In all fairness the scathing definition above has some truth in it. It is also a total lie. Yes, many people among progressives struggle in their everyday life. And yes, there are people among progressives who spend their fortunes on liberal endeavors; just consider the Hollywood celebs. But if we look at the ultra-right we would find much more losers, ignorant, lazy and weak individuals, the whole gallery of disgusting rich parasites, their slaves, perverts, and all kinds of unfortunate characters. Within the current framework of values those people do not call themselves losers. They call themselves the salt of the Earth. That is because they unequivocally accept that current framework of values. That simple.
If we go for a nutshell though we should admit that there is one important clue: yes, the success-oriented people, like professionals, small-business owners, career bureaucrats, civil service people, and military are rarely seen among active progressives. Something turns them off. What is that?
( Sidebar. Yes, within the current framework of values the progressive movement is good in showing what is wrong, but it cannot provide an individual the alternative path to success, the way it is defined currently.)
Interesting. That revelation above is very sobering. People usually resist any changes unless those changes offer them some kind of a better future. Within the current framework of values (Notice, how many times I repeat this mantra?-MS), the progressives line up the problems but the ways they propose to solve those do not seem to have a goal of bringing an average Joe closer to the three- bedrooms' house with two cars and a monster TV. It does not seem that the path the progressives want to take leads to an individual wealth. Not even close.
And boy, that seems to be truthful. Take energy conservation for instance. Progressives are all for it. If we follow them, then one person who lives in a four-bedroom house, or, God forbid, has two houses is not a successful role model but a target for energy police. He or she should be punished for success, mercilessly taxed for his unfortunate "carbon footprint." If he/she wants some fun and buys a yacht or invests in the strip clubs - the whole Hell can break lose. Of course, the Average Joe does not have any of those things. But he would love to have them. If we, progressives want to take away that dream, we should offer at least something similar to pursue. What is that, I wonder? Within the current framework of values, what is that we can offer that will attract the person who wants to live in his house alone?
(Sidebar. It is not really true that the progressive agenda cannot offer the path to the individual success, it is rather that progressives, for some inexplicable reason, prefer not to appeal to selfish interests of the very people whose hearts and minds they target.)
How about an interesting twist? Let's say we offer an Average Joe the same kind of the house or whatever he/she wants plus all those environmental unfortunate taxes he/she is so afraid of. But at the same time we promise the following:
-No mortgage payments ever. The prices of the houses will drop -- they will cost the real money and not the mythical "market' money because all locations will be equally attractive.
-No property taxes because the education will be free, subsidized by the federal income tax.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
1
