Why Progressvism Has Failed

[Strike For The South]

Because the deliviery system is all wrong

When America thinks libreal they think one of two things

1. Some bonged out hippie who cares about nothing past his own hedonism and narcissim

2. The classic Ivory tower

Why has America formulated this carciture? Why can't the progressive ever be on the side of the working man

How has a party completly beholden to buisness interests not only convinced us they are on our side but that there crippling pro coroprate pro big buisness policies will help us.

Why does spending money on things like education and helathcare make me a socialist demagouge who wakes up every morning and craps on the constitution

America has insulated itself from a whole spectrum of political debate because somewhere along the line someone convinced us what was America and to deviate from said example is tantamount to treason

I blame the cold war, there was no time to formulate anything. The Russians could invade at any moment

My family is your typical American family, if this were the 50s they would be card carrying Ds but today even though they hold many positions that align them with the Dems they can't vote for them becuase they are socialists.

Listen, I still love my guns, and I still hate wanton taxation with a complete disregard for anything

But when the orginator of the tea patry is saved by medicare and sees no dissconnect THERE IS SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG

[Husar]

Pretty much.

Isn't that what we Europinkosissycommies have been saying the whole time?

[PanzerJaeger]

Progressivism (unfortunately) has not failed; one only needs to look to the White House to see its startling success.

The Democratic failure in the 2010 midterm election, which is what I believe you are really referring to, was the result of abrasive personalities, off-putting political maneuvering, and real and perceived incompetence over the economy and other issues - not ideology.

If the Democrats had gotten America back on the "right track", then most Americans would have had no problem accepting progressive policies.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Progressivism (unfortunately) has not failed; one only needs to look to the White House to see its startling success.

The Democratic failure in the 2010 midterm election, which is what I believe you are really referring to, was the result of abrasive personalities, off-putting political maneuvering, and real and perceived incompetence over the economy and other issues - not ideology.

If the Democrats had gotten America back on the "right track", then most Americans would have had no problem accepting progressive policies.

This of course is completely disconnected from reality just as much as the Tea Party leader is. For the most part, progressive policies are long term policies meant to harvest in decades to come. Public subsidized education isn't an instant boost for an economy but is supposed to bolster it with much more educated and capable workers and innovators in the future AKA our children's children. That kind of thinking doesn't sit well with many people though who want results immediately. Health care reform isn't even taking full effect until 2014 according to provisions in the bill and yet all the conservatives start screaming how it has already failed and want to repeal it. I'm sorry PJ, but you really have little to go on here since your side is so ideological that it can't stand giving the other side a fair chance to see if their policies work in the long term as predicted.

[rory_20_uk]

Spending money on education can be an investment... but there is no international correlation between money spent and results. In the UK money has been thrown at Education, yet there are not the projected results.

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

You haz a sucky media -and it's not just Fox.

Anyway, it's not really like the Dems ARE socialists -they are as right wing and business focussed as the average European center-right party. Probably is partly a cold-war hang-up.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Spending money on education can be an investment... but there is no international correlation between money spent and results. In the UK money has been thrown at Education, yet there are not the projected results.

~:smoking:

If the Tea Party had their way, it would only be private schools. The point is that public education is progressive and it worked because people gave it a chance and now it is recognized as the best way to make something of yourself in "you can make it anywhere" America. Progressive policy made the American dream come true.

[miotas]

I find it odd that the USA can both enshrine "liberty" and condem "liberals".
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Classic case of double think there.

I also find it odd that the "conservatives" use the word "liberal" as a dirty word towards their oppostion when liberalism basically means upholding values of liberty (ie personal freedoms) and this is apparently what the "conservatives" stand for.

And whilst we're on it, why are the conservatives even called "conservative"? They clearly whant to change things.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I find it odd that the USA can both enshrine "liberty" and condem "liberals".
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Classic case of double think there.

I also find it odd that the "conservatives" use the word "liberal" as a dirty word towards their oppostion when liberalism basically means upholding values of liberty (ie personal freedoms) and this is apparently what the "conservatives" stand for.

And whilst we're on it, why are the conservatives even called "conservative"? They clearly whant to change things.

It's a massive case of rewriting history. See, the Founder's were not liberals looking to promote more liberty, they were conservatives looking to protect rights that were always there (natural rights). So the conservatives are the ones who want liberty and the liberals are the ones who want to take it away, because changing things means taking away liberty didn't you know.

[Furunculus]

I also find it odd that the "conservatives" use the word "liberal" as a dirty word towards their oppostion when liberalism basically means upholding values of liberty (ie personal freedoms) and this is apparently what the "conservatives" stand for.

And whilst we're on it, why are the conservatives even called "conservative"? They clearly whant to change things.

that is because liberalism is no longer what it once once, modern liberalism is modern parlance is a very different thing to classical english liberalism.

[a completely inoffensive name]

that is because liberalism is no longer what it once once, modern liberalism is modern parlance is a very different thing to classical english liberalism.

neither modern day liberalism nor modern day conservatism is really compatible with what they once were.

The modern day liberal movement for some reason seems to have a streak of wanting to remove the right to own a gun even though it goes counter to the ideal of promoting as much freedom as possible. The modern day conservative movement seem to love continuing the war on drugs and upholding bans on marijuana (California) as well as promoting their family and religious values on people through government even though it runs counter to ideal of as minimum government intrusion as possible.

EDIT: What I want is to dismantle the liberal and conservative movements and have a Progressive and Libertarian movement take control of the discourse. That way we can at least make sure personal liberty isn't infringed upon by people toting "family values".

[al Roumi]

And whilst we're on it, why are the conservatives even called "conservative"? They clearly whant to change things.

Well "conservative" literally means preserving the status quo -usually this is taken to mean the social & economic status quo i.e. lets make sure everyone remains in the same class as they grew up in.

Hence tax cuts for the rich, which for one, help to entrench the divide between rich and poor. (yes that's crude and depends on relative taxation, tax bands and of course your definition of "rich").

[rory_20_uk]

If the Tea Party had their way, it would only be private schools. The point is that public education is progressive and it worked because people gave it a chance and now it is recognized as the best way to make something of yourself in "you can make it anywhere" America. Progressive policy made the American dream come true.

The American dream is just that. America doesn't have the fantastic social movement that the American people like to think it does. A large cohort are so disillusioned that crime is viewed as the only realistic way of making it at all.

The best universities are all private, as are most of the best schools. Both offer bursaries / scholarships to allow the able but poor to attend.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Well "conservative" literally means preserving the status quo -usually this is taken to mean the social & economic status quo i.e. lets make sure everyone remains in the same class as they grew up in.

Hence tax cuts for the rich, which for one, help to entrench the divide between rich and poor. (yes that's crude and depends on relative taxation, tax bands and of course your definition of "rich").
bollox. why would anyone but the upper class be conservative if that was even remotely true?

or tax cuts for the rich because a progressive tax system already taxes them more than is healthy for both them and the economy. i.e. little to do with consertvatism at all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well "conservative" literally means preserving the status quo -usually this is taken to mean the social & economic status quo i.e. lets make sure everyone remains in the same class as they grew up in.

Hence tax cuts for the rich, which for one, help to entrench the divide between rich and poor. (yes that's crude and depends on relative taxation, tax bands and of course your definition of "rich").

No, "Conservative" means preserving the fabric of society, not entrenching social divide and dysfunction. The term was actually coined to appeal to the lower classes.

[HoreTore]

bollox. why would anyone but the upper class be conservative if that was even remotely true?

or tax cuts for the rich because a progressive tax system already taxes them more than is healthy for both them and the economy. i.e. little to do with consertvatism at all.

Why did die-hard authoritarianism have such an appeal that the majority of Russians supported Stalin and a significant portion of its current population still dream of a return of such a murderous regime?

[rory_20_uk]

Why did die-hard authoritarianism have such an appeal that the majority of Russians supported Stalin and a significant portion of its current population still dream of a return of such a murderous regime?

Russia have always been ruled by a "strong man" for the last... well, almost 1,000 years. Democracy has only weakened their country's standing so why would they look up to democracy?

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

bollox. why would anyone but the upper class be conservative if that was even remotely true?
Indeed! That is the very question I ask myself!

My answer for the UK is that the (current) Tories are not actually that conservative, they are very concerned with being a progressive government. Hence the greater tax on the rich that you point to.

Tax cuts are sold on the premise that you will keep what you have, and get more from it -what could be more conservative?


or tax cuts for the rich because a progressive tax system already taxes them more than is healthy for both them and the economy. i.e. little to do with consertvatism at all.

High taxes for the rich are about redistribution of wealth (I can see you shuddering) and should be about boosting the lot of the disenfranchised -that is socially progressive taxation.

And don't give me that "trickle down" tosh, the primary beneficiaries of economic growth are the investors -the rich. Yes growth means more jobs for those without capital investment but the main way for them to feel the benefits of economic power remains some form of wealth distribution, channeling (i.e. through the welfare state) the proceeds of growth directly to helping those not directly profiting from the profits of commerce.

[al Roumi]

Why did die-hard authoritarianism have such an appeal that the majority of Russians supported Stalin and a significant portion of its current population still dream of a return of such a murderous regime?

:bow: exactly, how many Russian peasants now make it to University?

[Furunculus]

My answer for the UK is that the (current) Tories are not actually that conservative, they are very concerned with being a progressive government. Hence the greater tax on the rich that you point to.

Tax cuts are sold on the premise that you will keep what you have, and get more from it -what could be more conservative?

High taxes for the rich are about redistribution of wealth (I can see you shuddering) and should be about boosting the lot of the disenfranchised -that is socially progressive taxation.

PVC has already supplied a perfectly adequate definition of what conservatives 'aspire' to, stick with it; "Conservative means preserving the fabric of society, not entrenching social divide and dysfunction. The term was actually coined to appeal to the lower classes."

Sounds more like an excellent justification for western free-market economies, rather than anything that is specifically tory.

No, I am not a supporter of redistributing wealth as an explicit goal in itself, though i am perfectly comfortable with social welfare including the principle that the richer end of the scale should pay proportionately more. again, there is nothing unconservative in this view.

[Furunculus]

Why did die-hard authoritarianism have such an appeal that the majority of Russians supported Stalin and a significant portion of its current population still dream of a return of such a murderous regime?

i was supplying a british perspective to a british poster, quite why other nations such as russia have such a love of political strong-men is another matter entirely, as Rory has said already.

[Lord of Lent]

:bow: exactly, how many Russian peasants now make it to University?

That is no excuse. Not having been to college doesn't mean you do not possess common sense...

[al Roumi]

PVC has already supplied a perfectly adequate definition of what conservatives 'aspire' to, stick with it; "Conservative means preserving the fabric of society, not entrenching social divide and dysfunction. The term was actually coined to appeal to the lower classes."

Sounds more like an excellent justification for western free-market economies, rather than anything that is specifically tory.

No, I am not a supporter of redistributing wealth as an explicit goal in itself, though i am perfectly comfortable with social welfare including the principle that the richer end of the scale should pay proportionately more. again, there is nothing unconservative in this view.

Historicaly, "preserving the social fabric" has been used (you may argue abused?) as a manifesto for opposition to all sorts of changes to the status quo, front and center among such changes were attempts to the erode the security and power of the privileged. That the poor or less well off have sided with the status quo rather than choosing to further the promise of greater equality has always been a great tragedy. In any case it is usually the aspiring and middle classes who drive social change, either self servingly or on the behalf of others.

That promise of greater equality sounds sensationalist but it is exactly what drove (drives?) support for communism. It's a harder rationale to understand in the context of somewhere "comfortable" like the present day UK, but far far easier in say early 1900's Russia, Italy etc where the rich/poor contrast was so stark and there was absolutely no safety-net bar your own family and its assets.

Off topic, but in the same vein, to my mind it is the welfare state and post-war progressive politics that did for support for communism in the west, or at least the UK.

[al Roumi]

That is no excuse. Not having been to college doesn't mean you do not possess common sense...

:confused: the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

[Lord of Lent]

:confused: the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

Oops! I read something different; I thought you meant low educational standards cause the phenomenon HoreTore was talking about...
Sorry, I'm a little sleepy...

[rory_20_uk]

:confused: the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

I think you are confusing the theory with the practice. It was not a level playing field and connections were as important then as they are now. A peasant son might have made it, but with a father on the politburo you'd be guaranteed a place wherever you wanted.

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

I think you are confusing the theory with the practice. It was not a level playing field and connections were as important then as they are now. A peasant son might have made it, but with a father on the politburo you'd be guaranteed a place wherever you wanted.

In the latter half of the 20th century, perhaps, but you'd need to convince me that it was always (i.e. early on/up to 1940s) that way.

And in any case, the system did not require the student to fund their own studies - so ability, not background, did count for more.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The reason Russians long for Stalin is much the same why Raegan is so revered in the USA: no appreciation of what they actually cost them, combined with a rosy-tinted spectacles of the “good old days” do not an informed opinion make.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The reason Russians long for Stalin is much the same why Raegan is so revered in the USA: no appreciation of what they actually cost them, combined with a rosy-tinted spectacles of the “good old days” do not an informed opinion make.

They also yearn for the Tsar, but they also love Putin.

Russia will be ruled by despots so long as it wants to be ruled by despots.

[rory_20_uk]

In the latter half of the 20th century, perhaps, but you'd need to convince me that it was always (i.e. early on/up to 1940s) that way.

And in any case, the system did not require the student to fund their own studies - so ability, not background, did count for more.

Great, so a variation of "In the West Money is used to gain power, in the USSR power is used to gain money". In case you missed it, background counted for more as unless you had connections then you'd hit glass ceilings. No loans for that.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

:confused: the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

No, the point I made was that those people votes(or dreams, there are no elections in russia) run contrary to their interests - just like a poor man voting for a consvative party, the statement I was responding to.

Or another example: the Norwegian party with the most votes among people living on welfare is the party who wants to cut our welfare state most(the progress party).

[a completely inoffensive name]

The best universities are all private, as are most of the best schools. Both offer bursaries / scholarships to allow the able but poor to attend.

~:smoking:

Umm, the UC's are probably among the best Uni's in the entire country. I really don't think you know what you are talking about. And you want to talk about private schools letting the poor in through scholarships? Please, USC, one of the best private uni's charges $45,000 a year last time I checked.

EDIT: Took out the first chunk because I actually agreed with it. All this refers only to the part remaining quoted.

[Subotan]

And whilst we're on it, why are the conservatives even called "conservative"? They clearly whant to change things.
Many modern "conservatives" in the United States advocate such radical change to United States government that a more correct term would probably be "reactionary", since so many want to turn the clock back to a world before big government, before social security, before medicare, before the 17th & 18th amendments etc. etc. They idolise a point so far receded into the past that they use what the Founding Fathers thought and said, not only to justify current policy, but to actually make it. In any other society on Earth borders, having a world-view based entirely on what mortal men said 250 years ago would be considered ancestor worship! The absolutely maddening thing is that their version of the Founding Fathers' thought is so selective and cherry-picked so as to become completely unrepresentative of the Founding Fathers as a collective group of diverse thinkers. For example, take this quotes by John Adams:

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of [Massachusetts], to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at [Harvard], [state] schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.

This is the same man venerated by people who wish to abolish the Department of Education. It just makes no sense whatsoever.


that is because liberalism is no longer what it once once, modern liberalism is modern parlance is a very different thing to classical english liberalism.
As has conservatism :]

[Furunculus]

As has conservatism :]

british conservatism has never really been what people nowadays presume it to be; rigid inflexibility against all change.

the tories have been instigators of massive constitutional change on numerous occasions, so what in fact it really is; is a rejection of the creed that change is de-facto good, and an adherence to the status-quo until a better alternative is unequivically demonstrated.

but you are correct, the level to which 'unequivicality' must be evident has been reduced by the absorbtion of the rump liberals at the start of the twentieth century, to the benefit of the tories i might add.

[al Roumi]

Great, so a variation of "In the West Money is used to gain power, in the USSR power is used to gain money". In case you missed it, background counted for more as unless you had connections then you'd hit glass ceilings. No loans for that.

That's cute, but still beside the point.

[Subotan]

british conservatism has never really been what people nowadays presume it to be; rigid inflexibility against all change.

the tories have been instigators of massive constitutional change on numerous occasions, so what in fact it really is; is a rejection of the creed that change is de-facto good, and an adherence to the status-quo until a better alternative is unequivically demonstrated.

but you are correct, the level to which 'unequivicality' must be evident has been reduced by the absorbtion of the rump liberals at the start of the twentieth century, to the benefit of the tories i might add.
Oh sure I totally agree that the Tories have implemented constitutional change, and for the better too. It just seemed that you saw the change in the definition of liberal as a bad thing, even though the same happened to conservatism.

[Furunculus]

Oh sure I totally agree that the Tories have implemented constitutional change, and for the better too. It just seemed that you saw the change in the definition of liberal as a bad thing, even though the same happened to conservatism.

aboluetely not!

paleo-conservatives = change is de-facto a bad thing to be worked against in the every instance
progressive-left = change is de-facto a good thing to be worked towards in every instance

somewhere inbetween lies common-sense.

[al Roumi]

somewhere inbetween lies common-sense.

The Lib-dems? :wink:

[Furunculus]

The Lib-dems? :wink:

far from it.

they push the country in the direction of europe, completely at odds with the wider electorates demands.

that is progressive beyond the point of good sense.

both change and steadiness are essential to the wellbeing of civic society, knowing when to act and when not to are the key to good governance.

[al Roumi]

far from it.

they push the country in the direction of europe,

I thought that was continental drift?

[Subotan]

aboluetely not!

paleo-conservatives = change is de-facto a bad thing to be worked against in the every instance
progressive-left = change is de-facto a good thing to be worked towards in every instance

somewhere inbetween lies common-sense.
I personally feel that common sense lies closer to the latter than the former, but I recognise that change isn't always a good thing. I'm perfectly happy with a lot of things about the UK at the minute, believe it or not - I think the NHS works fine, as does the monarchy, the devolution set-up with Scotland, etc.


far from it.

they push the country in the direction of europe, completely at odds with the wider electorates demands.

that is progressive beyond the point of good sense.
Hehe, as you know I have a totally contrary view. That said, the wider electorate doesn't really care that much - even in France, there's a society wide consensus that the elites push for Europe, and the public doesn't oppose it because it's not bothered :]

[Furunculus]

isn't bothered in the sense that we aren't having a revolution, or isn't bothered in the sense that a referendum if called wouldn't result in us backing away from europe and instead attaining a mandate to move closer?

think carefully before answering.........

i know [you] have a contrary opinion, what i am trying to establish is that you recognise that you are not representative of the plurality, or at least less so than you'd hope.

[Subotan]

I think there's elements of both. Europe certainly isn't a political issue in the same way that the economy, NHS, law'n'order, defence, the environment etc. all are. It's just not in the public conciousness. I think also if we had a referendum on the EU, and thereby a proper national debate (So talk about the EU isn't just about straight bananas, "barmy Brussels bureaucrats" and other such guff ), people would see the benefits of the EU in their daily lives, such as visa-free travel etc., as well as all the economic and political arguments. Britain is differenet from the rest of Europe in a way that France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland etc. are all not, but I think we could and will revel in our role as the Texas of Europe (I.e. more conservative, more independent-minded, a bit weird).

Also, I've noticed if you ask young people their opinion on their EU, if they have one, it's almost always positive. I know maybe two, three guys my age who are Eurosceptics, as opposed to at least fifteen who have positive feelings about it. I'm not talking about my friends at uni, but friends back home in Lancashire, most of whom aren't that political (Certainly not as big political nerds as I am :D ). I'm confident that over time as a society we will become more obviously Euro-friendly.

[Idaho]

The problem is that you have two sides:

The US people - 95% of the population
Economic power: Majority poor to medium wealth
Political power: Some can vote once every couple of years
Primary concern: A stable country, a job, decent education, healthcare

The capitalist elite - 5% of the population
Economic power: Own 90% of the wealth
Political power: Huge campaign contributions, armies of paid lobbyists, can afford to field their own choice of candidates/stand themselves, own newspapers, TV stations, etc
Primary concern: Maintaining their own power, becoming richer

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the words "shareholder", "lobbyist" or "corporation" appear in the US constitution.

[Furunculus]

I think there's elements of both. Europe certainly isn't a political issue in the same way that the economy, NHS, law'n'order, defence, the environment etc. all are. It's just not in the public conciousness. I think also if we had a referendum on the EU, and thereby a proper national debate (So talk about the EU isn't just about straight bananas, "barmy Brussels bureaucrats" and other such guff ), people would see the benefits of the EU in their daily lives, such as visa-free travel etc., as well as all the economic and political arguments. Britain is differenet from the rest of Europe in a way that France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland etc. are all not, but I think we could and will revel in our role as the Texas of Europe (I.e. more conservative, more independent-minded, a bit weird).

Also, I've noticed if you ask young people their opinion on their EU, if they have one, it's almost always positive. I know maybe two, three guys my age who are Eurosceptics, as opposed to at least fifteen who have positive feelings about it. I'm not talking about my friends at uni, but friends back home in Lancashire, most of whom aren't that political (Certainly not as big political nerds as I am :D ). I'm confident that over time as a society we will become more obviously Euro-friendly.

i don't want to pick because you have an absolutely sensible centre view:
"I personally feel that common sense lies closer to the latter than the former, but I recognise that change isn't always a good thing."
you merely exist to side of the centre, just as i do the other.

however, on europe, i will always return to my old staple; fair enough, lets have that referendum and see who's right........

[Subotan]

i know [you] have a contrary opinion, what i am trying to establish is that you recognise that you are not representative of the plurality, or at least less so than you'd hope.
I completely recognise that, and more importantly, I don't think my opinion is worth more than anyone else's. Sure, I may be more informed because I'm interested and I've researched it, but that doesn't mean that my vote in the referendum should be worth more or something. I also see that will never become as enthusiastic about the EU as, say, Germany, or Kosovo, but that's no bad thing. Like I said, I think we would be good at being the Texas of Europe - it would suit us, and suit the continentals.

I think such a referendum would be far preferable to submitting each treaty to referendum via the lock, as the latter will bee a ghastly thing to submit other Europeans to. A simple in-out referendum, none of this free-trade association guff (Which would submit us to the same rules and regulations made in Brussels, but without any democratic influence), held in a few years time would settle the Europe issue once and for all. I personally feel that Europe needs to slow down on the treaty changes for a few years and see how effective Lisbon is before deciding whether more reform is needed, and a few years of stability within Europe (Once the Eurozone crisis has been sorted out) would allow for a referendum.