Inside the Mind of a Leftist--"Progressive"

[89Hen]

After doing some of my own research on Chavez I learned a lot...I'm now "neutral" regarding him... but he's no more of a dictator than Obama or Bush

Note to self... never hire Cleets to do research.

[kalm]

I have never defended the U.S. media machine... it's a complete farce
and has been ever since I can remember

After living in Europe for a while and then coming home to America to listen to Ronald Reagan call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and see the media eat that up... from that point forward even as a teenager I knew something was seriously wrong

All empires are the same... we just happen to like ours - it's a nice position
The Reagan political policy in Central and South America (and for the past 85 year) isn't any different than what any other Empire does - it's just the way it is... Insert puppet / capitalize and control their resources at pennies on the dollar / act horrified when there's a revolution / insert new puppet / re-establish control of the resources / act horrified when theirs a revolution / repeat as necessary...

The denial of that obvious observable historical fact is frighteningly common and simultaneously tragic...

Say what?

Ronald Reagan was eviscerated by the American press for calling the USSR an "Evil Empire". In what alternate universe do you live? If any press were to "eat that up" it would have been the European press who had to actually live in the shadow of the Soviets with their missiles deployed in eastern Europe pointed straight at them.

You need to go back several more years to see exactly how US policy in Central and South America started. That 'great' "Progressive" Woodrow Wilson intervened with military force more times in Central America and the Caribbean than any president in history. That allowed him to shape the direction of that part of the world and allowed the US to install repressive military puppet dictatorships all throughout Latin America.

So are leftist latin americans progressive or not?

[Chizzang]

It's actually kind of exciting to know I've "disappointed" so many of the Republican ideologues...

[AZGrizFan]

It's actually kind of exciting to know I've "disappointed" so many of the Republican ideologues...

you got a little "cleet" goin'?

[Chizzang]

It's actually kind of exciting to know I've "disappointed" so many of the Republican ideologues...

you got a little "cleet" goin'?

Actually most of you guys on this forum know more about me politically than just about anybody else in my life...
I rarely engage in political debate or chat social issues with my friends or family

That's the actual value of this site - a guy can get it out - say it - and be done with it, and not have to carry it around in my personal life. A kind of daily political cleansing

The fact that any regular old America would care about Hugo Chavez or have an opinion about him based on what the American Media Machine has spoon fed them is pretty silly - but that's what makes it all so fun...

[kalm]

unfortunately the books seem to fall into two distinct categories
1) Complete hatred and corporate sponsored misinformation
2) Overt romanticization of Worker Utopia crap

He's kicked out quite a few major corporations who were monopolizing the natural resources and paying back nothing to the working class basically ravaging the country... so their are a whole bunch of really pissed of Multi-National big guys who would love to see him get nixed...

also

There are a bunch of left wing nut balls like Oliver Stone who line up to blow Chavez because he's "A Man for the people" and all that happy horse sh!t... so you get a lot of overly romantic utopian drivel


I've used mostly:
CBC News World (Canadian News Corp)
Global Post News
BBC International
Christian Science Monitor

a steady mixture of them all

That's cool. I mostly try to get my news from Democracy Now and Free Speech Radio. Although FSR is very limited in their coverage of just about everything. I watch Democracy Now just about ever day for my news.

Democracy Now is a really good source of old school, dry, just the facts, news.

Although I must admit, they take all the fun out of being a slovenly, consumptive, ugly, American.

[D1B]

After doing some of my own research on Chavez I learned a lot...
I of course because CNN ABC NBC Fox and all U.S. Media conglomerates tell me he's a dictator that's what I assumed and that seemed fine... but I looked deeper and searched for more information

How much personal research have you done on Chavez..?

I suggest we question the common perception spoon fed to us...
He's a complex character - not exactly what the US Media and our Federal Govt. would like us to believe
Do I like him...
I'm now "neutral" regarding him... but he's no more of a dictator than Obama or Bush

You have just invalidated your few sensible posts.

Sure thing Drill Baby Drill. It's been a pleasure watching Cleets annihilate you, Baldy and the rest of the Palin in 2012 contingen.

[Gil Dobie]

I don't know, just not too keen on Chavez Human rights record of putting opponents in jail.

Associated Press
04/01/10 6:40 PM EDT

CARACAS, VENEZUELA — Amnesty International on Thursday accused the government of President Hugo Chavez of using Venezuela's judiciary to persecute its opponents.

The human rights group condemned what it called "a series of politically motivated arrests" last month involving three Chavez foes: former presidential candidate Oswaldo Alvarez Paz, opposition lawmaker Wilmer Azuaje and television executive Guillermo Zuloaga.

"Charges brought for political reasons against critics are being used to silence dissent and prevent others from speaking out," Guadalupe Marengo, Amnesty International's deputy director for the Americas, said in a statement.

"President Chavez must stop persecuting those who think differently or speak out against his government," Marengo said.

Amnesty International joined a growing number human rights organizations that have recently raised concerns that Chavez is using judges and prosecutors to punish political adversaries.

Chavez disputes that he is trying to silence dissident. He also denies that he holds sway over the judiciary, but he has defended the recent arrests, saying anybody who breaks Venezuela's laws should be held responsible for their acts.

Last month, prosecutors brought criminal charges against Zuloaga, the majority shareholder of Globovision, Venezuela's lone anti-Chavez television channel, and Alvarez Paz for making remarks that authorities deemed misleading and offensive to the president.

Both deny any wrongdoing and say they stand by their statements.

In a letter sent to news media this week, Alvarez Paz called himself a political prisoner.

"I'm locked up for giving an opinion, alerting and criticizing the government regarding issues that are of public knowledge," he wrote.

Azuaje, who has charged corruption within Chavez's family circle, was arrested March 25 for allegedly striking a police officer — a claim he calls false. The lawmaker argues Chavez is using prosecutors to punish him for his accusations against the president's relatives

[travelinman67]

After doing some of my own research on Chavez I learned a lot...I'm now "neutral" regarding him... but he's no more of a dictator than Obama or Bush

Note to self... never hire Cleets to do research.

"So like, I'm listening to Radio Free Canada, and like, they're showing how Bush was really a dictator, man..."

[89Hen]

The fact that any regular old America would care about Hugo Chavez or have an opinion about him based on what the American Media Machine has spoon fed them is pretty silly - but that's what makes it all so fun...

Hey, I get my intel from Sean Penn. He's not part of the media machine.

[VictorG]

When did "Progressives" get linked to the far left? Currently, the Republicans like to toss "Progressives" into that lot, but I think there is a historic difference.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies. The Progressive Movement began in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.

In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson and current President Barack Obama .[1]

Despite being associated with left-wing politics in the United States, the term "progressive" has occasionally been used by groups not particularly left-wing. The Progressive Democrats in the Republic of Ireland took the name "progressivism" despite being considered centre-right or classical liberal. The European Progressive Democrats was a mainly heterogeneous political group in the European Union. For most of the period from 1942-2003, the largest conservative party in Canada was the Progressive Conservative Party.

In the United States there have been several periods where progressive political parties have developed. The first of these was around the turn of the 20th century. This period notably included the emergence of the Progressive Party, founded in 1912 by President Theodore Roosevelt. This progressive party was the most successful third party in modern American history. The Progressive Party founded in 1924 and the Progressive Party founded in 1948 were less successful than the 1912 version. There are also two notable state progressive parties: the Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Vermont Progressive Party. The latter is still in operation and currently has several high ranking positions in state government.

Today, most progressive politicians in the United States associate with the Democratic Party or the Green Party US. In the US Congress there exists the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is often in opposition to the more conservative Democrats, who form the Blue Dogs caucus. Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, John Lewis, and Paul Wellstone.

[CitadelGrad]

It's all about context. In the current American political context, "progressive" means leftist. How the word is used in Canada and Ireland doesn't matter.

[kalm]

It's all about context. In the current American political context, "progressive" means leftist. How the word is used in Canada and Ireland doesn't matter.

Please feel free to make up whatever definition suits your feelings.

[Baldy]

It's all about context. In the current American political context, "progressive" means leftist. How the word is used in Canada and Ireland doesn't matter.

Please feel free to make up whatever definition suits your feelings.

Never seems to hurt you.

[kalm]

Please feel free to make up whatever definition suits your feelings.

Never seems to hurt you.

In my opinion, a progressive recognizes the dangers of consolidated wealth. The Roosevelts being the shining examples with Ted and his trust busting and Franklin who said a neccessitous man is not a free man. When I think progressive, that's who I see, rather than Hugo Chavez or Barak Obama.

You apparently have the progressive version of gaydar where one is hiding behind every tree. Hence the progressive leftist Latin Americans are still suffering at the hands of the progressive Woodrow Wilson. If you struck the word progressive or liberal from your posts you would make a hell of a lot more sense. I'd even start agreeing with you much of the time (seriously, try reading one of your own posts while striking those words, I have).

In the long run, they're all just stupid labels.

[CitadelGrad]

It's all about context. In the current American political context, "progressive" means leftist. How the word is used in Canada and Ireland doesn't matter.

Please feel free to make up whatever definition suits your feelings.

What would I know about politics and the evolution of political movements? I was only a political science major.

[travelinman67]

It's all about context. In the current American political context, "progressive" means leftist. How the word is used in Canada and Ireland doesn't matter.

Please feel free to make up whatever definition suits your feelings.

Try this on for size...

So who is a progressive? You might be one if

• You think health care is a basic human right, and that single-payer national health insurance is a worthwhile reform on our way toward creating a non-profit national health care service.

• You think that human rights ought always to trump property rights.

• You think U.S. military spending is an obscene waste of resources, and that the only freedom this spending protects is the freedom of economic elites to exploit working people all around the planet.

• You think U.S. troops should be brought home not only from Afghanistan and Iraq, but from all 130 countries in which the U.S. has military bases.

• You think political leaders who engage in "preemptive war" and invasions should be brought to trial for crimes against humanity and judged against the standards of international law established at Nuremberg after World War Two.

• You think public education should be free, not just from kindergarten through high school, but as far as a person is willing and able to go.

• You think that electoral reform should include instant run-off voting, publicly-financed elections, easy ballot access for all parties, and proportional representation.

• You think that electoral democracy is not enough, and that democracy must also be participatory and extend to workplaces.

• You think that strengthening the rights of all workers to unionize and bargain collectively is a useful step toward full economic democracy.

• You think that as a society we have a collective obligation to provide everyone who is willing and able to work with a job that pays a living wage and offers dignity.

• You think that a class system which forces some people to do dirty, dangerous, boring work all the time, while others get to do clean, safe, interesting work all the time, can never deliver social justice.

• You think that regulating big corporations isn't enough, and that such corporations, if they are allowed to exist at all, must either serve the common good or be put into public receivership.

• You think that the legal doctrine granting corporations the same constitutional rights as natural persons is absurd and must be overturned.

• You think it's wrong to allow individuals to accumulate wealth without limits, and that the highest incomes should be capped well before they begin to threaten community and democracy.

• You think that wealth, not just income, should be taxed.

• You think it's crazy to use the Old Testament as a policy guide for the 21st century.

• You believe in celebrating diversity, while also recognizing that having women and people of color proportionately represented among the class of oppressors is not the goal we should be aiming for.

• You think that the state has no right to kill, and that putting people to death to show that killing is wrong will always be a self-defeating policy.

• You think that anyone who desires the reins of power that come with high political office should, by reason of that desire, be seen as unfit for the job.

• You think that instead of more leaders, we need fewer followers.

• You think that national borders, while sometimes establishing territories of safety, more often establish territories of exploitation, much like gang turf.

• You are open to considering how the privileges you enjoy because of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and/or physical ability might come at the expense of others.

• You believe that voting every few years is a weak form of political participation, and that achieving social justice requires concerted effort before, during, and after elections.

• You think that, ideally, no one would have more wealth more than they need until everyone has at least as much as they need to live a safe, happy, decent life.

• You recognize that an economic system which requires continuous expansion, destroys the environment, relies on rapidly-depleting fossil fuels, exacerbates inequality, and leads to war after war is unsustainable and must be replaced. Score a bonus point if you understand that sticking to the existing system is what's unrealistic.

Sure sounds like a passivist prelude to marxism: Destruction of wealth; devaluation of property rights; assumes existence of a class of "oppressors"; promote unionization of workers; elimination of the military; mock Christian values; government provided medical care and guaranteed education...

...Kalm, if you don't feel that's "leftist" in the context of contemporary U.S. politics, then you need to change your name to Maojeff II.

[Baldy]

Never seems to hurt you.

In my opinion, a progressive recognizes the dangers of consolidated wealth. The Roosevelts being the shining examples with Ted and his trust busting and Franklin who said a neccessitous man is not a free man. When I think progressive, that's who I see, rather than Hugo Chavez or Barak Obama.

You apparently have the progressive version of gaydar where one is hiding behind every tree. Hence the progressive leftist Latin Americans are still suffering at the hands of the progressive Woodrow Wilson. If you struck the word progressive or liberal from your posts you would make a hell of a lot more sense. I'd even start agreeing with you much of the time (seriously, try reading one of your own posts while striking those words, I have).

In the long run, they're all just stupid labels.

So Obama all of the sudden isn't a "progressive"?

Sorry, but they are what they are. no need to hide from the facts.
From the Roosevelts, Wilson, LBJ, Carter, Obama, etc. etc. etc. All are considered "progressive" and all were and are dangerous to our American way of life.

[kalm]

In my opinion, a progressive recognizes the dangers of consolidated wealth. The Roosevelts being the shining examples with Ted and his trust busting and Franklin who said a neccessitous man is not a free man. When I think progressive, that's who I see, rather than Hugo Chavez or Barak Obama.

You apparently have the progressive version of gaydar where one is hiding behind every tree. Hence the progressive leftist Latin Americans are still suffering at the hands of the progressive Woodrow Wilson. If you struck the word progressive or liberal from your posts you would make a hell of a lot more sense. I'd even start agreeing with you much of the time (seriously, try reading one of your own posts while striking those words, I have).

In the long run, they're all just stupid labels.

So Obama all of the sudden isn't a "progressive"?

Sorry, but they are what they are. no need to hide from the facts.
From the Roosevelts, Wilson, LBJ, Carter, Obama, etc. etc. etc. All are considered "progressive" and all were and are dangerous to our American way of life.

Calling Obama a progressive is like calling George W. Bush a conservative.

It's OK, I forgive your misunderstanding.

[CID1990]

The fact that any regular old America would care about Hugo Chavez or have an opinion about him based on what the American Media Machine has spoon fed them is pretty silly - but that's what makes it all so fun...

Hey, I get my intel from Sean Penn. He's not part of the media machine.

Hey, next time you see your buddy Sean, ask him how he liked his visit to the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad back right after the city fell.

Enjoyed "showing" him around.

[Baldy]

So Obama all of the sudden isn't a "progressive"?

Sorry, but they are what they are. no need to hide from the facts.
From the Roosevelts, Wilson, LBJ, Carter, Obama, etc. etc. etc. All are considered "progressive" and all were and are dangerous to our American way of life.

Calling Obama a progressive is like calling George W. Bush a conservative.

It's OK, I forgive your misunderstanding.

This is why the country is so great...you are free to have your own opinion no matter how wrong it is.

[kalm]

Please feel free to make up whatever definition suits your feelings.

Try this on for size...

So who is a progressive? You might be one if

• You think health care is a basic human right, and that single-payer national health insurance is a worthwhile reform on our way toward creating a non-profit national health care service.

• You think that human rights ought always to trump property rights.

• You think U.S. military spending is an obscene waste of resources, and that the only freedom this spending protects is the freedom of economic elites to exploit working people all around the planet.

• You think U.S. troops should be brought home not only from Afghanistan and Iraq, but from all 130 countries in which the U.S. has military bases.

• You think political leaders who engage in "preemptive war" and invasions should be brought to trial for crimes against humanity and judged against the standards of international law established at Nuremberg after World War Two.

• You think public education should be free, not just from kindergarten through high school, but as far as a person is willing and able to go.

• You think that electoral reform should include instant run-off voting, publicly-financed elections, easy ballot access for all parties, and proportional representation.

• You think that electoral democracy is not enough, and that democracy must also be participatory and extend to workplaces.

• You think that strengthening the rights of all workers to unionize and bargain collectively is a useful step toward full economic democracy.

• You think that as a society we have a collective obligation to provide everyone who is willing and able to work with a job that pays a living wage and offers dignity.

• You think that a class system which forces some people to do dirty, dangerous, boring work all the time, while others get to do clean, safe, interesting work all the time, can never deliver social justice.

• You think that regulating big corporations isn't enough, and that such corporations, if they are allowed to exist at all, must either serve the common good or be put into public receivership.

• You think that the legal doctrine granting corporations the same constitutional rights as natural persons is absurd and must be overturned.

• You think it's wrong to allow individuals to accumulate wealth without limits, and that the highest incomes should be capped well before they begin to threaten community and democracy.

• You think that wealth, not just income, should be taxed.

• You think it's crazy to use the Old Testament as a policy guide for the 21st century.

• You believe in celebrating diversity, while also recognizing that having women and people of color proportionately represented among the class of oppressors is not the goal we should be aiming for.

• You think that the state has no right to kill, and that putting people to death to show that killing is wrong will always be a self-defeating policy.

• You think that anyone who desires the reins of power that come with high political office should, by reason of that desire, be seen as unfit for the job.

• You think that instead of more leaders, we need fewer followers.

• You think that national borders, while sometimes establishing territories of safety, more often establish territories of exploitation, much like gang turf.

• You are open to considering how the privileges you enjoy because of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and/or physical ability might come at the expense of others.

• You believe that voting every few years is a weak form of political participation, and that achieving social justice requires concerted effort before, during, and after elections.

• You think that, ideally, no one would have more wealth more than they need until everyone has at least as much as they need to live a safe, happy, decent life.

• You recognize that an economic system which requires continuous expansion, destroys the environment, relies on rapidly-depleting fossil fuels, exacerbates inequality, and leads to war after war is unsustainable and must be replaced. Score a bonus point if you understand that sticking to the existing system is what's unrealistic.

Sure sounds like a passivist prelude to marxism: Destruction of wealth; devaluation of property rights; assumes existence of a class of "oppressors"; promote unionization of workers; elimination of the military; mock Christian values; government provided medical care and guaranteed education...

...Kalm, if you don't feel that's "leftist" in the context of contemporary U.S. politics, then you need to change your name to Maojeff II.

That's quite a list T-man. There are statements that some conservatives would agree with and which a majority of Americans agree with. And that's before the current Marxist and Chief took office. Perhaps we're more progressive as a country than I thought.

Which ideas on that list do you disagree with T-man?

[kalm]

Calling Obama a progressive is like calling George W. Bush a conservative.

It's OK, I forgive your misunderstanding.

This is why the country is so great...you are free to have your own opinion no matter how wrong it is.

I agree completely.

[Baldy]

This is why the country is so great...you are free to have your own opinion no matter how wrong it is.

I agree completely.

I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive.

You're learning.

[kalm]

I agree completely.

I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive.

You're learning.

just like bush considered himself a fiscal and compassionate conservative. They're politicians solidifying their base.
A progressive would not have appointed geithner, bernanke, Salazar and Emmanuel, consolidated wealth and power on wall street, escalated the war, negotiated with pharma and monopolistic healy insurers etc, etc, etc.

Read tman's list.