Qyöt27
AMV Editor At Large
- Apr 2, 2004
- 7,879
- 573
- 38
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I think it's a combination of lingering McCarthyism and simply not knowing too much about history.
'Progressive' no longer means what it originally did to most people. Its original incarnation, a Populist/Reformist movement that was extremely influential in the late 1800s and early 1900s, led to much of the normalcy we take for granted nowadays (or used to; one of Teddy Roosevelt's main points was a strong middle class - that was pretty much obliterated in the last quarter of the 20th century). Things like a living wage, child labor laws, better protection and compensation for those in hazardous fields, and so on. Roosevelt himself was also very much for trustbusting initiatives, because it would favor competition. But after WWII, the term began to be used by those trying to avoid the word 'Liberal'. Roosevelt also dragged the Progressives out of the Republican party when he split off and formed the actual Progressive Party (aka Bull Moose). After that happened, the Republicans moved to the fiscally-motivated party it is today starting under Taft. When the Bull Moose Party dissolved a few years later, the remnants were either absorbed by the centrist portions of the Democratic Party or remained Independent. At best, a few of these points are vaguely remembered as something you learned in U.S. History in High School, but the vast majority completely forget this.
The point being, a lot of the rhetoric presents very few options. Sure, people know Soviet Communism, they know Nazi or Italian Fascism (for those that would actually argue that the Nazis weren't fascist based on the fact it means National Socialism), they know Capitalist Democracy, but they're usually blissfully unaware of the varying shades of other sorts of political ideologies outside of one or two talking points - if they have that much.
I'll put it this way - it isn't possible to totally avoid the influence of socialism, no matter how much certain segments of the political landscape object. But the problem is that they're seeing one thing and linking it to something else entirely. If we're going to talk of hybridism, there has to be a basis. And while I know this isn't exactly a *fair* way of saying it, the older generations are still living under the shadow of the Cold War, which is why all this opposition is being thrown about - even though the circumstances are far different now. Recently my grandparents made the comment that I was too young to 'know where this was going', and I couldn't help but think that while I might not remember the Cold War, those same forces are no longer at work and therefore how could they even know where this is going either? Juxtaposing social attitudes (the cohort theory, which only involves politics incidentally) against the way the generations view the issue might be rather interesting.
As I've maintained before, to fix the issues plaguing us now, I see no other valid alternative but to essentially raze it to the ground and build it right this time. The problem is that we don't want to give up what we're used to and so it's like putting a new coat of paint on a house rotting out from under itself. The problem, and both parties are guilty of this, is that they do whatever they can to keep themselves in power and pursue their ideological goals, even while most Americans disagree. They might think this idea from the right or that idea from the left is correct, but not the whole package offered by the parties themselves. But nowhere is there any real push to fix the voting system so that we can have proper competition there - instead the viewpoint is just picking the lesser of two, supposedly 'necessary', evils. Neither one is going to amend the voting system to allow other parties room, even though that would be the best situation for the public.
Honestly, I think if you want to argue capitalism, the government should have a stake in it. Put the government's fate directly at the mercy of the economy, in other words. If the public wants to the economy to recover, give them the tools needed to directly do so - if the funding the government receives for this service or that service is set up as a market, then the public's investments are working for them in the way they'd expect it to. I don't know if this would work in reality, but it's something, at least. Try it out on a small scale first, so that problems with it can be addressed and amended, and allow it to grow gradually as necessary so that its stability won't be threatened by suddenly moving the entire country to it. Allow the government to broker some of the alternative energy solutions we come up with and sell surplus power to other countries - use the revenue there or in other international pursuits directly government-related to finance infrastructure and so on.
'Progressive' no longer means what it originally did to most people. Its original incarnation, a Populist/Reformist movement that was extremely influential in the late 1800s and early 1900s, led to much of the normalcy we take for granted nowadays (or used to; one of Teddy Roosevelt's main points was a strong middle class - that was pretty much obliterated in the last quarter of the 20th century). Things like a living wage, child labor laws, better protection and compensation for those in hazardous fields, and so on. Roosevelt himself was also very much for trustbusting initiatives, because it would favor competition. But after WWII, the term began to be used by those trying to avoid the word 'Liberal'. Roosevelt also dragged the Progressives out of the Republican party when he split off and formed the actual Progressive Party (aka Bull Moose). After that happened, the Republicans moved to the fiscally-motivated party it is today starting under Taft. When the Bull Moose Party dissolved a few years later, the remnants were either absorbed by the centrist portions of the Democratic Party or remained Independent. At best, a few of these points are vaguely remembered as something you learned in U.S. History in High School, but the vast majority completely forget this.
The point being, a lot of the rhetoric presents very few options. Sure, people know Soviet Communism, they know Nazi or Italian Fascism (for those that would actually argue that the Nazis weren't fascist based on the fact it means National Socialism), they know Capitalist Democracy, but they're usually blissfully unaware of the varying shades of other sorts of political ideologies outside of one or two talking points - if they have that much.
I'll put it this way - it isn't possible to totally avoid the influence of socialism, no matter how much certain segments of the political landscape object. But the problem is that they're seeing one thing and linking it to something else entirely. If we're going to talk of hybridism, there has to be a basis. And while I know this isn't exactly a *fair* way of saying it, the older generations are still living under the shadow of the Cold War, which is why all this opposition is being thrown about - even though the circumstances are far different now. Recently my grandparents made the comment that I was too young to 'know where this was going', and I couldn't help but think that while I might not remember the Cold War, those same forces are no longer at work and therefore how could they even know where this is going either? Juxtaposing social attitudes (the cohort theory, which only involves politics incidentally) against the way the generations view the issue might be rather interesting.
As I've maintained before, to fix the issues plaguing us now, I see no other valid alternative but to essentially raze it to the ground and build it right this time. The problem is that we don't want to give up what we're used to and so it's like putting a new coat of paint on a house rotting out from under itself. The problem, and both parties are guilty of this, is that they do whatever they can to keep themselves in power and pursue their ideological goals, even while most Americans disagree. They might think this idea from the right or that idea from the left is correct, but not the whole package offered by the parties themselves. But nowhere is there any real push to fix the voting system so that we can have proper competition there - instead the viewpoint is just picking the lesser of two, supposedly 'necessary', evils. Neither one is going to amend the voting system to allow other parties room, even though that would be the best situation for the public.
Honestly, I think if you want to argue capitalism, the government should have a stake in it. Put the government's fate directly at the mercy of the economy, in other words. If the public wants to the economy to recover, give them the tools needed to directly do so - if the funding the government receives for this service or that service is set up as a market, then the public's investments are working for them in the way they'd expect it to. I don't know if this would work in reality, but it's something, at least. Try it out on a small scale first, so that problems with it can be addressed and amended, and allow it to grow gradually as necessary so that its stability won't be threatened by suddenly moving the entire country to it. Allow the government to broker some of the alternative energy solutions we come up with and sell surplus power to other countries - use the revenue there or in other international pursuits directly government-related to finance infrastructure and so on.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
