Posted on 9/27/2003, 12:43:19 AM by ThreePuttinDude
Progressive Suckers
By Scott Hogenson
CNSNews.com Commentary
September 26, 2003
Every now and then, America's political Left tinkers with language in an effort to re-invent itself or its opposition, or to otherwise overcome the connotations associated with certain words and phrases.
2003 has seen a number of efforts along these lines. People who think abortion is wrong are increasingly referred to as "anti-choice" rather than "pro-life." Radical environmentalists are beginning to lean more prominently to the term "conservationist." Liberals are more broadly embracing the term "progressive" as a political label.
In her remarks during the Sept. 24 debate among some of the candidates in the California recall election, Arianna Huffington told the audience the Oct. 7 election offered "an unprecedented, historic opportunity here to elect an independent progressive governor on a simple plurality."
A Sept. 25 editorial in The New York Times noted, "Four progressive political groups sued the Bush administration this week, charging that the Secret Service is systematically keeping protesters away from the president's public appearances."
That same day, the Boston Globe quoted liberal city Councilman Felix D. Arroyo as saying, "The vote expands in [November] to the progressives and people of color. Definitely I feel this is a winning campaign," in describing his optimism about being reelected.
These are just a few recent examples of how the word 'progressive' is coming to replace liberal in political discourse. The problem is, there's nothing progressive about progressive politics. It's a new use for an old phrase that constitutes the soul of socialism and communism.
"If we are to restore civil society and move from tax socialism to tax justice, we need to abolish progressive taxation," wrote the CATO Institute's James Dorn in 1996, noting that "In 1848 (Karl) Marx and (Fredrick) Engels proposed that progressive taxation be used "to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state."
If you'd rather get this direct from the source, consider Engles' 'The Principles of Communism.' In Chapter 18, entitled, 'What will be the course of this revolution?" the first "main measure," mentioned by Engles is the "limitation of private property through progressive taxation."
The "Elections Statement 2000," published on the website of Democratic Socialists of America, notes "We operate within progressive coalitions as an open socialist presence and bring to these movements an analysis and strategy which recognizes the fundamental need to democratize global corporate power."
Indeed, the DSA's "first statement" on the upcoming 2004 elections says in its opening paragraph that it has "urged DSA members and our allies, in working for progressive candidates in the primaries, to advance our support for peace, universal health care, workers' rights and a living wage, reproductive rights, racial justice, etc. Only a Democratic campaign that emphasizes a progressive agenda can effectively mobilize the broad constituencies of working people, women, people of color, peace activists, environmentalists and global justice activists that will be needed to defeat the Bush regime."
Such dissections by conservatives are virtually guaranteed to draw howls of 'McCarthyism' and 'Red Baiting,' from dedicated Leftists, but the facts speak for themselves.
The treatise 'Eleven Years On the Railroad, in the C.P. and the PLM/PLP,' published by the Progressive Labor Party, (whose party logo encourages people to "Fight for Communism"), is blunt in linking progressive politics to communist revolution.
"This strength of the old communist movement was nurtured by the group of communists within the old CP [Communist Party] that eventually organized the Progressive Labor Movement (PLM) in 1962, predecessor of the Progressive Labor Party," reads the white paper. "The goal of the PLM and PLP was essentially to adopt what was positive from the old communist movement but to avoid its revisionist errors by putting forward communist revolution openly."
One of the best ways to monitor coming political trends is to pay close attention to the language, which is the first and most important tool in making radical policies more palatable.
The movement away from the use of 'liberal' and toward 'progressive' in American politics is one rooted in the hope of duping uninformed voters into supporting candidates and parties bent on advancing a socialist agenda. It is synonymous with socialism and is a moniker that preys on suckers.
Scott Hogenson is executive editor of CNSNews.com.
The real reason for many on the left adopting the word "progressive" to describe themselves is because they think it sounds nifty and nice, since it contains the word "progress" in it. This is the kind of sophisticated thought processes on which our oh-so-intellectual left base many of their considerations and political activities.
(In this category - the intellectual sophistication of leftist political discourse - see also: calling Bush "dumb" or comparing him to a chimpanzee; inventing rhymes i.e. "Bush lied people died"; organizing and attending demonstrations which at their root involve Getting Naked For Some Reason; plastering 17 bumper stickers on the back of their car; etc.)
How about Congress
Yep. Actually, in my experience this question alone is often enough to stump them so that their eyes glaze over. Leftists tend to be so self-centered that they can't envision that anyone's conception of "progress" could be different from theirs, so they think it's a stupid or meaningless question. "Why, we want to progress towards progress, that's what! Duh. Unlike those mean (R)'s and conservatives (who want to regress)."
When I get the 'social jsutice' answer, I ask them to explain what that means.
I'm quite fond of asking leftists just what, exactly, they think prepending the word "social" to justice adds to thems ("social justice", "social issues"). Another good one is to ask them what prepending the word "civil" adds to "civil rights". Are "civil" rights different from mere "rights"?
After a while, it's like pulling wings off flies. 'Progressives' hate being called to account for the pedigree of their very bad ideas.
My experience is that they don't know what's happening. They've got enough buzzwords and cliches in their heads that they can keep spewing this stuff for quite some time upon most questioning.
I know we laugh about it but have you read Goebbel's essay? He's unfortunately brilliant and the Progressives have memorized everything he wrote and use it on a regular basis.
What we think as just silly still works as well as it did in the days of Machiavelli. (Contrary to the elitist liberals, modern man has not evolved to some kind of higher humanistic plain.)
bump
The left have this down bump!
Socially liberal, fiscally moderate feeeeeeeeeeeling is "what [new Democrats] call a politics of progressive centrism," according to a writer. (feeeeeeeeeeeeling is my word)
You see, the new postindustrial politics makes 20th century liberalism and conservatism in general outmoded and dead. Politics is no longer "defined by states but by metropolitan regions within states. These postindustrial metropolises, which [new Democrats] call 'ideopolises'" will give progressive centrist new Democrats control of the Red and the Blue.
So even the "moderate" Democrats have latched on to the word "progressive." A word that in my mind has always been synonymous with communist. It is certainly what communists called themselves if I remember correctly.
The cultural (inner) war within the war against terrorism has become more open it appears, and it's the left's choice.
I like it when I point out that marxism causes economic stagnation and only capitalism creates progress. Then they say "is that really 'progress'? Are we so much better off? Is there really any such a thing as 'progress?'"
That's when I move in for the kill.
Oh Lordy, where oh where was the love from the progressives when Freepers et al were kept a block or so away from The Toon during the 90's? Where was the ACLU? What about CIVIL RIGHTS, man????
Look, I think it's accurate enough to link so-called "progressives" with socialism. But I'm just saying that "you see, the same adjective is used to describe the taxation scheme they advocate" isn't a good argument for that. A better argument is simply to observe that their agenda coincides with socialism in nearly every way. The fact that there is "progressive taxation" and that many socialist people like to call themselves "progressives" nowadays is something of a coincidence.
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.