Progressivism's relentless War on your Freedom and Liberty

[C-Mag]

Over a Decade ago the Heritage Foundation did a piece on Progressivism vs the Founders or Classic Liberalism. Studying Progressivism you get a good understanding of why seemingly stupid, silly and wasteful Government Policy over the last 100 years has been allowed to continue and be repeated time and again. It's because the vast majority of our leaders have bought off on Progressivism whether they are Conservatives or modern Liberals. This is why we have parties that are two sides of the same coin, it's Uniparty Progressivism in Washington.

Below is table of issues and how each Classic Liberalism and Progressivism deals with the issues. It's pretty clear after I read the article why your Liberties are under constant assault. (tried to keep it short, but failed)

1. Natural Law
Classic Liberalism
Believe in Inalienable Right to Freedom and Liberty
Progressivism
Do not believe in Natural Law, believe Freedom must be earned

2. Purpose of Government
Classic Liberalism
enforce the natural law for the members of the political community by securing the people's natural rights
Progressivism
the state has the responsibility for creating institutions under which individuals can effectively realize the potentialities that are theirs

3. Basis of Society
Classic Liberalism
society is "formed by a voluntary association of individuals
Progressivism
Reject Free Association

4. God and Religion
Classic Liberalism
God of the Bible as the author of liberty but also as the author of the moral law by which human beings are guided toward their duties and, ultimately, toward their happiness
Progressivism
the state is the divine idea as it exists on earth

5. Limits on Government and the Integrity of the Private Sphere
Classic Liberalism
the purpose of government is to protect the private sphere
Progressivism
The private sphere should not to be protected by government. Instead, the realm of the private was seen as the realm of selfishness and oppression. Private property was especially singled out for criticism.

6. Domestic Policy
Classic Liberalism
concentrated on securing the persons and properties of the people against violence by means of a tough criminal law against murder, rape, robbery, and so on. Further, the civil law had to provide for the poor to have access to acquiring property by allowing the buying and selling of labor and property through voluntary contracts and a legal means of establishing undisputed ownership. The burden of proof was on government if there was to be any limitation on the free use of that property. Thus, licensing and zoning were rare.
Progressivism
In Progressivism, the domestic policy of government had two main concerns.
First, government must protect the poor and other victims of capitalism through redistribution of resources, anti-trust laws, government control over the details of commerce and production: i.e., dictating at what prices things must be sold, methods of manufacture, government participation in the banking system, and so on.
Second, government must become involved in the "spiritual" development of its citizens -- not, of course, through promotion of religion, but through protecting the environment ("conservation"), education (understood as education to personal creativity), and spiritual uplift through subsidy and promotion of the arts and culture.

7. Foreign Policy
Classic Liberalism
For the Founders, foreign and domestic policy were supposed to serve the same end: the security of the people in their person and property. Therefore, foreign policy was conceived primarily as defensive. Foreign attack was to be deterred by having strong arms or repulsed by force. Alliances were to be entered into with the understanding that a self-governing nation must keep itself aloof from the quarrels of other nations, except as needed for national defense. Government had no right to spend the taxes or lives of its own citizens to spread democracy to other nations or to engage in enterprises aiming at imperialistic hegemony.
Progressivism
It was in Europe, not Asia or Africa, where modern science and the modern state had made their greatest advances. The nations where modern science had properly informed the political order were thought to be the proper leaders of the world.
The Progressives also believed that the scientifically educated leaders of the advanced nations (especially America, Britain, and France) should not hesitate to rule the less advanced nations in the interest of ultimately bringing the world into freedom, assuming that supposedly inferior peoples could be brought into the modern world at all.

Woodrow Wilson advocated American entry into World War I, boasting that America's national interest had nothing to do with it. Wilson had no difficulty sending American troops to die in order to make the world safe for democracy, regardless of whether or not it would make America more safe or less. The trend to turn power over to multinational organizations also begins in this period, as may be seen in Wilson's plan for a League of Nations, under whose rules America would have delegated control over the deployment of its own armed forces to that body.

8. Who Should Rule, Experts or Representatives?
Classic Liberalism
The Founders thought that laws should be made by a body of elected officials with roots in local communities. They should not be "experts," but they should have "most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society" (Madison).
Progressivism
modern science had superseded the perspective of the liberally educated statesman. Only those educated in the top universities, preferably in the social sciences, were thought to be capable of governing. Politics was regarded as too complex for common sense to cope with. Government had taken on the vast responsibility not merely of protecting the people against injuries, but of managing the entire economy as well as providing for the people's spiritual well-being. Only government agencies staffed by experts informed by the most advanced modern science could manage tasks previously handled within the private sphere.
https://www.heritage.org/political-proc ... n-politics

Looking at the above, we can clearly see we have lived our entire lives in a Progressive Dominated world and society. If we are to win back any of our Freedom and Liberty we must discuss Progressivism for what it is, a filthy State centered wannabe Collectivist ideology that will destroy all your Liberty and turn it over to Sophists.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Was the Patriot Act a result of Progressivism?

How about TARP?

[C-Mag]

Was the Patriot Act a result of Progressivism?

How about TARP?

Partiot Act defintely see No. 2 above

TARP, yes, see No.5 and No. 8

NeoCons are Progressives filtered through Conservative language. George W Bush is a prime example.
No Child Left Behind
Nation Building
Foreign Entanglements on Climate and Trade

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Natural law, red in tooth and claw.

[de officiis]

If Progressivism is so bad, why is it so popular?
To go after it, you need to answer this question and defeat the mindset that lies beneath it.

[DBTrek]

Simple solutions appeal to simple minds.
Doubly so when you can cast opponents to simple “solutions” as bigoted misanthropes.

“You don’t support racial quotas for college admittance? You hate blacks!”

“You don’t support open borders and mass amnesty? You hate Mexicans!”

“You don’t support men in drag changing in the girl’s locker room? You hate transgender people!”

The game isn’t complex. A simple and ineffective (or transgressive) solution is proposed for an obvious problem. Now accept and champion our solution or you’re a bigot who hates a minority.

That’s why it’s popular - it’s an effective strategy to use on stupid people.
/shrug

[doc_loliday]

If Progressivism is so bad, why is it so popular?
To go after it, you need to answer this question and defeat the mindset that lies beneath it.

Inequality has something to do with it. Living in an apartment with the internet, cell phones, video games, good food to eat, with the possibility of upward mobility doesn't matter. Other people having so much more will always cause instability.

[doc_loliday]

Addressing and defeating the mindset is the challenge. I don't think a politician can win on a platform that tells a twenty something "If you work hard and invest in yourself for the next ten to fifteen years of your life, you can accomplish your goals." I think to create such a culture we need families and close networks to adopt and inculcate those values. That starts with us though. As hard as it is to change ourselves, its even hard to change other people, so it is on us to go out there and be the person that accomplishes despite whatever shortcoming and hardships we have had or continue to have. That way, we can be role models to the other people that are close to us and from there it can spread.

[Zlaxer]

If Progressivism is so bad, why is it so popular?

[Speaker to Animals]

Step one involves realizing what you are dealing with. Approaching this thing as if it is a legitimate political ideology really undermines any subsequent efforts made on that false basis. It's just degeneracy. It's people wanting to become more animal-like and less civilized. They rationalize it and their rationalization is what you are dealing with as if that rationalization is an ideology, but you cannot reason with it since in reality you are just dealing with dysfunction and regression.

What these people tout as their ideals really amount to pursuing base desires (sex, greed, etc.). It's the opposite of a civilization.