What are Progressive Values?

"free" wars on crime, drugs and terror.

 

First we must understand the definition of "progressive" which is "to move forward in a step by step process to reach a goal." It isn't about being a Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian or member of any political group. This is juxtaposed to being a "conservative" which by definition is to seek to retain or restore the traditional social, economic and political institutions. The "progressive" is always seeking to change the traditional institutions, where their failures can be identified, and make them better while the "conservative" seeks to retain (or restore) those traditional institutions regardless of their faults.

I self-identify as a "progressive libertarian" and for my it's quite easy for me to provide my "values" for you. It's real simple because the values are based upon the political ideology of America as expressed by Thomas Jefferson in these two lines of the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

"All men are created equal" is not a hard concept to understand but it's never existed in American history. There have always been those that based upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, gender, or other invidious criteria that have been disparaged and oppressed in America. I always seek to "progress" beyond the invidious denial of equality in our social, economic, and political institutions because that's what a progressive does.

"Consent of the governed" is not a hard concept to understand but it's never existed in American history. Originally only "white men" could vote, then we had the 15th Amendment but even that Constitutional Amendment there were Jim Crow laws and intimidation that denied people of color from voting and women still couldn't vote. Next, in the 20th Century, we finally allowed women to vote but by then we'd also revoked the right of non-citizens to vote that had previously been allowed in 40 States and Territories. When we finally allow every person counted by the US census to vote then we will be fulfilling this provision of the political ideology upon which America was founded. I will continue to fight for the enfranchisement (right to vote) for every person living as a permanent resident in the United States because all of them are the "governed" that have a right to express their consent to the powers of our government.

Additionally I'm a Constitutionalist and I will fight against our invidious immigration laws that have always been based upon the racism of White Supremacy in the United States. There are no provisions in the US Constitution that enumerate any powers for Congress to limit immigration and Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington, the three most influential founders of America all opposed immigration restrictions because those restrictions violate the Right of Liberty of the person. As a "progressive libertarian" the Right of Liberty is the most important natural/inalienable Right of the Person and I'll always fight for the "Liberty of the Person" under the US Constitution.

Finally I'm also dedicated to the Natural (inalienable) Right of Property of the person as established by the writings of John Locke. Without going into detail John Locke established very specific caveats to the Natural Right of Property that have been violated in our laws of commerce and property. I will always fight for the natural right of property and, at times, that places me at odds with some "capitalists" that don't believe in the natural right of property but instead believe in the "statutory right of property" where it violates the natural right.

 

Your views are a mixture of this and that. But you are fixated on progressive agenda as opposed to progressive values.

The primary goals of progressives like yourself in America is to:

#1, make America less White.

#2, make America less Christian.

I don't put too much faith in your ideas on private property---as you have a long history of wanting all kinds of free entitlements handed out by the government. The Founders you quote if alive today would have a heart attack if they saw the scope of the Welfare State: Section 8 Housing, Food Stamps, Welfare payments, free healthcare, free cell phones....

And finally when it comes to real moral values, like Thou shalt not...----you say nothing.

 

Pfff.

I bet you believed that ZERO DARK THIRTY crappola too.

 

No, I think the account by Mark Owen and the others who were there is more accurate.

Obama took forever to give the green light.

But only a real progressive could love Obama.

 

In terms of 'Progressive Values' - ethical journalism on most liberal newspapers / websites went right out the window with the election of Pres. Obama. Biased reporting, outright lying, electioneering, and blind support became the new normal on 'progressive' or liberal news.

I am a real progressive liberal - and I can't stand to look at Obama. I always immediately change the channel when they appear on TV. Same with the Clintons. Many progressives and liberals in the public and who write articles for the blogs feel this way - but they rarely or never get on radio or cable TV.

But if you believe the Democrat White House killed Osama Bin Laden and threw him over board you are really guillble,and need to read Paul Craig Roberts article on the subject.

The Osama bin Laden Myth

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/



Only the unethical blind commentators supporting Obama, Clinton, and Sanders sheeple get on. (Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, and Bill Maher, etc.)

That is because the cable TV and talk radio are in bed with the corrupt 2 Party Establishment. "Anti-establishment" truly independant or counter culture journalists and radio hosts aren't allowed on ... or if your against both corrupt parties and get on by calling in - most shows abruptly cut the line.

Notice that when I am talking about "Anti-establishment," I am not talking about Trump. Trump is about as "Anti-establishment" as the Rockefellers, Bernie Sanders, or the Kennedys.

 

In point of fact Bill Maher has been highly critical of the Obama Administration on many issues, especially foreign policy issues, and he generally doesn't like Hillary Clinton at all and is a Bernie Sanders supporter. Of course Bill Maher is highly opposed to the Donald Trump and Ted Cruz as are most Americans based upon their disapproval ratings. Just wanted to set the record straight.

 

some progressives on the left believe in promoting the general welfare and not the general warfare. Only the fantastical, right wing, does that.

 

Along with proof of Obama-Clinton starting and continuing the illegal wars on innocent Syrians and Libyans, most 'Progressive' (i.e. Democrat Party lackey) news radio and websites and TV failed to cover the latest exposes RE: the Clintons foreign campaign donors and subsequent influence and arms peddling. Phony independent Sanders hasn't brought it up, either.

Who Says the US is Shifting away from Israeli-Saudi Alliance while Normalizing Relations with Iran?

by Joachim Hagopian

" While with the State Department, Hillary arranged an enormous $29 billion arms deal with the House of Saud that even made Israel jealous and resentful. In exchange for millions in bribes Hillary approved of an unprecedented total of $165 billion in weapons deals to 20 high rolling donor nations that amounted to 80% more than arms sales to non-donor nations. The Saudi warplanes currently being used to commit war crimes in Yemen are compliments of Hillary’s arms peddling. As a reward a year after her colossal war-making deal, the Saudi king gifted Hillary a half million dollar necklace, the most expensive gift given to any government official in 2012. So it’s self-evident why the Saudi royals have their money on Madame Hillary’s house of ill repute engaging in an orgy of corruption and warmongering that guarantee the next world war’s coming sooner than later."


http://empireexposed.blogspot.com/2016/04/who-says-us-is-shifting-away-from.html

 

would they have been elected without any support for programs enacted by previous administrations?

 

The progressive agenda is complete governmental control over individuals and the complete elimination of liberty in all its forms.....

 

No - if you noticed, Sanders, Clinton, both support the massive survelliance state and the Patriot Act and get defense kickbacks for it. Obama and Hillary did much worse than Dubya - not only did give safe haven to Al Queda in Libya and Syria in places like Jordan and Turkey, their Israeli buddies treated them w/ medical care across the border when they changed their name to ISIS or Al Nusra - weaponizing them while exterminating innocent Syrian civillians using car bombs, booby traps, snipers, mortars and mutilations!

:f_grr:


Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department



Clinton Foundation Donors Get Big Weapons Deals

17 out of 20 countries that have donated to the Clinton Foundation saw increases in arms exports authorized by Hillary Clinton's State Department.


Country Donation Min. ($) FY2006-FY2008 ($) FY2010-FY2012 ($)


Algeria 250,000 649,943,709 2,431,535,005
Australia 10,000,000 8,030,754,085 23,953,849,391
Bahrain 50,000 219,718,802 630,586,020
Brunei 250,000 101,239,902 19,256,846
Canada 250,000 20,975,621,915 24,844,128,294
Germany 100,000 9,147,637,319 9,839,619,231
Ireland 5,000,000 144,929,678 107,064,341
Italy 100,000 6,195,891,571 12,274,692,168
Jamaica 50,000 18,572,209 11,360,582
Kuwait 5,000,000 1,895,298,212 2,109,893,611
Morocco 2,000,000 250,045,824 253,096,156
Netherlands 5,000,000 3,069,131,994 4,655,490,802
Norway 10,000,000 2,718,237,833 3,351,140,380
Oman 1,000,000 170,597,237 547,003,781
Qatar 1,000,000 271,325,915 4,291,824,236
Saudi Arabia 10,000,000 4,105,561,815 8,094, 719,012
Taiwan 500,000 2,612,251,394 3,811,233,565
Thailand 250,000 656,266,680 1,113,283,489
UAE 1,000,000 2,261,801,903 24,998,754,760 1,005
United Kingdom 1,000,000 26,225,307,395 38,015,933,065

Source: U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation donor data

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department




-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Clinton Foundation Revenue


$214 million in 2012
$262 million in 2013
$223 million in 2015


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation





The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent On Charity In 2013

 

In other words, even with the fantastical, right wing, not heading the administration; the wealthiest can still purchase better privileges and immunities due to their wealth under any form of Capitalism.

 

Yes.

As a matter of fact - even though I am a progressive liberal, I would be the first to admit that 'progressivism' is phony. Like the Tea Party, modern 'progressivism' is created by the government Elites and billionaires to keep the masses at bay and divided - (i.e.) with bogus issues like 'global warming' and guns.

As in Orwells "1984" - Winston Smith soon discovered 'the opposition' was simply an illusion - controlled and maintained by Big Brother and 'The Party'.

 

Progressive embrace: wealth redistribution, confiscatory taxation, advocacy journalism, relative morality, sexually disorientation, race-baiting, historical revisionism, crypto-Socialism, the welfare state, outcome based education, political correctness, humanitarian imperialism, white guilt, environmental extremism, denigration of achievement...etc.

 

Like Oki Wan Fenoki said in STAR WARS ...

'The force works strong on the weak minded.'

'climate change' was a hoax and distraction device of the US Government ...

Three Mile Island, Global Warming and the CIA


'In the mid 1970s “climate cooling” was the topic of articles in popular magazines such as Newsweek with reports of meteorologists being “almost unanimous” that the trend could lead to catastrophic famines, another little ice age or worse. In 1974 Time magazine published an article titled “Another Ice Age?.” In 1975 the New York Times ran an article titled “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” while in 1978 they reported that “an international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.”


https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/three-mile-island-global-warming-and-the-cia/

 

I'd guess "relative morality" can progress to mean almost anything.

 

This is our "mission statement":

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Any questions?

 

Nutters World ???




Yes - also known as AMERICA -

where the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections were proven to be RIGGED (along with more recent GOP primaries) and yet people walk around, as if in a semi drunken, SSRI induced trance like it never happened.

"Nutters World" where BILLIONAIRES Soros and Koch finance both tea party/libertarians and progressive grass roots ... yet people think there is politics that is neither STAGED OR MANIPULATED because they've been brainwashed by 24 hour cable TV.

"Nutters World" (aka AMERICA) a place where the multi billion dollars SUPERBOWL supposedly isnt RIGGED like the STANLEY CUP when the Seattle Seahawks can win by simply walking the ball in from the one yard line (but pass instead) and the Red Wings lose the Cup on a goal scored during a shift change in defense.


EVERYTHING IS STAGED, SCRIPTED FOR MASS CONSUMPTION, CORRUPT, RIGGED, AND MANIPULATED BUT THE BLIND CANT SEE

 

As a member that also creates threads to discuss a topic I'm sure that Greataxe is annoyed because members are ignoring the questions the OP presents.

Greataxe is addressing a political ideology and not a political party in the OP. Political ideologies remain constant while the political ideology of a political party can change over time.

For example during the 1950's and 1960's the Republican Party predominately supported civil rights while the Democratic Party predominately opposed civil rights lead by the "Dixie-crats" of the racist Southern states. Today the Republican Party predominately opposes civil rights while the Democratic Party predominately supports civil rights. The political parties are the same but the ideology of the political parties have reversed.

So let us compare "conservative v progressive" ideologies because that's the question presented in the OP. Below are the common definitions of "conservative" and "progressive" so that we can compare the different ideologies without any reference to political parties or political party agendas.

Because we're addressing political ideology we are compelled to address the political ideology upon which America was founded and it's contained in two sentences of the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

We must remember the "times" when these lines were included in the Declaration of Independence. The 13 British colonies, who's representatives signed the Declaration of Independence, had all been established based upon White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male Supremacy and the government was under the authority of the monarchy.

These two lines from the Declaration of Independence, that established the political ideology of the United States, rejected all forms of "supremacy" establishing that all people have the identical "unalienable" (inalienable/natural) rights as well as rejecting the existing foundation of government based upon a social class (i.e. royalty). While based upon the previous writings of political intellectuals such as Thomas Paine and John Locke this was the first time in history where the establishment of a nation was based upon this political ideology. It was an extreme change in political ideology that was unquestionably the most "progressive political ideology" ever adopted in the world and arguably remains the most progressive ideology ever established.... and while it was the most "progressive political ideology" ever adopted there were still "conservatives" and "progressives" in America.

Had we fully embraced the progressive ideology expressed then slavery would have ended instantly but the "conservatives" retained this traditional institution that had previously been adopted under the British rule of White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male Supremacy. Had we fully embraced the progressive ideology expressed women would have been instantly granted equality to men, including the right to vote, but "conservatives" prevented this from happening based upon the previous British ideology of "White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male Supremacy" that existed at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed. Not unsurprising "non-citizens" were generally allowed to vote because they were a part of the "governed" but only so long as they were "white men" that carried over from the tradition of "White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male Supremacy" that the "conservatives" fought to preserve.

We generally refer to this early era in the history of the United States as the era of "Classical Liberalism" that was later, based upon the political power of "conservatives" corrupted into what was later called "neo-classical liberalism" that were attempting to retain much of what was wrong under the British rule of "White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male Supremacy" in the United States.

Throughout the history of the United States the "progressives" have always fought to realize the very "progressive" political ideology upon which the United States was founded, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, while the "conservatives" have always fought against it whenever the traditional advantages of "White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male Supremacy" were in jeopardy.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "Democrats v Republicans" but instead is based upon "conservative v progressive" political ideology where the "conservative" seeks to retain the traditional social, economic, and political institutions that are advantageous to them while the "progressive" seeks to work in a step by step process to eliminate the negative aspects of the traditional social, economic, and political institutions. It's simply a matter of the difference in the definition for the words "conservative" and "progressive" that we use.

 

Well, this thread has been active for quite awhile and has had thousands of views. So there.

Now, you of course are just going over what everyone knows---that racist Whites that wanted America to stay more White in the past are just as racist as Progressives today that want to make America less White and less Christian.

I would have liked to see real moral values from progressives---like don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat, obey the law, don't be a thug----and so forth.

 

The absurdity of this opinion is self-evident. The "progressive" opposes all forms of "supremacy" because "all people are created equal" in the eyes of the American progressive. The progressive doesn't care if a person is white or black or if they're a Christian, Muslim or an atheist because all are equal.

What the "progressive" opposes is "supremacy" in any form regardless of whether it's based upon race, religion, gender, ethnic heritage, national origin, social/economic status, or any other invidious criteria.

 

I believe we should make progress on actually solving simple poverty and capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment with enough socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

 

How progressives see themselves, and categorize themselves, varies widely. However it does have a fundamental perception that equality is fair. They tend to look at it in an envious way- that because someone has more, I am less than equal and that is unfair, so it is justifiable to take what they have and give it to those who have less.

The end result of this would be a sort of equality, in that everybody would be mediocre, brought down to the lowest common denominator. The incentive to excel would be destroyed, and so excellence would fade, and our standard of living as well as our self respect would go with it.

Fair is already dealt with in hundreds of way. Properly considered, fair is an equal start. This is hard to define in that just like a game of cards, each of us are dealt a different hand. That is not unfair in most cases. As the song goes, "Every hands a winner- and every hands a loser". The trick is to find what you have of value and play it correctly. This is how some who start with nothing become super winners, and some who start with the silver spoon become classic losers. It is what you do with what you have that controls your destiny- not what you can take from others to get even for them doing better than you have. Some simply refuse to consider this, and will never take responsibility for their own destiny.... but they are still willing to hold the rest of us accountable for it.

The entire mindset is a losing philosophy, both for the individual and society. There is one person here on earth for each of us, whose job is to see to our personal success- and that person is you. Nothing could be more equal or fair than that. Progressives think of equality in what they have materially rather than opportunity- they see the wealthy or famous and their envy says it's not fair. At the same time, opportunity goes by them without recognition or ambition to use it. Sad.

 

Then where has there ever been a demand from liberal progressives that places with high percentages of Blacks, like Detroit, Flint and Jackson Miss, become less Black and have less Black leadership????

What do you think should be done to make the these Black Power strongholds more ethnically diverse?