|
Editorials: Editoriality Archives - Animations Commentary Pandora's Box! Video What Is? Contact Us Voices of the People Home |
O---kay...there’s something I’ve been noticing, and I’m not sure how long this has been going on, but you’ll have to forgive me, I’ve purged myself from certain academic and media circles. I’m uninformed in some areas.
I’m noticing that many, many individuals on the left of the political spectrum have been referring to themselves as “progressives.” The term “liberal,” which I presumed held wide acceptance as at once a derogatory term by the right and a pride-bearing term by the left, is now non-existent in media circles.
Commonly, instead of “conservative,” which I similarly thought was a derogatory term by those on the left and a prideful term by those on the right, has been supplanted by the term “neo-con,” which seems to hold a certain extra level of acerbity by LIBERALS. Particularly the newest liberal on the block, Mick Jagger (Look for him on next week's "McLaughlin Group").
I doubt I’ll ever find the need to call myself a “neo-con” when “conservative” will do just fine. You can call me a “screwbally” if you want. Words can lose their original connotation over time. There will be insensitive children 20 years from now who will laugh just as hard at "mentally challenged" as kids did 20 years ago at "retard."
Plus, one of the key components to a healthy position in politics is healthy self-awareness and to “know thyself.” Without boasting, I know what I yam and I know what I ain’t. Sticks and stones, etc.
My impression was that “Progressive” in the strictest political terms refers to the general thought process of the Bull Moose Party, Theodore Roosevelt’s breakaway party for the 1912 election year.
Now granted, the Progressives of 1912 were a party much like the Reformers of 1992. They were disgruntled by the incumbent administration (Republicans), but were centered enough to not want to bolt to the other side. In both cases, a former high-level spokesman (Roosevelt in 1912, Perot in 1992) formed his own party and garnered well-nigh 20% of the popular vote. In Roosevelt’s case, he beat out the incumbent Republican, Taft, but fell short of defeating the president I like to call the Man Who May Have Kept Us Out of WWI But Essentially Started WWII, Woodrow Wilson.
Then after that, the Progressives get really flaky. In the 20s, a socialist Republican (Huh?) named LaFollette, ran for public office using the Progressive Party designation. And in the 1950s, Henry Wallace, also a former Republican who was FDR’s VP in the 40s, co-opted the party for awhile, where the primary platform was supported by farmers and laborers. There were also ties to the Commies, which made Wallace about as unmarketable as Tina Louise after Gilligan’s Island. (Source: Wikipedia.com)
If LIBERALS want to be associated with the capital “P” Progressives because they seem to represent a group of political peoples interested in dissociating themselves from Republicans, that’s fine. But as a result, you’re associating yourselves as separate from the Democratic Party as well. Are you Democrats or not?
Anyway, what I’m seeing in the media and on political action sites is little “p” progressive. And this is where I get really confused, because someone will have to explain to me how you can call yourself “progressive” when you:
--Would rather sit and pooh-pooh judicial nominees, issuing false cries of “propriety” than to advance our stagnated and already divisive judicial system?
--Would rather sit on depleted US oil reserves and rely on OPEC than to drill in ANWAR?
--Would rather keep US military resources at home than to fight terrorism in the Middle East?
--Would rather whine about a duly-elected president on a personal level than to participate like good boys and girls?
--Would rather not deal with the process of John Bolton’s appointment and argue over his “personality” instead, when he’s been posted to the U.N. during a recess appointment anyway?
--Would rather keep the existing certain-to-implode Social Security system in place than to offer a viable alternative?
--Would rather keep the current non-productive tax system in place than to offer a viable alternative?
Just to make sure I wasn’t using the wrong part of my brain to recall a salient definition of “progressive,” I looked it up on dictionary.com. There were several conflicting definitions which furthers my argument over the inanity of this semantic machination (It’s almost as if Noam Chomsky had edited the dictionary definition himself), but this grouping of the adjective caught my eye:
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments, as of a course of treatment.
3. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope, as of a disease or paralysis.
So even Noam Chomsky admits that progressives are diseased!
