Why Progressvism Has Failed

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

Pretty much.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

: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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord of Lent

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

: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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

: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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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: