Is Progressivism the Problem?

[edgray]

As talked about extensively by Glenn Beck in his CPAC speech, the problem with society is progressivism.

I take issue with this myself as progressivism has brought us:

The vote
Worker's rights
Improved working conditions
Race equality
Shared services within society (public libraries and so forth)
Women's liberty & Pro Choice

to name but a few examples.

I see all of the above as good things for society that would never had happened without progressivism. In fact, take Mr Beck's reasoning to it's logical conclusion and you end up with a society where few would have the vote, chattel slavery would still be legal, worker's would have no rights, everything would be dictated by the rich.

Now, these changes are small in what progressivism hopes to achieve, but they are important nonetheless.

 

[Meirionnydd]

As talked about extensively by Glenn Beck in his CPAC speech, the problem with society is progressivism.

I take issue with this myself as progressivism has brought us:

The vote
Worker's rights
Improved working conditions
Race equality
Shared services within society (public libraries and so forth)
Women's liberty & Pro Choice

to name but a few examples.

I see all of the above as good things for society that would never had happened without progressivism. In fact, take Mr Beck's reasoning to it's logical conclusion and you end up with a society where few would have the vote, chattel slavery would still be legal, worker's would have no rights, everything would be dictated by the rich.

Now, these changes are small in what progressivism hopes to achieve, but they are important nonetheless.

Well, Glen Beck is an entertainer, nothing more. Quite a successful one too, but I don't think any other entertainer has as much of a polarized audience as he does.

He might have a point though. If you're a privileged white male, progressivism is probably a bad thing.

 

[edgray]

Well, Glen Beck is an entertainer, nothing more. Quite a successful one too, but I don't think any other entertainer has as much of a polarized audience as he does.

He might have a point though. If you're a privileged white male, progressivism is probably a bad thing.

Very true. If you're Glenn Beck, or in that minority, then progressivism sucks.

I really don't want this thread to get too wrapped up with Mr Beck. I guess he's a matter of personal taste, you either love him or loathe him. What is important here is the major point he's raised.

I believe the world would be a much nastier place had society not progressed.

I wonder if perhaps this is something that is more pertinent to Europe? In the UK for example, up until the civil war in the 17C we were essentially in some kind of tyranny, ruled by a small elite with very little say. Whilst that is still partially the case, we do now have the vote etc. Surely this is a good thing?

 

[Meirionnydd]

Very true. If you're Glenn Beck, or in that minority, then progressivism sucks.

I really don't want this thread to get too wrapped up with Mr Beck. I guess he's a matter of personal taste, you either love him or loathe him. What is important here is the major point he's raised.

Indeed. I've watched him a few times on cable news here, and I find some of his views utterly abhorrent and at times nonsensical. Most offensive is his usage of the September 11 terrorist attacks to promote his own personal and political agenda.

I believe the world would be a much nastier place had society not progressed.

I wonder if perhaps this is something that is more pertinent to Europe? In the UK for example, up until the civil war in the 17C we were essentially in some kind of tyranny, ruled by a small elite with very little say. Whilst that is still partially the case, we do now have the vote etc. Surely this is a good thing?

I agree, a lot of the social developments in the United States have occurred because of social progressivism, which considers humanities social mores and morality as not fixed in time but as a constant, something that needs to be consistently reviewed and changed as history develops. Emancipation comes to mind here.

 

[Minor Axis]

Progressive, liberal, what ever you want to call it, this way of thinking has historically looked out for the good of working, middle class people. I don't care what any conservative tells you, conservatism historically is "all about me, usually well-off me and tough shit for the rest of you."

There has been no laws to help working class people that have been initiated by conservative politicians EVER. At most they grumpily go along with them if they think there is some political advantage to be gained.

 

[Accountable]

What is it with you guys and your love of labels?? Beck included on this one. Hell, Beck to the front of the line on this one. It's as if every individual must claim a label, and that label defines you in every rigid detail.

"progressivism has brought us:" what? I don't recall you ever having used this label, but you sure put it on and wear it comfortably enough. That's a pretty impressive list to attribute to it, as well. I'm sure that whoever "the Progressives" beat out for the vote somehow got hold of the history book printers and erased them.

Okay, we've got a nice international , if not eclectic, group going here, so is this going to devolve into an America sucks-o-rama or an Ednova slagfest? I think we should start a pool and put it in the Tokenz area.

Forging ahead with greatest respect to Ed, greatest contempt for labels, and the knowledge that this thread springs from a respectfully deleted side-conversation, let's look at that list. It's as good a place to start as any.

• The vote: I don't imagine anyone would disparage the individual's right to vote except in knee-jerk exasperation after having lost a decision. I do believe, however, that to claim it as a "Progressive" victory, as opposed to a simple progressive victory, stretches the label so thin as to make it meaningless.
• Worker's rights: populist victory. No doubt about it. It's a shame that it's somehow mutated into a weak entitlement whine dependent on government largess.
• Improved working conditions: Another populist victory usurped by politicians.
• Race equality: Unquestionably a goal that has progressed, and could only progress so fast, with the combined effort of The People and government.
• Shared services within society (public libraries and so forth): too ambiguous to address as is.
• Women's liberty: Same as race equality, but it must be acknowledged that it was white males that voted to make it happen.
• Pro Choice: Another emotion-laden label, useless without busting it up into it's million parts.

 

[edgray]

What is it with you guys and your love of labels?? Beck included on this one. Hell, Beck to the front of the line on this one. It's as if every individual must claim a label, and that label defines you in every rigid detail.

"progressivism has brought us:" what? I don't recall you ever having used this label, but you sure put it on and wear it comfortably enough. That's a pretty impressive list to attribute to it, as well. I'm sure that whoever "the Progressives" beat out for the vote somehow got hold of the history book printers and erased them.

Okay, we've got a nice international , if not eclectic, group going here, so is this going to devolve into an America sucks-o-rama or an Ednova slagfest? I think we should start a pool and put it in the Tokenz area.

Forging ahead with greatest respect to Ed, greatest contempt for labels, and the knowledge that this thread springs from a respectfully deleted side-conversation, let's look at that list. It's as good a place to start as any.

• The vote: I don't imagine anyone would disparage the individual's right to vote except in knee-jerk exasperation after having lost a decision. I do believe, however, that to claim it as a "Progressive" victory, as opposed to a simple progressive victory, stretches the label so thin as to make it meaningless.
• Worker's rights: populist victory. No doubt about it. It's a shame that it's somehow mutated into a weak entitlement whine dependent on government largess.
• Improved working conditions: Another populist victory usurped by politicians.
• Race equality: Unquestionably a goal that has progressed, and could only progress so fast, with the combined effort of The People and government.
• Shared services within society (public libraries and so forth): too ambiguous to address as is.
• Women's liberty: Same as race equality, but it must be acknowledged that it was white males that voted to make it happen.
• Pro Choice: Another emotion-laden label, useless without busting it up into it's million parts.

Thanks Accountable, I'll keep this as clean as possible

Firstly, I would say that progressivism isn't an entity or movement, it's simply a political attitude that is the opposite of conservative and reactionary political thought. Traditionally the progressive mindset has been associated with the left, though in the UK, for example, there has been talk of progressive attitudes amongst centre and centre-right business people. I guess you could essentially have a progressive stance no matter your political beliefs, except of course conservatism, which by it's very nature stands against progression.

I would say all the things in the list are progressive by their very definition: they mark a progression in society.

Conservatism, for example, was dead-set against things like the common vote (or at least in the UK it was) and has always been opposed to worker's rights and so forth, against a minimum wage etc.

To clarify "shared services" I guess this simply relates to any public services that aren't just there to protect the rich (the police, for example). The library is a good example, something I picked because it highlighted Mr Beck's hypocrisy - he claimed that he'd educated himself at the public library one moment and then railed against taxes the next. But that's getting a little off topic. In the UK, it would include the NHS of course, something that conservatives were, and many still are, strongly opposed to.

At the end of the day, what really got to me about Mr Beck's opinion on the matter of progression, is that if the conservatives had never been challenged by popular movements, the things in the list above would most likely never have happened.

 

[Accountable]

Thanks Accountable, I'll keep this as clean as possible

*bumps gloves* :jk

Firstly, I would say that progressivism isn't an entity or movement, it's simply a political attitude that is the opposite of conservative and reactionary political thought.

Why in your mind must a person who embraces progress necessarilly be opposed to everything conservative? It just doesn't make sense. As you're shaking your head ready to type that I don't understand, I urge you to re-read your emphatic statements. Your labels set up barriers to the very progress you seek. They set up an opposition to anyone not in full agreement, and any adult able to live independently without nursing assistance knows that no group of individuals will ever be in full political agreement.

Progress is good. Only a fool believes that a society is perfect in every way and can't be improved upon. But it is just as foolish to believe that every current practice is undesirable and unworthy of conserving. Pure progressivism is as stupid as pure conservatism.

As you nod your head in agreement as this and simultaneously ready your "But ... " response, think back on your posts and see if they reflect that you really agree, because I see you getting sucked into the purist position time and again, arguing progress vs conserve as if it were synonymous with east vs west.

To clarify "shared services" I guess this simply relates to any public services that aren't just there to protect the rich (the police, for example). The library is a good example, something I picked because it highlighted Mr Beck's hypocrisy - he claimed that he'd educated himself at the public library one moment and then railed against taxes the next. But that's getting a little off topic. In the UK, it would include the NHS of course, something that conservatives were, and many still are, strongly opposed to.

At the end of the day, what really got to me about Mr Beck's opinion on the matter of progression, is that if the conservatives had never been challenged by popular movements, the things in the list above would most likely never have happened.

I watch Glenn Beck daily. I record the TV show and watch it when I get home. I'd like to listen to his 3-hour radio show but I'm at work at that time. Frankly the radio show's more entertaining.

Beck has started labeling everyone who wants to grow our federal government as "progressives" and spits out the word like it's bile. Very unbecoming and puts me off. But just as you have salient points in your rhetoric, Beck does too. I disagree with your society's government, wouldn't want to live under such a one myself, but have no problem at all with you choosing to subjugate yourself to your national nanny (which is how I see it and know that you don't). The people in Washington seem hellbent on tossing every facet of what defines our nation, even those worth conserving, in mindless quest for "progress."

Just because riding in cars is more progressive than horse-drawn carriages, it's not necessary to force people to abandon walking as well. Some things are worth conserving.

 

[edgray]

*bumps gloves* :jk

Why in your mind must a person who embraces progress necessarilly be opposed to everything conservative? It just doesn't make sense. As you're shaking your head ready to type that I don't understand, I urge you to re-read your emphatic statements. Your labels set up barriers to the very progress you seek. They set up an opposition to anyone not in full agreement, and any adult able to live independently without nursing assistance knows that no group of individuals will ever be in full political agreement.

*shakes head* ... but Accountable, you just don't understand... :jk

Conservatism, by it's very nature, seeks to maintain and stick to traditional values. A progressive conservative would be a silly contradiction in terms. Yes, there are things worth conserving, things I believe in myself, for example (the environment I guess would be a biggie), but in societal terms, there isn't much worth clinging on to. Society needs to progress and move forward.

I disagree about the labels and barriers I'm afraid. Progressive thought seeks to break down the barriers hoisted by conservatism and tradition.

Progress is good. Only a fool believes that a society is perfect in every way and can't be improved upon. But it is just as foolish to believe that every current practice is undesirable and unworthy of conserving. Pure progressivism is as stupid as pure conservatism.

Our current practices are rooted in tradition, and as such it's up to them to justify their existence in the realm of reason, logic and empirical evidence. This is really the point - traditions and traditional views tend not to hold up to close scrutiny. The ones that do can stay. The stand point of any rational thinking Person should by default be progressive, in other words, open to change if it's valid. To have a conservative mindset is to close progression out entirely.

As you nod your head in agreement as this and simultaneously ready your "But ... " response, think back on your posts and see if they reflect that you really agree, because I see you getting sucked into the purist position time and again, arguing progress vs conserve as if it were synonymous with east vs west.

See answer above.

I watch Glenn Beck daily. I record the TV show and watch it when I get home. I'd like to listen to his 3-hour radio show but I'm at work at that time. Frankly the radio show's more entertaining.

Beck has started labeling everyone who wants to grow our federal government as "progressives" and spits out the word like it's bile. Very unbecoming and puts me off. But just as you have salient points in your rhetoric, Beck does too. I disagree with your society's government, wouldn't want to live under such a one myself, but have no problem at all with you choosing to subjugate yourself to your national nanny (which is how I see it and know that you don't). The people in Washington seem hellbent on tossing every facet of what defines our nation, even those worth conserving, in mindless quest for "progress."

Just because riding in cars is more progressive than horse-drawn carriages, it's not necessary to force people to abandon walking as well. Some things are worth conserving.

I suppose this is the problem I have with the likes of Beck. He's not a smart man, he sums everything up into small soundbite politics, and none of it makes much sense. I consider myself to have a progressive mindset, but I certainly don't want to grow the govt. The end game for me, as you know, is to remove govt entirely..

I shalln't rise to the "national nanny" bait... that's for another time...

In summary, you are correct that some things are worth conserving, that isn't in question. What's in question is the absurd hatred for progressivism, which has done nothing but benefit society and will continue to do so provided the likes of Beck step aside.

 

[edgray]

A nice quote to ponder on, the difference between progressive and liberal mindsets:

Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic.

John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress

That sums it up perfectly, to deny progressivism is to pretend the world and society are rigid, whereas we know this not to be the case.

 

[Pabst]

labels are great for cans of food so you dont wind up eating purina. in politics however, all it does is is make things easier for people to make issues black and white when the world is grey. it makes it easier to pick on people if you try to clearly define them and i've learned you simply cant do that with any realistic amount of accuracy. what's worse are those who label themselves and then try to think and live within the mold they made for themselves. again it paints you into a corner and basically forces you to oppose anything that doesnt fit your mold. horrible way to go through life. i've seen that done a lot.

 

[edgray]

this really isn't anything to do with labels though. The label "progressives" is a total misnomer, brought about by the likes of Beck. It's simply about having a mindset that is open to change.

 

[Accountable]

Conservatism, by it's very nature, seeks to maintain and stick to traditional values. A progressive conservative would be a silly contradiction in terms.

Will you say that if your values and traditions become the traditional values? Your prejudice, and your blindness to it, is a bit perplexing.

I disagree about the labels and barriers I'm afraid. Progressive thought seeks to break down the barriers hoisted by conservatism and tradition.
[and later you said]
To have a conservative mindset is to close progression out entirely.

You're a walking contradiction. You hoist barriers to communication with every post by summarily dismissing anything that doesn't fit your dogma of complete and total voluntary subjugation to rules-laden anarchy strictly enforced by a non-committee of not-the-government ... in the name of freedom for all.

Our current practices are rooted in tradition, and as such it's up to them to justify their existence in the realm of reason, logic and empirical evidence. This is really the point - traditions and traditional views tend not to hold up to close scrutiny. The ones that do can stay. The stand point of any rational thinking Person should by default be progressive, in other words, open to change if it's valid.

You've got it backward. Traditions become traditions because they have justified their existence. They are the very basis for empirical evidence, and must not be glibly abandoned for new practices without those new practices having proven themselves worthy. You are right that a rational thinking person should be open to change if it's valid. It takes wisdom to judge the validity and avoid rushing headlong into a fashionable catastrophe.

 

[Minor Axis]

Traditions become traditions because they have justified their existence. They are the very basis for empirical evidence, and must not be glibly abandoned for new practices without those new practices having proven themselves worthy. You are right that a rational thinking person should be open to change if it's valid. It takes wisdom to judge the validity and avoid rushing headlong into a fashionable catastrophe.

How about traditions in many cases serve those who hold power in society, hence they have justified their existence to the people with the power... It was a tradition that women not vote for many years and it took strife and effort to get that changed.

 

[Accountable]

this really isn't anything to do with labels though. The label "progressives" is a total misnomer, brought about by the likes of Beck. It's simply about having a mindset that is open to change.

How about the label "conservatives"?
"liberals"?
"anarchists"?
"libertarians"?
"socialists"?

 

[Accountable]

How about traditions in many cases serve those who hold power in society, hence they have justified their existence to the people with the power... It was a tradition that women not vote for many years and it took strife and effort to get that changed.

I don't see how that contradicts my point.

 

[Pabst]

I don't see how that contradicts my point.

it doesnt. he's just trying to say that tradition is "oppressive" and that tradition is evil and so is conservatism.

people who try to deal only in black and white cannot be talked to. conversations with such people ends up with you frustrated and them feeling self righteous. give it up.

 

[edgray]

It truly wasn't meant as bait. I don't understand it one bit, but I honor your decision to run your country as you see fit.

Understood

Will you say that if your values and traditions become the traditional values? Your prejudice, and your blindness to it, is a bit perplexing.

To have a progressive mindset is to understand that there is always room for improvement somewhere. It's a striving to make things better. If something is working, that "tradition" is valid. I have no prejudice against anything unless it isn't working.

You're a walking contradiction. You hoist barriers to communication with every post by summarily dismissing anything that doesn't fit your dogma of complete and total voluntary subjugation to rules-laden anarchy strictly enforced by a non-committee of not-the-government ... in the name of freedom for all.

I apologise if I coma across that way, but then you do too, in fact, everyone in a debate does.

As for "total voluntary subjugation", the whole point of anarchy is that it's the most democratic and equal system possible, no subjugation whatsoever. But this thread isn't about anarchy, it's a simply about the dangers of the closed mindset of the conservative.

You've got it backward. Traditions become traditions because they have justified their existence. They are the very basis for empirical evidence, and must not be glibly abandoned for new practices without those new practices having proven themselves worthy. You are right that a rational thinking person should be open to change if it's valid. It takes wisdom to judge the validity and avoid rushing headlong into a fashionable catastrophe.

No, traditions become tradition because the ruling elite make it so. They are the very antithesis of empirical evidence, and should be replaced by more valid systems at the earliest opportunity. This is what triggered the age of enlightenment, something people could do well to learn about.

Society is dynamic, and so a dynamic approach is needed. Traditions lock you into a state of inflexibility, where society has to bend to the traditions. That is totally backward. As society changes, so should our practices.

I would never suggest rushing headlong into change for the sake of change. Everything should be well thought out, reasoned and, if possible, tested. But it's not, our societies, no matter how progressive people think they are, are not at all progressive, we've barely changed how we organise ourselves over the apst 100 years, but look how much society itself, it's behaviors, needs and wants, have. Life is very different now to 100 years ago yet we're still tied into so many traditions from that era.

 

[edgray]

it doesnt. he's just trying to say that tradition is "oppressive" and that tradition is evil and so is conservatism.

people who try to deal only in black and white cannot be talked to. conversations with such people ends up with you frustrated and them feeling self righteous. give it up.

This is the problem with conservatives, they only see in black and white, whilst I realise that comment was leveled at me, it couldn't be further from the truth. Conservatism is the black and white view. A progressive thinker sees the grey areas in between.

A very interesting study is underway, it's only rudimentary findings so far, but is certainly interesting:

Political differences might be explained by a fundamental variation in how our brains are "wired" to process information, according to a study published today.

Scientists have found that the brains of people calling themselves liberals are more able to handle conflicting and unexpected information than the brains of their conservative counterparts. The study points to a likely neurological basis for complex personality and behavioural traits.

David Amodio, of New York University, writing in the journal Nature Neuroscience, says conservatives were found to be "more structured and persistent in their judgments"; in tests they had "higher average scores" on measures of the personal need for "order, structure and closure". Liberals showed "higher tolerance of ambiguity and complexity".

Dr Amodio asked 43 volunteers to press a button on seeing a frequent cue - that caused an habitual response. A less frequent cue required no button pressing. Electroencephalograms revealed liberals were more likely to withhold the habitual response and had more activity in a part of the brain involved in conflict monitoring.

The study is not conclusive, Dr Amodio says, but it is possible that political orientation to some degree reflects a person's style of information processing.

Source: Guardian. Brain type may dictate politics | Science | The Guardian

 

[edgray]

How about the label "conservatives"?
"liberals"?
"anarchists"?
"libertarians"?
"socialists"?

All lovely words. They are all suitable labels for the beliefs they represent. I was simply pointing out that progressivism isn't an entity to rile against, it's a way of thinking, not a movement.