Progressives: Promises vs. The Facts

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,285
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. An interesting ability of the human mind is 'voluntary amnesia'. When one deeply and fervently held belief is found to be wrong, adherents simply forget what they once believed, and, often, even deny that they ever held the view.

Take Charles Darwin's theory of evolution: it had ramifications far beyond the field of biology. The idea of 'survival of the fittest' was quickly wrapped around a doctrine of competition among humans, and decisions about the superiority of one race to another.

2. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, writing in "Hereditary Genius," concluded that particular families produced an inordinate number of high achievers. Similar reasoning was applied to races. It was Galton who coined the term "eugenics," which promotes an argument for, or against the survival of different races.

Galton wrote "there exists a sentiment, for the most part quite unreasonable, against the gradual extinction of an inferior race."
Haller, "Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought," p. 11.






3. Shocking? No longr the view of refined progressives at this late date? Perhaps not races....but groups....or individuals? Guess again.
"Signs of ObamaCare's failings mount daily, including soaring insurance costs, looming provider shortages and inadequate insurance exchanges. Yet the law's most disturbing feature may be the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB, sometimes called a "death panel," threatens both the Medicare program and the Constitution's separation of powers..... For a vivid illustration of the extent to which life-and-death medical decisions have already been usurped by government bureaucrats, consider the recent refusal by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to waive the rules barring access by 10-year old Sarah Murnaghan to the adult lung-transplant list. A judge ultimately intervened and Sarah received a lifesaving transplant June 12. But the grip of the bureaucracy will clamp much harder once the Independent Payment Advisory Board gets going in the next two years." David Rivkin and Elizabeth Foley: An ObamaCare Board Answerable to No One - WSJ.com






4. The idea that government bureaucrats have the right to sentience people....convicted of no crimes....to death, is inherent in one particular political view. Intellectuals, social scientists, and scientists of various types are firmly convinced of their conclusions....until they're not. Through the first half of the 20th century, observable, testable differences among and between groups were attributed to heredity. Then, beyond the middle of the century, the same differences were attributed to environment, especially an environment of racism.

5. "Theirs was the vision of the anointed as surrogate decision-makers in both periods, along with such corollaries as an expanded role for government and an expanded role for judges to re-interpret the Constitution, so as to loosen its restrictions on the powers of government."
Sowell, "Intellectuals and Race," p. 26.


a. Sowell goes on to say that these progressives took a negative view of European immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. Today, there are also intellectuals who cast aspersions on whole groups who aren't like them. The following quote is amusing based on the history of Liberals:
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."





6. Richard T. Ely, founder of The American Economic Association, rejected the free market. "Progressives hoped to find a middle course between the two, what the fascists called the “Third Way” or what Richard Ely, mentor to both Wilson and TR, called the “golden mean” between laissez-faire individualism and Marxist socialism. Their chief desire was to impose a unifying, totalitarian moral order that regulated the individual inside his home and out. The progressives shared with the fascists and Nazis a burning desire to transcend class differences within the national community and create a new order.”
Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p.119

a. Ely redefined freedom, so that the regulation by the power of the state of these industrial and other social relations existing among men is a condition of freedom." And, while state action might "lessen the amount of theoretical liberty" it would "increase control over nature in the individual, and promote the growth of practical liberty."
Sidney Fine, "Richard T. Ely, Forerunner of Progrssivism, 1880-1901," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, March, 1951, p. 604,609.

b. A glance at the projects advanced by Ely cements the connection with current Progressives: conservation, labor unions, a proponent of inheritance and income taxes, minimum wage laws (Professor John R. Commons: to protect the standard of living of superior races).






7. Harvard economist Frank Taussig endorsed eugenics for those "saturated with alcohol and tainted with hereditary disease" and the "irretrievable criminals and tramps. If it was not feasible to "chloroform them once and for all, at least they can be segregated, shut up in refuges and asylums, prevented from propagating their kind." Thomas C. Leonard, "Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Fall 2005, p. 215.

a. Some things never change. Nobel Prizewinning Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal supported programs which sterilized 60,000 people from 1941 through 1975. Ibid, p. 214.



b. " Sweden is the poster state for those who believe in the power of the government to solve all problems. Frequently referred to as a "benevolent" socialist or social democratic state, to distinguish it from the run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop, such as Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia, Sweden is the Promised Land of the Left. Where the USSR was a departure from the genius of Karl Marx, Sweden shows the potential. It is also in capitalist nations — where the right to liberty and the right to property are protected — where men and women have been comparatively free from the eugenic nightmares of other nations. Although prisoners and "mental deficients" were sterilized in the United States, such programs never reached the levels they reached in Sweden, let alone in Germany under the National Socialists." Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism ?




No matter what benefits Liberals promise.....look carefully at their record when it comes to taking the lives of those with whom they don/t agree......

It is a philosophy more suited to bees than human beings.
 
Last edited:
It's all about labels with you isn't it, PC?

Is Progressive the new boogieman?
 
It's Progressives that kept that 10 year old off of the list which was comprised by private doctors?

Obsessive compulsive disorder is more liken to someone that constantly frets over issues that seem trivial to many
 
progressive ideas validate that all human beings are not created equal. their concepts alway have the stronger, more capable taking care of the lesser and weaker. there is a clear expectation of inequality
 
It's all about labels with you isn't it, PC?

Is Progressive the new boogieman?

It certainly isn't about the facts with you, is it, 'techy?


In case you found the OP too....painful?.....to read in it's entirety, the Progressives, now known as Liberals, had no compunctions about sentencing to death those who they found wanting.


Today, they use the IRS against 'em......
 
It's Progressives that kept that 10 year old off of the list which was comprised by private doctors?

Obsessive compulsive disorder is more liken to someone that constantly frets over issues that seem trivial to many

I provide facts....


...you, fabrications.
 
It's not easy to admit yer wrong or admit defeat.

If you're a Lefty and you switch sides you then have to explain why to all your friends, many of whom will ask: "You were so sure before, how are you so sure now?". That's not easy for anyone.

I've always been a "bottom line" kind of guy: It either works, or it doesn't. If it works I stick with it and if it don't then I try to tweak it, which'll work sometimes. If not then I have to just trash it and move on.

It gets easier with time and experience.
 
The problem with liberalism/progressivism is that nearly everything they believe and the policies they have implemented have failed miserably. Yet in this Age of Liberalism, their failures are seldom exposed or condemned. In fact, many of their unsuccessful policies are commended. This is what happens when the State becomes too powerful and controls too many facets of our society. Today liberalism controls the government, Hollywood, education, media, etc... As such, they get to control the narrative. Sadly too many Americans fail to comprehend this reality.

But still it is apparent (well...to any thinking person) that their failures are colossal. Take the War On Poverty. It has been a horrendous failure, but it continues on year after year, as if it is a success...anyone who criticizes it is called a racist, intolerant, or worse, by those wonderfully tolerant liberals.

To believe in liberalism, is to believe in lies, distortions, and things imaginary.
 
Last edited:
I try to get though one of your posts and can't. Once I got to "death panel," I couldn't take it anymore.

Arizona Death Panel Claims Another Victim - Forbes

Arizona does have a death panel

The only death panels I ever heard of were started by Republicans. Which, after "let him die" and "feed the poor and they will breed" is really no surprise.


You can run, but you can't hide.


Obama adviser Stephen Rattner used the term 'death panels,' and then went on to verify same by making the connection between them and the real effort of ObamaCare....rationing of healthcare.


You may pretend not to recognize that a panel that restricts access to drugs and to healthcare is sentencing individuals to.....

.,,,,ready?.....


DEATH!


"Beyond Obamacare
By STEVEN RATTNER

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name —....."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0



One more time?

Progressives/Liberals/Democrats have the attitude that the deaths of other citizens is....what, 'unavoidable'?....'collateral damage'?.....'inconsequential'?.....'not our concern'?
 
The problem with liberalism/progressivism is that nearly everything they believe and the policies they have implemented have failed miserably. Yet in this Age of Liberalism, their failures are seldom exposed or condemned. In fact, many of their unsuccessful policies are commended. This is what happens when the State becomes too powerful and controls too many facets of our society. Today liberalism controls the government, Hollywood, education, media, etc... As such, they get to control the narrative. Sadly too many Americans fail to comprehend this reality.

But still it is apparent (well...to any thinking person) that their failures are colossal. Take the War On Poverty. It has been a horrendous failure, but it continues on year after year, as if it is a success...anyone who criticizes it is called a racist, intolerant, or worse, by those wonderfully tolerant liberals.

To believe in liberalism, is to believe in lies, distortions, and things imaginary.




"....nearly everything they believe and the policies they have implemented have failed miserably."

Failed....if one considers the policies as being aimed at being good for humanity.



But that is not the aim of many Progressive/Liberal endeavors.
Take environmentalism, for one....It is based on hating humanity, seeing humans as a disease of the planet, a virus that has to be restricted, even eradicated.



"... the organized environmentalist movement -- Lomborg specifically cites Greenpeace, Naomi Klein and the New York Times -- is led by fanatics. The movement's value system is morally askew. It places a pristine natural world above the well-being of human beings.

The environmentalist movement's responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions of poor children in the Third World is the most egregious example."
Environmentalism and Human Sacrifice - Dennis Prager - Page full
 
I try to get though one of your posts and can't. Once I got to "death panel," I couldn't take it anymore.

Arizona Death Panel Claims Another Victim - Forbes

Arizona does have a death panel

The only death panels I ever heard of were started by Republicans. Which, after "let him die" and "feed the poor and they will breed" is really no surprise.


You can run, but you can't hide.


Obama adviser Stephen Rattner used the term 'death panels,' and then went on to verify same by making the connection between them and the real effort of ObamaCare....rationing of healthcare.


You may pretend not to recognize that a panel that restricts access to drugs and to healthcare is sentencing individuals to.....

.,,,,ready?.....


DEATH!


"Beyond Obamacare
By STEVEN RATTNER

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name —....."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0



One more time?

Progressives/Liberals/Democrats have the attitude that the deaths of other citizens is....what, 'unavoidable'?....'collateral damage'?.....'inconsequential'?.....'not our concern'?

When Democrats say "prudently", they mean you don't need a mammogram every time you see the doctor.

But saying Democrats and Liberals say "'not our concern" is simply ludicrous. That is the very foundation of the GOP and PROVEN by "let him die" and "feed the poor and they will breed" and why they don't care about children after they are born and so on. Don't make it look like Democrats are like Republicans. Because in very real ways, they are not.
 
Notice, no one argued against the fact of Republican Death Panels in Arizona.
 
The problem with liberalism/progressivism is that nearly everything they believe and the policies they have implemented have failed miserably. Yet in this Age of Liberalism, their failures are seldom exposed or condemned. In fact, many of their unsuccessful policies are commended. This is what happens when the State becomes too powerful and controls too many facets of our society. Today liberalism controls the government, Hollywood, education, media, etc... As such, they get to control the narrative. Sadly too many Americans fail to comprehend this reality.

But still it is apparent (well...to any thinking person) that their failures are colossal. Take the War On Poverty. It has been a horrendous failure, but it continues on year after year, as if it is a success...anyone who criticizes it is called a racist, intolerant, or worse, by those wonderfully tolerant liberals.

To believe in liberalism, is to believe in lies, distortions, and things imaginary.




"....nearly everything they believe and the policies they have implemented have failed miserably."

Failed....if one considers the policies as being aimed at being good for humanity.



But that is not the aim of many Progressive/Liberal endeavors.
Take environmentalism, for one....It is based on hating humanity, seeing humans as a disease of the planet, a virus that has to be restricted, even eradicated.



"... the organized environmentalist movement -- Lomborg specifically cites Greenpeace, Naomi Klein and the New York Times -- is led by fanatics. The movement's value system is morally askew. It places a pristine natural world above the well-being of human beings.

The environmentalist movement's responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions of poor children in the Third World is the most egregious example."
Environmentalism and Human Sacrifice - Dennis Prager - Page full

Yes...of course the Left hates humanity. Does that not indicate some form of psychosis?

Not only their whacky enviro BS, but also their complete devotion to killing in the womb. They love to protect some stupid worthless critter like the snail darter, but the human fetus...not so much.

And what about their elimination of DDT, which has caused untold number of deaths in Africa...and all based on flawed science. Rachel Carson, a crazed eugenicist and racist, is considered a hero by the left. It defies logic.

One could conclude from all of this, that they are just plain f'ing NUTS!
 
Last edited:
Once again PC demonstrates in a rambling cut-and-paste job her inability to cogently make an argument. From the title of the thread, one would expect something about American progressives. The first shots, however are for British scientists who inhabit the wrong century to be associated with the Bullmoose Party. Typical PC timeline.

1. An interesting ability of the human mind is 'voluntary amnesia'. When one deeply and fervently held belief is found to be wrong, adherents simply forget what they once believed, and, often, even deny that they ever held the view.
It's nice to hear PC talking about herself!

Take Charles Darwin's theory of evolution: it had ramifications far beyond the field of biology. The idea of 'survival of the fittest' was quickly wrapped around a doctrine of competition among humans, and decisions about the superiority of one race to another.
As alluded earlier, Darwin is British and predates Progressivism by 40 years ("Origins" being published in 1859). PC in her usual irresponsible style then proceeds to blame Darwin for all the misuses of his work by others. This is the same PC I remember crying foul when we attributed the excesses of Latin American dictators under the guidance of the "Chicago boys" to Milton Friedman. At least in that case Friedman had a lot to do with those dictatorships!

2. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, writing in "Hereditary Genius," concluded that particular families produced an inordinate number of high achievers. Similar reasoning was applied to races. It was Galton who coined the term "eugenics," which promotes an argument for, or against the survival of different races.

Galton wrote "there exists a sentiment, for the most part quite unreasonable, against the gradual extinction of an inferior race."
Haller, "Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought," p. 11.

PC obviously does not know who Galton is, having just lifted this stuff from Haller's book. But if she wants to debate the beliefs of Galton, founder of psychometrics and one of the great pioneers in statistical analysis, I would be most happy to accommodate.

Point three, which is the same as point 4 deleted in favor of brevity and a decent disgust at purple prose.

4. The idea that government bureaucrats have the right to sentience people....convicted of no crimes....to death, is inherent in one particular political view. Intellectuals, social scientists, and scientists of various types are firmly convinced of their conclusions....until they're not. Through the first half of the 20th century, observable, testable differences among and between groups were attributed to heredity. Then, beyond the middle of the century, the same differences were attributed to environment, especially an environment of racism.

Obviously PC prefers medical rationing by wealth and by insurance companies. Heaven forbid we take profit motive out of life-and-death decisions!

5. "Theirs was the vision of the anointed as surrogate decision-makers in both periods, along with such corollaries as an expanded role for government and an expanded role for judges to re-interpret the Constitution, so as to loosen its restrictions on the powers of government."
Sowell, "Intellectuals and Race," p. 26.
a. Sowell goes on to say that these progressives took a negative view of European immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. Today, there are also intellectuals who cast aspersions on whole groups who aren't like them. The following quote is amusing based on the history of Liberals:
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Frankly I don't see a point here. Some progressives in the 1900--1920 period were anti-immigrant; but virtually all conservatives of the period were also. The same goes for eugenics.

6. Richard T. Ely, founder of The American Economic Association, rejected the free market. "Progressives hoped to find a middle course between the two, what the fascists called the “Third Way” or what Richard Ely, mentor to both Wilson and TR, called the “golden mean” between laissez-faire individualism and Marxist socialism. Their chief desire was to impose a unifying, totalitarian moral order that regulated the individual inside his home and out. The progressives shared with the fascists and Nazis a burning desire to transcend class differences within the national community and create a new order.”
Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p.119

a. Ely redefined freedom, so that the regulation by the power of the state of these industrial and other social relations existing among men is a condition of freedom." And, while state action might "lessen the amount of theoretical liberty" it would "increase control over nature in the individual, and promote the growth of practical liberty."
Sidney Fine, "Richard T. Ely, Forerunner of Progrssivism, 1880-1901," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, March, 1951, p. 604,609.

b. A glance at the projects advanced by Ely cements the connection with current Progressives: conservation, labor unions, a proponent of inheritance and income taxes, minimum wage laws (Professor John R. Commons: to protect the standard of living of superior races).

Again PC relies on a conservative hatchet piece with no foundation in reality. If she wants to debate Ely's positions, I will be happy to oblige. Ely was no socialist and only marginally connected to eugenics. Goldberg is a hack and the Fine article is misrepresented.

7. Harvard economist Frank Taussig endorsed eugenics for those "saturated with alcohol and tainted with hereditary disease" and the "irretrievable criminals and tramps. If it was not feasible to "chloroform them once and for all, at least they can be segregated, shut up in refuges and asylums, prevented from propagating their kind." Thomas C. Leonard, "Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Fall 2005, p. 215.

Ely was born in 1854, Taussig in 1859, so they predate the Progressive movement. Taussig was involved in Eugenics, but not to the degree of Irving Fisher, the great conservative monetary theorist.

a. Some things never change. Nobel Prizewinning Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal supported programs which sterilized 60,000 people from 1941 through 1975. Ibid, p. 214.

This reference is so vague I am unable to find what it refers to. I suspect PC can't either.

b. " Sweden is the poster state for those who believe in the power of the government to solve all problems. Frequently referred to as a "benevolent" socialist or social democratic state, to distinguish it from the run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop, such as Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia, Sweden is the Promised Land of the Left. Where the USSR was a departure from the genius of Karl Marx, Sweden shows the potential. It is also in capitalist nations — where the right to liberty and the right to property are protected — where men and women have been comparatively free from the eugenic nightmares of other nations. Although prisoners and "mental deficients" were sterilized in the United States, such programs never reached the levels they reached in Sweden, let alone in Germany under the National Socialists." Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism ?

Typical PC closing. Exactly how many American Progressives were there in Sweden in the time period (never identified) that is alluded to?

And exactly how did Conservatives of the same period differ from Progressives, on the subject of eugenics? Not a word. I wonder why.
 
Obviously PC prefers medical rationing by wealth and by insurance companies. Heaven forbid we take profit motive out of life-and-death decisions!

Actually, that's typical of the right wing. Because they believe that doesn't involve them. It's like when they get food stamps and Medicare. They just don't want those lazy minorities to participate. Because Republicans believe such government help should be reserved for them. They totally believe they are the only ones who paid into that system, therefore, they are the only ones "entitled".
 

Forum List

Back
Top