Andy Hailey: ‘As A Progressive, Am I Too Extreme?’

Source:Slide Player- The Progressive Era in America. 

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?”

From Andy Hailey 

"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." 

From Wikipedia

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.

The Beacon: Randall Holcombe: 'Progressivism: Rhetoric Versus Reality'

Source:The Independent Institute- The Economist, which is a center-right, liberal publication in Britain, with a look at progressivism.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Contemporary supporters of an expanded role for government are increasingly moving away from calling themselves liberals and toward referring to themselves Progressives, so it is worth considering what the ideology of Progressivism entails.

Progressivism began in the late 1800s as a political movement that advocated expanding the role of government. Before the Progressive era, Americans viewed the role of government as protecting individual rights. The Progressive ideology argued that the proper role of government should go beyond protecting individual rights to include looking out for people’s economic well-being.

Progressivism is explicitly designed to use the force of government to take from some to give to others. In its early days, Progressives envisioned the state reining in the economic power of people like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt to prevent them from exploiting those with less economic power. Even this vision makes clear that the goal of Progressivism is to impose costs on some for the benefit of others.

The Progressive ideology is now firmly ingrained in the political system, and everybody recognizes that the government routinely takes from some to give to others. Because this is how our government now works, Progressivism encourages people to engage in politics to increase their chances that they can be on the receiving end of those transfers.

Meanwhile, the idea that some might be using their economic power to exploit others has fallen by the wayside. It’s not that Progressives don’t think this can happen; it’s that the Progressive transfer state recognizes claims made by anybody, regardless of whether they were harmed or exploited by others.

Welfare programs transfer wealth from taxpayers to recipients without any thought that the recipients deserve the transfers because they are being exploited by taxpayer. Instead, coercive wealth transfers are the “compassionate” thing to do. But the rich as well as the poor see Progressive government as a source of economic support. Giant corporations receive subsidies, tax breaks, and regulatory protection even though when Progressivism was born, its core idea was to transfer from them rather than toward them. Progressivism leads to cronyism.

While the idea of Progressivism was to expand the role of government to both protecting people’s rights and looking out for their economic well-being, the actual result of Progressivism has been that because it provides economic benefits to some by imposing costs on others, it violates people’s rights rather than protecting them. Progressive regulations limit people’s freedom of choice, and Progressive tax and transfer policies take the property of some for the benefit of others.

Despite its compassionate-sounding agenda of looking out for people’s economic well-being, the political philosophy of Progressivism justifies a government that violates the rights of some to provide economic benefits to others." 

From The Beacon 

Replace the words progressive and progressivism, with socialist and socialism and I probably agree with everything that Randall Holcombe said about progressive and progressivism here. But he's just dead wrong, unless he's talking about socialist and socialism, accidentally and just made those mistakes. 

The actual definition of Progressive, is someone who not just believes in progress (where the word progressive actually comes from) but progress through government action. That government can be a force for good (to sound corny) to help people improve their own lives. That doesn't mean taking from the rich to take care of everyone else, or essentially outlawing independent wealth and individual freedom. But using government to try to create a society where as many people as possible can succeed in it. 

What people need to understand about progressivism, is that it isn’t socialism. Progressivism isn’t completely about government. And doesn’t think individualism and individual initiative is necessarily a bad thing. Or that freedom is necessarily a bad thing. Progressives, unlike Socialists in many cases, believe in all of those things. 

A true Progressive, doesn’t believe that government can and should do practically everything if not everything for the people. Socialists, don’t seem to have a problem that a new tax increase and government program can’t solve and do something new for the people.

Progressivism, was basically born in the late 1890s and early 1900s, under people like Teddy Roosevelt and later Woodrow Wilson and many others, as part of the so-called Progressive Era. These people who might have seem radical then, but today they would be mainstream, Center-Left, Progressive Democrats. 

Thanks to the Great Depression and with Franklin Roosevelt coming to power as President in 1933 with an overwhelming Democratic Congress in both the House and Senate, the New Deal was born. The American safety net and social insurance system to help people in need help themselves and get themselves back on their feet.

The originally Welfare system was badly designed. Because it didn’t require people on Welfare to finish their education and even look for work. Unlike Unemployment Insurance where people have to look for work and even get help from the program looking for work. 

The basic idea of progressivism is that government can help people when they are down get on their feet. And protect the innocent from predators. Either in the economy with the regulatory state. And put criminals way when they hurt the innocent physically and otherwise with the law enforcement state. And protect the country from foreign invaders with the national security state.

If you look at the economic options of the 1930s, the progressive economic approach was actually the middle ground. Which might sound strange even for that period. 

But think about it, you had Conservatives and Libertarians on the Right, saying that government shouldn’t do anything to help people who are down and stay out of the economy all together. 

Democratic Socialists and Communists on the Far-Left, saying that private enterprise and capitalism is the problem. And that government should take over a lot of these sectors in the economy to serve the people. 

Progressivism, is not socialism, but a very mainstream American ideology.