Can You Be Both An American and A Progressive?

[Procrustes Stretched]

gee...progressives on this thread are just as boorish and moronic as liberals....oh wait....they're both one and the same....

so says a favorite sock puppet

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Young people like the young motor cycle diaries Che.

Latino people like the conclusions he drew from his ride through South America.

Stupid young people and ignorant latinos do not know the real Che....he was an international terrorist and mass murderer.

180 DOCUMENTED VICTIMS OF CHÉ GUEVARA IN CUBA

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Young people like the young motor cycle diaries Che.

Latino people like the conclusions he drew from his ride through South America.

Stupid young people and ignorant latinos do not know the real Che....he was an international terrorist and mass murderer.

180 DOCUMENTED VICTIMS OF CHÉ GUEVARA IN CUBA

Yes he was. And too many latinos, he is/was a hero. He fought for the freedoms of many latinos. Sort of like the Contras that Ronald Reagan armed.

 

[JenT]

I am a Proud Progessive and a Proud American. No one single pollitical party or political philosophy owns the right to be called "American" to the exclusion of others.

Before people start deciding is and/or is not "American" we need to remember that in the 1930's the only way to a "Good German" was to be a member of the Nazi Party.

Being Progressive does not diminish being an American any more than being a Conservative make one more of an American. It does however make us Americans.

If you're a Progressive in the true sense of the word, then you're about changing the Constitution, removing rights, which is exactly in line with whatever wannabe dictator needs to do.

Why in the world would anyone voluntarily want to remove what protects us from dictators?
What sets us apart, what keeps us free? If you want to live under tyranny there are plenty of countries already there.

You really need to learn what progressive means, along with communism, and marxism.
I will give you hint why you are very wrong, each other those in their true form would never have a dictatorship.

Oh I've been learning what Progressive means, and once you do and then listen to Obama or Hillary or Michelle, it all falls into place. The doublespeak is obvious.

HILLARY CLINTON: "I prefer the word Progressive which has a real American meaning going back to the Progressive era at the beginning of the 20th Century. I consider myself a modern Progressive.

BARACK OBAMA: "You will carry on the best Progressive forward looking values of this proud commonwealth...," "Change has always come from places like Wisconsin, the State where the Progressive movement was born." He refers to Democrats as Progressives.

Before becoming President, Obama said the Warren court failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal. Then he stood there in his State of the Union Address and chastised the US Supreme Court for their decision to uphold the Constitution.

MICHELLE OBAMA on the campaign trail: "...and Barack knows that we are gonna have to make sacrifices, we are gonna have to change our conversation, we are gonna have to change our traditions, our history, we are gonna have to move into a different place."

 

[JenT]

Young people like the young motor cycle diaries Che.

Latino people like the conclusions he drew from his ride through South America.

Stupid young people and ignorant latinos do not know the real Che....he was an international terrorist and mass murderer.

180 DOCUMENTED VICTIMS OF CHÉ GUEVARA IN CUBA

Not to mention a complete racist and never would have allowed rock-n-roll, which is funny because some rap singer promotes Che in his song...obviously totally oblivious about what Che said about music and/or African Americans

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I believe it's possible to be an extremely dumb American, or completely suicidal, so my answer to the thread is yes.

 

[Vast LWC]

Can you be both a Progressive and an American?

Well, let’s see what Progressives believe, and see if you can subscribe…

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.
a. Not according to Progressives. Woodrow Wilson, of the Declaration of Independence, from “What is Progress?”
“Some citizens of this country never got beyond the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, July 4th, 1776….The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us unless we can translate its general terms into examples of the present day and substitute them in some vital way for the examples it itself gives…”
b. Wilson: “ the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…”( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law
The Constitution stands in the way of the Progressives' agenda.

Sigh, and partisanship once again rears it's ugly head.

OK, first of all, Wilson's entire quote, in context, is:

"Justly revered as our great constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws."

Which, when seen in context, obviously means that Americans are perfectly able to recreate the work of their founders, as there is an innate sense of of what is right and just in the American character. So that, even if every copy of the Constitution were somehow lost, we would survive as well as a nation.

And as far as the declaration comment goes, he was obviously saying that the laws that we live by must change to meet new technologies and circumstances. Which is of course what the founding fathers envisioned when they made the constitution a malleable document.

Attributing some sinister meaning to these quotes is absurd.

Not to mention that Woodrow Wilson made those quotes close to 100 years ago. He is not exactly an example of a modern progressive, now is he?

2. The founders believed in the sanctity of private property…but not Progressives:
a. Madison, 1792, said that ‘property’ included our natural rights, and the goal of government is the protection of property.
b. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “Socialism and Democracy” said ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’ The collective is not limited by individual rights.

Madison, contrary to popular conservative belief, was not the only "Founding Father". There were other founding fathers. Jefferson, for instance, thought that Corporations were an evil institution, as they allowed stockholders to be relatively free from liability.

And again, you are implying that Wilson is an example of a modern progressive.

That's like saying Theodore Roosevelt is a good example of a modern Conservative, and we all know that sure as hell isn't accurate.

3. How about the idea of checks and balances, you know, so that no one branch or individual accumulates too much power? Good idea or bad?
a.Federalist #10- checks and balances, to keep passions in check.
b. Tocqueville tells how centralization of power can lead to despotism. “Beware of government by experts and bureaucrats.”
c. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “What is Progress?” Wilson compares the Founders ideas of checks and balances as the construction of a government as one would construct an orrery, a simple machine, based on immutable laws as in Newtonian physics, while he contends that government should conform to Darwin. “It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.” See, Progressives want on separation or check on the power to do as they wish.

Once again, see above. Wilson lived 100 years ago.

Hell, Lincoln centralized federal power much more than Wilson did. Shall we say that Lincoln is an example of a modern Conservative?

4. Progressives know how stupid the masses are, and that is why Progressive journalists editorialize instead of report the news… to tell you what you should think.
a. : “President Woodrow Wilson, a leading progressive, spoke often of his "vision," introducing a term that has now become central to our understanding of presidential politics. Wilson believed, as Kesler puts it, "that to become a leader you have to have a vision of the future and communicate that vision to the unanointed, mass public. You have to make them believe in your prophetic ability."
The Roots Of Liberalism - Forbes.com
b. Modern journalism is based on Progressives’ ideas: use the media to ‘teach’ people. Alter journalism from reporting facts to editorializing in the news, as the elites always know better. Walter Lippmann, Progressive (American newspaper commentator and author who in a 60-year career made himself one of the most widely respected political columnists in the world.)Public Opinion, “When properly deployed in the public interest, the manufacture of consent is useful and necessary for a cohesive society, because, in many cases, “the common interests” of the public are not obvious, and only become clear upon careful analysis of the collected data — a critical intellectual exercise in which most people either are uninterested or incapable of doing. Therefore, most people must have the world summarized for them, by the well-informed.” Public Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this is just complete blather, and revisionist history

First of all, yellow journalism shaping public opinion has existed for centuries, and was not a "Progressive" invention. Hearst, for instance, was surely not a "Progressive" in any way shape or form.

Secondly, modern opinion journalism was not a construct of any progressive movement, and was taken to the level that it is currently at by RUPERT MURDOCH, who is by no means a Progressive. Network television, pre-cable news network hardly had any editorializing.

Newspapers always kept their opinion columns separate from the News, and there was no question in general as to which was which. The Wall Street Journal did it the same way as the New York Times.

It is modern CONSERVATIVES that have caused the news and opinion to blend in the way they now do, NOT progressives.

5.But that’s the ‘old time’ Progressive…not the current group. Right? Wrong.
a. Does President Obama believe in three separate branches of government? Well, Congress refused to pass his commission idea, so in the SOTU he said he’d just use executive order to create it. And he insisted that Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision…or, I guess, another executive order?
b. Ms. Clinton: “"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.” Hillary Clinton: I’m Not a Liberal
c. Axelrod claims the WH is Progressive:

And most of this is not even worth responding to.

The president has every right to form a commission to look into a problem. It's not like said commission will have any power besides being advisory.

And he did not "insist" any Supreme Court decision be "Overturned".

The Constitution says, in Article II, Section 3, that the president shall "from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

Thus the actual wording Mr Obama used, in context has nothing to do with doing away with any separation of power, he said, specifically:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Thus he did not tell them to overturn the decision of the court, he told them that he would like them to make a law that deals with the problems that stem from the decision, which itself overturned 100 years of precedent.

 

[Political Junky]

Bush said of the constitution, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressive is a cover for their true Marxist beliefs, much like some Lib posters here pretending to be a Republican

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Oh I've been learning what Progressive means, and once you do and then listen to Obama or Hillary or Michelle,

I didn't you could get any dumber.

HILLARY CLINTON: "I prefer the word Progressive which has a real American meaning going back to the Progressive era at the beginning of the 20th Century. I consider myself a modern Progressive.

Wow, bullshit from the mouth of a Clinton. Who would have ever expected something like that?

BARACK OBAMA: "You will carry on the best Progressive forward looking values of this proud commonwealth...," "Change has always come from places like Wisconsin, the State where the Progressive movement was born." He refers to Democrats as Progressives.

If you haven't learned by now that everything Obama says is to be taken with a block of salt, you're pretty damned slow.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: Yes. Dissent and differences of opinion about the scope and use of the governmental authority have a tradition in the United States going back all the way to the Founders. When the Founders met to lay out the Constitution they were hardly of one mind on anything. Some were Federalists, some were Monarchists in all but name, some were fiercely independent advocates of State's Rights. They disagreed on issues as wide ranging as Slavery, the make up the Legislative, the scope and power of the Presidency, the role of Democracy in the government (What offices should and should not be popularly elected) and even the mathematical issue of Apportionment (an interesting side issue if you have the time or inclination).

So yes, you can have differing opinions about the scope and role of the government and still be an American. In fact, the Founders included an ammendment process and even a mechanism to put in place a brand new governing document in case it became necessary at some future point to change the scope and nature of government. In their wisdon, neither mechanism is easily implemented so as to prevent quick and radical alteration of government, but they do exist.

It is worth noting that the OP is practically a non-starter as it is very difficult to pin down what is and is not "American" unless you define it strictly a geographic sense. The values, governmental structure, make up, and temperment of this Great Nation and People have been in constant flux since the very beginning and local custom and tradition varies greatly across State or Regional lines.

 

[Vast LWC]

Bush said of the constitution, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper".

Nah, that turned out to be a false story.

From the original source:

Capitol Hill Blue: Article removed from our database

Article removed from our database
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 10, 2005, 06:02
Email this article
Printer friendly page

(Updated May 16, 2006)

The article that previously appeared under this URL has been removed from our database because a followup investigation revealed the sources quoted in the article did not, as they claimed, attend a White House meeting between President George W. Bush where we reported he called the Constitution a "god damned pieced of paper."

Although we believe President Bush has a history of flagrant disregard for the protections and liberties outlined in the Constitution, we cannot confirm that he made the statement and retract the article.

Our apologies to our readers. Our policies regarding the use of unnamed sources were changed in 2006 and the article would not have appeared on this web site under those new policies.

Now, I believe Mr Bush acted in a manner that made this story all too believable, but in the interest of accuracy and fairness, this probably never occurred.

 

[Vast LWC]

Progressive is a cover for their true Marxist beliefs, much like some Lib posters here pretending to be a Republican

Blah, blah, (insert talking point here) blah, blah.

 

[whaleboat]

Progressives cannot be American in spirit as they have chosen to adopt a train of thought that runs counter to American philosophy . The idea that our rights are endowed upon us by our Creator also means we are a self policing populace that believes government should only intervene in our affairs in times of absolute neccesity , like in times of war or epidemics . Progressives believe In the "nanny state" and that is just simply unAmerican .

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Progressives cannot be American in spirit as they have chosen to adopt a train of thought that runs counter to American philosophy . The idea that our rights are endowed upon us by our Creator also means we are a self policing populace that believes government should only intervene in our affairs in times of absolute neccesity , like in times of war or epidemics . Progressives believe In the "nanny state" and that is just simply unAmerican .

\

Funny how so many 'lurkers' show up to post such partisan bullshit when these threads are made. It's like you're waiting in the shadows until someone needs a wingman...


Who brought you along?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can you be both a Progressive and an American?

Well, let’s see what Progressives believe, and see if you can subscribe…

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.
a. Not according to Progressives. Woodrow Wilson, of the Declaration of Independence, from “What is Progress?”
“Some citizens of this country never got beyond the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, July 4th, 1776….The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us unless we can translate its general terms into examples of the present day and substitute them in some vital way for the examples it itself gives…”
b. Wilson: “ the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…”( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law
The Constitution stands in the way of the Progressives' agenda.

Sigh, and partisanship once again rears it's ugly head.

OK, first of all, Wilson's entire quote, in context, is:

"Justly revered as our great constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws."

Which, when seen in context, obviously means that Americans are perfectly able to recreate the work of their founders, as there is an innate sense of of what is right and just in the American character. So that, even if every copy of the Constitution were somehow lost, we would survive as well as a nation.

And as far as the declaration comment goes, he was obviously saying that the laws that we live by must change to meet new technologies and circumstances. Which is of course what the founding fathers envisioned when they made the constitution a malleable document.

Attributing some sinister meaning to these quotes is absurd.

Not to mention that Woodrow Wilson made those quotes close to 100 years ago. He is not exactly an example of a modern progressive, now is he?

2. The founders believed in the sanctity of private property…but not Progressives:
a. Madison, 1792, said that ‘property’ included our natural rights, and the goal of government is the protection of property.
b. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “Socialism and Democracy” said ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’ The collective is not limited by individual rights.

Madison, contrary to popular conservative belief, was not the only "Founding Father". There were other founding fathers. Jefferson, for instance, thought that Corporations were an evil institution, as they allowed stockholders to be relatively free from liability.

And again, you are implying that Wilson is an example of a modern progressive.

That's like saying Theodore Roosevelt is a good example of a modern Conservative, and we all know that sure as hell isn't accurate.



Once again, see above. Wilson lived 100 years ago.

Hell, Lincoln centralized federal power much more than Wilson did. Shall we say that Lincoln is an example of a modern Conservative?

4. Progressives know how stupid the masses are, and that is why Progressive journalists editorialize instead of report the news… to tell you what you should think.
a. : “President Woodrow Wilson, a leading progressive, spoke often of his "vision," introducing a term that has now become central to our understanding of presidential politics. Wilson believed, as Kesler puts it, "that to become a leader you have to have a vision of the future and communicate that vision to the unanointed, mass public. You have to make them believe in your prophetic ability."
The Roots Of Liberalism - Forbes.com
b. Modern journalism is based on Progressives’ ideas: use the media to ‘teach’ people. Alter journalism from reporting facts to editorializing in the news, as the elites always know better. Walter Lippmann, Progressive (American newspaper commentator and author who in a 60-year career made himself one of the most widely respected political columnists in the world.)Public Opinion, “When properly deployed in the public interest, the manufacture of consent is useful and necessary for a cohesive society, because, in many cases, “the common interests” of the public are not obvious, and only become clear upon careful analysis of the collected data — a critical intellectual exercise in which most people either are uninterested or incapable of doing. Therefore, most people must have the world summarized for them, by the well-informed.” Public Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this is just complete blather, and revisionist history

First of all, yellow journalism shaping public opinion has existed for centuries, and was not a "Progressive" invention. Hearst, for instance, was surely not a "Progressive" in any way shape or form.

Secondly, modern opinion journalism was not a construct of any progressive movement, and was taken to the level that it is currently at by RUPERT MURDOCH, who is by no means a Progressive. Network television, pre-cable news network hardly had any editorializing.

Newspapers always kept their opinion columns separate from the News, and there was no question in general as to which was which. The Wall Street Journal did it the same way as the New York Times.

It is modern CONSERVATIVES that have caused the news and opinion to blend in the way they now do, NOT progressives.

5.But that’s the ‘old time’ Progressive…not the current group. Right? Wrong.
a. Does President Obama believe in three separate branches of government? Well, Congress refused to pass his commission idea, so in the SOTU he said he’d just use executive order to create it. And he insisted that Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision…or, I guess, another executive order?
b. Ms. Clinton: “"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.” Hillary Clinton: I’m Not a Liberal
c. Axelrod claims the WH is Progressive:

And most of this is not even worth responding to.

The president has every right to form a commission to look into a problem. It's not like said commission will have any power besides being advisory.

And he did not "insist" any Supreme Court decision be "Overturned".

The Constitution says, in Article II, Section 3, that the president shall "from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

Thus the actual wording Mr Obama used, in context has nothing to do with doing away with any separation of power, he said, specifically:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Thus he did not tell them to overturn the decision of the court, he told them that he would like them to make a law that deals with the problems that stem from the decision, which itself overturned 100 years of precedent.

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.

 

[edthecynic]

"Wherever you go, there you are" - Buddha

I like Lord Buckley's hipster variation on that quote.
"If you get to it and you can not do it, there you jolly well are. Aren't you!"

Couldn't find his version on YouTube, but I found a good copy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDT6Xs8vbLM]YouTube - Lord Buckley's JONAH performed by Tom Calagna[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Young people like the young motor cycle diaries Che.

Latino people like the conclusions he drew from his ride through South America.

"Something else you won’t see in Che: how Guevara treated the enemy, ordering executions of surrendered Batista soldiers shortly before the rebel victory in the Battle of Santa Clara. When he is finally captured, we see him claim to a Bolivian soldier that Christianity flourishes unimpeded in Cuba. That’s what you call a lie, as countless accounts of the persecution of priests and the faithful from Cuba indicate. Again, Soderbergh makes no effort to correct the record."


"One can make good arguments against the inclusion of these incidents and quotations—but Soderbergh doesn’t include anything that might besmirch Che’s cultural sainthood. He portrays Guevara’s antagonists, the Cuban and Bolivian militaries, as practically stock villains. He spares no opportunity to show Guevara administering medical care to children, setting up schools, and feeding the hungry. Guevara’s confederates, too, emerge as amiable compañeros all. If you thought that Fidel and Raul Castro, Juan Bosque, and other founders of Cuban Communism would make great buddy-film characters, this is the movie for you. Someone should warn Ridley Scott, who’s at work on a new Robin Hood flick, that he’s been beaten to the task."
The New Che, Same as the Old by Anthony Paletta, City Journal 27 February 2009

 

[Article 15]

Another partisan hack thread from PC.

Gee, what a shock.

 

[Article 15]

I would have to say yes because being an American just refers to your nation of origin and not your political beliefs.