Contact Form * Contact Form Container */ .contact-form-widget { width: 500px; max-width: 100%; marg

Name

Email *

Message *

The case against 'progtessives'.


Who has deemed these action groups to be progressive and who supinely accepts that they are?

The New York Times for one. A good deal of chutzpah or naivety is required to call one’s self a ‘progressive’. For what is the etymology of the word ‘Progress’; ‘characterized by advancement’ the dictionary informs, but advancement towards what? It could be the ‘swamp’ or it could be that revered moral high ground beloved of the left; whereas bestriding the certainty of morals for many is to be no more than standing on the slippery slope of ever changing opinion.


To have an opinion of somebody (Trump) by necessity one must be measuring it against somebody or something, otherwise the opinion is solipsistic, or causa sui; so when Trump is damned - as is invariably the case by the New York Times why not compare and contrast to define current alternatives; Trump as opposed to the paucity of say, Clinton.

And could these sainted progressives be regressives for they do not have the responsibility of power so they can indulge in nihilistic anarchy to their idealistic heart's content. I would submit History may aid us here; 'Progressives' often possess a belief in moral and intellectual progress, whereas for Marxism, man, at root, becomes only economic; for Darwin, man becomes merely biological and for Freud, merely psychological. So there is an historical divergence of views. Perhaps one should consider this before anointing demonstrators as ‘progressive’

No comments: