|"Progressive" policy always attacks the symptom, not the disease.
||[Apr. 14th, 2007|05:55 pm]
Blue State Republicans
The one trend that is most noticeable among the policy that so-called "progressives" espouse is that they constantly attack the symptom and not the disease; they never attack the root core of the evil, but rather focus on a few select results of that evil that will serve to gain them the most political points. Usually, these political points are gained by riling up a select demographic group, so that Democrats can win that bloc in the next election.|
Look no further than the Don Imus fiasco and the outpouring of racial demagoguery that "progressives" like Al Sharpton and his ilk dumped upon the country. Not a single one of these "progressives" even thought to attack the root core of the problem - that black rap culture has, for far too long, promoted language that is demeaning to both blacks as a whole and women. Instead, these "progessives" focused on attacking a white man - Imus - for making the comment, demanding over and over again that he apologize, and subsequently demanding his firing. They constantly whined about what a racist comment it was and how it hurt people's "feelings." Don Imus was a symptom of the disease that black rap culture has afflicted America with. Don Imus got fired, and all of the "progressives" that verbally lynched him got all of their demands. What was the result? The elimination of a symptom - Don Imus's stupid comments - but the perpetuation of the disease - rap culture continuing to demean blacks and women. Another result, of course, is that "progressives" managed to once again rile up the black community, hoping that they will keep that monolith as a blind voting bloc for themselves.
But it goes beyond this too. As is quite obvious, "progressives" love to play the class card. How many times did we see the Democrats banter on and on about Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" in 2004? How many times do we see John Edwards, the biggest demagogue in the 2008 primary race, whine about how the rich are getting richer? "Progressives" rarely speak about the increasing financial burden being placed on the middle class; instead, when they refer to the middle class, they frame it as "the rich are getting richer, and you guys are not." Once again, they attack the symptom - rich people having a lot of money - without addressing the disease - the overwhelming financial burden the middle class has to put up with, partially due to "progressive" policy that has, over the course of the past few decades, placed huge tax, education, and other expenses upon the middle class for the sake of the "poor." What is the result? "Progressive" policy continues to hammer the middle class, and maybe the rich get taxed a little more; but that doesn't help the middle class, now does it? It does, however, help "progressives", because, much as in the Imus fiasco, they manage to rile up an entire group - here it is the middle class. The difference is that the middle class is not a monolith, and many of them are free enough thinkers to notice that in more "progressive" states, the middle class faces an even bigger burden. But this won't stop "progressives" from trying to gain another monolith by attacking a symptom instead of a disease.
A third example is the education system. "Progressives" constantly attack the symptom - the subpar status of our public schools and student performance - but never attack the disease - the structure of the public school system itself. They'll banter on and on about our failed schools while proposing the same old policies that haven't worked (like more funding). They particularly tend to do this with regard to inner-city schools, where "progressives" can get a 2-for-1: they can gain the black monolith vote and also the urban parent vote by attacking the symptom that is the failed status of such schools. In any case, these "progressives" never attack the root problem, which is the public schools themselves.
The fact is that "progressives" don't want to cure the diseases whose symptoms they attack. Much like how Al Sharpton cannot remain the "head" of the black community if the black community gains in status, "progressives" cannot win votes if they work to solve the problems of blacks and the middle class, or any other group that would benefit from disease-curing. "Progressive" policy is a sham, no matter which side of the aisle it is on; for instance, neo-conservatism is quite "progressive" in that it, too, attacks a symptom instead of a disease - it tries to spread "democracy" around the world militarily to attack a symptom (corrupt countries) instead of fighting off the disease (Islamic terrorism). The bottom line is that "progressivism" is all about creating divides and selectively attacking branches of evil instead of the root of the evil; branches of evil that serve to gain "progressives" the most votes and political support.
By the way, the word "progressive" has "quotes" around it in the above passage because I think the entire word "progressive" is a sham in itself. "Progressive" is merely a euphemism for "left-liberalism," which said "progressives" do not want to admit they are. The word is a sham because the very word "progressive" implies "progress," which is something that cannot be said of a group of people who openly advocate policies that attack symptoms, in a pathetic effort to get political support, instead of attacking the root cause of the problem. PROGRESS is made when you solve the problem - not when you bitch on and on about damage caused by the problem. "Progressive" my ass.