(April 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(April 16, 2017 at 1:25 pm)Jeanne Wrote: Sorry FNM, I just saw your post.
Yes, both parties have moved into Progressivism....so there are Progressive Republicans as well as Progressive Democrats and even Progressive Libertarians. Anytime a politician prefers larger and larger governments that take on more responsibilities and chooses to do it with other peoples money and removes more and more individual and state rights, they are Progressives.
That's not what progressivism is or means, and in that light, it becomes easy to see why "progressivism" as described above (and elsewhere in your post) can find itself at home in so many places while simultaneously baring no resemblance to progressivism.
That is, however, a laundry list of accusations that right wing nuts have levied at progressivism ( I particularly enjoy the commie touch) ..which has been very successful at subverting the narrative, lol.
Hello Khemikal.
You are correct to be questioning a definition, but as we all know, they change a bit when placed contextually. They especially change when the defining party chooses the definition that appeals to its followers. Just as the two of us might give our own experiences and sensibilities to the word "faith" so do we give our own experiences and sensibilities to the word "progressivism."
When Clinton told us that she defines herself as a 20th Century Progressive, it was so it would sound better than the Liberal label she had previously given herself, which was getting linked with Socialism and with non-traditional values. Then, she used it to distance herself from Sanders who declared that indeed, he was a Socialist and we should all be Socialists, but not the way "Newsweek" meant it; he meant Marxists. And...yet it was Sanders who was telling us the truth. Clinton was actually a Marxist, just like Obama was. Examine their histories, read their own words and listen to what they actually say.
A rose by any other name... or whatever.
You and I most likely define Constitutionalism and Conservatism and Classical Liberalism and Statism from our individual points of reference.
I can only suggest that you read some more history and pay attention to the parts that you absolutely disagree with and/or deny.
But my point still remains; why can't atheists be informed, educated, intelligent and Conservative? And...why do the self-defined informed, educated and intelligent Progressive atheists declare that we can't be?
And...worse; how can they be so nasty and bullying to fellow atheists when it is they who believe themselves to be tolerant?
They are not tolerant. They demand submission to their viewpoints. They are haters and bullies. They want us to shut up and sit down. They cannot endure a civil discussion with anyone with whom they disagree and instead choose to fling insults and vulgar language.
Hmmm....very childish and bigoted behavior hardly seems to be intelligent.
They are entitled to their statistics and their facts and their opinions, but deny the other side that about which they know nothing or very little. I would suggest that each side has its blind spots and intelligent people could discuss such with civility.
Most adults know that there are facts and there are facts...and the truth probably lies somewhere in between.
-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
