternalistic restrictions, for example New York Mayor Michael The Nanny Bloombergs recent crusade against large-size soda drinks, are simply bothersome annoyances. In fact the transformation from irritating but superficially benevolent nanny to ruthless dictator not only occurs rather quickly, it is a logical consequence of the Progressives zeal to usher in Utopia and of the means he must use to achieve the smallest of his goals - brute force. We should recognize the following principle: Once the Progressive is permitted to intrude however slightly into matters that are properly beyond the sphere of government, then all aspects of the individuals life may be subjected to control. Once any degree of coercion is permitted, then no level of force is out of bounds.
Let us see how this principle applies to the Bloomberg soda ban. First, if the government has an interest in regulating the individuals behavior in the name of assuring his health, no private decision the individual makes which could affect his health is beyond its power to control. (If this sounds familiar, its because its the broccoli argument that was raised in the court challenge of Obamacare by twenty-six states). Second, since the government is to be permitted to use force to override the individuals will, then it may use as much force as necessary to compel his obedience. The punishment of merchants who refused to obey the Bloomberg ban was to be a $200 fine, which on the surface would probably not be thought of as extreme. Note, however that this fine would probably have been sufficient to cause most restaurants to toe the line, and if it had proved inadequate there is no reason to believe Bloomberg would not have increased it to the point that no one would risk violating his edict.
If Bloombergs soda ban had been upheld (it was set aside by a judge during a rare moment when sanity prevailed in New York), the city could then have logically gone on to fine obese individuals or incarcerate them in fat farms where they would be forced to reduce, since nothing in principle would prevent this, and only the degree of public resistance might stand in the way of the ambitious politician determined to bring about these superior health outcomes - to use the modern technocrats jargon. What specifically the Progressive attempts to control depends on his personal inclinations and just how far he senses he can push the general public. Any weakness or lack of determination by the average citizen in resisting the nascent tyrant encourages him to push even further, whereas a determined resistance will often convince him to micro-manage some other aspect of our lives until a more propitious moment arrives to advance his original plan. But in no case is the Progressive held back by any trace of self-restraint.
Now, packing unwilling citizens off to fat farms is only an example of how the Progressive might begin to move from soft to hard tyranny. Do we have any examples in contemporary American politics in which Progressives have actually attempted something this obnoxious to personal liberty? Consider the following characteristics of a hard tyranny such as Nazi Germany, the old Soviet Union, or Communist China today:
 Press Censorship - all media state controlled and opinions of which the government does not approve become punishable offenses.
 Complete Gun Control only agents of the state are permitted to possess arms.
 One-Party Rule this means an enforced hegemony, where if opposition parties are permitted to exist at all they are placed at such an extreme disadvantage they cannot truly challenge the ruling party.
 Control of the Nations Economy.
Lets take these four one at a time and see what, if anything, Progressives have attempted along those specific lines.
 Press Censorship in 2012, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats proposed gutting the First Amendment by removing its protections from citizens who band together to form corporations. This means that while an individual citizen might still literally get on his soap box and attack the government, publishers of newspapers, magazines, books, and web sites could be shut down by the ruling party.
 Complete Gun Control while some of the more radical Progressives within the Democrat Party openly call for complete confiscation (New York Governor Andrew Cuomo considered the possibility in the run-up to the States infamous SAFE Act), most recognize the political danger that such a stand would put them in, and therefore advocate what they soothingly refer to as common-sense regulations meant to get us to the point of confiscation in slow and easy steps. For example, Barack Obama pretends to believe in the 2nd Amendment, although we may well doubt that his views have changed from his days as an adjunct lecturer at the University of Chicago where he told John Lott that he didnt believe Americans should be able to own guns. Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
 One-Party Rule Progressive Democrats have not moved to officially ban other political parties, but the fact that in many cities and states Republicans can no longer win control of either the legislative or executive branches of government under any foreseeable circumstances is extremely troubling. A full analysis would be too lengthy to present here, but it appears that in at least some of these places, Democrats have secured a permanent governing majority in every election by means of special favors and income redistribution. Republicans cannot match Democrats there except by playing the same game and in effect becoming Democrats themselves. Under such conditions, there is no need to officially ban the GOP.
 Control of the Nations Economy the purpose of Obamacare was plainly to take control of one-sixth of the nations economy rather than improve health care or health insurance. The other major bill the Democrats passed when they had the chance early in Obamas first term was Dodd-Frank, which increased the Federal Governments control of the financial sector to a degree unprecedented in our nations history. Given the opportunity, there can be little doubt that Progressive Democrats would bring additional areas of the economy under the control of the government.
Let me reiterate that once government is permitted to use force at all in a given matter, any degree of force is allowed. Bloombergs $200 big gulp fine, as noted earlier, may not seem draconian, but turning an innocent citizen into a felon for merely possessing a standard-size gun magazine certainly does. We can only guess at what penalties Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Progressives would have imposed on those bold enough to criticize them had they been successful at sweeping away the First Amendment, but as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act (an earlier attempt to limit free speech) provided for both fines and imprisonment, it is safe to say those penalties would have been quite heavy enough, and that inside every Progressive beats the heart of a true fascist. And what is perhaps most frightening of all is that in the age of Obama, theyre not even trying very hard to hide it any more.
"Liberals don't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory." -- M. Stanton Evans
(I hope this is the correct forum. If not, please move it.)
Now that is a HazMat Zone!
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
I am of the belief that all these forced business closures will cause the businesses, especially small businesses, to turn to government in order to survive.
Just what the governments want - businesses beholden to them.
You never let a serious crisis go to waste.
“progressivism” is grounded in elitism masquerading as egalitarianism.
Yes, Progressives’ excessive pride is their root problem. They believe themselves to be elites who are intellectually and morally superior to the rest of us. That is why they feel that they are entitled to rule over us. Their excessive self-centeredness and pride is also why they usually reject the Christian God. They do not want to feel accountable to anyone else, not even God. Their pride, and resulting condescension toward the rest of us, is also why they often feel that they are “above the law.” Progressives believe that the Law just applies to us “little people.”
This article is dead on. Inside every leftist is a Pol Pot screaming to be unleashed. If they thought they could get away with it, they’d round us all off to “re-education” camps and forced slave labor.
“It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” Thomas Jefferson
To defeat progressivism you have to knock them off their moral high ground.
Everything they do they justify on the basis of a moral superiority. And they use that fake “moral superiority” to guilt everyone else into submission.
Do not let them make you care!
2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die. 4 Then the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3: 2-5
The desire to rule over men is not always bad. Leadership is valued because getting people to work towards a common goal is what wins in sports, warfare, and corporate competition. The real evil is envy. Of all the deadly vices envy is the worst since nothing good can come out of it.
I would have to disagree.
The desire to rule over others is wrong. We are to rule over creation, but not other people.
Also, there's a difference between the desire to rule over others and the calling and ability to.
Thank you> Timely and timeless post.
Anybody who has this mindset has given themselves over to evil.
And so it will be until the King returns.
So being a parent and providing discipline for your children is a bad thing?
Re-read my post.
Alinsky gave us the principles to defeat progressives:
Isolate the target and destroy it.
Make them live by the rules they made.
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.