-
USPS: Radical Surgery Needed
May 17, 2013 | 20 comments
-
No Fisker for Your Garage
April 22, 2013 | 50 comments
-
A Breakthrough in Ukraine?
April 17, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Thatcher Passes
April 8, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Moving Ukraine’s Democracy Forward
March 13, 2013 | 8 comments
Political Hay
Who’s Progressive?
A lesson in political regression theory.
During the Reagan years the term “liberal” was discredited, having been widely equated with high taxes and spending. Gradually, liberal Democrats stopped using the word to describe themselves. Yet, old habits die slowly. In the days of FDR and LBJ when most of the goals of the liberals had been achieved liberals thought the word was tantamount to “good.” With changing public perceptions, however, nearly all liberals searched for a new word to help them once again seize the political high ground.
They think they have found it in the word “progressive.” In the House of Representatives they have something they call the “Progressive Caucus.” One of its members, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL), in a television interview this week, claimed this caucus has a federal budget plan to counter the Republican one introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan. After first denouncing Ryan’s plan by claiming it would do many bad things, she said the “Progressive Caucus” plan would lower the federal deficit and balance the budget in 20 years! In the face of galloping new deficits of $1 trillion a year for three years now, how does this “plan” amount to progress?
“Progress,” as defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary, is “1. a moving forward or onward. 2. forward course; development. 3. advance toward perfection or to a better state; improvement.” It’s no wonder the liberals are using it more and more, for it is freighted with positive notions.
Their actions belie the definition of the term: the Democrat-controlled Senate’s failure to pass a budget in over 1,000 days; refusal to reform the heading-toward-bankruptcy Medicare and Medicaid programs; the no-questions-asked loans aggregating $3 billion in loans to dicey “green” companies such as Solyndra.
“Irresponsible,” “unrealistic,” and “risky” describe these things, but not “progressive.” The accurate word to describe what Obama and his Congressional allies have been doing is “regress.” (Definition: “1. a going back. 2. the right of privilege of this. 3. backward movement.”)
It is not surprising that the “mainstream” media use the word “progressive” without quotation marks to describe liberal Democrats and their proposals. What is surprising is that conservative commentators often do the same thing, as if the people who use the word to describe themselves deserve it. Even some Republican lawmakers in interviews treat the word as a common description. and not what it is, an effort by their adversaries to attach good overtones to bad ideas.
Here is a proposal: Let every Republican office holder or office seeker and every conservative commentator vow to put quotation marks around “progressive” in any written communication or article and, in radio or television appearances, precede it with the phrase “so-called.” Thus, in print, it would be the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party and in broadcasts, the so-called “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party.” Bolder voices might go further and call it by its accurate name, the regressive wing of the Democratic Party.
About the Author
Peter Hannaford was closely associated for a number of years with the late President Reagan, beginning in the California Governor’s office. His latest book is Presidential Retreats.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (65) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Hannaford
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/22/whos-progressive
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Gary B| 3.22.12 @ 6:49AM
I'd go further. Since every one of them uses deceit on a daily basis to violate their oath of office, I'd call them liars or, more accurately, perjurers.
gearjammer| 3.22.12 @ 8:20AM
Is not treason the correct term ?
Gary B| 3.22.12 @ 9:14AM
Even better.
One if by land...| 3.22.12 @ 3:44PM
And what do we do to treasonous people? Now, it would seem we the people have some work to do.
Marc Jeric| 3.22.12 @ 7:20AM
In the 1920's our internal enemies called themselves proudly communists. After the mass murders committed by Stalin, and his pact with Hitler, the same people became socialists in the 1940's. When the stream of millions of refugees from those socialist heavens spread the word of terror, utter poverty, and mass murder, the same people became liberals. And now when more and more people start to understand their aims, the same group of criminals have become progressives.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.22.12 @ 8:28AM
Hayek wrote several articles and chapters on this issue. "Our Poisoned Language" in the "Fatal Conceit" explained how socialist confuse and obfuscate the meaning of words. He wrote in "Constitution of Liberty" an essay "Why I am not a Conservative." He called himself an "Old Whig" (like Edmund Burke) since conserve means to reject change. As Mr. Hannaford correctly points out, progressive means to adhere to morals and traditions with minor positive change. This is not congruent with Obama's "fundamental transformation!"
This is the same thing Orwell was writing about in "1984" that "Freedom is Slavery" and "Ignorance is strength."
Once the meaning of words are confounded, logical dialog cannot continue. Blaise Pascal in "Port Royal Logic" started with his first two rules being that:
1. A word must have an unambiguous and unequivocal definition
2) That the word must be used consistently in any argument
This is why socialist call themselves progressives, and why "social" and "justice," along with "liberal" have two diametrically oppsed meanings depending on who is using them. Perp and DRed couldn't understand me even if they wanted to since they misuderstand the classical meaning of words.
Obama uses this technique constantly in his straw man arguments. Unequivocal means that the choice is mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. So an example is "Hard" or "not Hard." If we argue hard versus soft, then it may be neither like water, or both like a pencil. Jump off a high bridge and water is very hard, but wash your face and it is not. The graphite and eraser of a pencil are soft while wood is hard. This is why Rush keeps saying "Words Mean Things!"
John Navratil| 3.22.12 @ 9:07AM
Von Mises, Jr.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
And with those confusing such sophistry with erudition, there is simply no point in arguing - as Alice discovered.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.22.12 @ 9:31AM
Excellent, John. I used to read "Alice in Wonderland" to my son since I loved reading it more than he liked hearing it. And many thought it was just a bedtime story.
I agree that Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again. But there are many an egghead that has not launched themselves off the wall yet. They need to understand why the yo-yo-yoke is bro-bro-broke.
DRed| 3.22.12 @ 11:37AM
What's a socialist, Von? In the classical meaning of the term.
And again, why do you hate using plurals so much?
Von Mises Jr.| 3.22.12 @ 11:51AM
Look in the mirror, jacka$$.
DRed| 3.22.12 @ 12:14PM
I'm trying to have a serious discussion with you. Come on, words mean things. Let's get a definition of socialist.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.22.12 @ 1:09PM
First tell me what you saw in the mirror.
I gave you a serious answer. Now it is your turn to answer seriously.
Or if your embarrased to discuss yourself, tell me what you think it is?
DRed| 3.22.12 @ 1:17PM
'Look in the mirror, jackass', is not a serious answer. You didn't even spell jackass seriously, although it fits in with your general aversion to the letter s at the end of word.
Words have meanings. What does socialist mean?
Von Mises Jr.| 3.22.12 @ 2:02PM
Here you go: https://mises.org/store/Socialism-An-Economic-and-Sociological-Analysis-P55C1.aspx
DRed| 3.22.12 @ 4:06PM
You can't explain it to me in a sentence or two? Come on, give it a try.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.22.12 @ 4:17PM
Life and markets are more complicated than your slogans of "Hope" and "Change."
I think you did a good job of defining a socialist. Someone who wants someone else to labor for their benefit. I read it, why can't you?
If this is too obscure, then I would go to www.mises.org and order Mises "Theory and History." It is the history of the socialist movement and written in non-professorial economic terms.
It is not my life's mission to educate the uneducable. In graduate school, they don't read the book to you. They assign it and have deeper discussion on the content. You did not, and apparently will not put in the effort, so you get an "F."
DRed| 3.22.12 @ 4:43PM
Thanks. What I'm trying to get at is that I don't think you know what a socialist is. I think if you were to explain to me what you think a socialist is, it would either be so broad as to be essentially meaningless (anything but absolutely pure laissesz faire capitalism is socialist), or it would be a definition that didn't fit for contemporary American liberals. Given the way I've seen you use the term, it certainly wouldn't fit a classical description of a socialist. So come on, Von. Give it a try. And remember:
1. A word must have an unambiguous and unequivocal definition
2) That the word must be used consistently in any argument.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.22.12 @ 5:27PM
So socialist have been taught to cut and paste? Your handlers must be proud.
If you can't read a book, then I don't owe you a book report. But you are sure proving to anyone following this conversation that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You should be proud, comrade. Maybe not so much.
DRed| 3.22.12 @ 5:32PM
I'm not trying to explain anything. I'm just asking for your definition of a socialist. You keep telling me I am one, and I wonder why. Is it really so difficult to define?
Socialists. The plural of socialist is socialists.
Brainy Liberal| 3.22.12 @ 7:49PM
My only question is, is DRed of the national or international persuasion? Let me see. Red. Hmmmm. Not good. He likes taking everything instead of just shaking them down. That leads to a broke system a lot faster since incompetents will be selected to run things. The national kind is much better since it takes a lot longer to bring a system to its knees and there will be cool High Speed Rail and lots of wind turbines when we crash. Those make it a lot easier to accept that you live in a shitty third world country. You know what we call this. That's right "progress".
DeRp| 3.22.12 @ 10:27PM
Socialists are followers of the principles, policies and theories of socialism.
Socialism refers to the social, political and economic principles, policies and theories advocating collective or government ownership or control of individuals and the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
Douglas Fletcher | 3.23.12 @ 3:53AM
Yeah, and they're tyrannical little bastards too.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.23.12 @ 9:53AM
DRed,
My son read "Road to Serfdom," "Liberty and Tyranny," and "End of Prosperity" plus several more books as supplemental college reading BEFORE I paid his next college tuition bill. My 14 year old nephew has had more intelligent conversations about economics with me on the hiking trail than you.
So why are you afraid to read from the master minds of real economics and debate as a man?
DRed| 3.23.12 @ 10:14AM
I've asked you a simple questions six times already and you refuse to answer. So don't tell me I'm trying to avoid debating you.
NoBlahBlah| 3.24.12 @ 10:15AM
You are entirely too nice to the troll, much more than I would ever have patience for,
He types, therefore he is,
and yet, his words have no meaning, id est,
'Once the meaning of words are confounded, logical dialog cannot continue'
he is simply the background noise of anarchy
Cris| 3.22.12 @ 12:05PM
And Schakowsky is so perfect an illustration of Congressman Dumpty's "logic", her picture should be opposite the quoted passage in the story. She frequently appears on morning talk radio here in Chicago and lies with astonishing depth and breadth. The "Full Schakowsky " is completely impenetrable, and gives a better jolt than a double brewed with a shot of espresso. But one should take care that one does not spew while she does.
Joe Gause| 3.22.12 @ 5:51PM
John N: Eloquent!
albert constantine jr.| 3.22.12 @ 7:24PM
VMJ;
What you cite regarding the importance of standard fixed universally understood meanings of words and concepts makes great sense, but it is antithetical to "progressive" thought. Recall their titular leader in the late 90's most famously advised a grand jury words to the effect of "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is."
John| 3.22.12 @ 7:52PM
How was Bill Clinton the liberal or progressive 'titular leader'? Is there a 'Clintonite' movement? I'm not aware of any Clintonmaniacs or anything. Maybe you just used the wrong word.
albert constantine jr.| 3.22.12 @ 8:45PM
Given that the discussion involved clear meaning and usage, I thank you for the opportunity to further clarify.
You might recall that from 1993-2001, he was the highest ranking elected official in the US registered as a member of the Democrat party (which many people, excluding some members of the Green , Socialist Workers or American Communist Party consider to be the more "liberal" or "progressive" party in the United States), occupying a position as President of the United States (POTUS). Many folks consider the position of POTUS as a leadership position vested with executive power, including Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. There are some who even suggest that the one who occupies this position can be deemed the "leader of the free world".
I hope that clears it up somewhat, and appreciate the opportunity to hone the meaning of the post. Before you need to parse further, I should have used "testified" instead of "advised" as a more accurate term.
Bob K.| 3.22.12 @ 9:53AM
The use of the words "Progressive" and "Progressivism" and the "idea of Progress" in American politics goes back a long way. John Lukacs in his history: "A NEW REPUBLIC -- A History of the United States in the Twentieth Century" refers to it and discusses it on at least 30 occasions in the book.
Here are some samples from the Chapter "Inheritances and Prospects--The Passage from a Democratic Order to a Bureaucratic State" at pages 372 and 373: This quote from Ortega y Gassett...... "Both progressive Liberalism and Marxist Socialism presume that what is desired by them as the best possible futures will be necessarily realized, with a necessity similar to Astronomy." The Revolt of the Masses-pp. 116-117 45-46 At p. 372.
"The Progressives contributed heavily to the transition to the administrative state......"
"It is wrong to believe that Republican presidents and their administrations in the 1920s were truly "conservative" and that they wished to reverse this progression to the administrative state. Herbert Hoover was a Wilsonian, a Progressive, an engineer............."
"The main phase of the transition from the legislative state was then completed by Roosevelt and the New Deal." p. 373
There is much more throughout this history.
Bob K.| 3.22.12 @ 10:15AM
Mr. Hannaford is right and his proposal is spot on!
It appears that the "Liberals" or Democrats have pulled up a word from our nations history that defines and describes them even better than their current labels do.
Russel| 3.22.12 @ 11:14AM
I read it was Woody Wilson , the Father of American socialism , who coined the word to describe his political movement . Goes to show how one president can screw it up so bad , we never recover .
Bob K.| 3.22.12 @ 8:09PM
Wilson is also mentioned often in this history. Always unfavorably. But progressivism goes back before Wilson.
Professor David W. Noble , U. of Minnesota, wrote a book in 1971 entitled "The Progressive Mind: 1890-1917." He has written a number of other books on Progressivism. He is an interesting guy! Check out his bio here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W._Noble
Ralph Novy| 3.24.12 @ 10:01PM
Hey...........lookee here.....
"Woody Wilson" wasn't the BEGINNING of American progressivism; he was pretty much the END of it.
Duh.
That racist, imperialist asshole somehow has gotten the reputation of a "liberal" or "progressive" or something." Nothing could be further from the truth.
If anything, Wilson was a true "Regressive" -- regressing to formerly disavowed racist and imperialist policies.
It astounds me how this misconception of Wilson persists to this day.
Ralph Novy| 3.24.12 @ 9:54PM
"In the 1920's our internal enemies called themselves proudly communists."
That's a lie.
"They" were not "our" enemies. They were us. They were trying to look out for us.
You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Read up, son.
Start with Emma Goldman.
Indy| 3.22.12 @ 7:58AM
A long piece on progressives, I don't always agree with Beck but I have learned a lot by doing my own research, we are far down the path
http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....communism/
Teaghan| 3.22.12 @ 8:06AM
I like to call them "regressives" :-)
Ralph Novy| 3.24.12 @ 9:56PM
Well ain't you clever?
Derek Leaberry| 3.22.12 @ 8:45AM
Mitt Romney is also a progressive. Somehow, the imbecilic wing of the Republican Party thinks he deserves nomination.
Le Cracquere| 3.22.12 @ 9:43AM
"Progressive"? Fie on the word! As I think Chesterton put it, "I have nothing to say to a man to prefers Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday."
albert constantine jr.| 3.22.12 @ 6:38PM
I prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is closer to Friday's Happy Hour.
MikeBee| 3.22.12 @ 10:01AM
The U.S. Communist party is simply bringing back the old name that hid who they were, Progressives. The Progressive party in the 1930s and 1940s were the Communists in the U.S. Still means the same thing..........
Les| 3.22.12 @ 10:30AM
Ugh. Schakowsky is my congress"woman".
Melvin| 3.22.12 @ 10:35AM
Let me ask you people this. Since the Democrats have not passed a budget in over a thousand days, is there parliamentary recourse, or something in the Constitution, that forces their hand on this, that punishes them, like losing their majority in the Senate if they don't pass a budget?
There just has to be something that someone can do besides all of us standing here with our thumbs up our backsides wondering what to do.
Mick Hawk| 3.22.12 @ 10:47AM
No, just an electorate to throw them out of office if they are paying attention.
Ralph Novy| 3.24.12 @ 10:03PM
When did you learn that one party could "pass" a budget? Especially when the other party possesses the power of the filibuster?
Go back to Civics 101, son.
Mike Rogers | 3.22.12 @ 12:59PM
Progressives date from the late 19th century, and they have members in both parties. Generally they mean societal progress or evolution, they disdain the constitution because it obstructs their vision of progress, and they believe they can perfect society and it's members, just like socialists.
For today's Democrats, it is a nice sounding word, and a reclamation of history, but still just as evil
Remember, in Alice, the Red Queen says "off with their heads!", while in the last presidential battle, the Red Queen (who is known for associates who lost their heads) told us "I prefer to think of myself as an early 20th century Progressive". Really!
Indeed we have travelled through the looking glass with the Red Queen and the Black King!
mike| 3.22.12 @ 1:06PM
great suggestion. "progressives" or so-called progressives it is. going on to exemplify why they are not progressive in any way wouldn't hurt, either. at every opportunity.
Georgetwin| 3.22.12 @ 1:37PM
Liberal, Progressive, Revolutionary or ANY other Bravo Sierra they come up with.
The Bottom Line is that you can't polish a turd.
GriffMN| 3.22.12 @ 1:58PM
Three years ago, I realized the Democrats' "progressive" policies were actually a return to the failed Keynesian prescriptions of the 1930's. Since then, I've continually referred to those on the left as "regressives".
Seek| 3.22.12 @ 6:24PM
Keynes' ideas weren't really accepted, much less implemented, until the 1960s. Keynes' "General Theory" wasn't even published until 1936. And, for the record, he was a free-trade advocate.
Seek=Typical Liberal| 3.22.12 @ 9:43PM
I pretend I'm not a liberal, until even liberals are embarrassed to be referred to as liberals, when I then pretend I'm not a progressive, until even progressives are embarrassed to be referred to as progressives, when I then pretend I'm not a liberal, until even liberals are embarrassed to be referred to as liberals, when I then pretend I'm not a progressive, until even progressives are embarrassed to be referred to as progressives, when I then pretend I'm not a liberal, until . . .
Ralph Novy| 3.24.12 @ 10:07PM
"Keynes' ideas weren't really accepted, much less implemented, until the 1960s. Keynes' "General Theory" wasn't even published until 1936. And, for the record, he was a free-trade advocate."
False.
He had published MANY things before, say 1929, and his thinking was well-known to economists of the "left" and "right" by then.
And where, exactly, do you think you've found him saying that he believed in "free trade" as we curently understand that term?
Junius| 3.22.12 @ 3:05PM
In mid 19th century America the political definition of conservative and liberal meant essentially the opposite of what they are commonly understood to mean today.
The meaning of words changes over time with common usage. It's part of what keeps lexicographers in work. Orwell wasn't imagining some new phenomenon when he penned 1984, he was taking well known phenomenon to extremes (or so he thought).
This is an excellent essay Orwell wrote on the subject: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
Ralph Novy| 3.24.12 @ 10:11PM
Good point.
I consider myself, at core, a liberal in the tradition of John Stuart Mill ("On Liberty") ... not a liberal in the tradition of, say, Trotsky.
Tired Taxpayer PRM| 3.22.12 @ 3:50PM
Communists! Without the quotes or so-called.
Renaissance Nerd | 3.22.12 @ 4:12PM
Since every version of the romantic ideologies is inherently regressive, all throwbacks to the original theocratic monarchies of early civilization, progressive is the last thing they should be called. The current batch are not garden-variety socialists, but they're not quite fascists either, as they're too weak-kneed for even Mussolini. I like the terms petite-fascist or petty-fascist until somebody comes up with something better. The more radical among them are actual fascists, and very few are advocating ordinary socialism. Communism/socialism never works on its own, even for a few years; they always revert to fascism. Fascism actually works for a period, which is why Stalin embraced it, Red China and Cuba currently practice it, and North Korea epitomizes it. And fascism is nothing more than theocratic monarchy, with only rhetorical differences from Hammurabi and Ramses the Great. So much for 'progressive.'
albert constantine jr.| 3.22.12 @ 6:45PM
It seems more of these regimes are enjoying immediate hereditary dynastic succession, such as North Korea or Cuba, which was also a characteristic of many monarchies.
Ralph Novy| 3.24.12 @ 10:17PM
"Since every version of the romantic ideologies is inherently regressive, all throwbacks to the original theocratic monarchies of early civilization, progressive is the last thing they should be called."
I don't know what "they" you're talking about here. Certainly not about anyone I've ever known who'd call themself progressive.
What part of "theocratic monarchies are the prototypical, stereotypical nemesis of progressivism" don't you understand?
Jeez, son, you're trying to turning history on its head.
But there are just too many of us old farts devoted to things like facts to let you do it.
So give it up, eh?
Bob| 3.23.12 @ 3:31AM
Well whaddayaknow, it took Ryan making a budget to finally get the progressives off their asses and actually make a budget, their first in years.
Ralph Novy| 3.24.12 @ 9:51PM
Mr. Hannaford:
You're old and experienced enough that I wouldn't even attempt to insult you by calling you "stupid."
Instead, I'll insult you by calling you a "liar."
You know better.
Your sole, ostensible basis for suggesting that "progressive" actually means "regressive" is that "the Democrat-controlled Senate's failure to pass a budget in over 1,000 days; refusal to reform the heading-toward-bankruptcy Medicare and Medicaid programs; the no-questions-asked loans aggregating $3 billion in loans to dicey 'green' companies such as Solyndra."
That's all hooey -- and you know it
"Democrat-controlled" Senate? Without the filibuster it might be, but WITH it ... hooey.
"...heading-toward-bankruptcy Medicare and Medicaid programs"? In 25-75 years, IF the rich aren't forced to pony-up appropriately, maybe. More hooey.
And "the no-questions-asked loans aggregating $3 billion in loans to dicey "green" companies such as Solyndra"? First, $3B ain't shit these days; second, lots of questions WERE asked, but just deflected or lied to -- just as with hundreds of defense-industry contracts over the past 30+ years. So ... still more hooey.
Respect that you put your point succinctly, Mr. Hannaford, so let me put my response with equal economy of words:
You're a liar. Please stop doing that.
GOT LIARISM?| 3.25.12 @ 1:08PM
Yeah, we 'know' better.
As the world's most typical liberal, make that progressive, make that liberal again, no progressive, no liberal, progressive, liberal, progressive, liberal, progressive, liberal, progressive, make that whichever is least embarrassing to be known as today, you don't post very often, but when you do, you post as a liar.
2007, the last budget with a republican president and a republican majority house, that produced federal revenue exceeding 44% of the federal revenue of 4 years earlier, which was the last year of 3 consecutive years of republican tax cuts,
top 1%:
40.42% of total income taxes paid
bottom 95% - combined:
39.37% of total income taxes paid - combined
Note the 'rich' top 1% were 'forced' to 'pony-up' 'more' than the '95%' bottom 'combined', that 'indicates' your 'hooey' is 'technically', and 'actually', and in 'reality', 'really', and 'truly', and 'honestly', a 'lie', which makes 'you' 'a' 'liar'.
'You' are a 'progressive' 'liberal' and a 'liar'.
'All' 'progressive' 'liberals' are 'liars'.
Start getting that.
Ralph Novy| 3.24.12 @ 10:20PM
Franky, Mr. Hannaford, what bothered me most about your little discussion of "progressivism" was that you didn't even make a passing reference to Robert LaFollette or the "Wisconsin Idea."
"Succinct" is one thing; "shallow" is another.
Marc Jeric| 3.25.12 @ 1:11PM
There is a logical progression in these names. Social criminals used to call themselves proudly communist from 1917-1939, when Stalin signed the pact with Hitler, and when Stalin's mass murders came to light. From 1939 till 1955 they became socialist; but when the millions of refugees from those "socialist" countries showed up in the West, describing terror, utter poverty, and mass murders the same people renamed themselves as "liberals". when that ruse became transparent, all of sudden with have to deal with "progressives". But it is the same group of criminals trying for absolute rule over us.