Why Progressvism Has Failed

[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.

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.

[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?

[Furunculus]

The Lib-dems?

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.

[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.