"Progressive" and other political labels

[Primula Baggins]

I think the annoyance (at least in my case) is with people who don't feel they should be made to buy insurance because they "know" they'll never need it (yeah, right), but at bottom because they know (really know) that society will pick up the tab when they show up at the ER without insurance. They are free not to buy insurance, and the rest of us are "free" to pay for their smug lack of foresight through higher premiums and higher hospital fees.

[yovargas]

Uhh, I wasn't trying to start the health care debate, I was just pointing out that, for better or worse, governments can and do "tell people what to do".

[axordil]

Usually commands from a democratic government are at least theoretically conditional. IF you want to drive, you must get a license. IF you want to make money, you have to pay taxes. That sort of thing.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Don't most laws tell you what you can't do, not what you must do? Taxes being the obvious exception, but otherwise: you can't kill people, steal, cheat, lie, etc. Beyond that you are pretty much free to do whatever you want to do.

It depends on the country.

In the US, in general (and becoming less so), laws say certain activities are forbidden and anything else is allowed. But in more totalitarian countries laws say what is allowed and everything else is forbidden. And in some cases laws do mandate activity instead of merely forbidding some activity; you'll find those laws more often in the more totalitarian countries.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I remember, in my youth (so long ago!), how there was this romantic concept of radicals struggling to free humanity from the clutches of reactionary forces. And now...

When, and how, did "radical" become such a derogatory term?

[axordil]

Ask Tom Paine or Leon Trotsky or Saint-Just. Revolutionaries are useful up until the moment the revolution is done with them.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Ask Tom Paine or Leon Trotsky or Saint-Just. Revolutionaries are useful up until the moment the revolution is done with them.

I think it has become more... insidious... than that. "Revolutionaries" are not simply being dispensed with post-revolution, but radical thought is being demonised prior to any "threat" of revolution.

When, in 1992, Francis Fukyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man his central tenet was that, with liberal democracy, mankind had reached the zenith of sociocultural evolution; there was nowhere left to "progress" to. Radical thought rejects the status quo, but if the status quo is held to embody evolutionary maturation, maintenance of the status quo can be presented as defence against decline and fall.

This is, I believe, the reason why radicalism has become so demonised, and why anodyne, mutable, near meaningless terms such as "liberal", "progressive", even "conservative" are the sum total of allowable, acceptable "ideologies". In truth, they can, and often are, interchangeable. Neoliberals are bedfellows of Neoconservatives; Progressives are notable for their absence of radicalism. The whole is safely framed within a limited, corporatist landscape, with debate often reduced to something analogous to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The power elites who have most to fear by any real assault on this status quo control all major facets of society, including use of language. "Radicalism" is verboten...

And I think the poverty of political debate, (inter)nationally, ably illustrates this.

[axordil]

This isn't the first time in history someone has posited that we can't go any further. It may simply be that given the current social and economic environment we're at political homeostasis. But not even Exxon-Mobil or News Corp. can control the laws of physics.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

This isn't the first time in history someone has posited that we can't go any further. It may simply be that given the current social and economic environment we're at political homeostasis. But not even Exxon-Mobil or News Corp. can control the laws of physics.

I agree, although appealing to historical precedent may not be justified. Never before has there been such global reach, and with such immediacy.

The communications age has, quite probably, changed the rule book...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Liberal economist and political pundit Paul Krugman made a comment this morning that crystalized the concerns that I have about progressives. From the Huffington Post:

"From the perspective of a rational person -- in other words a progressive -- we shouldn't be talking about spending cuts at all now," Krugman said during a roundtable discussion on ABCNews' This Week With Christiane Amanpour.

Now, mind you, I personally largely agree with his underlying point about the danger of cutting spending during an economic downturn (not that I know much about economics; it all seems pretty random to me). But the idea that only progressives are rational -- and thus that anyone who is not a progressive and doesn't agree with Krugman are automatically irrational -- is a most toxic concept. And in my experience, it is a common idea among progressives, more so than any other group. Obviously, everyone believes that there point of view is the right one, but without leaving room to acknowledge that intelligent, rational people can disagree, there can be no reasonable discourse.

[nerdanel]

But the idea that only progressives are rational -- and thus that anyone who is not a progressive and doesn't agree with Krugman are automatically irrational -- is a most toxic concept. And in my experience, it is a common idea among progressives, more so than any other group.

I agree with you that it's a toxic concept. I do not agree with you that it is more common among progressives. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a conservative acquaintance say, "Reality has a well-known conservative bias," or use words like "libtard," for instance, I'd be rich enough to be the beneficiary of said conservatives' tax policies.

Obviously, everyone believes that there point of view is the right one, but without leaving room to acknowledge that intelligent, rational people can disagree, there can be no reasonable discourse.

Count me in as one progressive who agrees with this.

[vison]

Reasonable discourse is useless if it cannot lead to action.

Politics is the art of compromise.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Count me in as one progressive who agrees with this.

[axordil]

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a conservative acquaintance say, "Reality has a well-known conservative bias," or use words like "libtard," for instance, I'd be rich enough to be the beneficiary of said conservatives' tax policies.

Not to mention the "liberal hunting permits" and bumper stickers with an armed "Minute Man" figure saying "Socialists you have been warned" (The O in Socialist was of course the Obama campaign logo.)

I saw those today on a 15- year old rusty pickup in a fast food parking lot, along with a sticker that said "I am John Galt." I was tempted to get a sharpie and write in "No, John Galt wouldn't drive a POS like this."

[vison]

No, that Scandanavian philosopher would have, though. [Can't think of his name. Dag? Ragnar?]

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

No, that Scandanavian philosopher would have, though. [Can't think of his name. Dag? Ragnar?]

Søren Kierkegaard?

How so?

[vison]

No, that Scandanavian philosopher would have, though. [Can't think of his name. Dag? Ragnar?]

Søren Kierkegaard?

How so?

No, no!! Not a real guy. One of Ayn Rand's characters in Atlas Shrugged. I can't remember the guy's name.

In real life, I knew a man named Soren Sorenson. And another man named Anders Anderson. AND another man named Lars Larsen.

Them Norskis, eh?

[Primula Baggins]

Saves time when the nurse is standing there with the birth certificate and a pen, and Gunnar hasn't had any coffee or any beer in 24 hours, and Lena is still swearing at him at the top of her lungs.

But I regress.

[vison]

Ah, yes. Gunnar and Lena.

Well, I knew a man named Gunnar and he lived with a woman named Gertie.

However, their union produced no issue.

I also knew a man named Aubrey Flower. I actually wrote a very long story, with Aubrey Flower in it.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

But the idea that only progressives are rational -- and thus that anyone who is not a progressive and doesn't agree with Krugman are automatically irrational -- is a most toxic concept. And in my experience, it is a common idea among progressives, more so than any other group.

Oh come now, do you mean to tell me that you think progressives are more intellectually arrogant than libertarians?

But you make a point. On another forum someone was going on and on about how stupid Republicans are, and I pointed out that his party loses about half the time to those same "stupid" Republicans.

I then pointed out that even if they are less intelligent, you can still lose if you underestimate them, so it pays to not believe your own propaganda about the enemy too much.

He pretended he didn't see my comment.

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a conservative acquaintance say, "Reality has a well-known conservative bias," or use words like "libtard," for instance, I'd be rich enough to be the beneficiary of said conservatives' tax policies.

I've heard both about the bias of reality, and I've heard of conservotards, libtards, and libertopians.