DEFINITIONS

Leftism/progressivism can be defined as an insidious, devious thought process through which certain individuals--leftists/progressives--are enabled to plot and/or carry out various evil acts against mankind, while convincing themselves that they are doing good........in the long run.

JJ

Comments

[Francis W. Porretto]

I rather like Thomas Sowell's definition of leftism as "a vision of differential rectitude." Once you've convinced yourself that you're morally superior to your opponents, you can justify doing just about anything to them -- or for them.

[Jack Jones]

Francis, that's a good one also. But I don't think it goes far enough. His definition seems to put a comical, pitiable face on leftists/progressives. Whereas, I believe the damage these people inflict on our world can't be understated. Also, I believe that if you scratch just below the surface, you will find progressives are motivated by aggression, not by any sincere desire to help humanity.

[Will]

What a horrible general statement. The division between left and right is in actuality fairly miniscule. >Plot evil acts against mankind< This is the worst sentence in your statement. There will be no acts of evil against mankind unless you count the raping of your paycheck through taxes for Social Security, Workmans Compenstation, and Unemployment Insurance, all safeguard to keep the laborers and citizens from reaching a level of poverty. Leftism as far as War is concerned shares basically the same ideals. Bush's approval rating post 9/11 was around 90% because the country rallied behind him as a whole. It has fallen because of poor and misled reasons for going to and continuing the War in Iraq. There was almost nobody who would have said that America should not have sought retrobution for the terrorist acts of 9/11. Leftists included. I am a student and still forming my political stances, but as a whole I am conservative. I just want a government to uphold each and every one of my rights, a government to provide for national defense (It is calleld National Defense because there really is no reason to go to war unless attacked or grossly threatened), and a government that is as small as possible while doing so. Calling leftists evildoers is taking a page out of an obsolete President's book. I am all for the opportunity of success against the opportunity of results, but that does not mean that there should not be something provided by the American government to provide for the general welfare and reward hard working Americans should they fail to utilize the existing system to achieve a sense of wealth. Blanket statements are no good. You are only furthering that miniscule divide for a reason that is beyond me. All American have common interests and perhaps you should set aside some time to realize these.

[Jack Jones]

Will, I appreciate you taking the time to voice your opinions. Simply put, you and I are not on the same page due to a difference of experience, and consequently, perspective. When you see the terms left, liberal, progressive etc., you think of people who have genuine concern and compassion for others and who act on that compassion. I believe you think in this way because, as you stated in your comment, you are a student in the process of forming your belief system. That is to say, you're young and you don't know any better--no offense. You have yet to learn that these terms are deliberately deceptive. I write in broad generalizations because I understand that the ideas I am trying to express can be difficult to grasp for people who don't have a firm grounding in the history of leftism. I urge you to read the entry "Corrupt the Young" on the sidebar of this blog. It is the mission statement of the left and has been for over one hundred years. Next, might I suggest books by people like David Horowitz. Horowitz was a third generation Communist until about twenty years ago. He and those like him know firsthand the inner workings of the left. His website is discoverthenetwork.org. It's worth a visit. Anyway, good luck in your academic pursuits. Keep an open mind. Thanks for stopping by.

[Jeremy]

If you value civil rights, equality, humanity, peace, science, intelligence, the fundamental roots of Christianity, fiscal responsibility, progress, intellectual thought, fairness, and just about everything we've worked so hard to achieve in the past 100 years, then you owe a great debt of gratitude to liberalism my friend. Because without it, we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be able to vote, the sun would still revolve around the Earth, we'd still have white only water fountains, your grandparents would not have their social security, and one last thing - we wouldn't be invading countries without solid intelligence, thus making us more unsafe from real terrorism. We wouldn't have fundamentalist religious people, we'd respect people's privacy, and we'd be more educated on almost everything. Sounds like a shitty place to live eh?

[Jack Jones]

Jeremy, the first part of your comment is more or less accurate. Although it's a safe bet that most people of average intelligence have already reached those conclusions. As I've written before, not so many years ago I would have been considered a liberal. But I'll play along just to humor you. So right back at you Jermey. Without modern liberalism, the Soviet gulags, which worked untold millions to death, would never have come about. And what about the millions who have been imprisoned and starved to death in the name of Marxism (one of modern liberalism's other names). Boy, those were the days, weren't they Jeremy? Incidently, you might want to bone up on your American history. Slavery in the U.S. was ended largely through the efforts of what could only be called Fundamentalist Christians like john Brown. Today's liberals would dismiss him as a lunatic. Also, I doubt seriously that Galileo regarded himself as a liberal by any of the currently accepted definitions of the word. It's unlikely that his views on women's sufferage and privacy issues were well recorded. As for the old "we wouldn't be invading countries without solid intelligence," saw, we try to avoid trite, hackneyed, dead horse talking points around these parts. My position has always been pretty clear. The Middle East needs to be stabilized in order to prevent World War Three and the accompanying violent deaths of a couple of billion people. In a few years we will be hearing stories on NPR about the burgeoning Iraqi country western music business...or some such. All's well that ends well. Thanks for stopping by.