Jackson Free Press

I have been away from the writing world for a while, away from the whirling dervishes that are American politics. But I must admit, it's hard to shake off a bad habit, so here I am again, back on my proverbial soapbox.

America rethought itself on Nov. 7, and that rethinking continually inspires me. It tells me that we are not complacent, that we are not apathetic, and most of all, that we really are paying attention. The interesting thing about this country is that the pendulum always swings to and fro, but like Dr. King once said, "The arc of the universe always bends toward justice." Ultimately, then, the pendulum may swing back and forth, but we are always progressing, always moving forward, always keeping our eyes fixated on the shining city upon a hill.

This election was also about honesty. I know it's hard to find and difficult to admit, but honesty made the difference in this election. What do I mean? I mean, specifically, that when Americans are honest and when the ideas are clearly placed before us, we tend to choose progressivism over conservatism.

That appears, I know, unthinkable in a gentle Southern state such as ours. But remember how far we've come. Remember that we did relent over slavery; we did relent over segregation. Now it took a battle, literally, but in the end we chose progressivism. Why?

The ideas of conservatism are man at his worst. Conservatism says "mine," where progressivism says "ours." Progressivism looks toward equality while conservatism looks the other way. Progressivism favors dialogue, and conservatism is constricting and fundamentalist. Progressivism hails compassion and conservatism looks down from his throne. A progressive sees the poor and wonders why. Progressives spread hope and conservatives spread fear.

Conservatism, on nearly every major idea, has lost the battle over the course of history. Why? People have chosen—at great struggle and at peril to their own lives—the progressive vision of compassion, inclusion and hope. Humanity has rejected the constricting ideologies that subjugated so many people. Just look over history and know that democracy is better than monarchy, separation of church and state is better than feudalism (I am a Catholic, though!), equality is better than segregation and slavery, and economic justice is better than serfdom.

Today, we are at a crossroads. We are facing a great civil crisis akin to the 1960s. War is tearing us apart, our economy is increasing the disparity between rich and poor, urban locales are falling apart (Jackson, Detroit), prisons are full, our environment is on the verge of collapse, genocide is rampant across Africa, jobs are being lost, civil rights are being eroded. I could go on.

But are we ready to sacrifice? Are we willing to emulate the sacrifices of Christ, Gandhi, Lincoln, FDR, King and so many others? Are we willing to look another person in the eye and acknowledge their suffering, their dignity and their humanity? This may seem idealistic, but each time we do this, we reject the conservative idea of me and mine. We no longer compartmentalize our world into a selfish individualism. Instead, we recognize our interconnectedness and become one.

Sacrifice means we reject the conservative notion of fear and take on the banner of hope. When good people sacrifice, progress is brought to fruition. Equality trumps inequality, sharing trumps selfishness, and peace trumps war.

The pendulum is surely swinging, and its direction depends on our response. Are we going to be at our best by sacrificing ourselves and our comforts for hope and progress? Or are we going to be at our worst by fearfully grasping at what is mine—my money, my country, my freedom, and my oil?

Will we be able to tell our poor brothers and sisters that we did our best for them? Can we hold a dying person's hand and tell them we sacrificed so they could have health care? Will we talk to a Sudanese boy and tell him we cared enough to tell our president that genocide does matter? Will we tell children in crumbling schools that we voted to raise our taxes? Or will we be consumed by ourselves? At our best, we know what we should choose. It just simply takes being our best.

Let us go forth and be our best, not our worst. That is the simple vision of progressivism.

Previous Comments

ID

74089

Comment

This article really puts things in perspective. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-12-06T19:44:58-06:00

ID

74090

Comment

Yes, and welcome back to our columnist John Sawyer.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-12-06T19:46:36-06:00

ID

74091

Comment

I'll wait for Kingfish to start on this one. :D I'll just note I'm dismayed to see conservatism=evil paraded about again.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-12-06T19:51:51-06:00

ID

74092

Comment

Iron, the only the word "evil" appears on this page is when you just typed it. Have you not noticed that some pretty savory characters have been allowed to take over the "conservative" mantle? If you don't like that fact, and I can't imagine you do, the answer is probably not blaming the messinger.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-12-06T19:57:20-06:00

ID

74093

Comment

Except this is "The ideas of conservatism are man at his worst". It's the same thing I've heard before: Us VS Them. The same demonizing of the opponent.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-12-06T20:59:58-06:00

ID

74094

Comment

Iron, Do remember this is not about US/THEM. It is pointedly assessing human behavior. There are times we are at our WORST and times we are at our BEST. Interestingly, the point of our humanity is to be our BEST and when we do that, we choose the progressive vision.

Author

John Sawyer

Date

2006-12-07T12:49:16-06:00

ID

74095

Comment

I dunno. We're all conservatives, I think, according to somebody else's idea of progress. I mean, take the extreme right--Falwell, Robertson, the Moral Majority Christian jihadi types. Are they really conservatives when they propose radical changes to government policy? No. They're progressives according to their own vision, and from that standpoint, we're the conservatives. This is why, in some ways, I prefer the liberal-conservative dyad to the progressive-conservative or progressive-regressive dyad. Unless we're talking about being progressive on a specific issue--antiracism, feminism, and so forth--then someone can reasonably ask what it is we're progressives about, where we're finding our idea of progress. In the early 20th century--what was called the Progressive Era--there were some very good ideas proposed in the name of progress (prison reform, sanitarium reform, humane treatment of the poor, etc.) and some very bad ideas proposed in the name of progress (criminal anthropology, eugenics, robotic industrialization, etc.) The horrors of World War II and the nuclear age took the word "progressive" out of our vocabulary. I'm glad to see it make a comeback, in some ways, but I don't think there are two visions, one broadly progressive and one broadly conservative, from which we can choose. I think it's much trickier than that. Good to see you back, though! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-09T02:54:03-06:00

ID

74096

Comment

By the way: The single best critique of general progressivism is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. I can't recommend it highly enough. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-09T02:55:19-06:00

ID

74097

Comment

"progressivism is" --> "progressivism that I've read is"

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-09T02:56:48-06:00

ID

74098

Comment

The ideas of conservatism are man at his worst. Conservatism says “mine,” where progressivism says “ours.” Progressivism looks toward equality while conservatism looks the other way. Progressivism favors dialogue, and conservatism is constricting and fundamentalist. Progressivism hails compassion and conservatism looks down from his throne. A progressive sees the poor and wonders why. Progressives spread hope and conservatives spread fear. One of the more ignorant statements I've seen on this site. The evils of communism (gulags, forced collectivization, genocides) were committed under the guise of "ours" as he labeled progessivism. Communism claimed that everyone was equal so everyone was lowered to the same state of degradadtion. EVERY country that has followed this philsophy of everything is "ours" has been an economic disaster and the result has been less freedom. Equality has several meanings. Usually when Conservatives mean equality they mean equality of opportunity or equality before the law where every man is treated the same without respect to race, creed, sex, age, and religon. Conservatives do not consider equality to be equal results. However, this "ours" philosophy has been used by every tyrant, dictator, or totalitarian system to justify their regimes and tactics. I think Mr. Sawyer should go watch Triumph of the Will. He'd probably agree with most of what Hitler says in his speeches (let us not forget Nazism WAS National Socialism and in its time, considered to be "progressive" in nature.). However, conservatives believe in liberty,that means freedom of speech, religious tolerance (don't start throwing out a few nuts like Falwell who are NOT listened to by most conservatives), economic freedom (so if a poor minority wants to start up a business and become successful, thereby benefitting he, his family, and his employees he can), the right to own private property (I wonder if this "ours" philosophy applies to the ownership of property) which benefits rich and poor alike, and the right to be governed by the rule of law, not the arbitrary whims of a government (which is why political systems like the middle east have had problems attracting investors and businesses). Evonomic liberty has been a horrible idea relegated to the dustbin of history. I guess that is why Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and now Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and other countires either have free economies or are giving their economies more freedom, something which Mr. Sawyer must fear. I'll put his comments in the same class as those made by people who say all liberals are stupid and have no ideas or just bad ones.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-12-09T09:01:49-06:00

ID

74099

Comment

Ladd: did you mean unsavory? Who do you mean by the way? There is a difference between Conservatism and the Republican Party just as is there was between so called Progressivism and the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-12-09T09:04:36-06:00

ID

74100

Comment

Kingfish Thanks for you comments. I am sorry this angers you so much, though. Please know, also, that gulags and genocide and collective farms and the ppls of the NAZIs - were conservative at their core. They existed to preserve the powers that be. Do not conflate communisms original goal to how it played out by awful people. WHO WERE AT THEIR WORST! Remember that democracy was once a progressive idea and lassez faire economics. If you existed in the 17th century would you be for the monarch or democracy? If you choose democracy, then you'd be a progressive.

Author

John Sawyer

Date

2006-12-09T10:13:18-06:00

ID

74101

Comment

One of the more ignorant statements I've seen on this site. The evils of communism (gulags, forced collectivization, genocides) were committed under the guise of "ours" as he labeled progessivism. Communism claimed that everyone was equal so everyone was lowered to the same state of degradadtion. Actually, this is one of the more ignorant comments I've seen on this site—you've just tried to turn John's statements about how he believes that compassion is at the heart of progressivism into a belief in communism. That's just stupid. I can't speak for John, but personally I don't find communism to be progressive any more than I do conservatism, at least as it's been shaped and coopted by the extremely greedy. Now, if you believe conservatives believe in the things that you state—which I can buy, in theory—the folks you ought to be attacking are the people who have stolen that particular mantle, not the ones who are calling for progressive compassion. You just sound like you're in denial about what's going on out there. There is a difference between Conservatism and the Republican Party just as is there was between so called Progressivism and the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton. No kidding, on either count. Personally, I call out that point on the Democrats all the time; it's too bad more progressive conservatives don't call it on the Republicans more often and allow themselves to be held hostage by unsavory characters, to repeat my earlier point.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-12-09T10:14:45-06:00

ID

74102

Comment

John: no anger here at all. 1. There was no real push for democracy in the 17th century. In the 18th and 19th there was a push for Republican Forms of government, Rousseau notwithstanding. The French Revolution sought Republican Rome as its ideal. Indeed, Napoleon was the First Consul. In fact, Many so called progressives would've loved Napoleon. Your intellectual brethren cheered him for years as the personification of the progressive ideal. One of the criticisms of Democracy has been its weakness in being manipulated by demagogues preying upon an easily led or illiterate population. I think as you've seen literacy rates rise, democracy has become more widespread and stable (one of Huey Long's arguments for education by the way). Voltaire, as progressive as he was, favored a monarchy or republic at the time as he saw an uneducated population being easily led by demagogues. The reign of terror bore his fears out as an uneducated, downtrodden mob in Paris ruined the country (in response to a lazy out of touch aristocracy) while led by the Committee of 12. 2. I am familiar with the line of thinking that says Stalin, Lenin, Castro et al exploited the power they were given. However, the "ours" philosophy too often means putting everyone on the same level. Some one or some entity has to assume that power in order to achieve the goal. Hayek's argument is when you put that kind of power in the hands of the government, it needs increasing and eventually fatal amounts of control, to achieve those goals. When you place that amount of power in the hands of the government, it will be bastardized and exploited by those that run the government. Augustus ran a pretty good ship in the Pax Romana. Then Caligula figured out how much power he really had and it went downhill from there. The same thing happened in the French Revolution. Marat probably espoused similar views to yourself as well as Danton and others but they succumbed to the end justify the means philosophy and sought to remake the country in their progressive philosophy (this included banishing private property and abolishing the Church by the way). Lenin, Mao, and Castro merely used the power that was created when they led their Communist Revolutions. When the same result happens over and over again when Communists assume office, at some point you have to say its the theory. My point is that when you use communism as an original model, its theoritical basis will lead to tyranny. What you claim were tactics that were conservative at their core because they were trying to preserve power, that could apply to every regime, progressive or non progressive that seeks to stay in power. It is ridiculous to associate conservative with tyranny. If you mean conservative in the sense that things should stay the same, then you would be right. However, if you mean conservative as I defined it above, you are dead wrong. There is not a single conservative who would call gulags and genocide conservative in nature. that is nothing but a smear upon conservatives. 3. Donna: Read The American Spectator online, the Heritage Foundation, NRO, and you will see exactly the debate I mentioned taking place. ALOT of conservatives are attacking the Bushites over the principles I mentioned. If anything, Bush/Rove have opposed strong conservatives and have treated them as a threat more than they have Democrats. No denial at all. As for turning compassion into communism, what lit my fire was his remark about conservatives. When I read that, or Brian saying conservatives have no good ideas, I immediately place that on the same level as those that say liberals have no good ideas or all libertarians are drug users who believe in anarchy. You said someone the other day who criticized all Muslims as being bigoted. I consider blanket statements like that to be either bigoted or ignorant. 4. Now for the REAL question here. You going to sing tonight?

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-12-09T10:43:43-06:00

ID

74103

Comment

John Sawyer writes: Please know, also, that gulags and genocide and collective farms and the ppls of the NAZIs - were conservative at their core. If only this were true. The Nazis applied what was regarded as the very progressive "science" of eugenics on a wider scale than any other civilization in human history, for starters; in fact, the entire Nazi idea of what society should be like resembled a cruel parody of the mainstream progressive movement of the period. The whole reason the notion of "progress" fell out of favor was because of the aftermath of WWII and the nuclear age; in both respects, "progress" started looking a whole lot less appealing and America turned its attention to internal issues, like the oppression taking place under its own nose. Likewise, early communism--which got a really bad rap because of the way it was, you know, applied--was probably the most progressive philosophy of its age. Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! Full equality. A total end to racism and sexism. What could be more progressive than that? Marx and Engels were visionaries--brilliant people, by the standards of their era. I think we could learn a lot from communism, and I think communism probably did influence the New Deal in some ways--and I don't mean that as a slam against communists. Who stood up for the Scottsboro boys? The ACLU? The NAACP? No; it was the communists. Who supported Emmett Till's mother before anyone else would? Once again, the ACLU? The NAACP? No; it was the communists. And did I not see four Socialist Workers' groups represented by strong, intelligent feminists at Reproductive Freedom Summer? So let's not knock communism, please. It was too progressive to work, and the people who put it into effect were megalomaniacs who didn't care about human beings, but on paper it was one of the most progressive philosophies ever set down, and I have a certain amount of admiration for it. If we're going to set out definitions of conservatism and progressivism that are objective, we have to acknowledge ways in which both philosophies can go wrong. If we say that progressivism can't go wrong, then we run the risk of fanaticism. The truth is that there are numerous ways that progressivism can go wrong. Sacrificing individual rights for a paternalistic, communal idea of progress is one of those ways. This doesn't mean that progressivism is wrong; I happen to be a progressive myself. But to paraphrase Dirty Harry, a progressive's gotta know her limitations. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-09T12:11:38-06:00

ID

74104

Comment

They existed to preserve the powers that be. Do not conflate communisms original goal to how it played out by awful people. WHO WERE AT THEIR WORST! Pfft. Nazi's came about because of the horrid sanctions imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versalles. France stuck it to Germany. For the US's part, they forgave the billions Germany owed, but not France. Couple that with a worldwide recession and the unwillingness of the Kaiser to address his nations problems it's not a wonder a revolutionary movement sprang up.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-12-09T12:30:38-06:00

ID

74105

Comment

and the whole idea that progessivism and conservatism can be broken down into mine versus ours is an insult to both ideologies and very simplistic.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-12-09T12:48:04-06:00

ID

74106

Comment

Iron, thanks for your comments. I like a lot of what you said. Just a couple of thoughts: You said, "My point is that when you use communism as an original model, its theoritical basis will lead to tyranny." First, I am not a communist. So, don't sound the red alert. :) Second, there can be tyranny in any form of government. We had it during slavery and perpetuated it during the civil rights struggle. What I am arguing, instead, is that we - as human beings - have to be at our best. When we are at our "best" then progressive ideas trump conservative ideas. We choose equality, economic justice, peace, and hope, and all those feel good things. We do this, simply because its in our innate human good side. When we clamor for what is ours - our things, our freedom. When we yell "mine" "mine" "mine", then we are becoming conservatives. And, just because i use "ours" does not mean i am asking for collective farms. But, I am asking for sharing. And, as Martha Stewart would say, "Its a good thing." I guess you could ask Jesus. On another note, I am against abortion and euthanasia. but, i am studying for finals and i don't have time to propel that into a progressive framework right now. peace to you.

Author

John Sawyer

Date

2006-12-09T12:48:40-06:00

ID

74107

Comment

Ladd: I can't believe you criticized me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYLb4gzoRH4

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-12-09T12:50:19-06:00

ID

74108

Comment

John, while I thank you for your compliment, I don't think I said that. :)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-12-09T12:50:30-06:00

ID

74109

Comment

I don't have much time, either, but a few fleeting thoughts: 1. Kingfish, you are being very quick to define "progressivism" in political terms—but then you don't want "conservatism" defined in easy political terms. I think John is doing something that make people uncomfortable here—attempting to rise above politics to an ideology of compassion—which per his definition, and mine, is at its very core progressive. Neither of us are talking about political movements of all, so there's only so much relevance to your attempts to trot out (revisionist) historical references. You're missing the point. 2. I wonder if you put nearly as much effort into defending "liberalism" against what you perceive to be political attacks as you are conservatism. If you hadn't noticed—and you claim you have, kind of—political "conservatives" have attacks every single liberal (in the classical sense) principle in recent years, as well as most that have anything to do with compassion. Compassionate progressives have been belittled, lied about, twisted and proverbially spat upon for simply caring for other people. Cheers to John for calling a spade a spade. 3. I'm fully aware that there is a debate among "conservatives" about what is "conservative." And I'm aligned with true conservatives on a number of issues—globalization, attacks on our individual rights, Frank Melton's branding of "policing," and so on. If you could stop your knee from jerking to defend po witta conservatives (who must take personal responsibility for allowing cads to coopt their ideology, by the way), you might see the bigger picture here. 4. You said someone the other day who criticized all Muslims as being bigoted. I consider blanket statements like that to be either bigoted or ignorant. Ah, can we take that as a pledge that you will stop making such statements then and call out every single person you see doing it? I didn't think so. 5. You going to sing tonight? I don't sing. But I do entertain. 6. The whole communism tangent is predictable, and sad, 'Fish. Everytime someone tries to stand up for progressive ideas in this state—even against state-forced segregation—we get called a "communist." You should know just makes the name-caller look stupid. 7. Cheers to John for pricking consciences that need pricking.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-12-09T13:09:06-06:00

ID

74110

Comment

Ladd: I don't have that much of a problem with the progressive part of what he wrote per se. There are parts of so called progressivism with which I disagree. However, where I had the problem was his blanket statements about conservatism. As for liberalism, you've never seen me make blanket statements about liberals on here such as all of their ideas being dumb, all liberals are stupid or evil, etc. I challenge you to find where I've written such things. However, I do think it is VERY simplistic to say that progessive is defined by "ours" and conservatism is defined by daffy duck screaming mine mine mine. I'll take that to its extreme (and I've said I don't define political conservatism as being simply resistent to change. Freedom/liberty allows for all sorts of changes. It is the central planner who hates change). The "ours" philosophy can be taken to infringe upon individual rights. You're a journalist. Take the polls that show people think freedom of the press should be limited or if if it offends certain groups some journalism (and I have no particular groups in mind) or speech should be banned. Is that a progressive philosophy? Or is it merely collectivist in nature. A libertarian would defend the absolute freedom of the press and free speech under such circusmstances, a conservative probably would as well. Would a progressive? I don't know. Is progressivism collectivism by another name? I'd like to see it defined. I've attempted to give some definition to conservatism, which to a large degree is classical liberalism. However, I did not bring up just communism. I brought up National Socialism and the French Revolution as other examples of what at the time was called a progressive way of thinking. The reason why some people immediately associate communism with it is because too many so called progressives also tend to be communists, socialists, liberals, etc. I do read the International Socialist Review from time to time. It is filled with people calling themselves progressives while proclaiming their adherence to Marxism. Am I supposed to ignore their words in a national publication? My conscience hasn't been pricked at all. I just have contempt for blanket statments. Yes, liberalism has brought about some good changes. So has conservatism. That is the point that is missesd by Mr. Sawyer.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-12-09T13:26:41-06:00

ID

74111

Comment

I consider myself a progressive, here again, but I'm generally wary of any statement that makes it all look like a simple good people vs. bad people dichotomy, because it's not usually that simple. And I think that we have to be very cautious about the falsifiability of hypotheses--if there is no such thing as bad progressivism, then we start settling into a "no true Scotsman" mentality, which is not good for the kind of rigorous public policy analysis we need. As far as communism goes, one of the great ironies of all this is that civil rights organizers were labeled communists unfairly, when they weren't, but that many early American communists were fantastic civil rights organizers. I mean, seriously, look at the Scottsboro history. Even the NAACP didn't want to get mixed up in that; it was too volatile. But who didn't mind it? The communists. And it was a professing communist, Roger Nash Baldwin, who basically put the ACLU together and served as its executive director for the first 30 years (though he abandoned communism after the Nazi-Soviet Pact of '37, as many communists of the period did). I think that as a country we need to be proud of our communists, because some of them were amazing human beings, and there is no telling where we'd be as a nation without them. But at the same time, we don't need to lump all progressive thinkers together as "communists," because the vast majority of progressives simply don't believe in collective ownership and state redistribution of wealth, much less the Soviet agenda. With the collapse of the USSR, hopefully we can have a real debate about how much of communism is worth keeping. I consider myself a social liberal--which is to say that I think the basic goals of socialism are admirable, and that some of them are worth incorporating into our capitalistic system. I am not, strictly speaking, a socialist, but I'm not, strictly speaking, a capitalist either. I fall somewhere in between. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-09T15:11:02-06:00

ID

74112

Comment

As for liberalism, you've never seen me make blanket statements about liberals on here such as all of their ideas being dumb, all liberals are stupid or evil, etc. I challenge you to find where I've written such things. I believe I asked you if you had challenged them here and elsewhere as stringently as you kneejerk responses to any criticisms of popular "conservatism." I don't recall you being so quick on that front. Tom, I think you read John's column differently than I did. And the "bad progressivism" point seems to be a straw man. I don't see anyone saying that people calling themselves "progressives" couldn't possibly be bad or negative. That seems a bit astray from the points that John made—which strikes me as calling for a type of inclusive, compassionate progressivism that repels this ugly kind of political "conservatism" we've been served of late, that still includes people with different views (he's against abortion rights, for instance, and I'm not). You could put it this way: The folks who are shaping the "conservative" mantle are due a good public flogging for their actions of late. Beyond that, John raises a compelling larger point: Can an *ideology* (not necessarily individual issues) based on fear and "conserving" the status quo actually ever serve and help "progress" the common good? That's a biggie.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-12-09T15:33:21-06:00

ID

74113

Comment

And agreed on the Scottsboro example. That's way different than assuming that folks are communist who believe in helping others. But you know that, of course, even if others who pass through here don't.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-12-09T15:34:15-06:00

ID

74114

Comment

Donna writes: Beyond that, John raises a compelling larger point: Can an *ideology* (not necessarily individual issues) based on fear and "conserving" the status quo actually ever serve and help "progress" the common good? That's a biggie. I think sometimes it can. Not that the folks carrying that banner in our national politics are doing that right now, or even that they're real conservatives if we want to get technical about it (they're right-wing radicals, and I see conservatism as the opposite of any and all radicalism--regardless of what kind of radicalism it is), but if you're presented with a bad idea and don't want to carry through with it, you are by definition taking a conservative position. Let's say I walked up to you and said: "Hey, Donna, why don't you print the Free Press on bright green onionskin? That'll really make it stand out." And you said "Well, no, I like the way it's going now." You'd be the conservative. I'd be, by my own warped definition, a progressive. It sounds to me like when you and John say "progressive," you're talking about humanitarianism. And it's true that all politics that reject humanitarianism are evil, and right now the most popular flavor of conservatism in Washington does, so it's evil, too. But I think we need to get away from the idea that progressivism always necessarily does a job of serving humanitarian interests, or that conservatism always necessarily doesn't. I also think it's very important, when we draw stark contrasts between good and evil, that we define our terms. Yes, the Bush administration's social policy agenda is evil. I will say that without hesitation. Yes, evil ideology lost and good ideology won on November 7th. I will say that without hesitation. But I am very cautious about marrying myself to the progressive movement by saying that it's intrinsically good, or rejecting permanently the conservative movement by saying that it's intrinsically evil, because there are times and issues about which to be conservative, and times and issues about which to be progressive, and the terminology is so flaky anyway. When I work to preserve Roe v. Wade, which is the status quo, am I not doing the conservative thing? But nobody would use that word to describe it. To be honest, I have a problem with the whole word "progressivism" because it implies a very linear, temporal idea of things. I prefer the word "radical" as an antonym to conservative (and I do consider myself a radical). Colloquially, I describe myself as a liberal, almost never as a progressive, though occasionally I use the word out of solidarity with others. I just think that if we get it down to progress vs. regress, we may as well just say "good" and "evil" altogether and be done with it; it's hard to have a really rigorous discussion of something when we come in with the belief that one position or the other necessarily represents progress. Of course, I recognize the PR benefits of saying progressive instead of liberal, and certainly instead of radical. But I just don't like the word, personally, because I think it describes our feelings about the ideology, and not necessarily the ideology itself. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-09T16:02:50-06:00

ID

74115

Comment

Given so many dimensions (issue positions and extent/degree) of this, nobody can do justice to the ideoogy issues on this thread. However, I will say this. Economically: degrees of Capitalism and Socialism -- (a) anarcho-libertarianism (b) Victorian Britain (c) 1920s USA (d) post WW2 USA (e) today's USA (f) 1945-80 British Socialism (g) Contemporary Continental European Socialism (h) don't know about this one, but it's halfway between (g) and (i) (i) Total state ownership of all "means of production (wealth creation)", i.e., "communism" (acutally "temporary worker's dictatorship that is supposed to transition into true Communism") True communism never became a reality in any so called "Communist" country, of course. As for the "conservative" end of the scale, I'd really hesitate to call Fascism a true form of conservatism, given that their various philosophies seemed to see their nation as an organism (i.e. dog-eat-dog competition between nations, ethnic groups, etc) while actually being fairly "big government" in largeses to their "favored citizens". Even to the extent they favored private enterprise, fascists still had a nasty tendency to control (though not own) businesses. The latter especially does not sound like conservatism Conservatism, to me, has to do with either preservation of the status quo or favor a less rapid pace of change. It certainly has nothing to do with Fascism or Naziism - except to the extent that Fascists and Nazis used big business and the traditional trappings of religiousity to catapult themselves to power. At closest, they were seriously distorted forms of conservatism. Certainly they're nothign Edmund Buirke would have supported had he lived then.

Author

Philip

Date

2006-12-09T16:29:34-06:00

ID

74116

Comment

Well said, Philip. I couldn't agree more. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-09T16:56:59-06:00

ID

74117

Comment

I can agree with that.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-12-09T17:01:30-06:00

ID

74118

Comment

good points all around. it is important to not wholly attach ourselves to an entire ideology and stop thinking. i think it is important, though to realize that all the major points conservatism agrees on (democracy, "freedom," liberty, rule of law, private property, capitalism, and so forth) were once thought of as progressive or 'liberal" or whatever label you give it. and, now, each time our society goes through the birth pangs of progressivism (democracy, anti slavery, equal voting, civil rights, economic justice/social welfare), CONSERVATIVES are always the ones doing as Barry Goldwater said: Standing athwart history and yelling stop. But, why? Yes, we do not want a government run "a muck." But, why is there an ideology whose simple cause is stop all of the HOPE and pander to FEAR? FEAR of gays, fear of poor people, fear of labor, fear of immigrants, fear of Arabs. I acknowledge that progressive might not be "right" all the time. But, is the conventional conservatism of today really worth rallying behind? I doubt it. It really is man at his worst.

Author

John Sawyer

Date

2006-12-09T22:51:50-06:00

ID

74119

Comment

[quote]But, is the conventional conservatism of today really worth rallying behind? I doubt it. It really is man at his worst.[/quote] *sigh* Tom laid it out very well up there. Bushism isn't conventional conservatism. It's Corporations First, People Last government.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-12-09T23:33:49-06:00

ID

74120

Comment

I think that the main problem here is how the terms "progressive", "liberal" and "conservative" are defined. For me personally, i believe what i believe--call it what you want. It seems that when conservatives through the term liberal out there they mean something different than what liberals might consider for themselves and vice versa. Frankly, I have to agree with Kingfish on some of this--that the ideas of classic conservatism--equal rights, limited federal government, the right to free enterprise, etc. are certainly not "man at his worst." Conservatives believe in sharing too. They just don't believe that the government needs to be involved in it. Conservatives (according to a study the topic of a previous forum on this site) tend to give more than liberals do. I personally was extremely disappointed to read some of the statements in the column, especially the villification of conservatives because--as has been said on this site many times--dividing the whole rainbow of political ideas out there into two sides serves no purpose and is the type of thinking that really runs this country into the ground. Yes, I know, conservatives do it too. Rush Limbaugh and others aught to be ashamed of themselves for playing this game. Bush and his "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude has certainly been a detriment to this country. And John ought to be ashamed of the lack of thought that was put into the statement "conservatism is man at his worst". this statement essentially says that i, who consider myself conservative in the traditional sense, must be greedy and bad. I know I am neither. This country needs to get past arguing about labels, and get to the business of discussing real solutions to real problems.

Author

djames

Date

2006-12-10T00:44:39-06:00

ID

74121

Comment

And besides, i think we can all get together and say, yes, Nazism was bad. Stalin was bad. Being selfish is usually bad. Conservative or liberal or progressive--none of us endorse these things. So, why use them to attack someone. It is simply pointless. THere are much better things to argue about.

Author

djames

Date

2006-12-10T00:49:34-06:00

ID

74122

Comment

Great discussion. Thanks to everyone. You guys are helping me overcome some of my general ignorance about political systems and political history. I do have two comments though, related to the original column. First, it is my experience that a person's politics are a very poor indicator of their personal generosity of spirit. I have found kindness, love, determination, courage, unselfishess, honor, grace, and honesty in both conservatives and progressives. I have found the absencce of these things in both types as well. I find very little correlation between people's politics and the degree to which they possess these qualities. I have my own thoughts about why this is, but I'm sure the real reasons are quite complicated. But, regardless of the reasons, I believe the general observation to be true. The second thing I wanted to note is that in his lifetime Jesus was entirely apolitical. Many have noted that he refused to particapte in violent action, but what is less often noted is that he never advocated for nonviolent action either. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did not teach civil diobedience. If anything, he taught that his followers should simply submit to the goverment, because government was irrelevant to his mission (his "Kingdom"). So, whenever I see Jesus entered into political discussion in any way, I get a little nervous. At least in his lifetime, he was entirely apolitical.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-12-10T03:11:46-06:00

ID

74123

Comment

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is Gods" Matthew 22, for the record. :)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-12-10T12:05:05-06:00

ID

74124

Comment

Conservatives fear Arabs? Please explain this one.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-12-10T12:26:58-06:00

ID

74125

Comment

This country needs to get past arguing about labels, and get to the business of discussing real solutions to real problems. It's interesting food for thought to consider that we might not be able to do that until "conservatives" see how it feels to have the tables turned. It is a tad ironic that after at least 12 years (really, more) of an absolute demonization of "liberals," the claws come out when the tables are turned in this one column based on a philosophy of compassion and helping others. I agree that this is a good and necessary discussion even if it makes some folks uncomfortable—and one that can help lead us past political stereotyping. My personal definition of "progressive" does not pander to political stereotypes; however, it does entail the willingness to call out "conservatives" for ideas they have pushed, or allowed to be pushed in their name, for years now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-12-10T12:40:52-06:00

ID

74126

Comment

A column of "compassion and helping others" that talked about how conservative ideas are the worst ideas man has created and does nothing but harm people and does so at length. All I took from that column was the author saying I am a good person, I like to help other people, my ideas for doing so are right, and the conservatives who oppose them are bad people and all of their ideas are evil and bring out the worst in people. If you want to defend that or say that is your way of thinking, feel free to do so. However, I defined Conservatism in a way that most serious and informed individuals would agree is a reasonable definition of it. Mr. Sawyer refuses to make see the distinction between that (which in the past was called classical liberalism, a term I know you are familiar with) and the classic dictionary definition which is resistant to change. I'm curious to see how much time he has spent on conservative websites where he would see many serious and diverse opinions on modern issues facing our society. Classical liberalism/conservatism HAS promoted quote a few ideas that changed things. Many of the ideals of the Enlightenment that formed the basis of our free society (I'd say Voltairean ones instead of Rousseau), free markets, the right to own private property, and other ideas. And Ms Ladd: You ducked my question. Define Progressivism. I said the reason why I tend to lump progressives in with other leftists is because when I read Marxist magazines they call themselves progressives. I'd like to know exactly what progressivism is (and I included other examples besides Communism and Nazism). Your bias shows a little bit to say the least here. I defend Conservatism in a serious manner and get repeatedly accused of a kneejerk and immediate reaction. Mr. Sawyer makes blanket statements about conservatives which are pretty ignorant and bigoted in and of themselves and gets a free pass. These were statements that were not mere afterthoughts in his column either. I think what some of you have a problem with is a vigorous defense of conservatism on this thread. A spirited defense of Progressivism is a flogging. A spirited defense of Conservatism is kneejerk and shows they are uncomfortable.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-12-10T13:32:17-06:00

ID

74127

Comment

Ladd wrote: One of the more ignorant statements I've seen on this site. The evils of communism (gulags, forced collectivization, genocides) were committed under the guise of "ours" as he labeled progessivism. Communism claimed that everyone was equal so everyone was lowered to the same state of degradadtion. Actually, this is one of the more ignorant comments I've seen on this site—you've just tried to turn John's statements about how he believes that compassion is at the heart of progressivism into a belief in communism. That's just stupid. If you look at the rhetoric various tyrants use such as the Roman Emperors, The Committee of 12, the Communists whenever they take power, the fascists, etc. they all use that rherotic or something similar to it. Not so stupd at all when you look at it in that light. As I've said repeatedly, in Marxist publications they call themselves progressives. Which is it? (see, unlike some on this thread, I read what the other side writes).

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-12-10T13:46:12-06:00

ID

74128

Comment

I thought we'd discussed this one reasonably well. Hm.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-12-10T14:08:28-06:00

ID

74129

Comment

Its been a pretty good discussion. I pretty much agree with everything Tom wrote.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-12-10T14:17:40-06:00

ID

74130

Comment

Kingfish wrote: However, I defined Conservatism in a way that most serious and informed individuals would agree is a reasonable definition of it. The key word is I. That definition is used to make conservatives feel better about their policies. Sure, conservatives can tout their ideology BUT, kingfish, how does it play out in the real world? It plays out by what we have seen in the past 6 years of Bush. All we have seen thoughout history is a conservative mantra of staying the course, staying still, holding to banal policies. Progressives offer hope in light this. Are you a hopeful person? All the great social movements for freedom, equality, and justice (even those AGAINST the USSR and in China) have been based on progressive principles of a hopeful tomorrow. Even the Reagan administration supported groups opposed to the Communists like the Solidarity movement which was essentially a labor union! Kingfish - you also wandered how much time I have spent understanding Conservatives. I used to be president of the college republicans at millsaps and executive director of the state college republicans. Please know I am quite well versed. The point is this: 1. The classic liberalism/conservative ideology was progressive in its day. Would you have been rooting for the monarch? 2. Current Conservatism can hide in its "theoretical" positions but the real world sees its results. Just look around at the nations looming debt, pro military policies, lack of regulation (e.g. labor standards, environmental standards), lack of social welfare policies (e.g. 44 million without healthcare, crumbling schools) and so forth. 3. If we are to build a just world and that is what we are to do. Then, do we build it on holding still and EVERY MAN for himself. Or, do we do it with new ideas and promoting community? I think the answer is clear. Kingfish. You also accused me of being "ignorant and bigoted" about conservatives. I did not attack people, but their ideology. In the spirit of good debate, let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Calling me bigoted is a tad low and we are talking about ideas, here, not people. And, the marxism routine is getting old. I guess I could go on some white supremacists websites and see how they call themselves conservatives, but i'll keep us above that.

Author

John Sawyer

Date

2006-12-10T15:14:35-06:00

ID

74131

Comment

I didn't duck a damn thing, Kingfish. I write about and live the definition of "progressivism" as I see it everyday. As for your reading of John's column, it seems quite kneejerk and limited to defending your own track record. Which is fine. I wouldn't have written, nor do I agree, with everything the way John said it, either—but I see the need for it to be said in order to prick certain people's consciousness, and draw to the top an analogy of how "liberals" (very widely defined) have been treated in this country since, easily, the early 1980s. Two wrongs don't make a right, but they can make for damn fine discussion in extreme cases. This is one of those, I think.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-12-10T15:15:07-06:00

ID

74132

Comment

And, the marxism routine is getting old. I guess I could go on some white supremacists websites and see how they call themselves conservatives, but i'll keep us above tha Two points on that one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-12-10T15:15:58-06:00

ID

74133

Comment

Someone--I am trying to remember who, and I'm thinking it was C.S. Lewis--once talked about how dangerous it was to have "angels" in one's philosophy: Progress being one he mentioned, Chastity and Temperance being others. That virtues, in other words, need to be rigorously analyzed, never taken for granted. I have said for years that the only value I'm willing to accept without analysis is Love, but even there, I have to look very hard to make sure what kind of love I'm acting out of. If you bomb a continent to impress your fiancee, that's not really love. In other words, I'm thinking the last words of the elderly St. John, the Beloved Disciple, in exile: "Little children, keep away from idols." (Or maybe that was "Little children, love one another." He said both; I can't remember which he said last. I always liked St. John.) There are things I do like about this article. The Democratic Party had no moral values to speak of in 2004. It reclaimed them in 2006, sometimes by default, but it reclaimed them. Maybe by 2008 it'll be ready to shout those values from the rooftops. There is a secular, humanitarian vision of how this country can work that the Democratic Party can reclaim that the Republican Party, by and large, does not seem to want. But I would be reticent to put these down to the terms "progressive" and "conservative." I'm also kind of bummed out that the word "liberal" is apparently in such poor currency these days that "progressive," a word with a far more problematic history, has actually supplanted it. I mean, what's wrong with just being a liberal? Why do we need to tie this in with the very dangerous idea of progress for progress' sake? Liberalism is not utopian; it comes from the Latin liberalis, or "that which we associate with a liberated person." Progressive is utopian; it implies that we are moving ahead in lockstep towards some perfect society, rather than experimenting, questioning, debating. I don't like that whole vision, and I'm not saying I don't like the values people claim when they describe themselves as progressives, but I just don't like what the term says. I also don't like the fact that it is so value-neutral, despite its utopianism--if the Democratic Party decides that the progressive vision is one that affirms a ban on abortion, then that can be "progressive." Much harder to describe that as liberal because of the word's history. I also can't really see conservatives referring to us as "progressives" on a consistent basis for very long, which will create one more situation where--a la the "pro-life"/"anti-life" vs. "pro-choice"/"anti-choice" terminology distinction--we can't even agree on the basic vocabulary for our public policy debate. And there may be a time when we find ourselves as "conservatives" arguing against a "progressive" vision. I mean, Woodrow Wilson was pushed as our most progressive president, and he brought us closer to fascism than any president in U.S. history. So I just don't really like this. Utopianism comes with dangers, and the word "progressive" is very utopian. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-10T18:51:36-06:00

ID

74134

Comment

For the record, I don't believe that there is anything "conservative" about how the current republican party has been operating. to me, conservative means limited federal government. Real conservatives have should no problem with gay marriage. I personally don't. I don't oppose it on the basis that government should not be involved in marriage. Marriage has traditionally been a religious word, and if gays can find a church that will marry them, then good for them. civil unions, on the other hand, are contracts that can and should be enforced in the courts for the purposes of dividing up property in a dissolution of the civil union, and should be looked on as any other contract (i.e. partnership agreement for a business). And as far as I'm concerned, any two (or three or however many people) can enter into a contract as they see fit to determine the terms of said contract. Please also note that I am not say endorsing any of these things. I just do not oppose them. I don't have to like something for it to be legal. Frankly, its none of my business--and it certainly should be none of the governments business. It is my believe that the purpose of government is to protect those rights which we can all agree on-- the right to life, the right to free speech, the right of free enterprise, the right to education, the right to enter into contracts without hindrance, the right of a free press, and the right to pretty do well what we damn please as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. Beyond that and issues of a national defense, the government should have little or no control over our lives. And that is pretty much how i define "conservative." some might call it progressive, i don't know.

Author

djames

Date

2006-12-10T19:48:00-06:00

ID

74135

Comment

and on the basis of that definition, i don't see how john can characterize conservatism as "man at his worst."

Author

djames

Date

2006-12-10T19:50:39-06:00

ID

74136

Comment

djames, there was a time when your definition of conservatism was the operating definition. I would be DELIGHTED if the Republican Party believed as you did. There are good Republicans--Lincoln Chafee, sadly on his way out, being one of them--who still believe that. I'm tempted to put tongue firmly in cheek and say: Liberal: One who believes that the government should feed the poor. Conservative: One who believes that churches and other nonprofits should feed the poor. Rat Bastard: One who believes that nobody should feed the poor. The trouble right now is that we have too many rat bastards in the conservative movement. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-10T19:55:05-06:00

ID

74137

Comment

tom, great points. djames, thanks for you ideas! but there is one point: if the government is out of our lives - who takes care of those who are needy? i guess the churches do? which is fine by me - but it seems the government is a more secure guarantor of taking care of the oppressed and vulnerable --john

Author

John Sawyer

Date

2006-12-10T22:46:37-06:00

ID

74138

Comment

John: The government has always been quick to remind the poor and downtrodden who is doing the helping and whom to vote for in November. They'd also be happy to help carry them there, and help them fill out the forms... Exploitation.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-12-10T23:03:39-06:00

ID

74139

Comment

IG, no question, but the poor still need to be fed. I mean, that's the real paradox of all this--we're debating which group of professional sociopaths (which is mostly what politicians get paid to be--e.g., folks who try to keep as many mutually compatible donor groups happy as possible without letting their own consciences come into play) has the more moral approach to government. I'm sure Democrats look at focus groups and exit poll data and so forth when they talk about raising the minimum wage, and I'm sure Republicans do the same when they talk about cutting taxes. With very, very few exceptions, I believe that politicians are, at best, machines operated by special interest groups. Our job is to make sure those machines perform in the way that benefits as many people as possible. I don't expect much in the way of morality from professional politicians, but we have the opportunity as activists and concerned citizens to oil a gear every now and then, or tighten a bolt, or change a battery, in these political machines--so that their animatronic limbs can be moved, however slowly and awkwardly, to lift and carry those who need to be lifted and carried. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-11T01:17:54-06:00

ID

74140

Comment

What's really in a name or concept. You either care or don't. You either will or you won't. Are names and concepts any more than excuses to explain why you will or won't, or you do or you don't. The author talked about caring and doing. Who can really sanely or justifiably argue with that. Doing and caring are what we need. I do mean we, and we need it whether it benefits us personally or not. Doing and caring are what Jesus did, wasn't it? When God pour out his payment to us based on our deeds or merits I'd be surprised if he didn't kill or punish all the label/concept followers first. "I don't know much but I know I love you." If I didn't love you I would find some label or concept to excuse it.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-12-11T09:52:00-06:00

ID

74141

Comment

Well put, Ray.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-12-11T10:31:30-06:00

ID

74142

Comment

john- in response, i dunno. the governments track record isn't exactly stellar. I think the most secure guarantee of taking care of the poor and others is the basic good nature of man--at least that is what i'd like to believe. And that basic good nature will certainly outlast any government.

Author

djames

Date

2006-12-12T04:44:12-06:00