Source:
The New Democrat
“Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of economic injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their belief that only the wealthy deserve government aid?
Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of social injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their denial of sexual diversity?
Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of racial injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their arrogant belief in white supremacy?
Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of environmental injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their desire for the end times or getting filthy rich in case they are not among the chosen?
Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect all living and breathing citizens from the economic, social, racial, and environmental injustices committed by man-made, heartless, and greedy entities with their immoral, excessive, power and pursuit of profit without regard to harming citizens?
Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally empower living and breathing citizens such that their freedoms to choose, like voting and medical procedures, are maximized?
Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally empower living and breathing citizens such that their abilities, like critical thinking, are maximized?
Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect living and breathing citizens such that they are free from medical bankruptcy caused by death panels protecting health insurance profits?
Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect living and breathing citizens such that they are free from sacrifice in never-ending wars for corporate enrichment?
Am I too extreme to want today’s version of FDR’s second bill of rights written into law?”
"Progressivism is a way of thinking that holds that it is possible through political action for human societies to improve over time. As a political movement, progressivism purports to advance the human condition through social reform based on advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization.[1] Adherents to this way of thinking hold that progressivism has universal application and endeavor to spread this idea to human societies everywhere. Progressivism arose during the Age of Enlightenment out of the belief that civility in Europe was improving due to application of new empirical knowledge to the governance of society.[2]
Early-20th century progressivism included support for compulsory sterilization, the temperance movement, American engagement in World War I, and the creation of and participation in the League of Nations.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Progressives took the view that progress was being stifled by economic inequality; inadequately regulated monopolistic corporations; and conflict between workers and elites, arguing that corrective measures were needed.[9]
In modern political discourse, progressivism gets often associated with social liberalism.[10][11][12][13][14]. In the 21st century, a movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions."
This Andy Hailey piece, could’ve been written by Bernie Sanders today, George McGovern 30-50 years ago, Henry Wallace 70 years ago, David McReynolds or Eugene Debs ( multiple time Socialist Party nominees for president ) in McReynolds case 10, 20, 30 years ago. In Debs case 100 years ago. Socialists and socialism aren’t new to America.
Socialism didn’t arrive in America when Bernie Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving in the House for 16 years before the Senate. He’s not the only Socialist in Congress and never has been. He’s just the only self-described Socialist in Congress, ( but not the only current Socialist in Congress ) and he’ll only have that title until the end of this Congress. In the next Congress, starting in January, we could see 10-20 new self-described Socialists in the House alone.
What’s new is that we’re now seeing Socialists coming out of the political closet and making public that they’re Socialists. Democratic Socialists in most cases, but if you look at Far-Left like ANTIFA, they’re proud self-described Communists.
It’s not extreme to want a country or world where there’s no racism, poverty, selfishness, crime, violence, war, anything else that’s bad about the world. Overly romantic, overly idealistic you wouldn’t have much trouble making the case for that.
But, anyone who lives in the real world (and just doesn't come down for a visit) has to deal with both good and bad. Things that are good about people and society and things that are bad. That’s called life and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to improve not only your own life, but the society around you. Overly romantic and idealistic sure, but there’s really nothing wrong with that so long as you keep at least one foot on Planet Earth and stay in touch with reality. As least in writing or texting, or email distance.
But, if you’re someone who believes in making the world better, the question is how you go about doing that. Now, if you’re an actual Progressive ( and not a closeted Socialist instead ) it’s not a question if you want to make the world better or not, but how to go about doing that.
When I think of Progressives, I think of people who want to make the country or world better through government action. Not people who are looking to create a Planet Utopia where there’s no such thing as poverty, racism, or violence, but people who want to use public policy to improve the lives of their fellow citizens and create genuine, noticeable progress with public policy. Not people who are looking to outlaw everything they don’t personally like including personal wealth. Or create a central government so big that personal decision-making and individualism become extinct. But people who want to improve the lives of their fellow people through public policy.
Liberals, Progressives, Socialists including Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, and even Communists tend to all get linked into the same political faction as if they’re all the same people with 6 different labels. When the fact is Liberals just by themselves are different from the other factions:
For example an actual Liberal such as myself believes in liberal democracy. Communists, don’t believe in democracy at all especially liberal democracy.
Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats believe in democratic socialism and social democracy.
Progressives in the actual sense, are the most interesting in all of these political factions, because they’re the least ideological and most pragmatic of all these groups. They believe in liberal democracy, but they also believe in conservative values like property rights, the rule of law, and other values like that.
Progressives, are people who believe in progress through government action, but limited government action. They’re not looking to create a government that is so big that it essentially takes over the society and is able to manage people’s personal as well as economic affairs for them.
Progressives, are people who believe in freedom, but that it should be for everyone and not just for people who are born to wealth or have a certain ethnic or racial background. And want to use government to improve the lives of people who are struggling so they can have the same freedom as people who are already doing well in society. These are the main differences between a Progressive and a Socialist of any background. Which is Progressives, believe in progress through limited government,. Socialists, don’t believe in limited government and base their ideology around a big central government and what it can do for the people.
