Can You Be Both An American and A Progressive?

[Vast LWC]

Terrific. This is the best attempt at refutation in the thred.

And, I hope, it should serve as an example of the level of argument we should have.

But, I have read the entire Wilson essay, and some of his other work, and he clearly believes that the the points that I made earlier, and won't reprise now, and is as anti-American as can be.

Further, I would recommed the "The American Concept of Liberty," by Johns Hopkins President Frank Johnson Goodnow, who pioneered with Woodrow Wilson a science of administration separated from the limits of constitutional government. In this essay, Goodnow both promotes the idea of separation of politics and administration, and critiques the human rights theory of the Declaration of Independence and its influence on the practice of American government.

Goodnow explains the European viewpoint toward the rights of the individual: “In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.”

This, of course was the desire of Goodnow and the Progressives for America. If you continue your study of the provenance of Progressivism, and are the kind of person you appear to be, you will, I am certain, come away with the same view of Progressivism that I have.


In addition, you should review the difference between Common Law, and Civil Law. The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem) Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails. In Anglo-American Common Law tradition, the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the Common Law tradition. Note how this plays into the view of Progressives who look to German jurisprudence perspectives.

Again, nice job. I hope you will continue your research.

Well written.

So in essence you're saying that Progressivism is Government without Religious influence which considers the needs of the many above the needs of the individual, Or the "Pro-Spock" philosophy...

...while Conservatism is Government with religious influence which considers the needs of the individual above the needs of the many? Or the Anti-Spock Philosophy?

I may accept that definition. That doesn't mean I believe that the Constitution supports the Conservative viewpoint, or that Progressivism is inherently "Anti-American", however.

 

[Ravi]

Can you be both a Progressive and an American?

Yes. Heck you can even be an Ann Coulter drone and still be an American...not sure what your point is, PC, but are you thinking that Progressives are traitors and should be rounded up and stripped of their citizenship?

 

[Dr Gregg]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/103605-is-there-an-intelligent-reasonable-conservative-on-here.html#post1956995

 

[PoliticalChic]

Terrific. This is the best attempt at refutation in the thred.

And, I hope, it should serve as an example of the level of argument we should have.

But, I have read the entire Wilson essay, and some of his other work, and he clearly believes that the the points that I made earlier, and won't reprise now, and is as anti-American as can be.

Further, I would recommed the "The American Concept of Liberty," by Johns Hopkins President Frank Johnson Goodnow, who pioneered with Woodrow Wilson a science of administration separated from the limits of constitutional government. In this essay, Goodnow both promotes the idea of separation of politics and administration, and critiques the human rights theory of the Declaration of Independence and its influence on the practice of American government.

Goodnow explains the European viewpoint toward the rights of the individual: “In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.”

This, of course was the desire of Goodnow and the Progressives for America. If you continue your study of the provenance of Progressivism, and are the kind of person you appear to be, you will, I am certain, come away with the same view of Progressivism that I have.


In addition, you should review the difference between Common Law, and Civil Law. The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem) Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails. In Anglo-American Common Law tradition, the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the Common Law tradition. Note how this plays into the view of Progressives who look to German jurisprudence perspectives.

Again, nice job. I hope you will continue your research.

Well written.

So in essence you're saying that Progressivism is Government without Religious influence which considers the needs of the many above the needs of the individual, Or the "Pro-Spock" philosophy...

...while Conservatism is Government with religious influence which considers the needs of the individual above the needs of the many? Or the Anti-Spock Philosophy?

I may accept that definition. That doesn't mean I believe that the Constitution supports the Conservative viewpoint, or that Progressivism is inherently "Anti-American", however.

Thank you.

No, my thesis is that the basis of American greatness rests on it's primacy of the individual over the state or collective or group.

As far as the religious aspects, they are not my main focus, but they are of the Founders. Their view is that said individuals are neither perfect, i.e. 'angels,' nor perfectible, but are capable of self-government.

That government of human beings must have checks and balances and a separation of powers, simply because human beings are not perfect nor perfectible.

Command-and-control governments, whether by Progressives, Socialists or Communists are flawed in that operate as though political policy can perfect humans.

Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature.

“The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.

Leon Trotsky wrote in his Literature and Revolution :
"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Progressives have a similar view: human nature is plastic; politics is a means of perfecting man!


But you are wrong in claiming that Progressives were any less people of faith than traditionalists. This may or may not be true today.

Many were extremely religious. But these folks saw the presence of God in the state itself, as an 'Administrative State,' one that can solve all ills, social and economic.

Thus, for Progressives, a huge multilevel, all encompassing, expansive government, with powers beyond the Constitution, able to act quickly and assertively by way of commissions, czars, bureaucrats, experts, doing what they saw as God's work.

Nor did I say that "the Constitution supports the Conservative viewpoint," but the exact reverse: Conservativism accepts the Constitution.

If you would like to take this into a comparison of Conservativism vs Liberalism, I would be happy to do so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can you be both a Progressive and an American?

Yes. Heck you can even be an Ann Coulter drone and still be an American...not sure what your point is, PC, but are you thinking that Progressives are traitors and should be rounded up and stripped of their citizenship?

Now, I know that you are able to take this beyond the title of the OP, and on which side of the argument you live...

so how about coming up with an argument against the points raised in the OP.

Give it a shot.

 

[Modbert]

I don't know how any of you have the patience to respond to her questions. PC lost her mind long ago, though it really snapped when Obama won.

 

[ihopehefails]

Terrific. This is the best attempt at refutation in the thred.

And, I hope, it should serve as an example of the level of argument we should have.

But, I have read the entire Wilson essay, and some of his other work, and he clearly believes that the the points that I made earlier, and won't reprise now, and is as anti-American as can be.

Further, I would recommed the "The American Concept of Liberty," by Johns Hopkins President Frank Johnson Goodnow, who pioneered with Woodrow Wilson a science of administration separated from the limits of constitutional government. In this essay, Goodnow both promotes the idea of separation of politics and administration, and critiques the human rights theory of the Declaration of Independence and its influence on the practice of American government.

Goodnow explains the European viewpoint toward the rights of the individual: “In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.”

This, of course was the desire of Goodnow and the Progressives for America. If you continue your study of the provenance of Progressivism, and are the kind of person you appear to be, you will, I am certain, come away with the same view of Progressivism that I have.


In addition, you should review the difference between Common Law, and Civil Law. The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem) Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails. In Anglo-American Common Law tradition, the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the Common Law tradition. Note how this plays into the view of Progressives who look to German jurisprudence perspectives.

Again, nice job. I hope you will continue your research.

Well written.

So in essence you're saying that Progressivism is Government without Religious influence which considers the needs of the many above the needs of the individual, Or the "Pro-Spock" philosophy...

...while Conservatism is Government with religious influence which considers the needs of the individual above the needs of the many? Or the Anti-Spock Philosophy?

I may accept that definition. That doesn't mean I believe that the Constitution supports the Conservative viewpoint, or that Progressivism is inherently "Anti-American", however.

"Nothing outside the state and everything within the state". That is the best way you can sum up liberal philosophy.

 

[Vast LWC]

But Progressivism is only Communism if taken to the extreme, and is not Totalitarianism at all, unless warped beyond recognition.

Individualism of course, when taken to an equal extreme, is Anarchy, at least until Anarchy inevitably leads to some sort of military takeover.

Or, if taken to the extreme in the form of certain individuals having more value than others, Conservatism/individualism will lead to Monarchy or Oligarchy.

Progressivism also "accepts the Constitution", they simply have a more "liberal" interpretation if you will.

 

[Article 15]

Can you be both a Progressive and an American?

Yes. Heck you can even be an Ann Coulter drone and still be an American...not sure what your point is, PC, but are you thinking that Progressives are traitors and should be rounded up and stripped of their citizenship?

Now, I know that you are able to take this beyond the title of the OP, and on which side of the argument you live...

so how about coming up with an argument against the points raised in the OP.

Give it a shot.

What's the point?

Your premise is just another hack job attempt to demonize those who don't share the same point of point as you .. in this case by trying to paint them as "not American." It's a bunch of nationalist bull shit.

ihopehefails actually found a nut for once ...

I could be a hardcore Nazi and an American at the same time.

 

[Vast LWC]

"Nothing outside the state and everything within the state". That is the best way you can sum up liberal philosophy.

Why, I don't think that's true at all. Progressives generally have less of a protectionist agenda than Conservatives.

Wilson was also very much not a protectionist.

At this very moment progressives may have a slightly more protectionist viewpoint, but it is specific to the current economic environment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't know how any of you have the patience to respond to her questions. PC lost her mind long ago, though it really snapped when Obama won.

What could expose the vast wasteland of your intellectual ability more than this post, where you scold those who actually have a thought, and use a ability that you envy.

Now go back into the corner and continue trying to master patty-cake, and, hopefully, no one will notice that you are not up to the level of this conversation.

 

[Ravi]

Yes. Heck you can even be an Ann Coulter drone and still be an American...not sure what your point is, PC, but are you thinking that Progressives are traitors and should be rounded up and stripped of their citizenship?

Now, I know that you are able to take this beyond the title of the OP, and on which side of the argument you live...

so how about coming up with an argument against the points raised in the OP.

Give it a shot.

What's the point?

Your premise is just another hack job attempt to demonize those who don't share the same point of point as you .. in this case by trying to paint them as "not American." It's a bunch of nationalist bull shit.

ihopehefails actually found a nut for once ...

I could be a hardcore Nazi and an American at the same time.

Yep...there is no rhyme or reason to PC's threads. Except that she hates opposing views.

 

[Political Junky]

Mostly she just likes reading her own tripe and probably hearing her voice as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution are founded on the idea that people are born with inalienable rights, given by one’s Creator, not by a legislative body or government that can decide which ones you have, and can remove them.
]

That is nonsense. The Constitution explicitly establishes a government whose purpose is to protect your rights AND to decide which rights it will or will not protect.

 

[JScott]

I am convinced, this country is in the "Dim Ages".

The polarization of our political parties have divided opinions and facts so far apart that neither side is right or wrong.

The simple fact is, if you are an American, then you are. You opinions and beliefs do not make you un-American. Extremists may say you are but you are not. Extremists have an extreme view. Skin heads, the KKK and the Nazis say the same general things. They have a right to their opinions but they carry no weight.

Political Chick is nothing more than an extreme opinion. Thats okay, I can respect that. Her opinion is just that, an opinion. Its extreme, thats why it raises your eyes. If a party has this on their platform then they wont get elected, simple as that. The moderates dont elect extremists, they elect people like Obama or almost Mccain who the republican party held in disdain for years. Ironic.

Political Chick, I enjoy reading your posts for the entertainment factor.

 

[Vast LWC]

I am convinced, this country is in the "Dim Ages".

The polarization of our political parties have divided opinions and facts so far apart that neither side is right or wrong.

The simple fact is, if you are an American, then you are. You opinions and beliefs do not make you un-American. Extremists may say you are but you are not. Extremists have an extreme view. Skin heads, the KKK and the Nazis say the same general things. They have a right to their opinions but they carry no weight.

Political Chick is nothing more than an extreme opinion. Thats okay, I can respect that. Her opinion is just that, an opinion. Its extreme, thats why it raises your eyes. If a party has this on their platform then they wont get elected, simple as that. The moderates dont elect extremists, they elect people like Obama or almost Mccain who the republican party held in disdain for years. Ironic.

Political Chick, I enjoy reading your posts for the entertainment factor.

And hey, if Palin wasn't forced on McCain, he may have actually won. There was that nasty economic collapse of course, but if not for Palin, he may have recovered.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a good question to ask yourself, and it ties in at least tangentially with the OP.

What would America look like today had conservatives WON every political battle they were in, generation by generation, over the course of the history of this country?

Pick a time, look at the issues of the day, and look where conservatives were on the issues of that day, then imagine they had won where in reality they lost...

From that you should not have much trouble realizing that what America is today is almost entirely the consequence of what the progressive, anti-conservative movements of each generation WON.

Had the conservatives won, this nation today would be all but unrecognizable from what it actually is.

 

[mskafka]

While they might be considered Americans, I don't think that they're what the founding fathers were hoping for when they conceived the idea for this nation. It seems to me that progressives often consider themselves to be world citizens that happen to have the misfortune to be born in the horrible USA.

People change. Times change. "Born in the horrible USA." Hmmmm. Are you referring to intellectualism? The desire to improve ourselves in every possible way?

We're not perfect (USA). No one is. So what is it that you want? Regression? Are you speaking of following the US Constitution to the letter? If that's the case, then I think that both parties and all political beliefs have fudged on the constitution. The wiretaps? The inability for several years for those who were unable to voice their disapproval of infringement on the bill of rights. Loosely the 4th and 1st amendments.

So elaborate on what our founding fathers hoped for...over 200 years ago? Repeal women's suffrage? Slave ownership? What do you want?

 

[gautama]

"CAN YOU BOTH BE AN AMERICAN AND A PROGRESSIVE ?"

The question is incorrectly phrased.

In today's parlance, no matter how the Conservatives and/or LIEberals define it, the term "PROGRESSIVE" is transformed by Obami Salami and the Obamarrhoids to mean "TRANSITIONAL MARXISM".

And the answer is OBVIOUSLY a RESOUNDING "NO !!!"

"TRANSITIONAL MARXISM" means that Obama and the Obamarrhoids use the term "PROGRESSIVE" to disguise their MARXIST Agenda. And, by disguising MARXISM whenever, and AS MUCH as they can ..... these political fanatics ply their trade.

BTW, a great many of these "PROGRESSIVES" may even be delusional in that they themselves don't know they are MARXISTS.

Conservatives or Republicans.....I prefer to use the term ANTI-OBAMARRHOIDS ......since I am NOT a "Conservative " or a "Republican".....but an ANTI-LIEberal, or since Obami Salami has given the term "LIEberal" a new twist.......I wish to be known as an ANTI-OBAMARRHOID.

Anyways, MOST Anti-Obamarrhoids use the term "PROGRESSIVE" DIFFERENTLY from the "PROGRESSIVES"......to whom that term is ALSO multi-Dimensional.

Why "TRANSITIONAL" Marxism ? Answer: because those Obamarrhoids who REALLY know the INNER wishes of their MASTER or "MESSIAH" know that Obami Salami is a STONE COLD COMMIE of the Bill Ayers mold.

The "MARXISM" that is now being on display is merely "TRANSITIONAL" because it is all the "MARXISM" that the American Public can now tolerate.

The "REAL MARXISM" or "COMMUNISM" will come to fruition ONLY during the SECOND TERM of Obami Salami's RE-ELECTION.

And, it will come about ONLY if Obami Salami will have control of BOTH houses of CONGRESS....THEN and ONLY THEN.....will the TRUE COMMIES of Obami Salami feel STRONG ENOUGH to JAM thru their REAL COMMUNIST AGENDA down the throats of America with the attendant horrors of the COMPLETE GOVTAL POWERS at their disposal.

And, when that happens .....and there is no doubt that under those conditions IT WILL HAPPEN......The HORROR will be similar to ANY COMMUNISTIC TAKE OVER History has hitherto experienced.

I have spoken.

 

[JWBooth]

CAN YOU BOTH BE AN AMERICAN AND A PROGRESSIVE?

One is geography, the other philosophy. I don't see why not.