Progressives: Promises vs. The Facts

[PoliticalChic]

Once again PC demonstrates in a rambling cut-and-paste job her inability to cogently make an argument. From the title of the thread, one would expect something about American progressives. The first shots, however are for British scientists who inhabit the wrong century to be associated with the Bullmoose Party. Typical PC timeline.

1. An interesting ability of the human mind is 'voluntary amnesia'. When one deeply and fervently held belief is found to be wrong, adherents simply forget what they once believed, and, often, even deny that they ever held the view.

It's nice to hear PC talking about herself!

Take Charles Darwin's theory of evolution: it had ramifications far beyond the field of biology. The idea of 'survival of the fittest' was quickly wrapped around a doctrine of competition among humans, and decisions about the superiority of one race to another.

As alluded earlier, Darwin is British and predates Progressivism by 40 years ("Origins" being published in 1859). PC in her usual irresponsible style then proceeds to blame Darwin for all the misuses of his work by others. This is the same PC I remember crying foul when we attributed the excesses of Latin American dictators under the guidance of the "Chicago boys" to Milton Friedman. At least in that case Friedman had a lot to do with those dictatorships!



PC obviously does not know who Galton is, having just lifted this stuff from Haller's book. But if she wants to debate the beliefs of Galton, founder of psychometrics and one of the great pioneers in statistical analysis, I would be most happy to accommodate.

Point three, which is the same as point 4 deleted in favor of brevity and a decent disgust at purple prose.



Obviously PC prefers medical rationing by wealth and by insurance companies. Heaven forbid we take profit motive out of life-and-death decisions!


Frankly I don't see a point here. Some progressives in the 1900--1920 period were anti-immigrant; but virtually all conservatives of the period were also. The same goes for eugenics.



Again PC relies on a conservative hatchet piece with no foundation in reality. If she wants to debate Ely's positions, I will be happy to oblige. Ely was no socialist and only marginally connected to eugenics. Goldberg is a hack and the Fine article is misrepresented.



Ely was born in 1854, Taussig in 1859, so they predate the Progressive movement. Taussig was involved in Eugenics, but not to the degree of Irving Fisher, the great conservative monetary theorist.

a. Some things never change. Nobel Prizewinning Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal supported programs which sterilized 60,000 people from 1941 through 1975. Ibid, p. 214.

This reference is so vague I am unable to find what it refers to. I suspect PC can't either.

b. " Sweden is the poster state for those who believe in the power of the government to solve all problems. Frequently referred to as a "benevolent" socialist or social democratic state, to distinguish it from the run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop, such as Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia, Sweden is the Promised Land of the Left. Where the USSR was a departure from the genius of Karl Marx, Sweden shows the potential. It is also in capitalist nations — where the right to liberty and the right to property are protected — where men and women have been comparatively free from the eugenic nightmares of other nations. Although prisoners and "mental deficients" were sterilized in the United States, such programs never reached the levels they reached in Sweden, let alone in Germany under the National Socialists." Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism ?

Typical PC closing. Exactly how many American Progressives were there in Sweden in the time period (never identified) that is alluded to?

And exactly how did Conservatives of the same period differ from Progressives, on the subject of eugenics? Not a word. I wonder why.

Hey....I thought you threatened never to response to my threads again?
Good to see you've changed you mind.


But, you've sounded like a fool before.....and I see that that hasn't changed.


1. The obfuscation that you've attempted....giving the dates of birth and claiming that these folks were not major players in the Progressive movement....

...well....that's more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


2. Let's provide some of the education that you so dearly require.

a. Begin with the view that the collective is superior to the individual.....
"Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (German: [ˈɡeɔɐ̯k ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈheːɡəl]; August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was a German philosopher, and a major figure in German Idealism. His historicist and idealist account of reality revolutionized European philosophy and was an important precursor to Continental philosophy and Marxism."
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So much for the idea that you understand anything.....anything.


b. One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding.
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19


Feel like a dunce yet?

c. If I really had the time and space, I would instruct you on Tribonian and the Code of Justinian.....528-530. The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem)

Understand the Civil Law vs Common Law?
No....didn't think so.


So, you fool, the dates for the origin of Progressivism can be followed back to far earlier times than the early 20th century.


Pick up a book once in a while.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obviously PC prefers medical rationing by wealth and by insurance companies. Heaven forbid we take profit motive out of life-and-death decisions!

Actually, that's typical of the right wing. Because they believe that doesn't involve them. It's like when they get food stamps and Medicare. They just don't want those lazy minorities to participate. Because Republicans believe such government help should be reserved for them. They totally believe they are the only ones who paid into that system, therefore, they are the only ones "entitled".

1. Let's begin with the fact that the wealthy earned their money...they didn't inherit it, unless their names ended with 'Kennedy.'

a. Then, they set up trusts to hide the wealth.

2. Often, concern over poverty, veers off into the belief that the wealth of the wealthy derived from and is the reason for the poverty of the poor: the zero-sum fallacy.




3. Small business owners make 19% less than government managers. Salary Search | CareerBuilder.com

a. Comparing Federal and Private Sector Compensation Comparing Federal and Private Sector Compensation - Economics - AEI

b. “WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly half of self-employed Americans (49%) report working more than 44 hours in a typical work week, compared to 39% of American workers overall, 38% in government and in private business, …” Self-Employed Workers Clock the Most Hours Each Week

c. The average small-business owner earns $44,576 per year. Business Development Salary | CareerBuilder.com



4. Now, the point:
Putting in the efforts, the time, taking the risks.....

Who the heck are you to decide how they spend their money, and why they shouldn't be able to use it to better personal advantage than one who has not earned that money?

And if that means purchase of better healthcare......more power to 'em!

 

[oldfart]

Hey....I thought you threatened never to response to my threads again? Good to see you've changed you mind.

You should check your glasses and re-read the post. I said I was taking a (much needed break), not that I would "never" respond.

1. The obfuscation that you've attempted....giving the dates of birth and claiming that these folks were not major players in the Progressive movement....

You should drop the invective; you are really not very good at it and it makes you look bad. You were the one who portrayed these individuals as spokesmen for the Progressive Movement, not I.

a. Begin with the view that the collective is superior to the individual.....
"Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (German: [ˈɡeɔɐ̯k ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈheːɡəl]; August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was a German philosopher, and a major figure in German Idealism. His historicist and idealist account of reality revolutionized European philosophy and was an important precursor to Continental philosophy and Marxism."

Give me a break! Hegel? Really??? WTF does Hegel have to do with Progressivism?
Ibid for Haeckel.

c. If I really had the time and space, I would instruct you on Tribonian and the Code of Justinian.....528-530. The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem)

Now you are REALLY spinning off topic. Of course since you haven't made an attempt to answer any of the points raised, I guess one diversion is as good as another. I didn't know that the Renaissance was a government policy. I'll have to make notes that you consider Michaelangelo a triumph of central planning Florentine style.

So, you fool, the dates for the origin of Progressivism can be followed back to far earlier times than the early 20th century.

An interesting, if ahistorical assertion. What does it have to do with your original thesis?

Pick up a book once in a while.

I rarely quote a book or article I have not read. Mostly I read history and economics. What do you read?

In this reply you have once again proven that you are incapable of reply with an organized argument to anyone who answers one of your posts. You grab any idea at hand to reply, without showing its connection to the previous argument. That's why your discussions are not "progressive" (pun intended) going from one thought to a reply to a counter-reply.

But since you did not state a thesis to begin with (I doubt you really understand what one is) the fact that you wander is perhaps inevitable. If you want a proof reader, I know several people who could help you clean up your prose and force you to present positions logically, but that would take the fun out of it, wouldn't it?

 

[Billo_Really]

In case you found the OP too....painful?.....to read in it's entirety, the Progressives, now known as Liberals, had no compunctions about sentencing to death those who they found wanting.

Are you saying former Texas govenor George Bush, who executed more people than any other govenor in US history, is a liberal?

 

[edthecynic]

I try to get though one of your posts and can't. Once I got to "death panel," I couldn't take it anymore.

Arizona Death Panel Claims Another Victim - Forbes

Arizona does have a death panel

The only death panels I ever heard of were started by Republicans. Which, after "let him die" and "feed the poor and they will breed" is really no surprise.

In essence the philosophy of the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood is "let them starve to death."

The Right are bothered that people who don't work get to eat! They want people who don't work to starve to death. So stay at home spouses, the disabled, the retired, 16 year old students who stay in school, etc., should be starved to death because they don't work.

May 25, 2012
RUSH: And I know that 88 million Americans are not working but they're eating, and it's a statistic that worries me.
It's quite telling that 88 million are not working but they're eating.

 

[flacaltenn]

I try to get though one of your posts and can't. Once I got to "death panel," I couldn't take it anymore.

Arizona Death Panel Claims Another Victim - Forbes

Arizona does have a death panel

The only death panels I ever heard of were started by Republicans. Which, after "let him die" and "feed the poor and they will breed" is really no surprise.

You can run, but you can't hide.


Obama adviser Stephen Rattner used the term 'death panels,' and then went on to verify same by making the connection between them and the real effort of ObamaCare....rationing of healthcare.


You may pretend not to recognize that a panel that restricts access to drugs and to healthcare is sentencing individuals to.....

.,,,,ready?.....


DEATH!


"Beyond Obamacare
By STEVEN RATTNER

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name —....."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0



One more time?

Progressives/Liberals/Democrats have the attitude that the deaths of other citizens is....what, 'unavoidable'?....'collateral damage'?.....'inconsequential'?.....'not our concern'?

When Democrats say "prudently", they mean you don't need a mammogram every time you see the doctor.

But saying Democrats and Liberals say "'not our concern" is simply ludicrous. That is the very foundation of the GOP and PROVEN by "let him die" and "feed the poor and they will breed" and why they don't care about children after they are born and so on. Don't make it look like Democrats are like Republicans. Because in very real ways, they are not.

Let 'em die eh? Republicans eh?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y[/ame]"



you're better off not getting surgery, but taking a pain pill"..
Tell me you never saw this clip jackass...

Mammograms???

Mammogram Age Pushed Back To 50

NEW YORK (AP)- Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It's a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

Right there is a death sentence for 1000s of women... Forget the mammogram part -- "women shouldn't taught to do them (self-exams)".. That's your idea of "prudent"????

Lulling folks into letting leftists (or any politician) make their med decisions based on STATISTICS encourages complacency and discourages pro-active individual judgements. Judgements that should be a CHOICE between a person and their care providers...

Not good enough for our leftist buds.. They have A NEED to control and micromanage these life/death decisions... Don't They????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey....I thought you threatened never to response to my threads again? Good to see you've changed you mind.

You should check your glasses and re-read the post. I said I was taking a (much needed break), not that I would "never" respond.

1. The obfuscation that you've attempted....giving the dates of birth and claiming that these folks were not major players in the Progressive movement....

You should drop the invective; you are really not very good at it and it makes you look bad. You were the one who portrayed these individuals as spokesmen for the Progressive Movement, not I.



Give me a break! Hegel? Really??? WTF does Hegel have to do with Progressivism?
Ibid for Haeckel.



Now you are REALLY spinning off topic. Of course since you haven't made an attempt to answer any of the points raised, I guess one diversion is as good as another. I didn't know that the Renaissance was a government policy. I'll have to make notes that you consider Michaelangelo a triumph of central planning Florentine style.

So, you fool, the dates for the origin of Progressivism can be followed back to far earlier times than the early 20th century.

An interesting, if ahistorical assertion. What does it have to do with your original thesis?

Pick up a book once in a while.

I rarely quote a book or article I have not read. Mostly I read history and economics. What do you read?

In this reply you have once again proven that you are incapable of reply with an organized argument to anyone who answers one of your posts. You grab any idea at hand to reply, without showing its connection to the previous argument. That's why your discussions are not "progressive" (pun intended) going from one thought to a reply to a counter-reply.

But since you did not state a thesis to begin with (I doubt you really understand what one is) the fact that you wander is perhaps inevitable. If you want a proof reader, I know several people who could help you clean up your prose and force you to present positions logically, but that would take the fun out of it, wouldn't it?

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.


"Give me a break! Hegel? Really??? WTF does Hegel have to do with Progressivism?
Ibid for Haeckel."


Exactly why you will remain a dunce.
You are not only ignoranct.....but by a degree of magnitude: you don't realize how truly ignorant you are.
I shall reveal same:


You should pay me for the following and previous tutorials.


1. Eugenics….progressives impulse to impose an unworkably utopian vision on society has been part of the movement from its earliest days. Founded by Charles Darwin’s nephew, Francis Galton, it proposed “to check the birth rate of the unfit instead of allowing them to come into being…The second object is the improvement of the race by furthering the productivity of the fit by early marriages and the healthful rearing of children.”
Thomas C. Leonard, “Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era,” Journal of Economic Perspectives http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf



2. The 19th century, and , in large measure, its successor, were governed by the following irrationality: 1) reality was a feature of the subjective mind, 2) man was swept along by historical progress, and 3) this irrationality was clothed in pseudo-scientific and materialist garb. Darwinism was the mechanism of survival, and Marxism revealed that humans were prisoners of society, Freudian psychology showed that men were prisoners of the unconscious, and what appeared to be reason was actually the working out of psychopathology. Darwin, Marx and Freud all undermined the idea of human beings as thinking, rational beings.
O’Hear, “After Progress: Why We Should Change Our Thinking,” p.60-74




3.The Progressives infected academia long before they gained hold of political offices.
“…no one was more important to the origins of the administrative state in America than Woodrow Wilson and Frank Goodnow. Wilson served as the 26th President of the United States and was a leading academic advocate of Progressive ideas long before his entry into politics. Much of his contribution to Progressive thought came in his work from the 1880s,…” The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government





4.And the bedrock was established directly through Hegel, his philosophy, and his views on government.

'It was initially an academic phenomenon far removed from American politics. Particularly in the post–Civil War American university, professors — many of whom had obtained their graduate training in German universities, and whose thought reflected the “intoxicating effect of the undiluted Hegelian philosophy upon the American mind,” as progressive Charles Merriam once put it — articulated a critique of America that was as deep as it was wide.

It began with a conscious rejection of the natural-rights principles of the American founding and the promotion of a new understanding of freedom, history, and the state in their stead. From this foundation, the progressives then criticized virtually every aspect of our traditional way of life, recommending reforms or “social reorganization” on a sweeping scale, the primary engine of which was to be a new, “positive” role for the state.'
National Review Online | Print


Wanna wipe that egg off your face now?



5. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often described as a "progression in which each successive movement emerges as a resolution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







And....

Haeckel, the originator of the term ‘ecology,’ and protagonist of Hegel’s view of the dominance of the state over the individual, gained stature in England as well as Germany. The reason was simple: his ideas of controlling everything included the molding of human nature.

Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century [The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Summer 2009 Edition) ]; he watched the rise of Hitler, and the Nazis, and analyzed the conditions that allowed fascism to arise. He realized that all the totalitarian philosophies of the 20th century owe their origin to Hegel.

a. “All the worth which the human being possesses - all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State.” Hegel and Totalitarianism




"You should drop the invective; you are really not very good at it...."
Yeah, I am.

As far as you influencing my style…I am immovable, like General Jackson’s Virginians at First Manassas: a veritable stone wall.
If you only had an acquaintance with history…you’d understand that.






But you don't.
You understand neither the provenance of Progressives, or of any Left-wing collectivist philosophy.....

Let's review

1. Begin with the view that the monarch is the law....'Divine Right of the King'

2. The Codex still exerts its influence on Europe and is known as the Civil Law tradition...European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails. In Anglo-American Common Law tradition, the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word.

3. First France, until the Revolution, then, Germany, represented the peak of learning. American leaders sent their sons there to learn and be influenced. Or, hired tutors from Germany.
Hence....the deep and pervasive influence of Hegel: a very unAmerican view of the relationship between individual and government.

4. Some idiots, boors, seem to believe that Progressivism, like Topsy, sprang, full born.
Raise your paw.
It did not.....it is atavistic, and aims for all power to be retained by the state.



The details are my two prior posts.



Study them....and there is the very slight chance you won't remain a fool.