AN ANTI-PROGRESSIVE RANT

25 Feb. 2018

Dear Friends and Patriots,

            In my last post I went off a bit on progressives, progressivism, their programs, and what I perceive as their contribution to the decline of the social fabric of our nation.  Today I want to be a bit more expansive on those topics; to justify what some may consider only an extreme of opinion.  I apologize in advance for the rambling nature of this discussion.  In truth, today’s topic merits at least 400 pages, but I know most of you won’t read 400 pages, but maybe you’ll be willing to part with enough time for six or seven or perhaps ten.

            Before I get into all that, I wish to discuss another aspect to my prior commentary, the part about turning back the clock in our society to recapture the best of a former time.  It’s always a bit problematic to say a previous era was better.  The literal truth is there were better aspects, but also worse.  My plea is to keep the best features of our society today but look to the past for the replacements for the worst.  If I was talking about cars, you’d understand better, but I’m talking about social structures:  family life, schools, religion as a central part of all communities, a sense of social responsibility, and appreciation for individual freedoms.  I may also be talking about the nation’s regard for the importance of the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, our American flag, standing with hand over heart while reciting The Pledge to the Flag and singing The Star-Spangled Banner, praying in school, and openly and publically celebrating religious holidays and other traditions that seem to be held in low regard by certain segments of our population.  There are past and present things I wouldn’t want to see.  No one should want to see a return of the kinds of racial injustice we’ve tried to overcome for all our nation’s history.  No one should want to retain any aspect of political correctness.  We shouldn’t want to continue to implement government-run social programs that dis-incentivize seeking a job, accepting a promotion, marriage, and being full-time parents.

            Yes, we need to turn back our nation’s clock.  We need to find ways to recapture the spirit of the 1950’s, when Ike was our President and our nation’s future seemed filled with endless possibilities.  It was a time when people eagerly embraced new technology, but also a time when people had little to concern them about their personal privacy.  It was a time when great strides were being made in medicine and pure sciences, but there was little thought that any of those innovations would become tools for politicians or the intelligence community to use to monitor and control us.   It was a simpler time, when we didn’t believe human existence on Earth was an evil thing, that religion and guns were mostly forces for good, and we understood Hollywood movies as glamourous fictions.  Think of how interesting it would be to meld the best aspects of the 1950s with today’s appreciation for clean water and air, high mileage cars, conservation of threatened and endangered species, some truly great innovations in plastics, and fine restaurants.  We could hold national debates on things like whether or not we should continue to allow nation-wide chain stores and fast-food restaurants, convenience stores on every corner, and prefabricated buildings in lieu of brick and mortar.  We could also debate the social contribution and value of each and every technological device and decide whether it should be part of our future, or be tossed away.  We never have debates of that kind, even though people do understand a lot of our newest technologies are very problematic.

            My suggestion is a fiction in itself; I fully understand that.   The old saying, “You can never go back” is true.  We can never recapture the past, we can only go forward and try to figure out how to engineer a future that actually improves on what we have today.  But, if we truly want improvement, I believe we need to consider a full-bore attack on progressivism and all the ills that movement has brought us.  We need to undertake a national program of re-education; to teach all citizens about the founding of our nation and the full meaning of our founding documents, and to teach all politicians how to make policy determinations based only on proven facts, with consideration and founding principles.    You may say all that is a fiction, too, but I am an optimist and believe it’s actually possible.  But, first, we have to deal with the damage done by over 90 years of progressive efforts to do exactly the opposite.

            Long ago I realized I was an implacable enemy of progressivism.  I view it as nothing more than the latest iteration of centuries of attempts to use our human desire for a perfect society against us.  We all would like to believe in Shangra-La, a utopian society where people are all equal, all happy, all well-fed, all honored, all healthy; a society where the negative forces of violence, greed, sloth, envy, disease and even old age are absent.  Communism was founded on just such utopian notions.  So was communism’s more recent socialist variants.   Progressivism is just the latest and most ambitious attempt.  My problem with it is its obviously flawed ambitions and it’s just as obviously flawed logic.

At its most basic level progressivist thought ignores most truths about human nature and interactive dynamics.  All utopian thought is based on notions of re-engineering humans to fit the needs of a fictional perfect society.  It necessarily ignores what people always are and always have been.   We are all unique in some way or another.  As individuals, we don’t fit precisely into any mold.  There are always variations to any aspect of our beings, and it’s those variations that makes us interesting.  Utopianists ignore the truth of those variations and engage in wishful thinking – if only they could standardize all aspects of human experience they could create a perfect society.   The problem is, our variations are internally determined, possibly at the genetic level, while societal engineering is an external undertaking.   Utopionists, in this case the progressives, believe that if you shape the society rigidly enough humans will have no alternatives but to conform.   Unfortunately, we don’t.

There are two essential aspects of progressivism that need to be understood.  The first is what is already discussed – the emphasis on utopian societal perfection.  The second aspect is control.  In a true utopia there would be no evidence of control.  The society would control itself because all members of the society are like minded, with no variation at all.  All needs are the same.  All wants are the same.  All values and will to contribute to the society are the same.  In a true utopia everything sort of runs itself.  Everyone understands what it takes to make it all work, and everyone automatically does their part.  But in real life that just doesn’t work, which is where truth and fiction find their greatest point of departure.   Because “real” progressives understand the essential fiction of their undertaking, their main objective is to be part of the social control.  

A whole lot of control is required to make the progressive utopia work.   In truth their utopia only exists for two classes of people – those who control, and those who reap the majority of the benefits of such a society.  In America we often refer to the latter group of people as the “taker” class.  That leaves a couple of distinct groups of people out of the progressive equation.  One is the group we often refer to as the working middle class and the class of people who own businesses or are otherwise wealthy taxpayers.  So, if you’ve followed me up to this point you understand that two groups actually enjoy the true benefits of a progressive utopia – those in control and those who aren’t required to do much other than assure the controllers stay in control.  The other groups are the ones who actually do all the work and all the paying.  The progressive utopia is maintained on their backs.   So, it’s a great system, assuming you’re either a “taker” or a controller.

Progressives have been working on various aspects of reshaping America since the 1890s.  They moved out in a strategic way in the 1930s, when they infiltrated college campuses all over America and began their takeover of those institutions.  Today it’s not a great overstatement to assert that almost all publically funded colleges and universities and most of the major private schools are completely in the progressive camp.  If you want to find one that isn’t you have to look to those with a strong religious emphasis and those that are avowedly conservative. 

Consider this, Harvard College was originally founded as an institution to train young men to become ministers.  It was founded by colonial Puritans who wanted its graduates to have a broad education, but one that was founded in fundamentalist Protestant principles.   Today’s Harvard University struggles with its heritage.  There was a movement recently to erase all traces of its earlier emphasis.  There were demonstrations in favor of removing all symbols, plaques, statues and other monuments that reflected the school’s ties to religion.  In truth, it was an effort to erase Harvard’s true history.  It had become an embarrassment to the current student body and much of its faculty.  Today’s Harvard is one of the top five progressive institutions in the country; possibly number three.  It’s clearly not quite as progressive as the U. of Chicago and Columbia U., and may or may not be equal to the U. of Wisconsin (chartered as a progressive policy laboratory), and U. of California, Berkeley.  Harvard has few traces of Christianity left.  Its principle “religious” emphasis is the promotion of secular humanism.  In that regard it’s much like the majority of colleges and universities across our land. 

If you want to trace the evolution of initiatives that pushed our nation into social decline, you’ll find their principle authors were graduates of the major progressive institutions mentioned above, plus the other so-called “Ivy League” schools.  Politicians and judges who graduated from those schools since the mid-1930s did the greatest damage.  Politicians, because they have pushed all aspects of the progressive agenda each and every session of Congress for over 80 years.  Judges, because their Darwinian interpretation of the Constitution has helped erode the traditional foundation of our society in countless ways.

Graduates of progressive institutions formed or re-shaped insular societies  which evolved into national and international “think tanks” and policy analysis organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, The Earth Institute, Human Rights Watch, the Center for American Progress, the Guttmacher Institute, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorites, the Urban Institute, the Aspen Institute, and the Open Society Foundation.  There are dozens more; each with its own special area of societal or governmental emphasis.  All are part of the movement of progressivism toward an aggregation of national and governmental interests into international combines.  In truth, today’s emphasis in education at the university level is not in synch with national interests, but is decidedly international.  Nationalism is completely frowned upon.  Internationalism; that’s where it’s at!  And, that’s part of the truth of the decline of our American way of life.

America in the late 1950s was a wonder to behold.   We were both the bane and the envy of all the nations of the world.  Many nations envied us.  Many reviled us.  Many sought to emulate us.  We were the undisputed top economic and military powerhouse on the planet.  The Soviets may have claimed to be our equal in military terms, but they always knew they were second rate when it came to their economy.  America was in a class by itself.   “So,” you should ask, “what happened?”  Progressives happened.

President John Kennedy was no progressive.  In my years of studying his administration I’ve found little other than the truth that he was a “Harvard Man” to suggest he might have a tinge of progressivism in his philosophy.  He seemed remarkably conservative, and by today’s standards he’d certainly be celebrated for his conservatism.  Kennedy lowered tax rates.   He questioned our “advisory” mission in Vietnam and was on the cusp of announcing a troop withdrawal at the time of his assassination.  In all but his personal life he seemed to be a fairly straightforward conservative American and a nationalist.  But, his successor was a completely different animal.

Lyndon Johnson bears the greatest responsibility for the decline of American society.  It was his Great Society programs that implemented many items of the progressive agenda.  It was the Great Society that created many of the social welfare, nanny-state programs that are at the heart of our nation’s real problems.  It was also during his term that progressive judges began to dominate the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.  Soon thereafter we began to see rulings that eventually put severe constraints on prayer in school and religious celebrations on public property, private property rights, and of course, the right to life itself.

People today debate on when the notion of political correctness actually began.  If you go back in time and try to understand you should be able to find the time when the purposeful re-definition of common English words began.  It was in the mid-60s, possibly during the 1964 presidential campaign, when Barry Goldwater’s supporters were referred to as neo-cons, which was assigned a white nationalist, war-mongering, xenophobic definition.  Progressives understood the power of words and definitions, and have worked overtime in changing the meaning of words.  Today it’s possible to find two people engaged in a political debate who are using exactly the same words and seemingly in agreement on solutions when the truth is their actual understandings and intent are wildly divergent.  One person will be referencing Webster’s, while the other will be speaking from a modern progressive set of definitions.   Their words will be the same, but all other aspects of the communication will actually be in opposition.  I’ve witnessed such debates and the purposeful confusion the perversion of language creates.   If you want to blame someone for the entire phenomenon of political correctness and the perversion of our language – find any progressive.  They did it.  It was and is a central part of their control strategy.

Today all aspects of education are firmly in the grasp of progressives.  Federal fingerprints are all over our schools, through strings attached to various grant and aid programs controlled by the Department of Education.  Undoing that system is a Herculean task that current Secretary Betsy DeVos is undertaking.  If she succeeds in getting the federal government out of our nation’s pre-K-12 classrooms we should name a mountain range in Alaska after her.  In truth, the children in school today aren’t getting much of an education.  They aren’t even benefitting from a competent baby-sitting service.  To make the conversation even worse – it’s all been done on purpose.  Progressives don’t value academic education.  They aren’t interested in whether or not little Johnny and Mary can read, write, or do simple math, just as long as they understand the rules progressives give them to follow and they adopt the current politically correct viewpoints.  Progressives want our children to feel, not to think.  Look at what’s going on today, with the student demonstrations that are advertised as anti-gun violence activities, but seem more to be targeting the National Rifle Association.  Progressives use our children to accomplish their ends.  Remember, their watchword is exactly the same as the socialists, and the communists before them:   By Any Means Necessary.  If they need to use a mass-shooting as a pretext to mobilize children to work for their agenda item, so be it.  That’s exactly what’s going on.

Let’s leave the colleges and pre-K-12 environments, and even the government.  Let’s concentrate for a bit on the family unit and how progressivism has been working overtime to destroy it.

Johnson’s Great Society welfare programs are at the heart of this issue.  Whenever any government employs policies that have the effect of diminishing family values nothing good can result.  Welfare programs always bring out the worst in people.  No matter what the program, there are always people who will make it a point to cheat the system.  We all know this.  It’s one of the darker aspects of human nature.  But, when welfare is institutionalized and then made “honorable” the level of cheating dramatically increases.  Our social welfare structure systematically encourage several negative phenomena:  idleness, illicit sex, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, single parent households, multi-generational poverty, and emphasis on non-intellectual pursuits.  The welfare system is a wasteland, where human capital is frittered away as if all its members are expendable, though their purpose is justified solely by their existence.  In truth, our citizens who exist on welfare programs are little more to our government than cattle until it comes time to vote.   Then, all of a sudden, they’re incredibly valuable.  Then, the progressives all come out of the woodwork to remind those existing on the welfare plantation that they owe their very lives to their system and its perpetuation.

The mass shooting at the school in Parkland, Florida gives many hints to what is truly amiss in America.  There’s a hint of the effects of years of desensitization cause by experiencing overly violent movies and video games.  There’s a hint of extremely poor parenting.  Then, there are hints of institutions incapable of performing their primary functions; in this case the school itself, county law enforcement, and the mental health system, such as exists.  Of all the hints, it’s the parenting thing that’s the most important.  Today almost all intact families are two-earner combines.  In some ways that reality isn’t much of an improvement over a single-parent family.  In either case children are often left by themselves far too often and for far too long.  Too many children today are left to figure life out on their own.  Too many are trained by their TVs, movies, video games, or by peers who may be even less capable of dealing with the complex realities we all face.  It’s a sorry state of affairs, but one progressives actually promote.  Do you doubt it is so?  If so, look on your TV today and listen to the debates being held regarding the causes and aftermath of the school shooting.  How many times do you hear a thoughtful discussion aimed at changing policies to fix broken families and to incentivize people to pay more attention to the actual needs of kids as they grow up?  You’ll mostly hear about the phony need for more laws or more constraints on individual freedom, as if the school shooting occurred due to a lack of some law or because people are too free.   If policy makers truly want to fix things – let them concentrate on fixing all systems that reward behaviors that are negative to good family structures.

Vladimir Lenin understood people very well.  When the old Soviets were reorganizing Russia according to Marxist-Leninist doctrine the theorists understood they needed to ensure control of the people would be absolute.   The approach they took emphasized mass distractions.  The idea is if you distract people enough they will begin to focus on false realities and ignore what’s happening right in front of their faces.   Lenin believed if he could keep the populace focused on sports, sex and entertainment his government could do pretty much whatever they wanted and still maintain iron-fisted control over the nation.  The Romans understood it, almost 2,000 years before Lenin.  That’s the entire reason behind their gladiatorial sports.   Lenin’s distraction policies worked, at least until the weight of six decades of disastrous economic policies finally brought the whole thing down.  The people were still willing to play the same old Soviet games, but the rubles to do it finally ran out.  What we’ve seen in America over the past few decades is a near-parallel to Lenin’s implementation of distraction as national policy.   We have our NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA, NASCAR, Hollywood movies, the Academy Awards, the Golden Globes, the Grammies, and other forms of mindless entertainment and sports.  Then, of course, there’s that sex, drugs, and rock & roll mindset that manifested in a big way in the ‘60s.  Americans have become easily distracted, and in doing so we’ve allowed our elected politicians to become self-interested, lazy and corrupt.  Our members of Congress lie, cheat, and often steal, yet they get re-elected to office over and over again.  That distraction strategy works just as well in America as in Russia.

America needs to return to “Those Happy Days.”  We might want to keep some of our more modern conveniences and inventions, but we need to recapture our lost spirit.  We need to regain our appreciation for family, religion, and honorable conduct.  We need to learn how to be free again and what it takes to be a true patriot.  We need to be much more intolerant of bad behavior and more rewarding of good.  We need to re-tune our national ethos and learn how to be the kind of Americans our grandparents and great-grandparents were, back before the progressives began to make things “better.”  Again, we need to keep what we all agree is good, but get rid all that has resulted in corrosion of spirit and morality; those policies that accompanied the progressive programs our government and judiciary foisted upon us. 

The primary thing people must accept is, there is no utopia.  There is no perfect place, no perfect society, no perfect government, and no perfect people.  There never was, and there never can be.  We are all humans, and filled with imperfections that argue against ever achieving any significant level of societal perfection.  If we are to take our nation back from the progressives we have to acknowledge the truth of humans and create new policies that push people in the right direction, toward behaviors we agree are good and honorable.  We need to start by scrapping the Great Society programs and re-think what we want our federal and state governments to do.  America is supposed to be a nation where the individual is the most powerful political unit of governance, not the federal government.  Everyone needs to learn what that means, and own it.

In Liberty,
Steve