Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[Flavus101]

I don't think the French Foreign Legion would take you lumping them in with ISIS too well...

 

[Kilo_302]

Not to mention ironic seeing as Canadian and American military personnel enjoy some of the most socialist and progressive policies of any institution in the world. Perhaps we should extend this rugged individualism onto the military as well. We should have them emulate something like the warlord model; armies financed wholly or in part by opportunism and racketeering, with members equipped and trained only as well as they are individually able to procure for themselves, and battles fought according to the highest bidder mercenary-style. We merely have to look for inspiration with the French Foreign Legion, the DPRK, ISIS and other banana-republic "generals" in Africa and our militaries can be just as ideologically pure as our resident libertarians deserve.

As usual with libertariarns and conservatives, good enough for me but not for thee. I'm reminded yet again of one of Canada's most famous exports, John Kenneth Galbraith, who said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

:goodpost:

A couple good reads on why ordinary people vote Conservative or Republican, and in doing so vote against their own interests. I can only hope everyone on this thread is a millionaire, otherwise they fall into this category:

"What's The Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank

"Hailed as "dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic" (Chicago Tribune), "very funny and very painful" (San Francisco Chronicle), and "in a different league from most political books" (The New York Observer), What's the Matter with Kansas? unravels the great political mystery of our day: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank answers the riddle by examining his home state, Kansas-a place once famous for its radicalism that now ranks among the nation's most eager participants in the culture wars. Charting what he calls the "thirty-year backlash"-the popular revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment-Frank reveals how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans.

A brilliant analysis-and funny to boot-What's the Matter with Kansas? is a vivid portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where small farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People."

https://www.amazon.ca/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

"Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War" by Joe Bageant

"Deer Hunting with Jesus is web columnist Joe Bageant’s report on what he learned when he moved back to his hometown of Winchester, Virginia, which-like countless American small towns-is fast becoming the bedrock of a permanent underclass. By turns brutal, tender, incendiary, and seriously funny, this book is a call to arms for fellow progressives with little real understanding of "the great beery, NASCAR-loving, church-going, gun-owning America that has never set foot in a Starbucks."

]https://www.amazon.ca/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/0307339378/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457536511&sr=1-1&keywords=joe+bageant]

 

[Journeyman]

A couple good reads on why....

Have you read either book?

 

[Good2Golf]

From: Biernini
As usual with libertariarns and conservatives, good enough for me but not for thee. I'm reminded yet again of one of Canada's most famous exports, John Kenneth Galbraith, who said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Ah yes, the 'evil' twin brother bookend to the 'how dare you imply we're lazily over-entitled and look to have others pay for our socialistic desires that in practice far exceed those basic, truly justified supportive resources' left arc-of-fire... :nod:

Far better to keep one's hands off the shovel so that they may receive what others work for?  That attitude doesn't even fit the Marxist model...time for a new shtick... :not-again:

G2G

 

[Kilo_302]

Have you read either book?

Of course. They're on my bookshelf in fact. Would you like to borrow them? I'm not even kidding, if you're in Toronto you're welcome to grab them.

 

[a_majoor]

As mentioned, Libertarianism is a distinct philosophy with pretty clear boundaries, and the strawmen being built upthread are in fields that are not even in the same county.

There is no Libertarian who would suggest that we do not need an armed forces, police or courts of law. Libertarians would be in favour of very light, easily interpreted laws and regulations that provide clear guidance and boundaries for consenting adults to carry out their business (protected by the Police, Armed Forces and backed by neutral courts as arbitrators of disputes).

As for the foaming mouth declarations about how conservatism doesn't work, please define how the Obama Administration is conservative? They have carried out virtually every progressive nostrum, from $15 trillion in deficit spending, green energy, enhanced welfare and food stamps and Obamacare, yet economic growth is tanking, unemployment (after factoring back all the various things the BLM conveniently leaves out like labour participation rate and people who have stopped looking) has never dropped below 10% since 2008, and of course the only places which have managed to stay above water are the so called "Red" or "Flyover" states which have avoided progressive nostrums at the State level.

BTW, under which Canadian Prime Minister and government did Canadians have a higher median income than the Americans (hint, this was before the last federal election)?

Now I'll just step back while more strawmen are set on fire, goalposts moved and a smattering of Ad hominem attacks are rolled out.

 

[Kilo_302]

As mentioned, Libertarianism is a distinct philosophy with pretty clear boundaries, and the strawmen being built upthread are in fields that are not even in the same county.

There is no Libertarian who would suggest that we do not need an armed forces, police or courts of law. Libertarians would be in favour of very light, easily interpreted laws and regulations that provide clear guidance and boundaries for consenting adults to carry out their business (protected by the Police, Armed Forces and backed by neutral courts as arbitrators of disputes).

As for the foaming mouth declarations about how conservatism doesn't work, please define how the Obama Administration is conservative? They have carried out virtually every progressive nostrum, from $15 trillion in deficit spending, green energy, enhanced welfare and food stamps and Obamacare, yet economic growth is tanking, unemployment (after factoring back all the various things the BLM conveniently leaves out like labour participation rate and people who have stopped looking) has never dropped below 10% since 2008, and of course the only places which have managed to stay above water are the so called "Red" or "Flyover" states which have avoided progressive nostrums at the State level.

BTW, under which Canadian Prime Minister and government did Canadians have a higher median income than the Americans (hint, this was before the last federal election)?

Now I'll just step back while more strawmen are set on fire, goalposts moved and a smattering of Ad hominem attacks are rolled out.

Not sure where to start with this. The Obama administration is solidly neo-liberal. He has tried to roll back some of the advances capital has made, but has been unsuccessful. I don't believe he's a true progressive.

Also not sure where your figures are coming from. The unemployment rate in the US was 5.5% in May of 2015. 

Are you against food stamps for people who simply can't find jobs to support themselves? Would you rather people starve? Food stamps are on the rise due to the 2008 crash, which in turn was result of deregulation.

Would you also rather that people remain uninsured when it comes to healthcare? You do understand that the US pays more per capita than any other Western nation on healthcare and has very poor results.

As for this ad hominem stuff, don't play the victim card. People are discussing your ideas, not you as a person. It just so happens that your ideas would seem to indicate you have very little empathy or understanding of what many people must go through to live. You seem to buy into the idea that poor people are simply lazy. I can only surmise this from the ideas you espouse. Many people in the Red states that you so love, good Republicans, are on food stamps. And they're living in poverty.

As for Canada versus the US. No one mentioned median income. We're talking about quality of life. Canada consistently ranks above the US in this regard, and most European countries with more progressive policies rank above Canada.

You have to ask yourself why infant mortality rates are higher in the US. Why are more people per capita living in poverty? The US is far less regulated than Canada. Isn't that supposed to mean greater wealth, and greater quality of life? Doctors without Borders now has one of their biggest operations in the US. This is a "first-world" country we're talking about here.

None of the policies or ideas you rant on about on this thread have worked for anyone but the wealthy. This is fact.

Libertarian policies by definition will lead to a greater concentration of wealth in fewer hands, with all of the implications for democracy and political power. Do you deny this?

 

[Journeyman]

Of course. They're on my bookshelf in fact. Would you like to borrow them?

No thanks.  I just see too many people, on both ends of the polemics, who will point to something they haven't read or don't understand, citing a 'friend of a friend' or the advertising on the dust jacket to justify their views.

Bonus points for actually reading.  Mind you, I also tend to encourage people to read outside of their comfort zone.

 

[Kilo_302]

No thanks.  I just see too many people, on both ends of the polemics, who will point to something they haven't read or don't understand, citing a 'friend of a friend' or the advertising on the dust jacket to justify their views.

Bonus points for actually reading.  Mind you, I also tend to encourage people to read outside of their comfort zone.

Well my books consist mainly of politics, economics and military doctrine/history/science fiction. I suppose anything on Oprah's list would qualify as outside of my comfort zone  ;D

In all seriousness though, you should check out those two books I posted above. Believe it or not I used to be very conservative, until a friend handed me "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Nothing wrong with being conservative, I just think that a lot of people are like me, in the sense that they are conservative based on the wrong information. Which of course, is by the design of the conservative movement.

 

[biernini]

Ah yes, the 'evil' twin brother bookend to the 'how dare you imply we're lazily over-entitled and look to have others pay for our socialistic desires that in practice far exceed those basic, truly justified supportive resources' left arc-of-fire... :nod:

Far better to keep one's hands off the shovel so that they may receive what others work for?  That attitude doesn't even fit the Marxist model...time for a new shtick... :not-again:

G2G

Wow. I don't know if you could stuff more words in my mouth if you tried.

 

[biernini]

There is no Libertarian who would suggest that we do not need an armed forces, police or courts of law.

Who said anything about not needing armed forces? I merely suggested that if libertarianism is so awesome for everybody it should be equally awesome for the armed forces as well.

Of course, we all know that's not true, and in that brief moment of concurrence lies the big lie all libertarians and conservatives tell themselves to justify their own selfishness.

 

[biernini]

I don't think the French Foreign Legion would take you lumping them in with ISIS too well...

Why should I care what they think? With enough money I can tell them exactly what to think.

 

[a_majoor]

Sadly, arguing with progressives is much like shooting at fish in a barrel. Take this small piece for example, which outlines how a "Conservative" Administration created a bubble through deregulation which contributed to economic inequality. Since the charge is constantly that "conservative" policies cause these disasters, I will accede and ensure that every administration or government which creates or implements policies like these are labeled conservative:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228544/

BUT IT ENRICHED WALL STREET FATCATS/DONORS: Note to Hillary: Clintonomics Was a Disaster for Most Americans: Under Bill Clinton, Wall Street created a ruinous bubble, while workers lost wages and power.

How could Clinton have undergone such a lightening-fast reversal? The answer is straightforward, and explained with candor by Robert Rubin, who had been co-chair of Goldman Sachs before becoming Clinton’s Treasury secretary. Even before the inauguration, Rubin explained to more populist members of the incoming administration that the rich “are running the economy and make the decisions about the economy.”

Wall Street certainly flourished under Clinton. By 1999, the average price of stocks had risen to 44 times these companies’ earnings. Historically, stock prices had averaged about 14 times more than earnings. Even during the 1920s bubble, stock prices rose only to 33 times earnings right before the 1929 crash.

A major driver here was Wall Street’s craze for Internet start-ups. In 1999, for example, AOL’s market value eclipsed that of Disney and Time Warner combined, and Priceline.com’s value was double that of United Airlines. The Clinton team created the environment that encouraged such absurd valuations. Throughout the bubble years, Clinton’s policy advisers, led by Rubin and his then protégé Larry Summers, maintained that regulating Wall Street was an outmoded relic from the 1930s. They used this argument to push through the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall financial regulatory system that had been operating since the New Deal. The Clinton team thus set the stage for the collapse of the Dot.com bubble and ensuing recession in March 2001, only two months after Clinton left office. They also created the conditions that enabled the even more severe bubble that produced the 2008 global financial crisis and Great Recession. . . . The unemployment rate did begin falling after Clinton took office in 1993, reaching a 31-year low of 4 percent in 2000. But this growth in job opportunities resulted primarily from a major expansion in household and business spending tied to the stock-market bubble. A run-up in both household and business indebtedness financed this spending boom. Unemployment started rising again soon after the bubble burst, and the debt-financed expansion collapsed in March 2001.

Yep. The fabulous Clinton economy was mostly a bubble. Plus:

What was Clinton’s overall record with respect to improving living standards for working people and the poor? During the eight full years of Clinton’s presidency, the average real wage for non-supervisory workers, at $13.60 an hour (in 2001 dollars), was 2 percent lower than the average under Reagan and Bush and nearly 10 percent less than under Jimmy Carter’s “years of malaise.” The average individual poverty rate under Clinton, at 13.2 percent of the population, was modestly better than the 14 percent rate under Reagan and Bush. But it was worse than the 11.9 percent figure that was maintained, on average, under Nixon and Ford, as well as Carter.

In sum, Bill Clinton’s presidency accomplished almost nothing to improve conditions for working people and the poor on a sustained basis. Gestures to the poor and working class were slight and back-handed, while wages for the majority remained below their level of a generation prior. Wealth at the top exploded with the Wall Street bubble. But the stratospheric rise in stock prices and the debt-financed consumption and investment booms produced a mortgaged legacy.

But here’s a hint: Electing Bernie Sanders won’t improve things.

The real problem is the ideological blinkers which blind people who keep trying to blame conservatism. The problem is big government and incentives which drive people towards bad choices. I will also note that the 2008 crash was caused by a "conservative" policy first enacted by the Carter Administration (the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA), which decoupled metrics like income and creditworthiness from mortgage lending. This was generally allowed to be ignored by the Liberal Reagan and Bush administrations, but revived by the "conservative" Clinton administration, which also heavily incentivized "Fannie Mae" and "Freddy Mac" to underwrite poor loans with the carrot of bonuses to bankers who pushed CRA loans, and penalties for bankers who insisted on credit and income as metrics to assess the ability to repay mortgages. The "conservative" Democrat house fought the second Bush administration's attempts to both reign in the developing mortgage credit bubble, and also prevented the deployment of a wide range of savings tools (the "Ownership Society"), much like our new "conservative" government is removing wealth generation tools like enhanced TFSA's.

The current "conservative" administration has deployed virtually every progressive economic nostrum, yet the predicted "recovery summers", economic growth and reduction in real (vice BLM numbers) unemployment have not happened during the entire eight years of this administration. You are correct: "Conservative" economic policies do not work whatsoever. One can only watch and wait to see if a Trump administration is going to be Liberal or Conservative (Trump used to be quite "conservative", even being a big supporter of the Clintons at one point).

As for the last sentence in the Instapundit article: But the stratospheric rise in stock prices and the debt-financed consumption and investment booms produced a mortgaged legacy, this and the resulting fallout are not explained or explainable in Keynesan economics, but described in great detail by F.A. Hayek.

 

[big.guy.for.you]

I'm far from a libertarian but I think a lot of people in this thread are mistakenly conflating it with anarcho-capitalism...

Who said anything about not needing armed forces? I merely suggested that if libertarianism is so awesome for everybody it should be equally awesome for the armed forces as well.

Funny you should mention putting words in people's mouths, I don't think any sane libertarian would suggest that a volunteer military should be internally governed by libertarian principles.

I mean, most liberal Canadians are pretty strongly in favour of freedom of expression, but even with a liberal government if you mouth off to an officer you're still going to get in trouble. I think it's pretty much implicit that armed forces operate on their own principles by necessity. This isn't ideologically inconsistent with libertarianism; after all, you volunteer for the military and willingly sign contracts committing you to the lifestyle.

Basically that's a pretty silly argument fam

 

[biernini]

The real problem is the ideological blinkers which blind people who keep trying to blame conservatism. The problem is big government and incentives which drive people towards bad choices. I will also note that the 2008 crash was caused by a "conservative" policy first enacted by the Carter Administration (the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA), which decoupled metrics like income and creditworthiness from mortgage lending. This was generally allowed to be ignored by the Liberal Reagan and Bush administrations, but revived by the "conservative" Clinton administration, which also heavily incentivized "Fannie Mae" and "Freddy Mac" to underwrite poor loans with the carrot of bonuses to bankers who pushed CRA loans,

Only vaguely true, cherry-picked to death and presented with such obvious bias it's a truly excellent example of motivated reasoning that pops up from time to time.

The CRA did not "cause" the crash. The relatively tiny government program merely proved that many people previously thought to be credit risks actually were not. It's in the reports; CRA mortgages did not default at a greater rate than the median, before, during and after the crisis. That's it. What crime can be laid at the feet of CRA is proving statistically that there is a much bigger customer base for mortgages than previously thought, which inspired the banks to soften their lending standards. Nobody held a gun to their heads and said lend to deadbeats, property-flippers, and other real estate investors (the latter two comprising most of those risky mortgages, BTW). Nobody held a gun to their heads and told them to lie to everyone about the risks involved in their flexible-rate mortgages. And nobody held a gun to their heads forcing them to package their crappy mortgages as investment vehicles and fraudulently selling them as triple A commodities, fueling the entire fiasco until it collapsed. Those are all utter fictions told by conservatives to feed their hate against the poor.

One of the many reasons why Trump and Sanders are doing as well as they are is because both of them know all this, as does much of the electorate. It's only doctrinaire conservatives and libertarians in their ivory towers who keep telling themselves this lie that everything that is wrong with the world can be pinned on the lazy poor and "big government". It's no wonder the establishment politicos are genuinely getting scared this cycle.

 

[biernini]

I don't think any sane libertarian would suggest that a volunteer military should be internally governed by libertarian principles.

That's my point, nobody would.

So if nobody thinks that libertarian principles are good for the armed forces, why is some form of socialism and progressivism fine for the armed forces but not for everybody else? It's hypocritical to say the least.

 

[big.guy.for.you]

That's my point, nobody would.

So if nobody thinks that libertarian principles are good for the armed forces, why is some form of socialism and progressivism fine for the armed forces but not for everybody else? It's hypocritical to say the least.

The military is pretty far from socialist too...

 

[Eaglelord17]

The military is pretty far from socialist too...

A dictatorship would likely be the best way to describe it.

 

[Good2Golf]

Yup, jack-booted goose-stepping fascists in the streets...with guns... :

Poor Canadians, if only their government was less totalitarian.  Perhaps the Young Dauphin can reverse the fascist trend of the last decade...

 

[big.guy.for.you]

It's really pretty pointless to describe militaries in terms of political ideologies, especially ones primarily concerned with economic policy like libertarianism and socialism.