A Baker's Dozen of Reasons Why I Disagree With Progressives
The progressive tendency is to expect government to guarantee beneficial outcomes for an ever-growing number of citizens, citing various "historical disadvantages." This has led people to strive for an ever-expanding definition of "victimhood." It's gotten ridiculous, culturally. From hardship-proclaiming college application essays, to Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who claimed to be black, everyone is trying to cash in on the progressive gravy train.
Progressive government policies almost never account for real world individuals' reaction to them. They often cause greater harm to the people they are intended to benefit. The examples of this go back decades. The "great society" programs under Pres. LBJ didn't end poverty, they exacerbated it. When you pay women for not getting married to the father of their children, they won't get married. What progressives thought was a compassionate policy actually advanced the decline of the American family. Of course, today they are pretty open about achieving that goal. Hillary Clinton's book "It takes a Village," and trying to remove and replace parental guidance with the progressive agenda being taught in public schools are just a few examples of how far it's gone.
Progressive voters think that government needs "empathy," so they vote for politicians who profess to care about "the little guy," or "the less fortunate," or some other formulation of "victims of Capitalism." The truth is that progressive politicians spend money profusely on special interests that help them to stay in power. For almost a century, they have tried to use tax dollars to make Americans dependent on the government, instead of themselves. They have been largely successful, even though government can't afford to provide an adequate standard of living for everyone. When the inevitable deficits are exposed, it always gets blamed on "Conservative Capitalists."
I never understand when a progressive tells me that they vote for Democrats out of their own self - interest, but they condemn voters who vote for Republicans for the same reasons. Isn't it just as greedy to expect the state to fulfill your needs, as it is to earn enough in the private economy?
The reason I find progressives to be bigger hypocrites than any conservative is that they claim to be for fairness and equality, but they are actually for biased policies to achieve "equity," which is not equality. Conservatives believe in less government interference, because it often warps real world outcomes. Progressives seem oblivious to the real world outcomes of their policies, and brag about the "good intentions" that motivated them.
Great examples of failed progressive policies: THRIVE NYC, where Mayor deBlasio spent 850 million dollars on a "mental health outreach" program that had NO quantifiable results. By it's own definition, it focused on functional people who had "borderline, stress-related" issues, and not the larger problem of acutely disturbed individuals who posed a threat to themselves and the community at large. Does anyone believe that he, or his progressive supporters, actually give a whit about the mentally ill living on the streets?
Another big failure is the Soros-funded rash of progressive District Attorneys in cities across the nation over the past few years. While there is finally some recognition and pushback, in several cities, why is it that the "progressives" seem to have more concern about the criminals than the victims? They cite the higher numbers of minorities that are arrested for committing violent crimes, as if the police are selectively choosing who to arrest. What's more hypocritical is that the victims of these crimes are also overwhelmingly minorities, so where is the justice in going easy on the criminals because of their race?
Progressives have started promoting a Universal Basic Income, or "money for nothing, checks for free," to quote an old Dire Straits song. At least Dire Straits was making fun of rock stars, and not getting paid for sitting on your couch! Today, it is a serious policy proposal, but nobody asks "who will work, if you can get paid not to?" Also, where the Hell will the money come from, if nobody works?
I always get a kick out of progressives who say that the rich and corporations are making their wealth off of the backs of the poor and middle class. They seem to think that the rich and corporations pay no taxes. Now, I've seen the stories about Amazon, and other big corporations paying no taxes, but that's not actually true. They may not pay any income tax, because of corporate offsets and loopholes, but they still pay plenty of other types of taxes. As for the rich, they actually pay quite a bit more of total income taxes than most media care to report. The top 1% pay 39% of income taxes, and the top 5% pay 59%. I remember an interview with Pres. Obama, where they asked him about raising the "carried interest" tax rate. The questioner said "would you still raise the rate, even though it will raise less revenue for the government?" Pres. Obama replied "Yes, in the interest of fairness." I think he cited Warren Buffet paying less tax on his investments than his secretary paid on her income, but it's a great example of misguided policies. The president should want to maximize income to the treasury, as a basic economic policy. If he wants to be fair, he should lower income taxes for people like Buffet's secretary, instead of increasing taxes on investment.
What really ticks me off about most progressives is that they refuse to acknowledge the progress that has been made, and they still demonize some of the people who made it. We have Pres. Biden, trying to appease his progressive faction, calling objectively fair and reasonable state voting laws "Jim Crow 2.0." This is just a part of the progressive push to place African Americans back into perpetual victimhood, and deny them individual agency. It's actually pretty outrageous, and why some conservatives, myself included, have labeled it "the Democratic plantation."
Another old term for how progressives treat African Americans is "the soft bigotry of low expectations." This one is pernicious, and has led to a real decimation of the US education system. By claiming that tests are "racially biased," the progressive academic establishment has almost abolished testing. Meanwhile, the rest of the world still tests their kids, and as a recent study shows, entry level college tests are a better predictor of graduation rates than any of the newer progressive metrics. For some reason, progressive educators think that lowering or removing standards is a better answer than challenging African American students to achieve a higher standard. That is just sad.
The latest progressive doctrine that is upending rational thinking is the "transgender" movement. I've known people that think they are the other sex than they were born as for decades, and they should be treated with tolerance and compassion. However, the rest of us can not be forced into sharing that belief, beyond a certain point. Once upon a time, progressives stood for a woman's right to be equal in society, and also have their own place. Today, they stand for allowing a man to intrude on the places that women worked so hard to carve out for themselves, and accuse any women who complain of being "transphobic." How bizarre is that?
I could probably go on, but this is a "baker's dozen" of reasons I think progressives are misguided morons at best, or fascist authoritarians, at worst. I have to say that I know progressives that fit both bills, and some that are in between. The truth is that even with a political ideology, sweeping statements like the ones I've made here don't fit all of the people in that group. It's like a stereotype: while there are many who fit it, some don't. So no offense to any progressives who don't fit into the parameters I've described here. You are very special exceptions.
Comments