Why Progressvism Has Failed

[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.

[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........