Nana-J, it’s been quite a while since I’ve seen someone take the time to craft such a lengthy comment here on PJM that was also quite so fallacious. Your abuse of etymology in defense of progressivism is a perfect example of Mr. Chapin’s observations regarding the left’s victory in the culture war. I’d guess he’s grateful to you for illustrating his point so boldly.
The various ‘[1]‘ references in your comment were initially distracting, but now I see that the bulk of your post was not crafted by you at all – it is nothing more than plagiarized, copy/pasted text from Wikipedia, for which you provided no attribution (sorry, but the quotation marks don’t suffice). If you’re going to lecture others on the nuances of political ideology, I suggest you find a credible reference. Or simply learn to speak for yourself.
The tiny portion of your comment that comprised your own thoughts included a reference to what “many economists” think. I’m sure you’ll pardon me if I ignore that assertion without a few credible examples. GDP growth is currently at 2% – and that’s after absorbing the recent spike in oil price, the millions of illegal aliens we’re supporting and the media’s relentless lies about the state of the economy. The running Debt-to-GDP ratio of the past 8 years has been generally lower than the previous administration’s. Federal tax revenues are at an all-time high. So your erroneous “current meltdown” characterization commits precisely the offense you’ve falsely accused the author of committing.
Today’s self-anointed progressives have nothing in common with true American leaders like Teddy Roosevelt. His much-needed anti-trust victories worked in a completely different atmosphere from today’s, and had absolutely nothing in common with the blatant, socialist hubris of Hillary declaring she would “take [the oil companies'] profits” and turn them directly over to the State, or Obama’s ham-handed socialist plan to bribe American voters by stealing oil company profits to provide a “rebate” to consumers. As well, T.R.’s conservationist policies were grounded in their benefit to humanity, not in some delusional idolatry of “Gaia” or false fears that the sky is falling. Early Progressive ideals have been co-opted by the proponents of creeping socialism who today label themselves “progressive”. They are anything but. As von Mises observed, this process has been going on throughout both our lives (there are plenty of us out here who recall life under Eisenhower).
To put this in terms that a wikidpedian might grasp: today’s progressives ain’t your father’s Progressives. The former have morphed the precepts of anti-trust into a blind, lemming-like, anti-business ideology that finds the very notion of profit itself genuinely offensive. As well, their brand of conservation is a fantastical ideology grounded in ignorance and false fears – closer to suicidal eco-terrorism than anything ever envisioned by T.R. (sorry, there’s no more polite way to put it). Their pursuit “social justice” (without ever clearly defining it) through state regulation and control of every aspect of life their very raison d’etre.
What today’s progressives offer is nothing less than socialism on its face and marxism at its core. So-called “universal health care” is a prime example: a system that would transfer complete control of all health services to the government (not to mention the trillion$ in cash flow), resulting in the inevitable passage of “we-know-what’s-best-for-you” laws, dictating what you can and can not do based on how it might affect your government-funded health. In case you haven’t noticed, we’re already seeing this (e.g., banning of trans-fats, smoking bans, seat belt laws, etc.), so please don’t have the temerity to tell me that’s an unreasonable stretch.
Labeling themselves “progressive” is part-and-parcel of the doublespeak collectivists have been using to dupe themselves – and the “wikipedian” segment of each generation – into responding to the facts in exactly the manner that you have above.
As for Obama, anyone who still declares their support for him given recent events immediately gives up any intellectual credibility they may have had. So perhaps I should have just led off with that.
Enjoy the election.
