So, just where to our "progressives" want us to go? They don't like being called leftists, or commies, or pinkos - or even liberals these days. They are "progressives". Ok - but what is the goal? Any "progressive" out there willing to clue us all in on just where and what the promised land is?
UPDATE: As it turns out, Fr. Neuhaus over at First Things has an interesting observation on progressives:
“We liberals, er, I mean progressives, are patriots, too.” That is the gist of E.J. Dionne’s touchingly defensive Fourth of July column in the Washington Post. He deeply resents the fact that it is widely assumed that patriotism is the default position of conservatives, while it is not sufficiently recognized that progressives, too, love their country–in their way...
...Rejecting “unadulterated patriotism,” E.J. comes out foursquare in favor of what I suppose might be called adulterated patriotism, i.e., deep devotion to the America that might be but isn’t.
Sounds about right to me - the progressives would love America, if only it were very different from the way it is.
Posted by Mark Noonan at July 10, 2006 08:15 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/whitehouse.cgi/7469
Comments
I think this is a totally fair assessment and I would doubt many progressives would disagree with you. One of Robert Kennedy's favorite quotes was, "Some see the world as it is and ask why? Others see the world as it isn't and ask why not?"
Conservatives, almost by definition, want to keep things as they are. Progressives, almost by definition, want things to change.
Posted by: longz at July 10, 2006 09:18 AM
I love America. Love of one's country isn't contingent on agreement with the actions of one's government.
However, there are people on the left, as well as the right, who turn distaste for the current government's policies into a vehicle for selfish personal gain (Sheehan) or justification for violent action (people who fire-bomb abortion clinics).
Patriotism knows no political party or political ideology.
Now, on to the original topic of this post... I could go on a rant about individual rights and secularism, but that is really a difference in ideology. What one person thinks is best for America isn't necessarily what the guy down the street thinks. That is why we have a two party system (and why we should have a multi-party system).
Living in Georgia in an election year, I have seen my share of attack ads. The Governor's and Lieutenant Governor's races are pathetic. Really, that is what I want to see changed. I just want politicians to be up front about their motivations for their policy decisions and for them to actually debate the issues instead of just swapping attack-ads.
If congressmen are against Gay Marriage because of the bible, then just say so. Don't make up bogus statistics to make your justification sound sciency. That means that people who act just to be relected would be forced to fess-up, but hey, do we really want them in power anyway?
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at July 10, 2006 10:56 AM
As a liberal and a progressive, I believe that the truly great thing about our country is that the end state of it is never fixed. This is reflected most simply at the level of the individual citizen: the simple idea that all citizens of this country have the opportunity to do what they want and succeed at it. Nothing is fixed in that being born here in condition x (rich, poor, white, black) does not guarantee living in condition y.
At a national/ political level, this same open-ended state is reflected in our checks and balances and in our legislative process. Our government is process-based, not results-based.
With a process-based government, it is important for the electorate to demand improvement, or progress, as it were. The progress that liberals want is increased freedom and opportunity for its people. My goal is a country where every person can do what they want and no one gets hurt. Obviously, this is not a realistic goal. The important thing isn't too obtain the goal, it is to keep working towards it. Because it is progress that matters the most, liberals are first and foremost interested in things that keep the possibility for progress open: checks and balances in gov't, opportunity initiatives for those in need, and accountability at all levels of gov't.
There's my answer. Now maybe you can explain what the conservative goal for America is. When you do, be sure to explain how the restrictive nature of social conservatism, the laissez-faire nature of economic conservatism, and the empire-building totalitarianism of neoconservative all fit together into one cohesive ideology. I'm very curious to hear your explanation for that.
Posted by: steve at July 10, 2006 12:13 PM
Progressives are unpatriotic - it's a fact, they want to hand this country over to the enemy on a silver platter, Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, Durbin, Jackson-Lee, etc. etc. etc. are all unpatriotic. I mean when you look at Congress don't believe for a second that everyone who has been elected is their for this country's good ~ a lot of them have very bad intensions!
Posted by: semby at July 10, 2006 12:13 PM
First of all, I think that a "liberal" calling his or herself a "progressive" is a great example of dissembling. What difference does it make if the definitions are the same? And if they aren't, what IS the difference? I extend that question to all those who consider themselves liberal/progressive.
And I ask it with complete honesty. Likewise, I ask all "conservatives" if they don't see a shift in the definition of that word over the last several decades. For example, the notion of "preventive war" (as opposed to "preemptive strike") is something that many traditional conservatives would find distasteful if not altogether repugnant. Likewise, the recent run-up in discretionary spending is also distasteful to traditional conservatives.
It used to be that the "conservatives" were the ones that used to be champions of the Bill of Rights. Now it's the "liberals". What has changed? Clearly it is not the Constitution. Thus, it appears that what has changed is the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative". And that fact is something BOTH liberals AND conservatives have to wrap their heads around. To me, the labels have proven so facile over time, with respect to the fundamental issues involved, as to render them essentially meaningless in any grand sense. The rules of logic, on the other hand, never change. So wouldn't it be best to argue issues on the basis of the facts and logic underlying them, as opposed to the labels spuriously applied to the personalities espousing a particular point of view?
Posted by: Ricorun at July 10, 2006 05:47 PM
First of all, I think that a "liberal" calling his or herself a "progressive" is a great example of dissembling. What difference does it make if the definitions are the same? And if they aren't, what IS the difference? I extend that question to all those who consider themselves liberal/progressive.
And I ask it with complete honesty. Likewise, I ask all "conservatives" if they don't see a shift in the definition of that word over the last several decades. For example, the notion of "preventive war" (as opposed to "preemptive strike") is something that many traditional conservatives would find distasteful if not altogether repugnant. Likewise, the recent run-up in discretionary spending is also distasteful to traditional conservatives.
It used to be that the "conservatives" were the ones that used to be champions of the Bill of Rights. Now it's the "liberals". What has changed? Clearly it is not the Constitution. Thus, it appears that what has changed is the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative". And that fact is something BOTH liberals AND conservatives have to wrap their heads around. To me, the labels have proven so facile over time, with respect to the fundamental issues involved, as to render them essentially meaningless in any grand sense. The rules of logic, on the other hand, never change. So wouldn't it be best to argue issues on the basis of the facts and logic underlying them, as opposed to the labels spuriously applied to the personalities espousing a particular point of view?
Posted by: Ricorun at July 10, 2006 05:54 PM
"Sounds about right to me - the progressives would love America, if only it were very different from the way it is."
Well Mark, if you love America the way it is, then you are a true conservative. (America, Love it or leave it). If you love America but think things could be better, then you are a progressive/liberal. (Negro, Black, African-American, it's just a word rico)
How do I think we could become a better country? First I would say reduce our dependence on oil and other non renewable resources. If we could become independant from foriegn fossil fuels, we could retain all the money we are spending to maintain a presence in the middle east.
Posted by:
Ash at July 10, 2006 06:10 PM
Progressives would love America! Yes, they would love to take control of America, In my view, NOT for the better of America, but for the WORSE!!
Of all the names to call democrats I will still call them communist's because that is what they truly are, their true colors come out when someone really good gets into the white house like president bush the GREATEST president to ever enter the white house!!
Democrats will sugar-coat things just in time for the elections!!
And that's why it's VERY IMPORTANT that we as conservative's fight and not let them have their way!!
We can't afford to have any more of the democrats sin sick ways!!
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at July 10, 2006 11:06 PM
Mark,
Take a look at Morgan Quinto's list of best places to live.
The country is overwhelmingly conservative, taken by states. That is if conservative means the states that went to President Bush. With the exception of the 3 Pacific states, the Northeast and parts of the Midwest, the entire country went to President Bush.
I did an analysis of data from Morgan Quinto and other established sources on metro areas by state in data on quality of life, safety, conservation (lower per capita use of foreign oil), income and other postive factors.
Maybe you'll try to pick this apart, or others may try to reason their way out of it: The metro areas in the liberal states rank highest in quality of life, low crime rates(with the exception of Detroit and Camden) and low use of foreign oil (Nashville uses the most foreign oil per capita and Texas metro areas are close).
Maybe states like New Jersey, Connecticut and (wow, there aren't many, are there?) I think they must be doing a few things right. Those lefties in New York and Boston sure don't use as much foreign oil per person as the conservatives. I love liberals.
Posted by: Nick Edmunds at July 11, 2006 12:05 AM
Mark, I think people are finally seeing now, and I thought about it a little bit ago when I was watching tv, the way to fix this spoofing issue is to stay on topic and not answer any questions, and also not ask any questions!
I think the problem is fixed, and......
I hope this trend continues!
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at July 11, 2006 12:15 AM
Ash,
No, I just love America - it is my country, and I love it, warts and all. The "progressives" seem to have a great deal of contempt for America - to dwell upon its flaws and propose that the flaws are fundamental, while any good done is incidental.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at July 11, 2006 12:27 AM
I don't know where liberals want to go, but I know where they're going. Straight to hell!
Posted by: Bob Arctor at July 12, 2006 03:24 AM
Post a comment
I think this is a totally fair assessment and I would doubt many progressives would disagree with you. One of Robert Kennedy's favorite quotes was, "Some see the world as it is and ask why? Others see the world as it isn't and ask why not?"
Conservatives, almost by definition, want to keep things as they are. Progressives, almost by definition, want things to change.
I love America. Love of one's country isn't contingent on agreement with the actions of one's government.
However, there are people on the left, as well as the right, who turn distaste for the current government's policies into a vehicle for selfish personal gain (Sheehan) or justification for violent action (people who fire-bomb abortion clinics).
Patriotism knows no political party or political ideology.
Now, on to the original topic of this post... I could go on a rant about individual rights and secularism, but that is really a difference in ideology. What one person thinks is best for America isn't necessarily what the guy down the street thinks. That is why we have a two party system (and why we should have a multi-party system).
Living in Georgia in an election year, I have seen my share of attack ads. The Governor's and Lieutenant Governor's races are pathetic. Really, that is what I want to see changed. I just want politicians to be up front about their motivations for their policy decisions and for them to actually debate the issues instead of just swapping attack-ads.
If congressmen are against Gay Marriage because of the bible, then just say so. Don't make up bogus statistics to make your justification sound sciency. That means that people who act just to be relected would be forced to fess-up, but hey, do we really want them in power anyway?
As a liberal and a progressive, I believe that the truly great thing about our country is that the end state of it is never fixed. This is reflected most simply at the level of the individual citizen: the simple idea that all citizens of this country have the opportunity to do what they want and succeed at it. Nothing is fixed in that being born here in condition x (rich, poor, white, black) does not guarantee living in condition y.
At a national/ political level, this same open-ended state is reflected in our checks and balances and in our legislative process. Our government is process-based, not results-based.
With a process-based government, it is important for the electorate to demand improvement, or progress, as it were. The progress that liberals want is increased freedom and opportunity for its people. My goal is a country where every person can do what they want and no one gets hurt. Obviously, this is not a realistic goal. The important thing isn't too obtain the goal, it is to keep working towards it. Because it is progress that matters the most, liberals are first and foremost interested in things that keep the possibility for progress open: checks and balances in gov't, opportunity initiatives for those in need, and accountability at all levels of gov't.
There's my answer. Now maybe you can explain what the conservative goal for America is. When you do, be sure to explain how the restrictive nature of social conservatism, the laissez-faire nature of economic conservatism, and the empire-building totalitarianism of neoconservative all fit together into one cohesive ideology. I'm very curious to hear your explanation for that.
Progressives are unpatriotic - it's a fact, they want to hand this country over to the enemy on a silver platter, Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, Durbin, Jackson-Lee, etc. etc. etc. are all unpatriotic. I mean when you look at Congress don't believe for a second that everyone who has been elected is their for this country's good ~ a lot of them have very bad intensions!
First of all, I think that a "liberal" calling his or herself a "progressive" is a great example of dissembling. What difference does it make if the definitions are the same? And if they aren't, what IS the difference? I extend that question to all those who consider themselves liberal/progressive.
And I ask it with complete honesty. Likewise, I ask all "conservatives" if they don't see a shift in the definition of that word over the last several decades. For example, the notion of "preventive war" (as opposed to "preemptive strike") is something that many traditional conservatives would find distasteful if not altogether repugnant. Likewise, the recent run-up in discretionary spending is also distasteful to traditional conservatives.
It used to be that the "conservatives" were the ones that used to be champions of the Bill of Rights. Now it's the "liberals". What has changed? Clearly it is not the Constitution. Thus, it appears that what has changed is the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative". And that fact is something BOTH liberals AND conservatives have to wrap their heads around. To me, the labels have proven so facile over time, with respect to the fundamental issues involved, as to render them essentially meaningless in any grand sense. The rules of logic, on the other hand, never change. So wouldn't it be best to argue issues on the basis of the facts and logic underlying them, as opposed to the labels spuriously applied to the personalities espousing a particular point of view?
First of all, I think that a "liberal" calling his or herself a "progressive" is a great example of dissembling. What difference does it make if the definitions are the same? And if they aren't, what IS the difference? I extend that question to all those who consider themselves liberal/progressive.
And I ask it with complete honesty. Likewise, I ask all "conservatives" if they don't see a shift in the definition of that word over the last several decades. For example, the notion of "preventive war" (as opposed to "preemptive strike") is something that many traditional conservatives would find distasteful if not altogether repugnant. Likewise, the recent run-up in discretionary spending is also distasteful to traditional conservatives.
It used to be that the "conservatives" were the ones that used to be champions of the Bill of Rights. Now it's the "liberals". What has changed? Clearly it is not the Constitution. Thus, it appears that what has changed is the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative". And that fact is something BOTH liberals AND conservatives have to wrap their heads around. To me, the labels have proven so facile over time, with respect to the fundamental issues involved, as to render them essentially meaningless in any grand sense. The rules of logic, on the other hand, never change. So wouldn't it be best to argue issues on the basis of the facts and logic underlying them, as opposed to the labels spuriously applied to the personalities espousing a particular point of view?
"Sounds about right to me - the progressives would love America, if only it were very different from the way it is."
Well Mark, if you love America the way it is, then you are a true conservative. (America, Love it or leave it). If you love America but think things could be better, then you are a progressive/liberal. (Negro, Black, African-American, it's just a word rico)
How do I think we could become a better country? First I would say reduce our dependence on oil and other non renewable resources. If we could become independant from foriegn fossil fuels, we could retain all the money we are spending to maintain a presence in the middle east.
Progressives would love America! Yes, they would love to take control of America, In my view, NOT for the better of America, but for the WORSE!!
Of all the names to call democrats I will still call them communist's because that is what they truly are, their true colors come out when someone really good gets into the white house like president bush the GREATEST president to ever enter the white house!!
Democrats will sugar-coat things just in time for the elections!!
And that's why it's VERY IMPORTANT that we as conservative's fight and not let them have their way!!
We can't afford to have any more of the democrats sin sick ways!!
Jeremiah
Mark,
Take a look at Morgan Quinto's list of best places to live.
The country is overwhelmingly conservative, taken by states. That is if conservative means the states that went to President Bush. With the exception of the 3 Pacific states, the Northeast and parts of the Midwest, the entire country went to President Bush.
I did an analysis of data from Morgan Quinto and other established sources on metro areas by state in data on quality of life, safety, conservation (lower per capita use of foreign oil), income and other postive factors.
Maybe you'll try to pick this apart, or others may try to reason their way out of it: The metro areas in the liberal states rank highest in quality of life, low crime rates(with the exception of Detroit and Camden) and low use of foreign oil (Nashville uses the most foreign oil per capita and Texas metro areas are close).
Maybe states like New Jersey, Connecticut and (wow, there aren't many, are there?) I think they must be doing a few things right. Those lefties in New York and Boston sure don't use as much foreign oil per person as the conservatives. I love liberals.
Mark, I think people are finally seeing now, and I thought about it a little bit ago when I was watching tv, the way to fix this spoofing issue is to stay on topic and not answer any questions, and also not ask any questions!
I think the problem is fixed, and......
I hope this trend continues!
Jeremiah
Ash,
No, I just love America - it is my country, and I love it, warts and all. The "progressives" seem to have a great deal of contempt for America - to dwell upon its flaws and propose that the flaws are fundamental, while any good done is incidental.
I don't know where liberals want to go, but I know where they're going. Straight to hell!