Political Discussions
Progressives are slave owners and tyrants.
Posted by ReneMonroe • 10/20/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: glenn beck, liberalism, racism
Well, according to Glenn Beck, progressives are the decendents of tyrants and slave owners. Taking into account that progressivism started with Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party, I find this attack to be pretty unintelligent on Glenn Beck's part. What do you think?
Heres the video of Glenn Beck being...Glenn Beck.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzuK_ZLn5HQ&feature=player_embedded
User Comments
-
Beck used to be bizarrely fascinating or at least entertaining in a perverse sort of way, but after a short time he just gets boring. I'll save this for a moment when I decide I need to dull my senses. -
Progressivism starts back further than that. Many intellectuals involved with the original revolutionary movement in france were progressives by almost any measure. Hamilton shared some philosophical similarities with modern progressives. Abe Lincoln was a serious progressive capitalist. Then there were the Radical Republicans. None of those people supported slavery
-
Of course progressives have been around since America was founded. I felt that this would have been best illustrated through the use of a political party that focused itself around progressive thought thus why I used the Bull Moose Party.
Plus I found that it quite ironic since Republicans always utilize Roosevelt and Lincoln as icons for the Republican. Totally agree with the Thomas Paine part though. I am a huge fan of Thomas Paine, I guess that makes me a devote conservative then, well at least using Glenn Beck's logic.
-
-
And in the category of uncivil wingnuts, here's the more popular one, Limbaugh, saying that a global climate editor of the NY Times could help the climate by doing himself in. Lovely what qualifie as entertainment these days. www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1009/Rush_to_Revkin_Kill_yourself_to_sav...
-
Wow!!! Thats just crazy. I'm sorry but this is just insane.
-
-
Getting back to Beck, it seems his hero Thomas Paine was quite a radical progressive...
-
Beck's analogy was definitely a little odd and took me a little bit to figure out. First off, remember, Beck is a right leaning libertarian. For the most part, he opposes any form of government not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The Constitution itself only defines about 17 powers the federal government is allowed to carry out, and anything more, he considers as an infringement and unconstitutional. So back to Beck's quote. With this in mind, he believes that making people become dependent (key word) on the government, whether through government run health care or some other entitlement is becoming a slave to the government. Essentially Beck argues, the government is taking away people's ability to prosper or suffer by their own actions and is a loss of freedom, i.e. enslavement. As the slaves once depended on their owners for food and clothing, so do the people become dependent on the government (the owner) for similar measures.-
I believe I understand what Beck was trying to say. I do actually watch him (yes I know that is strange for a liberal however its entertaining). However to make the assertion that progressives are slave owners and tyrants is rather ridiculous because many of Becks heros (i.e. Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, James Madison) were all progressives. So in other words, I get what Beck was trying to say, I just do not understand the logic, or lack thereof, that he used to assert his point.
-
Rene- They called themselves progressives yes, but the meaning of the word has changed since the Revolution. Back then, progressiveness meant individualism, breaking from the British monarchy, and self-determination. They did not believe in a strong central government like the monarchy because to them, it was equated with tyranny. Beck's idea of today's progressives being slave owners, is that they are for big and intrusive governments. Forcing people to become dependent on the government for various reasons. Today's progressive's are trying to make people become dependent on them, thus solidifying their power. Beck's "progressives" would spit on Mao's little red book, Saul Alinsky, Marx, and the like because they stand for exactly what the American Revolution was fighting against. That is the difference between the Revolutions progressives and today's progressives.
-
How could the American War of Independence have been directed against ideologies that didn't even exist yet? It couldn't---unless we are talking about ahistorical right-wing imaginations today.
-
@Newblogger2008 Where do you get the idea that progressives want the American people to be dependent on government? What by creating a health insurance option to compete with the private industry just as the post office competes with UPS and Fed Ex? Maybe its a massive defense budget? Oh wait, that is sponsored by republicans.
Conservatives are not about people being independent, they are about protecting corporate profits so that they continue to get large campaign contributions.
Liberalism is about protecting individual liberties from the large, powerful, dictating majority. Liberalism is about fixing what doesn't work. Liberalism is about the free market principles of true capitalism. Hence why free market economics is also called liberal economics.
Todays progressives stand up for exactly what our founding fathers stood for, separation of church and state, a government that enables others to take care of themselves and to help those who cant. Key word there, help. There is not a single progressive who would want to force any individual onto any government system unless they are a criminal and they are forcing them into the prison system. Sorry, but the logic just does not work there. -
It is easier to demonize the other side if you assume the worst possible motivation and then claim it to be the true root of whatever the other side is championing. -
@xmarks: But then again, who doesn't? (I'm speaking, of course, at the level of political parties. There are individuals who don't.) -
I agree completely. Left vs. Right. Republicans vs. Democrats. It is the cheap shots and distortions that make the entertainment media (aka "news") ratings. Those are also what stick in peoples minds the easiest and longest.
Republicans want me to die quickly!!!!!
Democrats are going to kill grandma!!!!!
etc.
etc.
etc. -
That's why I prefer discussing political philosophy, the ideals, to politics.
-
@Newblogger2008 and Xmarks Okay. After reading what I posted earlier, I am going to apologize because that generalization was...rather crude and beneath what I am actually capable of. I understand that most conservatives are not truly out to protect the profits of big business. That assertion was rude, stupid, and unjustifiable on my part. I truly apologize for that kind of idiotic remark.
-
-
"Beck is a right leaning libertarian. For the most part, he opposes any form of government not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The Constitution itself only defines about 17 powers the federal government is allowed to carry out, and anything more, he considers as an infringement and unconstitutional"
Wrong. During the Bush administration, Beck supported Big Brother and the Jingoes. nothing Libertarian or constructionist there -
Well said, I agree completely. Beck is a staunch Republican. There is really no argument to be made otherwise.
-
-
Todays progressives started with Theodore Roosevelt not one bit more then todays Republicans started with Thomas Jefferson. They actually started with William Randolph Hearst - who ran against Theodore Roosevelt once for president, lost, but remained a very prominent fixture of American politics, media, and political philosophy until around the time of World War II. He also built the Hearst San Simeon Mansion in California.
I wouldn't say todays progressives started out of slaveowners, those came from a tradition no longer with us in any form as not even the South or East Coast has a heavy enough dose of that kind of thinking today to sustain such a movement. Margaret Mitchell (great Atlantan) famously called it "a civilization gone with the wind."
As for tyrants, I wouldn't say that either, at least not in the strict dictionary sense of tyranny, but it is true that todays liberalism has taken on a heavier then healthy dose of socialistic thinking as a result of FDR. While that socialism is not meant to be tyrannical, the only way socialism can work is through the threat of violence, as you have to find a motivator to replace money. Eventually, you will have to decide between socialism or freedom, though the decision is not always made at one time (England reduced but did not absolve completely its socialism in the 1980's, and Sweden has reduced their socialism but not absolved it recently, while King County, WA has been forcefully evicting Hobos [and everyone else] from public parks and creating near fascist regulation, police and government service policies to sustain their socialistic policies to help the homeless.)-
Well, Roosevelt was a key figure in the Progressive era. Politically it had many focal points, one of these being the Bull Moose Party. While William Randolph Hearst was a powerful figure in the news media, Roosevelt was a powerful figure in the political scene.
Although, you are right that FDR had a more powerful effect on todays liberals than Teddy did, however, Teddy did help lay the foundation for that to take effect, just as many other progressives at the time did, many of these same individuals were republicans like:
Robert M. La Follette, Wisconsin Senator
William Howard Taft, President
Woodrow Wilson, President
Charles Evan Hughes Sr, Presidential Candidate.
So yes, Theodore Roosevelt did not solely create the progressive movement, he was one of the most prominent figure in its creation. -
WR Hearst was a much more powerful figure in Politics then you think. Kingmakers are every bit as important as Presidents. But you missed my point entirely. Jefferson was a Jeffersonian Republican, a party that was dissolved by the middle of the 19th century. The modern Republican party started with completely new ideals and Abraham Lincoln.
Likewise, the "progressives" of today do not represent the populist, individualist, legalist views of the Progressives. Todays liberalism is far more built on the philosophy and almost kleptocratic tendencies and viewpoints of William Randolph Hearst than the clear "Square Deal" principles of Teddy, which are actually closer to Right Populism at this point. -
Hmm, after rereading your response in conjunction with this response I get it. It came across as something different entirely. I generally agree with you there, that liberals and conservatives differ greatly from their founding principles which is all I was referring to.
I was trying to avoid specific areas of todays political climate verses then while trying to point out the similarities. I was trying to avoid specifics throughout this discussion but, as you probably noticed, I failed earlier with a rather stupid generalization.
Although, I noticed that I did not include you in the apology, so let me correct that here, I also apologize to you. The generalization I made earlier was ridiculous and insulting to everyone's intelligence. I hope I haven't lost any respect on anyones part here. Again, to everyone, I apologize for my earlier remark. -
@JJ
Have you ever read the "Bull Moose" platform? In case you are interested...
teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607 -
It is sad how many of the issue of the day nearly a century ago are still issues today.
-
I know, right?!
-
Any notion of progress is frequently of limited value in history. Sometimes there's progress. And frequently there's regress.
-
I'm guessing in issues such as campaign finance and congress using their power for self-enrichment, there was never any progress.
-
Wow, okay in response to an earlier post, I made a mistake while listing names of people who were republicans and progressives, Woodrow Wilson obviously was a Democrat and won because of the split in the republican party that was created by Theodore Roosevelt. God, I am just making mistakes all over the place LOL.
-
"The modern Republican party started with completely new ideals and Abraham Lincoln"
um... www.cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html
Even the high tarriff that "secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture renumerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence"
yep same party *rolls eyes*
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
