I get lots of email from lots of outfits of all ideologies. Lately I’ve been getting a lot of email from “progressive” groups, and pretty much every message takes the same line as this one from The Center for American Progress:
We saw many progressive victories in 2012. But we’re still facing down a radical, conservative ideology …
Yeah, conservatism as “radical” is a howler, but what I find more interesting is the degree to which “progressives” have given up a term they once proudly applied to themselves, turning it into a pejorative.
Rhetorically — and in my opinion more than rhetorically — that positions progressivism itself as a form of conservatism dedicated not to “progress” of any sort, but merely to preservation and extension of the New Deal/Great Society status quo and limitless state power at all costs.
Which, of course, is exactly what progressivism has been all about for a good half-century. But it’s startling to see progressives themselves so openly and readily admit that.
I think the last 2 administrations have also used the "radical" term at times interchangeably with "extremist" – i.e., drone bait.
This aversion to idealism or radicalism of any kind is worth researching. My own theory is that it has much to do with the experiences of the 20th century, in the carnage of WWI, WWII, the rise of dictators, the Holocaust, etc. To see such things, and not look askance at idealism? After that, simply making do with the world we have-however unjust, cruel, or screw-up-takes on the status of a moral imperative. To imagine things could be better, that a better world is possible, starts to seem like a symptom of brain damage to less idealistic folks.
The irony is that idealism is most needed in dark times. Nor does being idealistic mean believing a world without flaws or imperfection is desirable. An ideal is Polaris, the North Star. A guiding star to better lands, not a destination.
This reminds me of a comment an old econ teacher of mine made back in the early 80s — the liberals are now the conservatives (status quo) and the conservatives are the radicals.
Owing to the corruption of political terms. Still, we're not conservatives.
Even within the Progressive paradigm, I attempted to point out that Social Security has never needed tax revenue, even according to FDR, but that tax was put in place to appease the 1930s version of the Tea Baggers, so they would not think it was just "handouts" or "charity.
The point is to abolish that regressive painful unnecessary tax which will probably end up destroying the Left's "flagship" programs (SS/Medicare) in time. But they are wedded to the Right Wing notion that the benefit is and must be "paid for" by current workers and taxpayers.
Conservatives, indeed.
I was banned and everything I wrote deleted.