Progressive Philosophy

As I age and, like most others in their 30s, realign my thought processes I find that a far better label (if we must be labeled) for my belief and ideology is that of a progressive. Not so much a liberal. Though in most cases liberal and progressive ideology go hand in hand and most liberals are progressives there are quite a few key differences between the 2.

For one, liberals are often for bigger government just for the sake of being for bigger government whereas progressives are for bigger government only when it makes sense. When it will likely benefit our nation and the world as a whole.

Progressives think about issues from the point of view of how we can either make it better or progress as a nation or even a human race. The key word of course being progress and the core reason why liberals and progressives will almost always be at odds with conservatives.

IMO, throughout history, progressives have almost always been on the right side of issues. In fact one could argue that progressives are the reason we have progressed and evolved as a human race and freed ourselves from the dumbed down superstitious thinking of the bronze age. It was progressives who sought to prove the earth wasn't flat. It was progressive scientists who fought against church dogmas and pushed forward with breakthroughs allowing us to harness powers and knowledge once thought to only be deserved by Gods... Flight, electricity, etc. But like I said we're "almost" always on the right side of the issues. It was also progressive thinkers who harnessed the power of the atom which in the end gave mankind the power to destroy itself.

Caveat: Though that power gave the US the ability to end a major war..

Conservatives have literally become the keepers of the status quo. The sad thing is it wasn't always that way. If they could free themselves from the grip of the religious right the GOP could become a force to be reckoned with. They lost these past few elections because of single-issue religious radicals stubbornly squatting on their votes because of things like abortion and gay marriage while the country's economy spun out of control and the wars in the middle east raged on (of course some of them see this as a new mini-crusade and they like it).

I guess, for me, due to strong influences from extreme Christians and extreme capitalists the GOP stands for everything that holds us back as a nation. Religion has proven to be overall anti-progressive so there is really no argument to make there. And capitalists have enjoyed 80+ years of GOP presidencies and to allow the free market to run free. They don't want progress, because progress could potentially mean they'd have to give thought to something other than profits at all costs. An easy target example being our broken health care system and the corporate (read: capitalist) interests against fixing it because fixing it might reduce profits (i.e. they may actually have to stop denying coverage to people just because they are more likely to need it).

I guess I'm just rambling but what I'm getting at is that there really is no logical or sensible argument against progress. Yet here we are arguing about it every day. It's both fascinating and sad.

 

An ex poster here who refuses to associate with me anymore because I don't treat the libertarian thing as a cult, liked to correct me on these definitions. According to him, you have it wrong, liberal means libertarian and progressive is the only term to describe what we know as liberal.

I think the whole label thing is stupid, and any "libertarian" that uses it is a collectivist.

I've been more open to the point of view you're talking about though, sometimes it's necessary. But any philosophy or point of view taken to far is dangerous. For example:

The cult sect of libertarianism is driven by deontological ethics. This is in contrast to consequentialism, what seems to be the core of the "progressive" side.

Both philosophies are valuable, but taken to extremes without consideration of the other is dangerous and unrealistic. An example: The cultish libertarians are unable to make progress politically and further their ideas because they don't believe in consequentialism, or the belief that the ends sometimes justify the means; because of this, they remain a cult, standing on rugged absolute principle alone without consideration of the situation.

Progressives, however, when extreme enough, ignore the ethical view and see that ends ALWAYS justify the means. This becomes a problem when our leaders feel that overpopulation is a problem and needs to be taken care of so that future problems can be prevented. Of course, now we may see their actions as evil acts, but later it may justify them?

Moderation is key, for every action there is a consequence. Whatever action we take we should always be aware of what we are sacrificing, so we eventually make decisions most appropriate for the situation.

 

How has big government ever benefited our nation or the world for that matter?

Conservative = Government get the fuck out of my way and let me produce.

There's not much else to it. Please do not confuse Conservative with Republican, or even Conservative Republican. These are all very different things.

Conservatives believe that the people when left alone produce and achieve. We want our government to do its basic and most fundamental job, which is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and keep her people safe. That's it.

Progressive seems like a fancy way of saying NEO LIBERAL. Or Liberal on Crack.

 

Wow. Even I talk to -- and get along with -- that person on another forum and I never joined the cult.

But on topic, I make it a point not to subscribe to any political philosophy or doctrine. When you align yourself with a group then you're just a step away from being felt pressured to agree with them, even when you don't. And the existence of parties sucks, but I guess they're inevitable.

 

Felt betrayed i guess. No biggie, most of the friends I have on this forum aren't libertarian, usually the exact opposite.

People obsessed with this freedom thing, they're the weird mother f'ers, the people I can't hold a conversation with in real life. They're like evangelical Christians, it's the only thing that matters, so much so that no one else matters.

 

@Nate.

man, you use big words

 

No, dammit - I do. Logic's here, and he can vouch for that.

Nate just makes sense. That's how we're different - got it?

 

I was gonna say nate's been reading your posts too much.

 

I was pretty much going to say what Logic said.

 

I'm not really sure that the progressive label is anything other than moving away from the liberal label because the right wing has successfully demonized it. I think it's mostly semantics.

 

Simple question, simple answer.

When government gets involved and provides protections (regulations) that protect everyone and make it a level playing field where we all have the opportunity to achieve the American dream. Or when the government gets involved and provides protections (regulations) to stop businesses from feeling free to make profit by any means necessary even when it means using deceitful or downright morally wrong business practices.

You might call it "getting in the way" though. Kinda like how the government is trying to get in the way of insurance companies right now. The government sat back for decades and allowed health care in this country to spiral out of control.

The irony.... just like liberals are for big government just for the sake of having big government even when it doesn't make any sense or is against their best interest. Conservatives are for keeping the government out of everything even when it doesn't make any sense or when it's against their own best interests.

 

Wholeheartedly agree. For every position or group there is an extreme sect.

Just about every progressive thinking person I speak to; though they are for the progress of the human species, they are also rational and understand that the means have consequences too. The nuclear weapons scenario I gave is a great example of that. We harnessed the power of the atom (progress) but at the same time gained the ability to destroy ourselves and the earth (consequence of the means). In the end all that matters in how we progress from here is how we choose to use that power.

The powers that are against what I believe in (I call them anti-progressives) are "usually" people who are against progress for purely selfish reasons. They enjoy prosperity and got that way because of something that is wrong or just isn't as relevant anymore. Rather than simply being smart and adapting the way they do things to a changing world they fight against it. Change is their kryptonite.

There's also the people who are not prosperous but still fight progress. For example I'm anti-illegal immigrant in terms of the legality/fairness of it. But a LOT of people who are anti-immigrant are so because it actually affects them and their livelihood. They are people who were left behind by change. The new economy we live in is a knowledge based economy. Not so long ago a high school diploma and a solid work ethic would secure a happy and prosperous life. Now even a college degree almost seems not good enough. So the people who didn't adapt are left behind fighting with immigrants for blue collar work.

There are so many points we could all agree on if we just chose to work together and I agree the bickering is just silly. But the reality is there are so many sub-agendas that's not likely to happen any time soon.

 

When government gets involved to "level the playing field", competition, innovation and market based forces cease to exist. In the end, consumer suffer and business fails.

Less government = more progress. Too me, that would be "PROGRESSIVE".

 

Sounds a lot like the laissez-faire capitalism of Ayn Rand and the pseudo-philosophy of the Objectivists that she spawned.

"If one wishes to advocate a free society--that is capitalism--one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them." --Ayn Rand: The Virtue of Selfishness

Unfortunately, this view disregards principals upon which the US was founded - specifically that the people best protect their individual rights.

"The mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

There are important questions that one must answer:

Shall we have laissez-faire capitalism, or some level of regulation?

If regulated, how much regulation?

Who decides, and upon what principles?

Contrary to the neo-con (or is that the Randian) view, the foundation of American society is not the economic relationships of capitalism, but natural rights derived from an understanding of human nature. "Natural rights" must come first, else we have no criteria for determining what are the proper relationships under capitalism.

Thomas Jefferson remarked to Edward Carrington, "Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor."

In other words, our founding fathers fully recognized the amorality of capitalism and saw fit to design a system of govenrment that would allow for protection of individual liberties against ALL threats, whether religion, exploitive economic systems or external threats.

Rand, the Objectivists (including Alan Greenspan) and the neo-cons have turned everything upside down, somehow rationalizing mass explitation for individual gain (or greed?) as being a moral guide for important decisions.

I would argue that laissez-faire capitalism is directly at odds with individual liberty, and so proper regulation of the economic system is an appropriate role for the government. Of course, such regulation should meet the criteria of "protection of individual liberties".

The problem then is not regulation in and of itself, but rather what is regulated, how it is regulated and why it is regulated.

 

Nate: I couldn't agree more with the last paragraph. Extremes at any level create problems. The extremes simply ignore that every action creates a reaction in other areas. Extremes ignore anything that doesn't account for their main philosophy. It always creates problems.

There really has not been a nation that totally exercises complete socialism. The USSR was a totalitarian regime, with expansionist desires that additionally centralized all economic decisions in its central government.

Ultimately their productive capabilities crumbled. Their production didn't respond to the market and ultimately the economy crumbled. On top of that though they were a tyrannical government that crushed opposition perspectives, spent dramatically on military, expanded throughout Europe and tried expansionism whereever possible. The latter politics had little to do with socialism...but it all contributed to their ultimate demise.

Our recent incredible recession was a simple reaction to uncontrolled capitalism. The housing markets had no controls or oversight. The financial industry had no oversight in areas where it gambled to the extreme.

Despite the claims of an extremist political right wing, simply look at the flows of capital into residential real estate; look at the creation of a financial wing that securitized residential loans, thereby feeding liquidity into these markets at unprecedented levels, and look at the derivatives created by financial institutions that magnified losses many fold. It created an amazing financial debacle.

The result. The US lost about 20% of its entire household financial worth. Trillians were lost. I don't think those calculation include the losses being experienced in the commercial real estate market. That will add losses of something in the low trillians of dollars.

Any political program taken to its extremese will lead to enormous problems.

 

I would argue that little was lost.

Uncontrolled Capitalism concentrates wealth. In other words, what you and I might experience as a "loss" is really a "shift" - wealth shifting from our hands to the hands of the puppetmasters.

Contrary to the arguments we regularly hear, most wealth has not been "earned". Sam Walton might have worked to make a fortune. His heirs - worth $20+ billion each - will never have to work. But, their wealth will only increase, since money makes money.

 

I'm not that familiar with Objectivism myself, so I can't say much about everything else you've said, however..

I think you interpreted Jefferson's quote wrong and now jumping to conclusions with it. What makes you think he was referring to capitalism? What "governments of Europe" at that time were capitalist?

I think to the contrary, our founders saw the amorality of government, because government is inherently amoral, and saw fit to design a system of government that would allow for the most individual liberty, which calls for the least amount of government possible.

If you want to see in action what Jefferson describes as the animal in man devouring its own kind, and the rich preying on the poor, look no further than third world countries with government dictatorships.

 

Jefferson was referring to the rich preying on the poor - a dynamic only facilitated by unrestrained capitalism.

Capitalism, by its nature, concentrates wealth. The Jefferson quote suggests that he would support regulation that protected the poor from the depredations of the rich.

The term "Capitalism" had yet to be coined. However, Adam Smith described the system in his 1776 book "Wealth of Nations".

This passage captures the amoralism of capitalism pretty well...

""the demand for men, like that for any other commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men..."

The commoditization of humans perfectly illustrates the amoral nature of capitalism, and the appropriateness of government regulations aimed at preserving individual liberties in the face of its excesses.

In simple terms, commodities do not have natural rights - humans do.

 

That's where you're wrong. What have you to say to government dictatorships and their strong association with third world countries? Are you blind to that dynamic that strongly exists there?

You're wrong about this, I believe. Although I'm not arguing in support of it, pure capitalism does not concentrate wealth at all in the way you're saying, as corporations for example, would not even exist. If you think America is or was ever pure capitalist by any means you're way wrong.

The history of the term capitalism is completely irrelevant. We can go back and simply observe history to decide what times the term applied to. So, you're evading my question here.. what capitalism in Europe was Jefferson referring to? Otherwise, you're just making wild assumptions and interpretations.

I'm not saying regulations aren't needed, but they are used at the expense of individual freedom.

As I said, sacrifice, sometimes it's worth it.

 

That is a lot of hocus pocus theoretical baloney. I have lines of credit, and one loan on one business. Upon the crash, the lines of credit were all re analyzed by the financial institutions. Each one had access to my financial statements with regard to the lines of credit.

All three were pulled. I ultimately kept two of them.

In the real world a lot was lost by a lot of people.

The problems with theories...is just that. They are theories. They often fall apart when being presented by real life.

Speak to the people who lost homes. Speak to the people who live off of returns on their investments and saw those returns devastated. Speak to the businesses who are struggling to make ends meet because consumers and other businesses aren't spending due to tighter financial conditions.

In the light of what is probably the largest aggregate loss of wealth ever, that is a simply absurd comment.

A lot was lost.