Wattree's picture

    What Most Americans Don’t Know About President Obama

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

     

    What Most Americans Don’t Know About President Obama:
    He’s Not a Liberal - He’s a Progressive

     

    I’m not a liberal. I’m a progressive, and the same is true of President Obama. The reason I make a distinction between the two is because liberals and conservatives tend to be ideologues, so they're merely different sides of the same coin. Ideologues give ideology priority over truth, so when they find truth to be in conflict with their ideology, they try to contort the truth into a configuration that fits more comfortably into their preconceived view of reality. Thus, ideologues are not thinkers; they’re feelers, and as a result, more often than not, they're also bitterly reactionary.
    .
    On the other hand, while progressives tend to hold a liberal perspective, progressives are not ideologues. Progressives give truth priority over ideology, and they believe in following truth wherever it leads and regardless to whose ox it gores. Thereafter, on those occasions when they find that truth is in conflict with their preconceived beliefs, they modify their beliefs, not truth, because by definition, truth is in the best interest of humanity, regardless to what it reveals. Progressives understand that truth, much like physical pain, tells us what issues need to be addressed and modified.
    .
    That’s why President Obama is the best possible person to have heading our government during these perilous times. He’s a thinker, and not prone to strike out recklessly in response to his emotions. He’s also willing to do the right thing, and when what’s right is not the most popular thing to do, he’s willing to take the hit.
    .
    President Obama understands that the appropriate attitude for a progressive to bring to every discussion is a firmness of thought, and an open mind to divergent ideas. Because a progressive, by definition, should have the intellectual capacity to recognize that one can neither scream, nor insult, one's way to a solution to any problem. Thus, what should always set a progressive apart from all others is an affinity for humanity, an independence of thought, and a fierce determination to remain a seeker of truth above all else, regardless to where that truth may lead.
    .
    But ironically, those are the very values for which Obama is most severely criticized. The reason for that is, those values no longer seem to be held among many who define themselves as progressives today. Many contemporary 'progressives' tend to possess the very same rigidity of thought, and mean-spirited, knee-jerk adherence to ideology that the progressive movement was created to combat. So the response that many of these people bring to even the slightest divergence from their rigid ideological beliefs can only be described as one of radical reactionism.
    .
    That concerns me greatly, because while conservatives and today's so-called progressives remain completely divergent in their views toward governance, in terms of intellectual disposition they've become different sides of the same coin. I've often heard it stated that the regimented intolerance of reactionary conservatism is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. That may, or may not be true (I tend to believe it is, and it’s becoming more so with every day that passes). But if it is, it must also be acknowledged that the intolerant regimentation of many contemporary radical 'progressives' represent the USSR at best.
    .
    Many modern progressives have allowed themselves to become infected with the exact same kind of intellectual rigidity that we previously associated with the radical conservative mindset. In fact, many who define themselves as progressives today could very accurately be called latter-day conservatives. While they have a slightly updated set of values, their rigidity and rabid defense of those values will surely morph into the completely closed-minded conservatism of tomorrow.

    A perfect example of the above can be found in the fact that I used to routinely write for the Daily KOS, that is, until I wrote an article that asked the simple question, "What is the Difference Between Zionism and Racism?" That was about four years ago, and I’ve been banned from writing for the site every since that time. Then when I contacted them (twice) for an explanation, all I heard in return were crickets.
    .
    That is exactly the response that I would expect to get from a radical conservative website, and it is exactly contrary to what I expected to be confronted with from a site that professes to be progressive. A site that labels itself progressive is expected to be dedicated to seeking truth, whatever that truth is, and not be so protective of its point of view that it becomes just another ideological echo chamber. If you're philosophy on any issue is valid, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny. But if it can't stand up to truth, then a change is warranted.
    .
    That's the primary reason that the conservatives' reckless campaign of rampant disinformation is winning the battle over reasoned and logical thought. So many contemporary progressives have taken on the conservative mind-set of anger before contemplation, and reaction over reason, that there's no one left who's actually thinking. Everyone is simply reacting through anger, ignorance, and disinformation. That's an environment in which the Republican Party thrives, since as any thinking person would recognize, radical conservatism is reactionary by definition. So as Mark Twain said, they drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.
    .
    Progressives cannot out-scream the Republican Party, and we shouldn't try. The disinformation that's currently being disseminated by the GOP must be met with facts, a well thought-out plan of action, integrity, and character. Progressives must not only be prepared to demonstrate that the conservative philosophy of hanging on to flawed values of the past prevents society from moving forward, but that character, and integrity counts.
    .
    The American people are not stupid. They desperately want these qualities in their governance, but the current progressive movement is not giving them a viable alternative. Regardless to what our intent, in many cases, we're acting with just as much thoughtless anger, reckless abandon, and self-service as the Republican Party - well, in the interest of truth, not that bad, but we're getting there.
    .
    But the problem is, we have not coalesced into a solid front with a clear and viable agenda. We've divided ourselves into so many factions with so many different agendas that the people no longer know what we represent. And the reason for that is, too many of us really don't know what it means to be progressives ourselves. Instead of bringing a clear and definable philosophy of common sense to EVERY issue, and regarding EVERY constituency, we’ve degenerated into a ragtag group of special interests who, in many cases, are fighting against one another. Even as many of us are demanding racial justice, some of those very same people are perfectly content to support a bigoted philosophy toward women, gays, undocumented workers, and other minorities.
    .
    Many of us, for example, have chosen to remain blind to the fact that much of this land was STOLEN from "undocumented workers," so they are NOT the ones who are "illegal," WE are. But all of a sudden, on this particular issue, many who claim to be liberal, or progressive, want to stand with the bigots. And the same is true of so-called Christians, who consistently preach that God created all things, and is the Lord and master of the universe and beyond. Yet, they've decided that their almighty God has made a mistake when it comes to gays, because THEY don't like their lifestyle. Well, truth doesn't work that way. Truth demands consistency, so how can we profess to be warriors against bigotry and hypocrisy, when we ourselves are bigots and hypocrites?
    .
    Thus, how can so-called liberals and neo-progressives expect those Americans who are undecided to distinguish between our character, and the character of Rush Limbaugh? The fact is, they can’t. What they see is two teams both cheering for their side, with very few distinctions in terms of character between the two. Try telling a radical feminist that the nation would benefit from having more women remain in the home. You’d have to wear a flack jacket just to broach the subject. It would be the equivalent trying to advocate an Equal Rights Amendment at the Republican National Convention. But these are issues that desperately need to be discussed, and no knee-jerk assumptions should be made about one's attitude toward women by simply broaching the subject (http://wattree.blogspot.com/2013/06/motherhood-most-valuable-profession-in.html).
    .
    So, too many of us fail to understand that the primary goal of the progressive movement was to create a viable democracy that serve, respect, and honor ALL of the people. But due to the destruction of our educational system, the corrupting influence of Republican governance over the past thirty years, and an irresponsible media, our ideals and what we represent as a people is only a rumor up for debate for an entire generation of Americans. Who would have thought a generation ago that the relative merits torture would even become a debatable issue in America? So we're sliding down a very slippery slope.
    .
    Thus, many young people of the left who consider themselves progressives don’t really know what being a progressive actually entails. They know that their political orientation is liberal, but what they don't know is, there's a vast difference between being simply liberal, and being a progressive. So again, many of these young people approach our democracy like it's a sporting event with no rules of sportsmanship. It's just our team against their team - period.
    .
    What they fail to realize is that the progressive movement is much more than just a synonym for left-wing liberalism. Progressives have always served as America's philosophers, intellectuals, and the nation's conscience. Thus, true progressives don't see conservatives as the enemy. They understand that both liberals, and conservatives, play an important role in our society - at least, responsible liberals and conservatives. Progressives recognize that both philosophies are necessary in order to maintain a balanced America. And we clearly understand that while there's a burning need for a Martin Luther King to remind America of its humanity, there is also a need for a Gen. MacArthur to ensure our security.
    .
    Thus, the progressive movement is not so much a political ideology as it is a philosophical attitude towards human behavior. A true progressive, as oppose to an ideologue of any stripe, will always give truth, logical thought, and the interest of humanity priority over ideology. And regardless to how much he or she may admire any politician, he will always hold that politician accountable for truth, justice, and his fidelity to mankind.

    Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does. 

    Comments

    This is more than interesting!

    I just read this Salon piece this morning concerning a libertarian (Zen?) who gave it up so to speak:

    http://www.salon.com/2014/01/26/confessions_of_a_former_libertarian_my_personal_psychological_and_intellectual_epiphany/

    I am a liberal but I am a progressive.

    I had thoughts that people ran from the 'liberal' label because of conservative media propaganda.

    So, what if hundreds of thousands of folks are now employed by 'frackers'? Fracking aint going away and now we find that not only is fracking itself causing environmental problems by itself but now we have this railroad problem adding to the mess.

    Earth quakes and water pollution and air pollution and....

    Liberal or not, I see no end to fracking; we must just regulate the process better.

    Is that anti-liberal?

    I do not like third trimester abortions. Is that heresy? Hell, I do not like second trimester abortions for that matter but I do not wish to 'interfere' with the doctor patient relationship. But can't we do something in this area as a government?

    I do not appreciate the relationship between the Board of Directors and the management of corporations. CEO's getting raises without government supervision or shareholder accountability bothers me much. I certainly would like to see 90% tax rates put on these thieves. Does that make me a liberal or progressive or communist?

    What works? That should be the cry of the progressive, I would think?

    Guns. The genie is out of the bottle on that Second Amendment issue; but we regulate car ownership and sun panel ownership and a host of other ownerships; I am for regulation. Am I a liberal or a progressive?

    I do not know that much about the Middle East, even though I gather info on the subject every day. The entire Middle East hates Israel. But Israel has 'the bomb' and there is a history there and we must work with Israel as an ally and there is enough of a war between factions in Israel so that I discern no unified government there any more than there is here.

    It seems to me that every time someone airs concern over Israeli policy, that someone is attacked.

    I would never wish to see the end of Israel but Palestinians must be owed civil rights and other basic amenities.

    Does that make me 'anti-liberal'? 

    I am not sure that people like me (the medium SS recipients) should receive fifteen bucks in food stamps. I have stated this many times over the last two years. I still purchase my coffee and tea with this stipend every month just the same. How does that label me?

    Life is complicated.

    I do not understand why a person cannot earn a BA or at least an AA on line for free with certain stipends due for tests and such. Plato and Aristotle are all on line for free as well as anything written prior to 1927? Newton and Einstein are now in the public domain for chrissakes!

    I am going on too long here.

    A progressive should look at the problem and the issues involved and seek the 'best solution' for crying out loud.

    If a tax credit might work, fine with me.

    If an increased tax or increased license fee might work, fine with me.

    If removing layers and layers of regs in a certain context might work, fine with me. If more government oversight is necessary, fine with me.

    Anyway, thank you for this essay.

    On the left we must have argument and debate.

    The right seems to just read talking points from propaganda factories.

     

     


    I do agree with many of your reasonable suggestions. Especially the education one.

    Take that money and feed the people, not the education Plutocracy?   

    When you ask does this "make me"

    Reminding me of this 

     


    Richard, what you state is exactly my point. Both liberals and conservatives have created an environment where it is heresy to even consider anything promoted by the other side. Life is much too serious to be left in the hands of children, but that's exactly how we're carrying ourselves - like two groups of children engaged in a fierce spitball fight to bring back the gold for the world's biggest idiot competition.  


     For people will be zlovers of self, alovers of money, bproud,barrogant, abusive, bdisobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,cheartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal,dnot loving good, treacherous, reckless,

    2 Timothy 3:2-4


    I'm not sure the best way to defend Obama's pathetic record is to insult liberals. I doubt that you'll get the progressives fleeing his failed presidency and failed policies back by attempting to start a fight between liberals and progressives,

    At any rate I always thought people who called themselves progressive were scared liberals who didn't have the courage of their convictions and changed what they called themselves  when republicans attacked them. Oh wait, that's not true, that's the same sort of incendiary bullshit as in your blog.


    Thank you, Ocean-Kat.  You've just validated my position regarding ideologues. I was wondering who would be the first one clueless enough to fall into that trap:        "Thus, ideologues are not thinkers; they’re feelers, and as a result, more often than not, they're also bitterly reactionary."         Congratulations.  


    Watree, while I may not agree with what OceanKat wrote,  the one thing he is absolutely not, is an ideologue. He is just someone who is not happy with what the President has or as he sees it mostly has not done. I think that's okay. He doesn't run around insulting the president,  calling him names, etc, he just isn't enamored with this Presidency, in fact if I am correct here I think he would have like to have seen a stronger argument from this President for liberal policies.  This doesn't make kat an ideologue.  I think lumping everyone into the same category, when they aren't that, doesn't help. This President is strong enough to take criticism from people on his side. I'm pretty sure he'd tell you that himself.


    Its true that I'm disappointed with Obama, more disappointed than I expected to be. But my post was sparked by more than that.

    Over the last 40 years I've watched with disappointment as the democratic party moved  farther and farther to the right. Part of that move was caused by republicans demonizing liberals to the point that most democratic politicians wouldn't even use the word. I understood the politics behind formerly liberal congress people calling themselves progressive. I want to win so I don't care much what label they choose to use. But it does piss me off to see democrats picking up that republican  meme and vilifying liberals. For example Rahm Emanuel calling liberals "Fucking retarded."

    I suppose I shouldn't care about Wattree. Nothing we do here has national significance. And I doubt there's a single liberal or progressive that accepts Wattree's weird definitions of liberal and progressive.

    But it still irked me to see a democrat picking up a republican meme and doing the republican's work for them. It certainly won't help the democrats win by democrats insulting and vilifying liberal democrats.


    I agree with everything your wrote right there Kat.  And I myself hate right wing memes. I mostly don't read what Watree writes, but I don't think it was fair of him to brush you off that way. I don't believe you are an ideologue, I think you are pretty fair, and I also do think this President could stand to take some criticism, before it is too late. 

    And as a liberal, who self identifies as a liberal, always, I do not subscribe to buckling under to those wingers. And you are right it does not help Democrats to always let Republicans rule the roost. Ugh...I'd go on, but it isn't necessary.


    Ocean-Kat,

    Once again, you’ve validated my position. It was my contention that,

    "I’m not a liberal; I’m a progressive, and the same is true of President Obama. The reason I make a distinction between the two is because liberals and conservatives tend to be ideologues, so they're merely different sides of the same coin. Ideologues give ideology priority over truth, so when they find truth to be in conflict with their ideology, they try to contort the truth into a configuration that fits more comfortably into their preconceived view of reality. Thus, ideologues are not thinkers; they’re feelers, and as a result, more often than not, they're also bitterly reactionary."

    Now, Ocean-Kat says,

    "But it still irked me to see a democrat picking up a republican meme and doing the republican's work for them. It certainly won't help the democrats win by democrats insulting and vilifying liberal democrats."

    Ocean, your being critical of the fact that I’m giving truth - at least, as I see it - priority over ideology. You seem to think that ideology should be given priority over truth - let’s tell a lie for the Gipper, as it were. Well, as I see it, life is not a sporting event. How are we going to ever come to an objective consensus if we are blind to the flaws of our own team? Again, that’s only the flip-side of Fox News. That’s why if a person is on the fence they don’t know what side to come down on, because neither side recognizes the power and dignity to blatant truth, regardless to whose ox it gores.

    So I’m sorry if it offends you Ocean-Kat, but I take the position that efficient thought requires that we first, see life as it is, and only THEN, as we would have it. Thereafter, if truth is offensive to our position, we should modify our position, not truth.

     

     


    Thereafter, if truth is offensive to our position, we should modify our position, not truth.

    enlightened yes


    Ocean, your being critical of the fact that I’m giving truth - at least, as I see it - priority over ideology.

    There is one of the critical differences between us. I come here, like many others, to share and test my opinions in evidence based intellectual debate. I lack the hubris to lay claim to the truth. You come here to pontificate since you're convinced you possess the truth.

    My critique is that you do not possess the truth, that the basic premise you used in your blog is a flawed opinion. Your unsupported opinion that liberals are de facto ideologues that contort the truth to fit that ideology is not in evidence in reality. Your assertion that progressives follow truth where ever it goes irregardless of ideology is in fact not the truth. There is no evidence to back up that premise, in fact there is abundant evidence to contradict it. Its nothing more than a false meme that unfairly vilifies liberals. Its a continuation of republican lies used to attack the democratic party. You're doing the republicans work for them by spreading this false meme.

    You seem to think that ideology should be given priority over truth - let’s tell a lie for the Gipper, as it were.

    There is absolutely no evidence to support that attack. As is usual you go quickly from vilifying liberals to making personal attacks. Personal attacks is your modus operandi when ever someone disagrees with you. You do not possess the truth, you have an opinion. The fact that I disagree with your opinion is not proof that I'm an ideologue. All it means is we have a difference of opinion. I'm confident that evidence based intellectual debate will show my opinion more correct and your opinion flawed. If you're capable of evidence based debate rather than personal attacks.

    How are we going to ever come to an objective consensus if we are blind to the flaws of our own team?

    First you have to prove that you have correctly identified the flaw, that your premise is in fact true and not just pulled out of your ass. That so many people have so often disagreed with the opinions you parade in front of us as Truth shows they are not self evident and therefore require evidence as to their veracity. Please provide some evidence to back up your opinions.

    So I’m sorry if it offends you Ocean-Kat, but I take the position that efficient thought requires that we first, see life as it is, and only THEN, as we would have it. Thereafter, if truth is offensive to our position, we should modify our position, not truth.

    You don't have the truth. You are not seeing life as it is. You need to change your opinion so it more faithfully matches reality. But there's little hope of that since you are sure you possess the truth and any disagreement is proof in your mind of ideological lies, lack of thinking, and intellectual rigor.

    Clearly the definitions of liberal and progressive do not coincide with your definitions. Intellectual dishonesty and intellectual rigor are not part of either definition.

    The connotations of the words, the accepted meaning in colloquial usage, does not conform to your weird usage. People do not commonly use progressive to mean an allegiance to truth over ideology or liberal to mean an allegiance to ideology over truth. You are likely the only person in the world to make that erroneous distinction.

    I've seen no studies to test the proposition, likely because if it ever occurred to anyone besides you, it was considered too ridiculous to test. Yet even a quick perusal of pundits and politicians will show no trend or marked difference between those who call themselves liberal and those who call themselves progressive. Some of each group will display intellectual rigor and others will spin for their side. One obvious example is the progressive Wasserman Schultz who seems to think her job as DNC chair is to spin for Obama and the democratic party. In effect to lie for the Gipper as you put it.

    You claim as a progressive to follow the truth where ever it leads. I can't see how anyone can do that with out following the evidence at each step of the way. Do you have any evidence to show that you didn't just pull this argument out of your ass? Do you any evidence at all to support your premise that liberals are lying ideologues and progressives follow truth over ideology?

    Its an absolutely ridiculous assertion without any evidence in reality. Its insulting and its a lie that hurts the democratic party.


    Ocean,

    I’m going to test my theory by seeing if I can respond to your last comment by excerpts from the article and my previous comments alone, and without adding another word. That should be an excellent example of my contention that "Ideologues give ideology priority over truth, so when they find truth to be in conflict with their ideology, they try to contort the truth into a configuration that fits more comfortably into their preconceived view of reality. Thus, ideologues are not thinkers; they’re feelers, and as a result, more often than not, they're also bitterly reactionary.".

    Ocean:

    "There is one of the critical differences between us. I come here, like many others, to share and test my opinions in evidence based intellectual debate. I lack the hubris to lay claim to the truth. You come here to pontificate since you're convinced you possess the truth."

    Wattree:

    "Ocean, your being critical of the fact that I’m giving truth - at least, as I see it - priority over ideology."

    "Many contemporary 'progressives' tend to possess the very same rigidity of thought, and mean-spirited, knee-jerk adherence to ideology that the progressive movement was created to combat. So the response that many of these people bring to even the slightest divergence from their rigid ideological beliefs can only be described as one of radical reactionism."

    Ocean:

    "You seem to think that ideology should be given priority over truth - let’s tell a lie for the Gipper, as it were.

    There is absolutely no evidence to support that attack. As is usual you go quickly from vilifying liberals to making personal attacks. Personal attacks is your modus operandi when ever someone disagrees with you. You do not possess the truth, you have an opinion."

    Wattree:

    I said, "Truth - at least, as I see it," so your contention is invalid, and you're trying to contort truth to conform to your agenda.

    Ocean:

    "How are we going to ever come to an objective consensus if we are blind to the flaws of our own team?

    First you have to prove that you have correctly identified the flaw, that your premise is in fact true and not just pulled out of your ass. That so many people have so often disagreed with the opinions you parade in front of us as Truth shows they are not self evident and therefore require evidence as to their veracity. Please provide some evidence to back up your opinions."

    Wattree:

    I said, "Truth - at least, as I see it," so again, you're trying to contort the truth in order to build a strawman argument.

    Ocean:

    "So I’m sorry if it offends you Ocean-Kat, but I take the position that efficient thought requires that we first, see life as it is, and only THEN, as we would have it. Thereafter, if truth is offensive to our position, we should modify our position, not truth.

    "You don't have the truth. You are not seeing life as it is. You need to change your opinion so it more faithfully matches reality. But there's little hope of that since you are sure you possess the truth and any disagreement is proof in your mind of ideological lies, lack of thinking, and intellectual rigor.

    "Clearly the definitions of liberal and progressive do not coincide with your definitions. Intellectual dishonesty and intellectual rigor are not part of either definition.

    "The connotations of the words, the accepted meaning in colloquial usage, does not conform to your weird usage. People do not commonly use progressive to mean an allegiance to truth over ideology or liberal to mean an allegiance to ideology over truth. You are likely the only person in the world to make that erroneous distinction.

    "I've seen no studies to test the proposition, likely because if it ever occurred to anyone besides you, it was considered too ridiculous to test. Yet even a quick perusal of pundits and politicians will show no trend or marked difference between those who call themselves liberal and those who call themselves progressive. Some of each group will display intellectual rigor and others will spin for their side. One obvious example is the progressive Wasserman Schultz who seems to think her job as DNC chair is to spin for Obama and the democratic party. In effect to lie for the Gipper as you put it.

    "You claim as a progressive to follow the truth where ever it leads. I can't see how anyone can do that with out following the evidence at each step of the way. Do you have any evidence to show that you didn't just pull this argument out of your ass? Do you any evidence at all to support your premise that liberals are lying ideologues and progressives follow truth over ideology?

    "Its an absolutely ridiculous assertion without any evidence in reality. Its insulting and its a lie that hurts the democratic party."

    Wattree:

    "That concerns me greatly, because while conservatives and today's so-called progressives remain completely divergent in their views toward governance, in terms of intellectual disposition they've become different sides of the same coin. I've often heard it stated that the regimented intolerance of reactionary conservatism is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. That may, or may not be true (I tend to believe it is, and it’s becoming more so with every day that passes). But if it is, it must also be acknowledged that the intolerant regimentation of many contemporary radical 'progressives' represent the USSR at best.

    "Many contemporary 'progressives' tend to possess the very same rigidity of thought, and mean-spirited, knee-jerk adherence to ideology that the progressive movement was created to combat. So the response that many of these people bring to even the slightest divergence from their rigid ideological beliefs can only be described as one of radical reactionism."
     

    So there you have it, Ocean. You contorted a clearly stated truth - that I was reflecting the truth as I saw it - into a lie - that implied that I considered what I said absolute and irrefutable truth - in order to make it fit more comfortably into your agenda. In addition, your response to my "divergence from your rigid ideological beliefs can only be described as one of radical reactionism." I could visualize the veins popping out on your neck as you accused me of helping to promote the Republican agenda. So in case you missed it, Ocean,  you’re my evidence - and I couldn't have hired anyone to do a better job.


    Look Wattree that at some point in your blog you claimed that some progressives are displaying a knee jerk allegiance to ideology i.e. acting like liberals doesn't suddenly make your insults of liberals true. It just adds a lie on top of your lie. Do you have any evidence at all that liberals as a group tend to value ideology over truth, that they are not thinkers, that they contort the truth to fit their ideology?

    Many contemporary 'progressives' tend to possess the very same rigidity of thought, and mean-spirited, knee-jerk adherence to ideology that the progressive movement was created to combat.

    Are you actually trying to use history to validate your attacks on liberals? This is the most bizarre interpretation of why the progressive movement was created that I've ever heard.

    Progressivism was the reform movement that ran from the late 19th century through the first decades of the 20th century, during which leading intellectuals and social reformers in the United States sought to address the economic, political, and cultural questions that had arisen in the context of the rapid changes brought with the Industrial Revolution and the growth of modern capitalism in America. The Progressives believed that these changes marked the end of the old order and required the creation of a new order appropriate for the new industrial age.

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

    The Progressive Era was a period of social activism and political reform in the United States, that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s.[1] One main goal of the Progressive movement was purification of government, as Progressives tried to eliminate corruption by exposing and undercutting political machines and bosses. Many (but not all) Progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons.[2] At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena.[3] A second theme was building an Efficiency movement in every sector that could identify old ways that needed modernizing, and bring to bear scientific, medical and engineering solutions.

    I have never read anywhere that the progressive moment was created to combat "rigidity of thought, and mean-spirited, knee-jerk adherence to ideology." Can you cite a single historian that supports your bizarre theory of why the progressive movement was created?

    I could visualize the veins popping out on your neck as you accused me of helping to promote the Republican agenda

    This is one of the most pathetic things I've read here. What is it with you and your constant insulting personal attacks. You're actually sitting in front of your computer visualizing offensive nasty images to use to insult people. Pathetic. And you call me emotional and bitter. lol

     


    Ocean,

    Progressives were the thinkers, educators, and intellectuals of the time. Their primary goal was to educate the American people to bring about change. They were not wild-eyed, knee-jerk reactionaries. Their efforts and emphasis was focused on solving problems, not blindly defending an ideology for the sake of ideology, and as a tribute to the Gipper. That’s a waste of time, just as this is a waste of time.

    Any ideology worth being called an ideology should be both focused and dedicated to promoting the interest of humanity, not contemplating its navel or trying to promote group-think and indicting all those who fall out of lockstep with the party line. Any ideology that has to be defended by ideological security guards is not worth defending. Any viable ideology should be self-reinforcing through its value to humanity, and not have to be defended by a ranting ideological goon squad. And all those who are predisposed to promoting rigid group-think do both their ideology, and humanity, a gross disservice. History has proven that.

     

    The Progressive Era (1890 - 1920)

    Progressivism is the term applied to a variety of responses to the economic and social problems rapid industrialization introduced to America. Progressivism began as a social movement and grew into a political movement. The early progressives rejected Social Darwinism. In other words, they were people who believed that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated, and believed that government could be a tool for change. Social reformers, like Jane Addams, and journalists, like Jacob Riis and Ida Tarbel, were powerful voices for progressivism. They concentrated on exposing the evils of corporate greed, combating fear of immigrants, and urging Americans to think hard about what democracy meant. Other local leaders encouraged Americans to register to vote, fight political corruption, and let the voting public decide how issues should best be addressed (the initiative, the referendum, and the recall). On a national level, progressivism gained a strong voice in the White House when Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901. TR believed that strong corporations were good for America, but he also believed that corporate behavior must be watched to ensure that corporate greed did not get out of hand (trust-busting and federal regulation of business). Progressivism ended with World War I when the horrors of war exposed people's cruelty and many Americans associated President Woodrow Wilson's use of progressive language ("the war to make the world safe for democracy") with the war.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/progressive-era.cfm


    Progressives were the thinkers, educators, and intellectuals of the time. Their primary goal was to educate the American people to bring about change. They were not wild-eyed, knee-jerk reactionaries. Their efforts and emphasis was focused on solving problems, not blindly defending an ideology for the sake of ideology, and as a tribute to the Gipper.

    Seems like more obfuscation to avoid admitting you posted bullshit. This proves liberals are lying ideologues exactly how? This proves the progressive movement was created to combat, "rigidity of thought, and mean-spirited, knee-jerk adherence to ideology" exactly how?

    No, no, no. You just don't understand liberals. Liberals were the thinkers, educators, and intellectuals of the time. Their primary goal was to educate the American people to bring about change. They were not wild-eyed, knee-jerk reactionaries. Their efforts and emphasis was focused on solving problems, not blindly defending an ideology, and as a tribute to the Gipper.

    Progressives value their ideology over the truth and would contort the truth to fit their ideology. Progressives are not thinkers; they’re feelers, and as a result, more often than not, they're also bitterly reactionary.

    If you disagree you are just  proving my point. See I threw that brick out there and any progressives responding self identify as ideologues. Using bold on the internet is widely recognized as shouting. I'm visualizing you as yelling at your computer monitor while you type and since I visualized it, it proves you're throwing a tantrum.

    This is a waste of time, I agree, but at least you know that when you post bullshit someone will confront you and call bullshit.

    Here's my view on the fundamental difference between liberals and progressives from dictionary.com.

    liberal

    ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
     
    progressive
     
      employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas

     


    Plus he's a mensch, as are you Tmac.


    The media represents a major obstacle in getting the facts to the American public. Just watch a MSM discussion of climate change and you will come away with the impression that there are two sides of equal weight, a lie.

    Recently Andrea Mitchell cut short an interview with a former member of Congress about the NSA to discuss Justin Bieber. The media thinks infotainment is news. With recent challenges to Net Neutrality. True news sources may be harder to come by.

    facts no longer matter to MSM


    That Bieber crap is all over the web. hahahahahah

    Pure silliness for sure!

    WHERE ARE OUR PRIORITIES?

    Our priorities lie in the ratings of course.

    Oh, and as I have the chance:

    HAPPY 97TH BIRTHDAY, ANDREA!

    hahahahah

    Hey, which camera?

    hahahahhaah


    Richard, You missed your calling.  You should write for Saturday Night Live. maybe you should send them so material.  The last time I tuned in it seemed to me that they could use a little infusion of old-school wit. I wonder why we were so much more creative than this younger generation?  Maybe it's because we had to invent our own toys.  


    We need disinterested people with very deep pockets to fund the news without influencing the news.


    I doubt that there will be many of those individuals. I expect billionaire news-funders to have agendas.


    Has there always been this much interpersonal sniping among posters here?

    Or has it gotten worse in recent months?

    Feels like we're chewing on each other's tails.


    Peter,

    That may be my fault. It’s consistent with a tactic that I generally use to shine a light on some issue that I think is a problem.

    I don’t call my column "Beneath the Spin" for no reason. I believe that one of the biggest problems that we have in this society is that most of us are not looking for true solutions to our problems. What we’re actually doing is looking for various ways of validating our own beliefs, and padding our own interests. That's why we tend to gather in "special interest" groups to validate one another.

    So I don’t expect mass approval with what I write. For me, those issues in which I’m pretty much in agreement with the general consensus are not worth writing about. I write about issues and attitudes that I think need to be examined - and there are a lot of them. Then to make my point, I use the tactic of throwing a brick into a pack of wild dogs (just an analogy. I'm not suggesting that I consider any of the people here animals). Thereafter, the ones that yell identify themselves as the ones I hit, and that makes my point that there is indeed a problem, as I think it has here.

    So while I can’t be certain, what you may be hearing is the result of my assault.

     

    Okay, that's fair enough. I see your point.

    It's just that I have to shake my head when I find myself spending time trying to parse the views of a commenter--when they're anonymous, it feels even more ridiculous --with a view to "pinning him down" in some way that's meant to define his "essence" as a such and such or so and so.

    It's okay for a while, but in the end, it feels like small game. Some anonymous person like, say, Jolly, ends up feeling bad because a bunch of people piled on what he said. I walk away from those conversations feeling like not much has been accomplished for me anyway. Especially when I've been on the pile.

    (So Jolly did say Israel should be "put down" as you might a dog. He also apologized for it. But do I think he REALLY meant the metaphor he used literally? Of course, not. I found the words shocked me, so I reacted--which is the right word, but wrong action--but probably I should have just read, considered the source, considered everything else he's said, considered his fondness for hyperbole or utopiana, and gone back to reading Middlemarch--if you get what I mean.)

    It's a little different when someone like you, or MM or Ramona puts forth a piece they've crafted and want to share and we discuss the content. What did Wattree really mean by XYZ? What are the implications of it? What evidence is there for it?

    But when the conversation devolves into accusations like, "TMac, you're nothing more than Republican lite," (just to make up an example), or "Resistance, you're a fake who doesn't know a thing about real Christianity," (to make up another), I get caught up in it, but then have to wonder: "How important is it to decide whether TMac is a Republican lite?" Not very, IMO.

    So, I guess, as a community with posters who've conversed for a long time and gotten to know each other, these spats are inevitable. People know how to push each other's buttons. But once you know where the buttons are, how important is it to keep pushing them? LULU certainly knows how to get Bruce "going," but why would he want to do that? What is gained? And what's the point in showing, for the 100th time, that some guy named LULU doesn't know what he's talking about? And why would Bruce allow his buttons to keep getting pushed?

    Everyone here, in my experience, has so much to contribute, but it gets lost, IMO, when so much time is spent/wasted on these interpersonal tangos we've seen over and over again with hardly any variation. Anyway, my two cents...


    Hi Peter.. LOL did he call me a Republican lite? That is hilarious and weird. But it doesn't matter, Watree over time has become just like the TBags, if you don't agree with him 100%, you are an ideologue, a Republican. That's lame and intellectually dishonest. I will say, I lost most of my respect for anything he has to say because of that last blog, the blog lecturing women on how to get a man.. ugh... Rush Limbaugh anyone? We loose women, even though men participate in this thing we call sex, it's okay for them to think terribly of us you know because it is all our fault... I cannot take anything that he says seriously.

    Also kat is no ideologue is well.. you know leaves no one anywhere for discussion, but Wattree doesn't want a discussion, he is right, just ask him, and if you don't buy into his world view you are whatever he deems you. Lame, lame, lame...and just like the TBags...


    TM,

    You are so wrong about my motivation. I simply layout my position, and leave it at that. If you accept it, you accept it, if you don’t, you don’t. I don’t crave validation, and I don’t win anything based on the number of people that I can get to agree with me.

    But later I do come back and read any comments that may be left to see if anyone left a nugget of wisdom that may be of benefit. If I do find such a nugget, I’ve been known to reverse my position and embrace theirs. Because, you see, what’s important to me is personal growth, not competition. I take the position that the only mature and constructive form of competition is to compete against the person I was yesterday. In fact, I wrote an article on the subject -"Is Our Competitive Spirit Helping or Hurting America?"   I consider competition anti-intellectual. For that reason, I have absolutely no interest in sports whatsoever.

    So the fact is, I take the position that I gain much more from losing a debate, than winning one. By "winning," I simply walking away with the bragging rights of having won something of no value. On the other hand, if I lose a debate, I walk away more knowledgeable than I was before I became involved. In addition, I’d like to suggest that you consider the fact that the primary reason that you may have made such a grossly erroneous assumption about both my motivation and thinking COULD be that you came to the unwarranted conclusion, due to your own competitive mentality, that I’m motivated by the same factors that you are. That, in turn, would suggest that a competitive mentality is not only meaningless and counterproductive, but also serves as an obstacle to clear thinking. So why would I want to embrace something as silly as that - and, get absolutely nothing out of it.


    TM,

    You are so wrong about my motivation. I simply layout my position, and leave it at that. If you accept it, you accept it, if you don’t, you don’t. I don’t crave validation, and I don’t win anything based on the number of people that I can get to agree with me.

    But later I do come back and read any comments that may be left to see if anyone left a nugget of wisdom that may be of benefit. If I do find such a nugget, I’ve been known to reverse my position and embrace theirs. Because, you see, what’s important to me is personal growth, not competition. I take the position that the only mature and constructive form of competition is to compete against the person I was yesterday. In fact, I wrote an article on the subject -"Is Our Competitive Spirit Helping or Hurting America?"   I consider competition anti-intellectual. For that reason, I have absolutely no interest in sports whatsoever.

    So the fact is, I take the position that I gain much more from losing a debate, than winning one. By "winning," I simply walking away with the bragging rights of having won something of no value. On the other hand, if I lose a debate, I walk away more knowledgeable than I was before I became involved. In addition, I’d like to suggest that you consider the fact that the primary reason that you may have made such a grossly erroneous assumption about both my motivation and thinking COULD be that you came to the unwarranted conclusion, due to your own competitive mentality, that I’m motivated by the same factors that you are. That, in turn, would suggest that a competitive mentality is not only meaningless and counterproductive, but also serves as an obstacle to clear thinking. So why would I want to embrace something as silly as that - and, get absolutely nothing out of it.


    Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
    Andre Gide

    Watree you are not the arbiter of truth. 

    Please refer to the quote above.

    That is all. 

     


    TM,

    I never said that I was the arbiter of truth. I’m a seeker of truth, as oppose to a seeker of validation. I don’t see the internet as social club. I view it as an educational tool, and a place to educate, and to be educated. So this is not a competitive event for me, nor is it social situation where I feel obliged to stroke egos, or tell people what makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside. I avoid such places both online and in the real world, because I don't need those kind of rituals in my life.

    So I’m not going to spend my time writing just to tell people what they want to hear. If I’m going to write, I’m going to write about what I think people NEED to hear, and if they are mature adults, they should understand and appreciate that. If they’re not, I simply dismiss them as not the kind of people I’m interested in communicating with in the first place. You can pick and choose who you want to associate with in the real world, but on the internet that’s not always so easy. So I’ve found an easy solution for that, and maybe you might want to adopt it. When I find that a person online has nothing of value to offer, or doesn’t fit the profile of the kind of person that I’m trying to get through to, I simply ignore them. The minute I see their name I simply skip over them. That way, it’s like they’re not even there.

    I noticed a comment you made above where you said something to the effect that every since I betrayed a thought that you didn’t agree with, you’ve lost all respect for anything I have to say. I’m sorry you feel that way, but I can certainly understand it. So I just won’t expect to see your name on any blog that I submit in the future. I’m sure I’ll miss your input, but I’m not here to win friends and fans, and I’m certainly not here just to reinforce what you want to believe. I’m here to engage in serious discussions with serious-minded, and objective people who are capable of intellectual detachment. For my purpose, people who are emotional and allow their egos to get all caught up in a discussion only serve as a distraction.

    So if you don’t like what I have to say, it’s not necessary to throw tantrums and spitballs, that’s the way children behave. Simply vote with your feet, and I’ll get your point. Life is simple. Why make it complicated?


    yes


    For my purpose, people who are emotional and allow their egos to get all caught up in a discussion only serve as a distraction. So if you don’t like what I have to say, it’s not necessary to throw tantrums and spitballs, that’s the way children behave.. Simply vote with your feet

    Pretty standard Wattree response when someone disagrees with him. You're emotional, you're throwing tantrums and spitballs, you're behaving like a child. A Wattree example of  emotionless intellectually rigorous reasoning that's not at all insulting.

     

     


    Ocean,
     
    I'm simply telling you how I feel about such matters. What else would you have me do?  It seems that anything you don't want to hear, you take as is insulting. But I have no intention of tailoring my responses to accommodate your sensibilities. I try to be as civil as I can while speaking the truth. If that's insulting to you, I'm sorry, it's not my intent. But I'm not going to bite my tongue for fear of hurting your feelings. We're obviously two different types of people.  I'm a hood rat. I'm no good at adhering to the niceties of polite society, and the truth is, I don't want to be, because I consider it disingenuous, or as we used to call it in the hood, phony. So essentially, from my point of view, what you seem to be doing is asking me not to be me for your benefit, and I'm telling you that can't do that - well, I can, but I won't.                                                  
     
    I've Known Bullshit
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    In
    Every newspaper, every nook,
    I see blatant bullshit wherever I look.
    Prolific bullshit, 
    pro and con,
    Man deceiving man, 
    like human pawns.
    .
    We
    Bullshit our children 
    whenever we can
    On the role of government, 
    and the sojourn of man;
    We bullshit the people 
    regarding their lot,
    While failing to address 
    the conservative plot.
    And now I hear even Santa'a myth,
    So even my mother got caught up in this.
    . 
    So,
    My threshold for Bullshit is extremely low,
    I sense him wherever he hides;
    While Langston Hughes has known his rivers,
    I've known Bullshit in every disguise:

    . 
    I've 
    Known bullshit lovers of innocent women,
    Who fades with a piece a ass,
    I've known bullshit preachers who loved the Lord,
    But not nearly as much as your cash;
    I've known bullshit politicians, 
    who "Just want to help" 
    Right up til they get your vote,
    Then after reciting their bullshit oath
    can't wait to start cuttin' your throat.
    .
    Yes,
    Bullshit's a stalker who seems to haunt me;
    I see him wherever I go--
    On the street, in the store,
    In the eyes of my lover,
    Though I try to deny that it's so.
    .
    I used to 
    Simply shut my eyes, 

    so I wouldn't see him no more,
    But my ears betrayed me and--
    Knock, Knock, Knock--
    "It's Bullshit. Open the door!"

    .
    So
    I came up with a plan to take a stand, a
    nd 
    Confront Bullshit wherever he hides;
    Like the terrorist he is, you must weed him out,
    By confronting him where he resides.
    .
    I learned
    That shit will be shit because shit is shit's nature,
    So it's really not Bullshit's fault;
    It's the fault of the people for embracing ignorance,
    For the enemy of Bullshit is thought.

    What I'd have you do is to actually do what you claim you do, engage in a serious discussion. I'm the one calling bullshit here. I'm calling bullshit on you and your blog. You're trying obfuscation to avoid a serious discussion.

    If you call bullshit on something someone wrote and they called you emotional, said you were throwing a tantrum and acting like a child would you consider that a serious response to your objections? Or would you say that's just more bullshit to avoid dealing with the objections.

    In brief you claim liberals are ideologues that contort the truth to conform to their ideology, that they, "tell a lie for the Gipper." You claim progressives follow the truth where ever it leads regardless of ideology. I think that's self evident bullshit but I did take the time to make what I thought was a rational case to support my view that your basic premise was false. You didn't address any of my arguments, but you did visualize me with veins popping out my neck. As if the stuff you imagine in your head proves you correct.

    You also made the claim that the progressive movement was created to combat "rigidity of thought, and mean-spirited, knee-jerk adherence to ideology." I called that the most bizarre theory of the progressive movement I've ever seen. I took the time to find a couple of links with some analysis and reason why the progressive movement was created. Nothing from you.

    Wattree your whole blog is bullshit for paragraph after paragraph. But knowing I wouldn't get any serious response I just chose a few points rather than waste too much time.

    In a serious discussion this should be pretty brief. You could simply produce some evidence supporting your claims. Your claim about the history of the progressive movement should be the easiest. There are tons of links to articles on the progressive movement on line. All you have to do is find a single historian that supports your bizarre claim that the progressive movement was created to combat rigidity of thought, and mean-spirited, knee-jerk adherence to ideology.

    Serious-minded, and objective people who are capable of intellectual detachment engage in serious discussions by producing evidence to back up their claims. People who pull bullshit out of their ass rant about tantrums, emotionalism, behaving like a child, and visualize people with veins popping because they have no evidence to back up their bullshit.


    Excuse me Peter?

    I find this statement by Wattree, to be the most insightful on so many levels 

    Thereafter, if truth is offensive to our position, we should modify our position, not truth.

    I don’t know about you Peter;  but when I come to Dagblog to read posts or comments,  I want the truth, not spin and lies, like so much of what MSM tries to feed us. 

    I have always said the way to debate the power of the Right Wing imposter Christian coalition and their meddling, in the affairs and private lives of the people, is to use the Sword of Truth against their false beliefs. 

    Why shouldn’t lovers of Truth speak up?   Or must we too conform to following and believing the lies and making the truth fit, because it might offend the non - lovers of truth? 


    Then to make my point, I use the tactic of throwing a brick into a pack of wild dogs (just an analogy. I'm not suggesting that I consider any of the people here animals). Thereafter, the ones that yell identify themselves as the ones I hit, and that makes my point that there is indeed a problem, as I think it has here.

    Rubbish. The fact that people react when you throw a brick doesn't prove that the problem is as you think it is. it doesn't prove your "brick" true or false. Those who respond don't identify themselves.

    If I wrote a post claiming that the preponderance of males in the hard sciences shows that women are innately emotional and therefore less able to handle the pure emotionless intellect needed, people will surely react. That women would object to my "brick" wouldn't prove my point, that they are too emotional. They wouldn't have identified themselves as the women that are innately emotional. They would quite correctly be reacting to a false and offensive insult.

    If I cited the differences between white and black unemployment and claimed black men lack ambition people would react. Those who reacted would not have identified themselves as lazy black men. The reaction wouldn't make my point that there was a problem with ambition in black males. They would quite correctly be reacting to a false and offensive insult.

    You decided to call liberals lying ideologues. The fact that some liberals reacted to your insult doesn't prove they are liars or ideologues. We are quite correctly reacting to an false and offensive insult.

    If you insult people, as you so often do, it doesn't prove your insult true when people react. It simply shows that people don't like to be insulted.


    Ocean, 

    "A progressive, by definition, should have the intellectual capacity to recognize that one can neither scream, nor insult, one's way to a solution to any problem. Thus, what should always set a progressive apart from all others is an affinity for humanity, an independence of thought, and a fierce determination to remain a seeker of truth above all else, regardless to where that truth may lead.

    "That's the primary reason that the conservatives' reckless campaign of rampant disinformation is winning the battle over reasoned and logical thought. So many contemporary progressives have taken on the conservative mindset of anger before contemplation, and reaction over reason, that there's no one left who's actually thinking. Everyone is simply reacting through anger, ignorance, and disinformation. That's an environment in which the Republican Party thrives, since as any thinking person would recognize, radical conservatism is reactionary by definition. So as Mark Twain said, they drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

    Progressives cannot out-scream the Republican Party, and we shouldn't try. The disinformation that's currently being disseminated by the GOP must be met with facts, a well thought-out plan of action, integrity, and character. Progressives must not only be prepared to demonstrate that the conservative philosophy of hanging on to flawed values of the past prevents society from moving forward, but that character, and integrity counts."

    Study: Black Man and White Felon – Same Chances for Hire

    http://mije.org/printmail/7283http://mije.org/mmcsi/employment/study-black-man-and-white-felon-%E2%80%...

     

    I didn't have to scream once, did I?


    Obama is a classic Regan conservative. Get over it.

    We had an agenda. We swept the elections. We took the house. We put the 60 names Democrats slated in the Senate. And Obama didn't even pretend to fight for it. And you all spent the entire time arguing that we shouldn't even ask him to try.

    This is just more of that. Excuses.


    You sound bitter ;-)  BTW, Regan was Reagan's Treasury Sec & CoS, assume a typo, but maybe a genius bit of insight.... money man to the hilt, key advocate for cutting taxes to stimulate production (forget jobs) and promoting the church of Reaganomics.  (were Ron Hubbard & Ron Reagan secretly the same person?)


    Wow. I'd forgotten all about that guy. Good memory. Sadly, typo.

    The Hubbard/Reagan nexus certainly would explain a few things. Bet there aren't any photographs of them in the same room together.

    Not so much bitter as amused. What the hell do people think would happen next time? I mean, is it even *possible* for an American party to hold a stronger hand than we ushered Obama into office with? Seems hard to imagine. Why would/should anyone expect a different outcome even *if* America were stupid enough to trust Democrats like that again? It doesn't make too much sense.

    The rhetorical move to framing America's alleged failure to give Obama exactly what we handed him when voting him into office in a sort of tea-party-style persecution complex is truly a crowning touch.


    Yes it is possible to have a stronger hand. By having 60 senators.He only had that for the few months between Franken winnng his disputed election and Ted Kennedy dying.


    [Made longer in the hopes of making the initial comment more coherent. Your results will vary.]

    The distinctions drawn in this post and the discussion about them in the comments remind me why the makers of the Political Compass diagram placed the axis of the "economic" scale perpendicular to the axis of the "social" scale. There has been and should be a lot of debate about how the criteria of their analysis locates a political position on their map. Those arguments aside, the two dimensional field itself has the powerful effect of placing all the ideological positions in a relationship to each other.

    From the perspective of such comparisons, the matter of how "ideologically bound" to a set of beliefs any position turns out to be becomes another factor determining where it can be found on the map. One interesting consequence of this technique is that every position has a "practical" method that is in complete harmony with its ideology.

    For instance, different groups or individuals can share a stated set of goals but differ radically in how they think those results will be produced. Gandhi and Gates may have overlapping sets of shared values but their respective means of working toward them may place them into opposition to each other when seen as applications of practical method. Because of that kind of difference, Gandhi and Gates do not share the same coordinates on the map.

    The above has bearing on the subject at hand in the original post because the model of the "ideologically bound" that would rather be correct than effective makes sense in the context of a group working together for stated ends but is not a good instrument for distinguishing how close and/or far the different political agendas relate to each other in real time.

    Consider the Tea Party and their practical method of disrupting forms of compromise that was the status quo a couple of decades ago. The Tea Parties do not suffer the problem of "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good." In their case, the methods of obstruction they employ is a coherent policy that brings about what they hope to achieve by using them.

    For the sake of contrast, consider the "New Democratic" agenda put forward by the Clintons and their team when they had power. Their practical method was carried out in the name of their stated goals. They either tried to do what they had in mind or were completely bullshitting everyone around them. If one decides to treat their legacy as the latter, then they were merely corrupt and had no method. This isn't to argue which is the right answer. But if one chooses the latter, the mapping thing is off. If everything is not anything like what it represents itself to be, history is impossible.

    There are maps and there is the territory. One element that the "ideologically fixed" model does not get right is the character of quietism. When the sum of a practical method requires a thinker to stay out of what happens, that too is a practical method. Choosing not to decide is a decision. Withdrawal from the now in the name of the future is a decision about the now. 

    Politics is like what happens in a mind. Events are shaped by how much and little is understood.


    Latest Comments