Progressives by nature want progress. Since the majority of progressives are young kids (or old children), that suffer from chronic Dunning-Kruger effect (those that know the least are the most self-assured) and think they know how to fix everything better than the people who have spent their lives in those industries, progress is virtually always an immature "knee-jerk" far-left reaction on how to make things better, that results in unintended consequences and would make things much worse. If only they had the wisdom to listen to the experts before regulating/legislating. But if they had that wisdom and temperament, they would be moderates.
Progressives is kind of a broad brush, and a sloppy one -- in that different countries might have different standards. But basically they have a few sub-segments, some of them worse than others. The worst are the "College Kids" regurgitating what they were taught in Marxist Grievance Studies classes, gullibly trying to change the world, without understanding the first thing about the past, present, or able to think through the consequences of their policies (and thus the future). It is slightly unfair to paint this vocal minority as all progressives -- but then most progressives have no problems with using the broad brush sloppily, so don't they deserve a little back? Maybe. But insert some caveats here, and don't just all of them by the actions of their vocal majority: it's just the 90% that give the rest a bad name.
|Progressives||Progressives see other progressives as good (by ignoring all the ways they aren't). They see those that resisted progress as bad, luddites, or vile (by ignoring the ways they aren't). They teach their side to fear the other side: Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Trump were all like Hitler, or dangerously unstable. (Lookup the Goldwater Rule). They know their side is morally superior, because they scare their base about the opposition. Any deeper glance at their side shows some rather unsavory behaviors from the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Martin Luther King Jr., Margaret Sanger, and a rapid emotional (fearful?) attacks on anyone that points out their flaws.||There's no moral high ground in taking other people's property, keeping a cut, and giving a percentage to your cronies or constituents. Teddy was a blowhard war-monger. Wilson was a racist pawn of corporate interests. FDR was one of more corrupt Presidents and nasty human being. MLK was a philander and a hypocrite. Margaret Sanger was a vile eugenicist. And so on. The world is a lot more nuanced, and people a lot more complex than the caricatures painted by leftist historians. But if they told the truth, their voters might not fear the alternatives as much. If you doubt it, point out inconvenient truths and see if they can accept them, or they attack.|
The progressive choice is looking at everyone else with more than you, and resenting it, and trying to get government to fix it. It doesn't lead to happiness, just despair.
You choice is:
(a) You can live the life of angry progressives -- always looking at people that have more than you, and resenting them for their color, money, etc., and always conspiring how to take what's someone else's, to make things "more fair". They want to punish success or who others are, and control the world -- and since they will never succeed, they're unhappy and bitter. But that just makes you a bitter and unhappy person, that's likely to die a bitter and unhappy person. (No matter what you get, it'll never be enough -- because the problem is your perception).
(b) Or you can learn the life of a happy anything else (libertarian, conservative, Christian, agnostic, etc). You look around and see that there's people that make less, have less, had it much rougher than you did (or had more misfortunes hit them), and yet they're more successful (as in happy with what they have) than you are. They're not sweating that your pay-check or house is bigger, they're living life like it matters, and trying to help others up (instead of holding others down). They're not living their lives trying to punish, and control -- but to help and serve.
I think more people like (b), the better society is. The more like (a), the worse. So I'd rather doom people to a realistic optimism of (b), than the cynical pessimism of (a).
Life sucks and is hard for most people. But the green-eyed monster of envy or trying to force fairness on an unjust world, is dooming people to failure and a bitter existence. While teaching them to cherish what they have, will make life better for them, and most who interact with them. That's one of the most major flaws of progressivism. more...
|Progressives gave us|
You often hear advocates claiming, "if it wasn't for progressives, you wouldn't have X...", then they explain without progressives, we wouldn't have roads, schools, police, fireman, military, or some other thing we had for decades or centuries before progressives. But I wanted to compile the other side of the equation (the balances). Here's a reminder of what they gave us that wasn't so great, or started off fine but entropied into something bad, so people can decide if jumping on every new big-government bandwagon is a good idea… or if a little prudence, caution and research is warranted before gobbling up the bandwagon fallacy and putting on that Che Guevara T-Shirt.
The short list of losers would include the following: