I have found the poster I was babbling about in an earlier blog rant. H/T
houseofharkonnen.blogspot.com. I saw the poster originally on his blog. About the only issue here is that it has the words "liberal pussies" on it. I myself can be quite liberal on a few issues and down right wingnuttia right wing on some (especially national defense). What I am not is what they call "progressive." There is a difference, in my humble opinion, between Liberalism and Progressiveism (is that a word?). Some very brave folk are "liberal" on a great many issues and true American patriots, but as a general rule a "progressive" is extreme left and often a "fifth columnist" who does damage to the our country.
4 comments:
Nope. "Progressive" is what someone calls himself when he doesn't have the courage to admit that he's a "Liberal" because a "Liberal" is also known as a "bleeding heart" or a "dirty fucking hippie."
Perhaps you are right there but I must say that when I see the word "Progressive" I think of one that may be a self hater and therefore a hater of all that is good. I don't often think this way of one who considers themselves merely liberal. For instance; one blogger I read periodically apparently considers himself a follower of Noam Chomsky. He equates this with liberalism. I equate that with something sickening and far beyond "liberalism."
Well, the problem is that politics has become personalized today. One could use the term "Liberal" in the past without being vilified for it. All it meant was "not conservative" and all that "conservative" meant was "not liberal" so to speak.
Then as speech became more and more vitriolic, to be "Liberal" was to be unAmerican and dangerous, and to be "conservative" was to be reactionary and dangerous. Conservatives don't in the least mind being reactionary and dangerous, in fact they thrive on it, but liberals cringe in terror at the idea of being thought unAmerican and dangerous, so they began calling themselves "progressives" instead.
This sort of sums up the two movements. Conservatives have strong principles and will adhere to them at all costs, even losing elections if needed to stand up for their principles. If they elect a Republican, for instance, and he raises taxes, they will throw his ass out of office to prove their point, even if it means electing a Democrat to do so.
Liberals, not so much. They have some ideas, but they aren't really sure what those ideas are, really, and they don't require adherence to them in any case. They elect a guy to stop wars and if he doesn't do it, well, they weren't all that sure about the war-stopping thing anyway, so they'll reelect him regardless, because he's a Democrat whatever he does.
Interesting take. Your last two paragraphs especially.
Post a Comment