These Days, Progressives Aren’t Shy
When conservative talk about about how the progressive movement was built on the foundation of the same programs that fascinated the fascists in the 1930s and 1940s, we’re generally shouted down as liars. Well, we are inaccurate in one respect. Fascist mainstays like eugenics, forced sterilization, population controls, and state control over the most minuscule aspects of your life for the “common good” aren’t buried as deeply as a foundation normally is. These days, that stuff is right on the surface.
Ed Driscoll has a few recent instances that show just how close to the top those ideas still are in the Democratic Party. The folks espousing those views aren’t fringe cranks either. One of them is a Supreme Court justice. The other is the “Science Czar”, hand-picked by President Obama.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the progressive movement’s sole aim is control. They suffer from the delusion that they can bring about a utopia on Earth and they don’t particularly care what they have to trample — your liberties or the Constitution — to get what they so desperately want.
UPDATE: Here’s an interesting quote unearthed by Jonah Goldberg.
In 1992, Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case, wrote a letter to President-elect Clinton, imploring him to rush RU-486 — a.k.a. “the abortion pill” — to market as quickly as possible.
“[Y]ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country,” Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don’t want. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it. … Think of all the poverty, crime and misery … and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don’t have a lot of time left.”
Weddington offered a clue about who, in particular, he had in mind: “For every Jesse Jackson who has fought his way out of the poverty of a large family, there are millions mired in poverty, drugs and crime.” Ah, right. Jesse Jackson. Got it.
Related posts:
- Greed is the New Fear (Or, Why Progressives Can't Leave Well Enough Alone)
- Greed is the New Fear (Or, Why Progressives Can’t Leave Well Enough Alone)
- Nice Job, Guys
- The Old Progressives in DC Still Can't Get the Heller Hint
Category: Featured, Progressives
About the Author (Author Profile)
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
"The other is the “Science Czar”, hand-picked by President Obama."
Umm, Obama picked Francis Collins, an Evangelical Christian, to be NIH chief. And it's a good pick, he's a good scientist. I know you expect everyone to be way far to the right of David Duke, but that's just not going to happen. Did you expect Bush to appoint radical liberals? Of course you didn't. So don't expect Obama to appoint radical conservatives every time. He's still appointing radical conservatives sometimes. This idea that only radical conservatives must always be appointed is a little strange when we voted against that concept. When the Republicans win, radical conservative freaks are the only choice. When Democrats win, we get a mixture of people, and most of them are more conservative than the voters that put them in office. True liberals have never gotten a chance in this administration or any other Democratic administration. Only moderates and conservatives get a chance. Yet you expect that a Democrat will only appoint Republicans. I know your grip on reality is extremely sweaty, but chalk up.
As for Holdren, you seem to be claiming a problem with population control. Specifically forced abortion. I have a problem with that, but you support it. The largest forced abortion program in history is our use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. And you think that was just a dandy idea. I've talked to those women who lost their babies, and they don't agree with you. So tell me why you support forced abortion through the use of chemical weapons.
I'm not claiming to have a problem with it. I do have a problem with it and you're a liar if you say otherwise. You may, if you wish, search the posts here — all 5,196 of them — and you won't find a single reference to Agent Orange. Not one.
This is your warning. Lie about me again and you're banned.
Hence my broken-record-esque argument that the Constitution, as written/amended, was both designed to preclude Progressivism, and represents the chief antidote to Progressivism, now that it's infested us anyway.
Classical liberalism and progressivism stand at odds with each other normally anyhow, but when the Founders drew Natural Law and the Creator into the mix, it sealed all the breaches tightly.
But progressives are tireless and a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. So here we are.
Someone oughtta tell the lefties that Utopia is impossible for two reasons. One: People and Two: Rules.
The closest we have is classical America. Go out, earn your pay and keep it. Use it as you wish. Live your life the way you want without the all-powerful government breathing down your neck. Too bad the "anti-establishment" hippies of the 60's are now the biggest proponents of the biggest government we've ever seen.
I don't think Liberals today want utopia. That's what the 60's Liberals and especially what far Leftists in the first half of the 20th century were striving for.
Today's Liberals want to spread as much misery as possible, to as many people as possible. This is based on psychological and emotional issues, rather than their Politics. Their desire is to rob people of their individuality, and at the same time take as much joy out of peoples lives as possible. Rush has discussed this to some extent.
Regarding fostert:
He seems like a clueless juvenile who's been completely brainwashed by the Public school system. He deserves pity and should be ignored, except when he makes outight lies about Jimmie, of course.
I think its best to break down the liberals into several groups, as accusing all of them of such things is unfair to those who really do want what is best for America, and just happen to be wrong.
That will be group 1: The Mislead. These people have been fed lies about the right and republicans for so long that they don't know they have much more in common with us than they realize, but the media and lying democrats have filtered their information so much that they know nothing else. These people do want what is best but have been convinced the left's way is the only way, and the right are greedy crooks out to rob their liberties.
Group 2 consists of people who believe the government is the only thing that can work to fix the problems the country faces. These people have no faith in the free market, and believe in heavy-handed regulation of anything that moves. These people might not be in the "tax and spend" crowd, however.
Group 3 is "Soak the Rich" crowd. These people think that the evil rich are just out to rob every poor person blind, and need to be heavily taxed as to punish them for the crime of being "too rich." These people also believe that the money the rich make is theirs, and they deserve some of it even though they did nothing to earn it. Funny thing about this group is that if the rich people were going to rob someone, they would rob people WITH money, not without it.
Group 4: Authoritarians. These people have attained some power, in either local or nation al government. These people believe that normal people (the masses) are incapable of handling themselves, and must attain the most power as they can 'for the public good.'
Group 5: The greedy. These people see big government as a way to become filthy rich quickly, and work very hard to maintain relationships with up and coming democrat and republican stars, so that maybe they'll get preferential treatment in the beltway and have big government projects thrown their way.
Group 6: Personal freedom > everything else. These people believe that what they do is none of anyone elses business unless it violates another person's rights. Gay marriage, abortion, trans-genders, you name it. Alot of pol's will use this as a cover for authoritarian measures, but as for the normal people out for liberty, I happen to agree with them (I am mostly libertarian.
)
Group 7: Government Programs are spiffy! These people think government is about making everyone's lives cushier. The governments purpose is to enact programs that the poor, underpriviledged, women, and minorites can take advantage of to get ahead in life, and also defend entitlements (SS, Medi-care/caid) to the grave and also fight viciously against any reforms to these unless proposed by another lefty in favor of increasing benefits.
I might not have created a comprehensive list, but I do think that covers alot of lefty positions. Notice that people can be members of multiple groups. Usually group 1 isn't readily combinable with the others, but there are exceptions to every rule as is easily pointed out.
Great posting Jimmie…
It has amazed me how openly the Lefties now espouse those beliefs of their's that they would never have dared to before—it literally has taken my breath away at several points. Its as if they no longer fear any backlash from trumpeting their inhumane, and totalitarian ideas. The backlash has already started, in fact. Why have they not restrained themselves accordingly? If they did so, folks like myself who have been warning about the Left for years, have suffered marginalization, but now are enjoying a wider audience, could very easily be re-branded exaggerators, not fit to be included in polite conversations. They could then proceed with their subtle and stealthy socialization and not face rebellions. I can only conclude that either (1) the Leftists are so caught up in their joyous immanentizing of the eschaton that they have lost all contact with reality or (2) they feel that enough of the American people are so stupid and have become and are becoming even more so dependent on the government that the people will ultimately give-in to their leadership. What other explanations are possible?
Quoted from, linked to, awarded you SPOT-ON QUOTE OF THE DAY at:
http://www.thecampofthesaints.com/2009.07.12_arch…
Really terrific analysis, Cheesecake. Jimmy, you should post her comment as an article in itself!
>>Group 6>>
The interesting thing about this group is that in attempting to ensure personal freedom, they trample on the freedoms of others.
One recent example is efforts to silence use of prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance in public body meetings (City Council, for example). Their supposed goal is to "free people from enforced prayer", but in fact, in order to do this, they suppress other's right to prayer. Whether I think it's a good idea or not is irrelevant, but if sufficient number of people object to their City Council's opening prayer, they should be able to muster votes to replace the council with those who agree with them. No law compels an opening prayer…it's a policy. Policies can be changed. Opening with a prayer could be an accepted policy by one council, and not with another. By making it a legal issue, it becomes unchangeable. There is no longer a choice.
Not everything falls into this category, but many things pushed for by the Left, do.
Her? >:(
Heh, the name "cheesecake" doesn't lend itself very well to a gender ID.
Well, like I said they can be members of multiple groups simultaneously. Being a group 6 member can be good if you recognize that a person's life is theirs to live as they see fit, and the government really has no reason to intervene in it, then I would consider that a correct stance. Its an expansion of the economic freedom that conservatives are all out for. I think this quiz, and the subsequent chart is the proper "Political spectrum," as it were. http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html (sorry I don't know how to link in comments, copypasta (notatypo:P))
Problem is that alot of the more hardcore liberals believe this, AND that the government should pay for alot of these freedoms, like a drug-addict that doesn't work should be taken care of through welfare.
The latter is why I did a "maybe" on legalizing drugs. If we as a society were prepared to let people suffer the results of their drug use without intervention, then I'd say let them do as they choose. But in fact, a person who has overdosed, or a person who does drugs in such a way that they can't support themselves – or a family – ends up being saved by society…often at great cost.
I came out on the low end of the Libertarian quadrant(?), by the way. On the consenting adults one, for example – I had to say "maybe". I have two issues – behind closed doors and consenting adults. Closed doors is clear. "Consenting" could be a bit iffy, although maybe if you assume "adult", then you just have to treat some people like druggies – let them suffer the consequences of their choices.
Re: "her"
Sorry if incorrect. I thought I remembered that before "way back when" when you changed your user name to Cheesecake that you had a feminine name. "What's in a name? A rose by any other name…etc" We still agree most of the time…!
Hi all – just going to derail this thread a minute to clear up any confusion about me & "Cheesecake".
Suek – It's me, Lori, you are thinking of…and yes, I changed my screen name here from "Lori" to the one I use everywhere else (Cheesestick) way back when P.Diddy was making a fuss about people calling him by his government name, Sean Combs. LOL
Anyway, me and Cheesecake are not the same person. I don't even think we are related…?
So, I have added some squiggly lines to my name to maybe make it easier to tell us apart from now on.
PS – Nice to meet you Cheesecake…please email Jimmie your addy as he thought you were me also.
I'm sorry about that, Cheesestick. That was my fault. It's been a long ten days or so…
Heh. My mistake. Cheesecake shouldn't be mistaken for Cheesesticks or any other Cheezey thing!
Nevertheless, it seems as if the two types of Cheese have more in common that not – _that's_ a good thing! At least if you're going to get confused with someone else, it should be someone with whom you can agree!