April 12, 2012

"Turns out Allen West misspoke. He said Communist Party when he meant Congressional Progressive Caucus.'

"But really, what's the difference?" Oh, no! Meade is winding them up over at the Isthmus forum...

I have here in my hand a list of 78 card-carrying members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus....

107 comments:

roesch/voltaire said...

Either way an idiot pandering to instill fear, what Republicans do best.

David said...

He's defending the indefensible quite effectively.

That's impressive.

David said...

"either way"

He's kidding, RV.

Way to snap up the bait.

leslyn said...

Yeah, right. And Carnifax has a bridge to sell to everyone who believes him.

(Yes, you did say "Brooklyn" and not "Bridge to Nowhere," Carnifax, but why wouldn't I only partly quote you and then twist that quote to my own nefarious purposes?

OMG! I'm turning into a right-wing blogger!)

ricpic said...

The difference is that the commies with their class warfare are pikers compared to the progressives, who add sex warfare and race warfare to the assault on decency.

Fen said...

leslyn: why wouldn't I only partly quote you and then twist that quote to my own nefarious purposes? (OMG! I'm turning into a right-wing blogger!)

No. What you mean is "Dowdified", using partial quotes to change what the speaker meant.

Sadly for you, it doesn't mean you are turning into a right-wing blogger, it means you are becoming Maureen Dowd.

Good luck.

edutcher said...

Rookie mistake, but it's gonna hurt him.

You have to get it right the first time, every time.

I think Joe Biden said that.

Or was it Barack Hussein J Johnson, Jr?

Revenant said...

It really is sort of weird that people voluntarily label themselves as "progressive". It is sort of like writing an autobiography and calling it "My Struggle".

Jay Retread said...

Talking about Isthmus Forum wind-ups...

"Meade might be one of the most non-self-sufficient people living today who claims to be a libertarian. He is living high on the hog off the taxpayers of the State of Wisconsin. His wife Ann Althouse has been abusing her tenure at UW law school for years. She has not published any scholarship in almost a decade but is instead getting paid by the taxpayers of Wisconsin $160,000.00 to sit in her pajamas and write blog entries about American Idol and other such nonsense. Meade does not work but instead is living a life of leisure and enjoying the fruits of his wife's tenure abuse at the considerable expense to the Wisconsin taxpayers. What a couple of phonies."

Tim said...

As I asked in the previous posting on Rep. West, why don't Progressives like being called Communists?

What, exactly, are the distinctions between what Progressives believe, and what Communists believe?

Can any Progressives list the distinctions?

Seriously - can any Progressives list the distinctions between Progressives and Communists?

Meade said...

Ha ha ha. I knew that was you, Jay Retard.

John said...

Didn't McCarthy turn out to be right? Haven't we found since 1989 that virtually all of the people with secret clearances were taking money from the Soviets?

The FBI et al knew most of it at the time from the Venona Transcripts. Due to the extreme secrecy required to keep the Soviets from finding we had broken their codes, nobody could act on the info.

As for his list of names, is there any proof that he ever said that? If you read up on it, there is at least some dispute about it.

Sen Tydings long claimed that he had a recording of him saying it but it turned out to be like John Kerry's magic hat. Nobody ever saw the hat or heard the recording.

People seem to forget how conservative the Kennedy brothers, Saint Jack and Saint Bobby, were back in the day.

Or that The gov of Maryland, born a Kennedy, is a McCarthy God Daughter.


John Henry

John said...

Oops.

Not all the people with secret clearances.

All the people with secret clearances that McCarthy accused of being in bed with the soviets

John Henry

crosspatch said...

When I first saw the quote, I thought he was referring to the 70 members of the Socialist Democrats of America that the SDA published a few years ago. My Congressman is on THAT list. I would say that the card carrying members of the Socialist Democrats of America are closer to communist than the progressive caucus.

SGT Ted said...

Yes, what IS the difference?

Organizational structure?

Lack of political Re-education programs? Many Progressive intellectuals call for them for dissenters on certain subjects.

Like Communists, many Progressives are invested in using "medical science" to "prove" their ideological opponenents are mental defectives or too stupid to understand the superiority of the Big Ideas that Progressives have in their huge brains. Thats a huge Freedom of Conscience" thing right there.

Such is their investment in their Big Ideas, that a combat veteran telling the truth about what Progressives themselves say and advocate is "borderline treasonous". There's a free speech Red Flag right there.

Like Communists, they show a contempt for the people whose cause they say they champion, when the people don't agree with their Big Ideas. Nevermind their ideas never work in the long run.

The goals are pretty much the same, when you separate the propaganda and examine actual policy.

Oh, they won't round us up in a purge? oh well then, let them carry on.

Mitch H. said...

I've been reading that huge Caro biography of Johnson. He made his bones in '49 as a red-baiter by driving one Leland Olds out of politics by calling him a commie. Caro was quite wroth with Lyndon, raving and ranting as he is wont to do; what I took from the proceedings was that Johnson had taken a dyed-in-the-wool corporatist, an American fascist with real and punishing power over business - Olds was the head of the Federal Power Commission, and you know he kept those plutocrats well-whipped in line - and called him a Bolshevik. He framed a crook, basically. But then, no-one would have taken him seriously if he called Olds a Fascist, or a national socialist; it would have been over-the-top and excessive.

So, in the McCarthy era, small-f fascists and corporatists got tarred as commies and reds. What, are you going to feel sorry for the bastards, because they favored the brownshirt over the commissar's cap?

Grow a pair. "Progressive", shorn of its civil-rights cover by actual progress and modern attitudes, isn't anything more than soft fascism. And even back then, a lot of the "Progressives" had white hooded sheets hanging in their closets, maybe getting a little dusty after the repeal of Prohibition, but still there, packed in mothballs.

Jay Retread said...

Meade, congrats on finding your own little socialist utopia! Ann is not open to polygamy by chance? I know of some people who like you benefit from her state provided healthcare bennies.

SGT Ted said...

well, yea the first Progressives were virulently racist. Eugenics and all that.

Tim said...

SGT Ted said...

"Yes, what IS the difference?

Organizational structure?"


I'm hoping a self-identified Progressive can tell us the difference.

If they object to being called Communists, presumably it is because they don't believe what Communists believe.

So, what do they believe that is distinct from what Communists believe?

Surely they can list the distinctions.

Any Progressives out there who can enlighten us on the distinctions between Progressives and Communists?

Karnival said...

Heh, Heh. Great stuff.

Freder Frederson said...

As for his list of names, is there any proof that he ever said that? If you read up on it, there is at least some dispute about it.

There is some dispute about the number of people on his list (it is disputed whether he said 205 initially, a couple days later there were only 57 on his list).

What, exactly, are the distinctions between what Progressives believe, and what Communists believe?

Some really stupid things are written on this blog, and this is near the top of the list.

You apparently have no idea what either term (progressive or communist) means.

Beorn said...

Either way an idiot pandering to instill fear, what Republicans do best.

Because Democrats never do that...except for the "War on Women"...and the "War on Hispanics"...and MediScare...and racial divisiveness...and the nasty 1%...and [fill in the blank from Obama's latest speech]...

Freder Frederson said...

Lack of political Re-education programs? Many Progressive intellectuals call for them for dissenters on certain subjects.

Name one. You are just making shit up.

Quaestor said...

Ho! That thread over at Isthmus is developing nicely! But what he needs is a nice, simple, easy to remember number of card-carrying members of the Congressional Progressive Congress.

"I have here in my hand a list of 57 card-carrying members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus..."

Seeing Red said...

Freder, why did you keep us hanging? Enlighten us as to the differences. This is a wonderful opportunity you have.

Rabel said...

I read Meade's comments and I have to say that I don't think that his assertion that the Congressional Progressive Caucus is a Communist organisation is valid.

For this to be, one has to assume that Maxine Waters has read and grasped Marx's theories as expressed in works such Das Capital and The Communist Manifesto.

I rest my case.

But I'm grateful for his attempt as it led me to discover my now favorite Marx quote:

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included."

Tim said...

"Some really stupid things are written on this blog, and this is near the top of the list.

You apparently have no idea what either term (progressive or communist) means."


I think I do know what they mean, but it is obvious you don't.

I'm look for verification from a Progressive (or a Communist) as to what they think the distinctions are.

Maybe you can help?

This board, from time to time, has no shortage of believers and atheists arguing over the differences, and what they mean; why the silence from the Progressives and Communists over the distinctions between them?

I can only assume, in the absence of any clarification, that there is no difference.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

Patrick said...

I think the Country, or at least the City of Madison owes Meade a debt of gratitude. He is keeping these people occupied. If he wasn't doing so, they could be out causing real harm.

Meade said...

Jay Retread said...
"Meade, congrats on finding your own little socialist utopia! Ann is not open to polygamy by chance? I know of some people who like you benefit from her state provided healthcare bennies."

Sorry, Jay "Phil" Retread - she's an old-fashioned one-guy kinda gal.

You seem to want to take away some people's entire compensation packages. But not everyone's. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

Tim said...

Seeing Red said...

"Freder, why did you keep us hanging? Enlighten us as to the differences. This is a wonderful opportunity you have."

1) He doesn't know.

Or, 2) the truth is embarrassing.

Both of these can be true, btw.

DADvocate said...

A friend of mine spent a couple of weeks in the USSR back in the early 1970s. No comparison to us nowadays. They had way more freedom.

MikeT said...

"Progressive", shorn of its civil-rights cover by actual progress and modern attitudes, isn't anything more than soft fascism.

Exactly. Progressives are generally fascists who, while happy with allowing private ownership, just want to dominate that ownership utterly with government control. They love the control and the ability to distance themselves from the private ownership when it is time to whip up the mob. AND they love the inevitable graft that comes with exerting control with no responsibilities.

Socialists & communists (the difference between them is just splitting angel hairs) are slightly more honest--they want the government to own everything directly. The graft is all internal then, which is good. But there is no one to scapegoat when things inevitably go horribly wrong.

We fought wars against both these diseased philosophies only to find them taking root in one of our own political parties. Sad.

MikeT said...

They had way more freedom.

That was because the little people could bribe the apparatchiks themselves. In our society, the apparatchiks can only be bribed by the extremely wealthy and powerful.

LoafingOaf said...

Meade plagiarized part of his post from Merriam-Webster.com.

***

I'm not scared of progressive voices in Congress even if they are socialist. The progressives are the wing of the Democratic Party that is more willing to be critical of a Democratic White House from the left and with principle, while other Democrats tend to just go along with whatever their President says.

They make some worthy points on a lot of issues. Shouldn't Congress reflect the diversity of thought in our population? Libertarians, progressives, etc. - should they not have voices in government, and be able to form coalitions with others on issues where they find common ground?

By demonizing anyone who, say, questions aspects of the War on Terrorism of Bush and Obama (civil liberties, torture, drone attacks on civilians, etc) you're telling millions of Americans that their concerns should be locked out of the debate. Isn't that dangerous? Doesn't that lead to alienation and frustration among the population? And doesn't that often lead to government making grave errors?

The disasters in foreign and economic policies in our first decade of the 21st century, for example, have left America in serious trouble. It seemed that a failure of the marketplace of ideas took place. Economists being laughed off TV so no one could evaluate their warnings. People with concerns about the Iraq invasion being labeled commies. And so on.

One of the representatives on the list is Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul, a libertarian GOP candidate, stated he can find areas of agreement with Kucinich and would consider putting Kucinich in his cabinet: "You've got to give credit to people who think," Paul said. "Being pragmatic is about forming coalitions," he added.

Terry said...

LoafingOaf wrote:
Economists being laughed off TV so no one could evaluate their warnings. People with concerns about the Iraq invasion being labeled commies. And so on.
I don't remember any of this. Which economists got laughed off the air? Who got labeled a commie because they had concerns about the Iraq invasion?

Michael said...

Roesch/voltaire: "Either way an idiot pandering to instill fear, what Republicans do best"

And so the party of the gentle liberals run on a platform which expresses no ideas other than that the evil right wing hates blacks, hates women, hates gays, hates the middle class, wants to take away birth control and is Scary. And then has the gall to say that Republicans "instill fear."

LoafingOaf said...

BTW, most Republicans support some socialist policies, too. They support the ones they think are good and work. So, how can they say that anything that's influenced by socialism is bad? How come they vote for Romney and Santorum, both of whom have some socialist tendencies on their records?

NitneLiun said...

The Democratic Socialists of America in 2009 released a list of 80 members of Congress who are also members of the DSofA. The DSofA is a Marxist organization. West was pretty much on target.

Terry said...

LoafingOaf wrote:
So, how can they [Republicans] say that anything that's influenced by socialism is bad?

Who are these Republicans? And why do you think that Republicans support socialist policies that "they think are good and work", instead of socialists supporting Republican policies that "they think are good and work"?

Tim said...

LoafingOaf said...

"BTW, most Republicans support some socialist policies, too. They support the ones they think are good and work. So, how can they say that anything that's influenced by socialism is bad? How come they vote for Romney and Santorum, both of whom have some socialist tendencies on their records?

Can we have a Progressive (or a Communist) answer my questions first: why don't Progressives like being called Communists?

What, exactly, are the distinctions between what Progressives believe, and what Communists believe?

Can any Progressives list the distinctions?

I know Progressives read this (probably some Communists too) - I can't believe they can't tell us the distinctions between the two.

AprilApple said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

In many ways the generational Progressive is worse than their Communist counterpart, at least of the Soviet variety. Not only does the American Progressive denigrate individual dignity, but they also devalue human life. They practice a progressive form of class warfare, which includes: race, gender, economic status, etc. To exacerbate their well-meaning, but fatally flawed policies, they have established a population which is increasingly dependent on redistributive change. They exploit a selective history, science, etc. in order to conduct emotional extortion and coerce compliance through social consensus. They encourage deviant behaviors which sabotage evolutionary fitness, and encourage American men and women to reject responsibility for their voluntary behaviors, most notable of which is the elective abortion of developing human life.

It is especially amusing when they deny their motives are anything other than consolidating wealth, power, and elevating their own stature in society. Their ambitions have only constrained by their minority status in America. Unfortunately, with their promises to fulfill dreams of instant gratification (i.e. physical, material, and ego), through redistributive and retributive change, but also through fraudulent exploitation, their platform is appealing to individuals without integrity or vulnerable.

West understated the problem posed by left-wing ideologues. There are some American Progressives of the classical variety, but they are few and far between. The generational variety pursues progress for its own sake and in service of their selfish interests at the expense of America's men, women, children, and a viable society.

Perhaps Americans need to experience first-hand the consequences of their dreams of instant gratification realized. Too many are simply ignorant of reality's constraints and the principles which define humanity and civilization.

LoafingOaf said...

Which economists got laughed off the air?

The easiest example to give you was blogged about by Althouse and includes a YouTube video: Peter Shiff, painfully correct and surrounded by clowns.

He was allowed to talk, but he was being treated (on FOX News financial shows) with disrespect, ridicule, and contempt.

Who got labeled a commie because they had concerns about the Iraq invasion?

An example would be the way people would walk around protests with cameras to find communist signs from extremists groups and then try and paint the entire crowd with the same brush. Then you'd have folks like Instapundit making a whole propaganda theme out of it: "They're not antiwar, they're just on the other side".

This was as much an obsession with right wing media as left wing media trying to demonize everyone who went to a Tea Party event.

Quaestor said...

A Progressive is a commie sans the gonads.

Hagar said...

The difference between socialists and communists are considerably more than "splitting angel hairs."

Though the final desired outcome is the same, the socialist creed says to get to the socialist nirvana by "educating the masses;" the communists say that is too slow and ineffective, let's take power by revolutionary coup and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat," which will show everyone how wonderful socialism is, and we can then let the dictatorship go, and indeed the state will wither away as per the standard doctrine.

Unfortunately, there seems to always be a few minor problems that needs taking care of, foreign enemies, or whatever that prevents the leadership from being able to let go of the power.

Tim said...

"Who are these Republicans? And why do you think that Republicans support socialist policies that "they think are good and work", instead of socialists supporting Republican policies that "they think are good and work"?"

Hi Terry. I appreciate your prompt answering Loafing Oaf's question, but I'd like to have an answer to my question, from a Progressive (or a Communist) as to what the distinctions are between Progressives and Communists.

After all, I was first, lol!

Tim said...

Hagar,

Thanks - but I forget - and no offense - are you a Progressive, or a Communist?

I want a Progressive (or a Communist) to explain the distinctions between a Progressive and a Communist.

Surely they know the difference? Why else would Progressives be all butt-hurt (as the kids say these days) about being called "Communists"?

A little education is all I seek, straight from the source. Surely it can't be this hard?

I Callahan said...

BTW, most Republicans support some socialist policies, too. They support the ones they think are good and work. So, how can they say that anything that's influenced by socialism is bad?

The classic example of a straw-man. Oaf suggests socialist policies, but doesn't mention even one of them.

Tim said...

Maybe I should try a new question for Progressives: Why are you upset with being called Communists?

Terry said...

The easiest example to give you was blogged about by Althouse and includes a YouTube video: Peter Shiff, painfully correct and surrounded by clowns.

Schiff is not an economist, he's a stock broker, and Schiff wasn't laughed off the air; the example you provide shows Schiff giving the same message on, what, a half-dozen shows? Including his own radio program?

An example would be the way people would walk around protests with cameras to find communist signs from extremists groups and then try and paint the entire crowd with the same brush. Then you'd have folks like Instapundit making a whole propaganda theme out of it: "They're not antiwar, they're just on the other side".
This is non-responsive. The only name you give is the Instapundit's, and he is not calling someone a commie.

Please do better, LoafingOaf.

Matt said...

Either Meade is joking or he isn't too bright. I'm going to guess he is joking.

Unknown said...

A simple view is that Progressives want to use the power of government to mandate/enforce social change and order. Therefore under this definition, Communism is a subset of Progressive. Fascism is also a subset. Also, the Religious Right has Progressive tendencies.

A century ago, religious group supported "progressive" ideas such as child labor laws and prohibition. The drug and sexual conduct laws are progressive laws, contrary to what Progressives claim now.

AprilApple said...

The progressive left, as a collective, are anti-free market neo-Marxist Neo-Maoist communists. They don't like that mirror you're holding up. The progressives don't like historically accurate labels because they have chosen a new word to hide behind. Progressive.
The left thrive off of false advertising and they get pissy with the push-back.

Amartel said...

The left continuously renames itself and the purely cosmetic (and ass-covering) distinctions between one group and the next are too boring to hold in your head.

So here's a handy flowchart:

http://www.thelookingspoon.com/index.php/april-2012/3321-the-definitive-leftist-family-tree

Hagar said...

Progressives are people who believe that with a sufficiency of smoke and mirrors, one can have socialism without really having socialism.

Matt said...

AprilApple

The amount of people in the US who fit your definition is hovering at about 1%. They are not significant. I live in one of the most liberal places in the US and I know plenty of Progressives. Not a one of us is anti-free market. Most of us work for corporations and enjoy the fruits of capitalism. But what we are weary of is unfettered corporate control, which can be just as bad in its own way as government control.

The problem with your thinking is that you believe that ONLY the extremes exist. So support for, say, a government program [like Medicare] means what we really want Mao and Marxism. That's is absurd. Especially because plenty of elderly people on Medicare are Republican.

Your thinking is on par with thinking that because someone wants police protection in their town that means they really want a fascist police state.

LarsPorsena said...

"..But what we are weary of is unfettered corporate control.."

Unfettered control of what?

Hagar said...

and anyway, it is not socialism if you do not call it that.

Mitch H. said...

Amartel, as much as I'd like to see a good, definitive leftist flowchart, that's either a slightly dotty Glen Beck diagram, or a parody of his ideas. In no way is the SDS a derivative of "Fabian Socialism", they're pretty much diametrically opposed trends, as the SDS was a muddle-headed New Left activist group which got more revolutionary in rhetoric as the Sixties wore on, whereas Fabian Socialism represents the sort of "evolutionary" democratic-socialism which the SDS as a group opposed and despised. Also? Marx isn't the source of all leftist or even socialist thought, most traditionalists would place guilt upon Rousseau's head, or possibly Plato's.

Jay Retread said...

Socialism for me(ade) but not for thee...

Terry said...

The big question Marxism was supposed to answer was the problem of human history. It wasn't about being fair and good to all the little people. That was a byproduct of the relentless force of dialectic materialism exposing the contradictions within capitalism.
Communists, as a matter of record, have been very bad at predicting the future. First WWI was supposed to be end stage capitalism. Then WWII was supposed to be end stage capitalism. After WWII people in the capitalist west got richer, not poorer, as capitalism gained over socialism as a policy model. That wasn't supposed to happen either.
Today's progressives aren't communists in the way that marxists are communists. They merely believe everything would be better if they and the people that thought like them were running things. They may appeal to a progressive view of history, but they can't articulate why they believe history progresses in some absolute sense. A marxist can.

X said...

The problem with your thinking is that you believe that ONLY the extremes exist. So support for, say, a government program [like Medicare] means what we really want Mao and Marxism. That's is absurd.

so you oppose single payer?



Especially because plenty of elderly people on Medicare are Republican.

They had no choice about paying in. They are not hypocritical for wanting what they paid for even if they disagreed with the program.

Matt said...

LarsPorsena said...

Unfettered control of what?

Everything. The more control the government has and the more control corporations have is not a good thing.

X said...

I fired ATT yesterday and Progressive Insurance today. Maybe you could just man up a little Matt.

Matt said...

X

Yes, but, plenty of Republicans who use Medicare NEED Medicare - even though some MAY think they do not. But the truth is MANY of them use Medicare and that is not a bad thing. It does not make them Marxists. It's all bullshit labels anyway. This is America. America has some socialist programs. And it has for a LONG. Big f'ing deal.

X said...

so you oppose single payer?

Matt said...

X said...
I fired ATT yesterday and Progressive Insurance today.

Yes, but do you REALLY have a choice. Did Geico or State Farm give you a MUCH better deal? Did Verizon save you a whole bunch? No. When we have 100 different phone services getting really competetive and giving you a great deal let me know. Until then let's not talk about phone conglomerates who screw us at every turn. [And yes the government would be worse -not denying that]. We don't have a real free market.

Matt said...

X said...
so you oppose single payer?

Depends. Medicare works and has worked for people I know [including in my family through the years]. Healthcare should not be a for-profit business. Or, it can be if some folks want it to be. I'm all about choice. You want to pay $1500 a night for a stay in the hospital? Fine with me.

You show me a way medical costs can come down by each of us paying less for insurance than we pay into Medicare and you might get my vote some day. #:^)

X said...

Good guess. State Farm beat my old rate by 43%. Sprint cut my plan cost in half and upgraded me to an iphone, so yeah, they were better deals, and I had a choice.

LoafingOaf said...

Terry: Schiff is not an economist, he's a stock broker, and Schiff wasn't laughed off the air; the example you provide shows Schiff giving the same message on, what, a half-dozen shows? Including his own radio program?

You think you can't be an economist if you also work in the private sector?? Eh???

An economist is an expert on economics. Schiff studies economics and writes books about it. Lots of economists work in the private sector. What, you think they all have to be university professors? lol

And he calls himself one:
BIO
Peter David Schiff (born March 23, 1963) is an American economist, author, commentator and popular video blogger. Schiff, a licensed stock broker, is the president of Euro Pacific Capital, headquartered in Westport, Connecticut


I don't know what credentials you're suggesting he must acquire before he's allowed to call himself one.

He wasn't literally laughed off the air, but watch this other YouTube that shows an appearance on Fox News, and they sure are trying to laugh him off the air.

Watch how he's ridiculed while multiple people laugh out loud at him, disrespecting him, attacking his motives, and painting him as a nut who should start selling dry food. And then, as they're all laughing at him one of them sarcastically says, "Hey, Peter, you wanna come back on the show?" Then another intervenes and says, "No, no, we appreciate having another point of view". No they didn't.

What kind of a dumb-ass show has an economist on and they all sit there and belly-laugh at him, calling him a nut. That's what Fox News was presenting before the housing bubble burst. Most of us don't have time to study the economy. What we would like is to see a better quality of discussion and debate on television, and not some garbage news network trying to manipulate us into believing this or that dissenting view should not even be given a moment of consideration.

The only name you give is the Instapundit's, and he is not calling someone a commie.

Yes, he did call people commies. If you don't recall the coordinated effort of the right-wing blogosphere to smear the protests, I can't help you as I have to take my dog for a walk now. The way it worked was, one blogger would post pics of some commie signs spotted at an event, and then all the rest of right wing media would hype that up. I remember because I was on the pro-Iraq invasion side (I've since changed my mind) and I was reading all those blogs.

Nathan Alexander said...

@Loafing Oaf
Then you'd have folks like Instapundit making a whole propaganda theme out of it: "They're not antiwar, they're just on the other side".

That was proven 100% true. Is Gitmo closed? Did Obama seek Congressional approval for Libya intervention? Did Obama approve drone strikes on terrorists, including American citizens?

The fact is, they weren't anti-war, they were just against anything Bush did. They were doing their best to undermine GOP control of govt, and temporarily pretending to be anti-war was just part of the flim-flammery.

You prove yourself wrong already.

X said...

Healthcare should not be a for-profit business.



Thank God our grandparents didn't think so. Can you imagine all the innovations we wouldn't have? If they had been as greedy for free stuff 50 years ago, most of the expensive medicine, treatments, and devices you hate paying for would not exist.

AprilApple said...

Of course we have social engineering and socialism. Is it working?

Under the phony pretext of fairness, progressives have done more to remove competition from the free market than any other group. They chip away at it every day. Then, when you call them on it, the progressives point at the strawman they created and say "oh no, you're crazy, we love fairness. Besides you are enjoying our wonderful Medicare."

Choice and completion have been murdered by the progressive god-complex. The progressive idea of freedom will forever be the insistence that government knows best. This is becoming unpopular, so the progressive is obfuscating. Remember, no matter what, according to the progressive, the individual cannot be trusted.

Terry said...

For God's sake, LoafingOaf. Schiff's training is in finance. He makes a living selling financial instruments. That's his area of expertise. Schiff calling himself an economist has no more validity than me calling myself an economist. You claimed that economists (plural) who foretold the financial collapse of 2008 were being laughed off the air. The only actual example you could come up with was a non-economist not being laughed off the air.
The example of people being labeled communists because they oppose the Iraq War you gave was Instapundit referring to some unknown person as "being on the other side". So Islamists are commies? WTF?
Your last Instapundit quote has Reynolds referring to a NY Times story about the WWP -- World Workers Party -- involvement in the founding of anti-war group ANSWER. WWP is about as hard core commie as you can get, and they admit it. They label themselves commies. Once again, WTF?
One of the reasons I am a conservative is because so many on the Left seem incapable of evaluating evidence and argument. You are a good example of this, LoafingOaf.

Lem said...

A big time progressive Tom Hayden said...

I'm not ready to give you a clear answer on whether electoral politics holds any particular hope for progressives. It would mean that nothing I did ever mattered.

This is no wind power talk.. this is straight from the horses mouth.

David said...

Oaf?

Economists are persons who have trained in economics. They take courses and everything. They are awarded degrees.

Often, even with all the training, they know less about the economy than people who have learned by practical experience and independent study. These people understand (or profess to understand) economic issues, but they are not economists.

Peter Schiff is not an economist.

Amartel said...

Thanks Mitch, I'm going with "slightly dotty Glenn Beck diagram." Final answer.

I'll take your word that the SDS were a bunch of loser twits while their chronological predecessors were more thoughtful and philosophical, evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Do you see the Fabians as more akin to modern Progressives? More sympathetic? George Bernard Shaw was a Fabian. (I vaguely remember that from somewhere.) And a eugenicist. Well, whatever, nobody's perfect, and I take it they didn't clownishly blow up their own colleagues? Good enough.

The problem with flowcharting leftist movements/organizations is that there is no real philosophical progression from one incarnation to the next. Not that it would be reasonable to expect one. The will to centralize power in government remains the same, the manner, methods, and ostensible purposes change according to the character and status of the host that is being invaded/subdued. And, of course, each new incarnation requires some excuse for why the prior methods failed miserably and an ostensible distinction from those prior efforts, especially given the occasional piles of dead bodies and broken nations left behind.

It would all make so much more sense if it were taught, at least in part, from this practical perspective rather than taking every manifesto at face value.

Seeing Red said...

Insty's link to Richard Fernandez & communism. What more needs to be said?

Tim said...

"Not a one of us is anti-free market. Most of us work for corporations and enjoy the fruits of capitalism. But what we are weary of is unfettered corporate control, which can be just as bad in its own way as government control."

Matt, you indicate ("Not a one of us...") you're a Progressive.

So, can you provide a meaningful distinction between Progressives and Communists, that would explain why Progressives in Congress are so offended by Rep. West's statement?

You should (if you can) also try to explain to me, if it won't take too much time, since I'm trying to make sense of all of this, why Progressives just don't call themselves "Liberals," or "Liberal Democrats."

What I mean is, why the need for the term "Progressive" distinct from "Liberal," or "Liberal Democrat." If Progressives aren't Communists (of Socialists), wouldn't "Liberal" or "Liberal Democrat" suffice? Why the need for the differentiation?

EMD said...

"But what we are weary of is unfettered corporate control, which can be just as bad in its own way as government control."



A corporation cannot force me to buy their products, or to behave a particular way, or to invest in them.

A corporation cannot make laws that force me to do anything.

Only a government has that power.

Terry said...

So, EMD, how many of Jeffrey Immelt's CFL's do you have in your house?

Michael Haz said...

What I get from reading this interesting post is:

1. Socialists aren't comfortable admitting that they are, and can't explain to others why that is.

2. Socialists hate corporations, and at the same time want to claim for themselves some of what corporations earn.

3. Socialists refuse to understand how economic competition lowers prices, improves quality and brings new products and services to market.

4. Socialists do not take any basic business classes at university, else they would understand that non-profits can and do make profit, but they give it other names like "retained earnings". Non-profits must make a profit in order to remain in business.

Quaestor said...

George Bernard Shaw was a Fabian.

More correctly a Fabian socialist. The label derives from Quintus Fabius Maximus, consul and dictator during the second Punic war. Fabius refused to opposed Hannibal's invasion of Italy by direct attack, choosing instead a strategy of warfare by attrition -- to whittle away at Hannibal's communications, to punish disloyal Italian allies, and to generally exhaust the Carthaginian army rather than defeat it by a military coup de main, in effect to delay the final decisive battle beyond Hannibal's "expiration date". This Fabian stategy earned Fabius the agnomen Cunctator, "the Delayer".

The Fabian Socialists adopted their descriptor in recognition of their program of gradual steps to socialism, as opposed to the revolution advocated by the more doctrinaire Marxists. The ends are the same, only the means are different.

LoafingOaf said...

Terry: For God's sake, LoafingOaf. Schiff's training is in finance. He makes a living selling financial instruments. That's his area of expertise. Schiff calling himself an economist has no more validity than me calling myself an economist.

You write books, lecture, and debate on economics?

And you're non-responsive. I asked you what your definition of an economist is that makes it against the law for Schiff to call himself one. It's not a regulated profession, dumb ass.

Just days ago Reason Magazine introduced a lecture by Schiff by calling him an economist: "FreedomWorks Foundation and Reason are co-hosting a special lecture by economist Peter Schiff...."

You didn't give me a good reason people can't call him an economist. And you're getting me caught up in these trivial matters just to be annoying.

You claimed that economists (plural) who foretold the financial collapse of 2008 were being laughed off the air. The only actual example you could come up with was a non-economist not being laughed off the air.

I'm sorry it bothers you that the second YouTube clip I linked you to shows a Fox News panel of commentators coming as close to laughing him off the set as they could without literally doing so, and the host had to intervene and say they really do want to have other views on the air despite how it looks. Well, that's your conservative news media for ya.

Your last Instapundit quote has Reynolds referring to a NY Times story about the WWP -- World Workers Party -- involvement in the founding of anti-war group ANSWER. WWP is about as hard core commie as you can get, and they admit it. They label themselves commies. Once again, WTF?

As I said, the game was to go to the protests and find some commies and then smear the whole crowd. I didn't say there weren't actual commies present at events. I compared it to how left wing media treated Tea Party events.

I guess you didn't look at the whole link I posted, such as when Instapundit says "today's antiwar movement hasn't maintained the separation from the communists that it maintained before." When he says someing like that, all the coordinating propaganda blogs join in.

One of the reasons I am a conservative is because so many on the Left seem incapable of evaluating evidence and argument. You are a good example of this, LoafingOaf.

When have I said I'm "on the Left"?
The first post I made in this thread should've suggested to you that I'm not committed to an ideology. (And especially not committed to a leftist ideology, seeing as how I mentioned Ron Paul and Peter Schiff favorably.)

I'm not actually very political at all. And I'm certainly not a jack-ass ideologue like yourself who sits around saying garbage like,"Leftists are incapable of argument."

I pick and choose what I think is correct or best, no matter who it comes from. And when I've realized I was wrong (for example, Iraq) I'm not afraid to face why I was wrong (in that case, I was hoodwinked by right wing propaganda).

I mentioned Dennis Kucinich. I guess he's one of the "commies". I live in the Cleveland area and he's been in politics here my whole life. He's a principled, nice man and he's done some good things.

For example, as mayor he stood up to forces trying to coerce him into privatizing the local power company. They even tried to hire mafia hit men to murder him. At the time he was mocked, but Cleveland power rates stayed low while they were skyrocketing throughout the nation. The local paper eventually had to concede that he saved customers about $200 million between 1985 and 1995.

Is that communism?

Malesch Morocco said...

Gotta love that Meade!

Seeing Red said...

For example, as mayor he stood up to forces trying to coerce him into privatizing the local power company. They even tried to hire mafia hit men to murder him. At the time he was mocked, but Cleveland power rates stayed low while they were skyrocketing throughout the nation. The local paper eventually had to concede that he saved customers about $200 million between 1985 and 1995.

----------------

They do this stupid stuff in IL now my water rates jacked up 30% at once because they don't recognize the damage they do. Don't jack up the rates, they still have to pay people buy supplies keep the equipment functioning, where do you think the money came from? Especially during then, the country started using a lot more energy. It's that idiocy that got CA in trouble energy-wise.

Matt said...

Tim
So, can you provide a meaningful distinction between Progressives and Communists, that would explain why Progressives in Congress are so offended by Rep. West's statement?

Are you kidding? A Progressive is someone like Teddy Roosevelt. A Communist is Stalin. If you can't tell the difference between Teddy and Stalin you need to seriously go back to school.

That alone is one reason the progressives are offended. When you use the word 'communist' it has a loaded meaning; it means totalitarian dicatorships. That is exactly why West is using the term. He wants to label them with the dirtiest label he can think of - other than Nazi.

Progressives most definitely do not want Communism. I sure as shit don't and yes I am a liberal Democrat. Clearly your definition and my definition of progressive differs greatly.

It's fine to disagree politically with one side or the other. But when someone starts throwing around false labels they are only proving they don't want to debate the issues. It's a way to get cheap political points, which are pretty easy these days with uneducated voters on both the left and right.

Michael McNeil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael McNeil said...

As I said, the game was to go to the protests and find some commies and then smear the whole crowd. I didn't say there weren't actual commies present at events. I compared it to how left wing media treated Tea Party events.

When racists and trolls would invade Tea Party rallies, folks would stand next to them carrying signs saying “Troll” and “Not one of us” with an arrow pointing the guy. Why doesn't that happen at “progressive” rallies, hm? You know, with regard to the kind of folks that Zombie documents. Never happens, which shows that the crowds there really don't object to their extremist elements.

Terry said...

What can I say, LoafingOaf? "I asked you what your definition of an economist is that makes it against the law for Schiff to call himself one."
This is not true. You did not ask me that. If you had, I would have said that there is no law that forbids anyone from calling himself an economist. Common sense should keep you from calling anyone who does not work as an economist an economist. You are doing the equivalent of confusing a car salesman for an automotive engineer, and worse, getting advice on "which is the best car to buy" from him.
Let me lay this out as simply as I can: Schiff sells things. His professional goal is not to explain or study economics, it is to sell stuff, preferably the stuff that makes him the most money.
I've heard Glen Beck give lessons on economics on television. Is Beck an economist?
Reason didn't say that Schiff was an economist, a blogger for Reason named Joshua Swain called Schiff an economist. What makes Swain an expert on who is and who is not an economist?
rldoo hersive

Tim said...

"Are you kidding? A Progressive is someone like Teddy Roosevelt. A Communist is Stalin. If you can't tell the difference between Teddy and Stalin you need to seriously go back to school."

Matt, are you serious? I like at the Progressive Caucus, and those who call themselves "Progressives," and I don't see any resemblance to TR; however, I do see a closer resemblance to Stalin's policies than I do TR's.

"Progressives most definitely do not want Communism. I sure as shit don't and yes I am a liberal Democrat. Clearly your definition and my definition of progressive differs greatly."

I don't have a political definition for "Progressive." (yes, I have, like anyone else, a standard, common definition of the term "progressive," but I know enough to know it is *not* the same thing). Which is why I ask.

On what basis do you say Progressives "most definitely do not want Communism?" Is it the totalitarian dictatorship aspect? Speaking of which, what is the Progressive position on speech codes at universities?

You say, "yes I am a liberal Democrat." I take you at your word. I also know that most Democrat Members of Congress are, in fact, liberal Democrats.

But most Democrat Members of Congress aren't members of the Progressive Caucus.

So then, you are a liberal Democrat, but are you a "Progressive" too? Why both labels? Wouldn't one be sufficient? Why the necessity for "Progressives" to distinguish themselves from liberal Democrats?

"But when someone starts throwing around false labels they are only proving they don't want to debate the issues."

So far, we really don't know that it is a false label, do we?

Just saying it's false doesn't make it so, does it? What is the distinction, on a policy basis, between "Progressives" and Communists?

All you've offered are assertions. Try facts.

Tim said...

"I like at the Progressive Caucus" is supposed to read "I look at...

Terry said...

Bernie Sanders is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and he calls himself a socialist: http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/8/vermonts_bernie_sanders_becomes_first_socialist

hdhouse said...

edutcher said...
Rookie mistake, but it's gonna hurt him."

Naw...this rookie pitches crapballs like this constantly. Mistake? Hardly.
Dumbass? Most certainly.
Typical? Republican.
Monkey see?

Monkey do.

LoafingOaf said...

Terry:

If you had, I would have said that there is no law that forbids anyone from calling himself an economist. Common sense should keep you from calling anyone who does not work as an economist an economist.

He does work as an economist, you fucking fool.

You are doing the equivalent of confusing a car salesman for an automotive engineer, and worse, getting advice on "which is the best car to buy" from him.

That's not what I did at all, you moron.

Let me lay this out as simply as I can: Schiff sells things. His professional goal is not to explain or study economics, it is to sell stuff, preferably the stuff that makes him the most money.

*yawn* All you're saying is that YOU don't consider him a legit economist. What difference does that make? Who the fuck are you? I showed you links to videos that backed up what I said and you didn't like that. I ain't gonna spend time on a thoughtful reply to you anymore. You already exposed yourself as an ideological bigot....

Reason didn't say that Schiff was an economist, a blogger for Reason named Joshua Swain called Schiff an economist. What makes Swain an expert on who is and who is not an economist?

What makes YOU an expert on who is and who is not an economist? You're fucking stupid.

I backed up why I called him an economist. You haven't backed up why you claim he can't be called one.

You're annoying. You didn't like that I quickly gave you proof of what I said, and the proof was Fox News douchebags acting like ass clowns. Well, that's your conservative media for ya.

Penny said...

Allen West misspeaks?

You're kiddin' me. Right?

Penny said...

Ha ha

I'd sooner believe he was "Miss Peaks"... in some prior life...or thereabouts.

Terry said...

LoafingOaf-
You seem to be a confused person. You wrote:

Economists being laughed off TV so no one could evaluate their warnings. People with concerns about the Iraq invasion being labeled commies. And so on.

I thought that this was odd -- I had never heard of these things occurring here in America -- and when I pressed you for evidence you cited a stock broker and goldbug named Peter Schiff who was not laughed off TV, and you never were able to name anyone who had concerns about the Iraq invasion being labeled a commie. Other than, you know, communists, like the good folks in the World Workers Party.
I am sure that many people -- some with advanced degrees in the liberal arts -- believe that our Republic is enriched by your interest in and commentary on current politics, God save us all.
I am not one of them.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Look, progressives fancy themselves as above the fray they create.

They are the worst kind of 'fixer' one can imagine.

Picture the Three Stooges (the mind races) being hired to fix some plumbing in your house. No, really, there is an episode where they did this. A bad situation made much worse. Not really different than the 'work' at the hands of countless 'progressives'.

I laugh frequently at this term, one that is used by these people in lieu of 'liberal' often times, because I think that they think it sounds better.

There is nothing at all 'progressive' about 'progressivism' - unless you are honest about the deconstruction of tradition, values, family, etc. all in the name of 'fairness'. It also makes ample use of jealousy and vengeance and theft and deception. In other words, its the devil's ideology. Face it, cupcake, and own it.

The original progressives were racist in nature. See 'eugenics'. Control freaks, one and all, they are the prototypical nosy neighbor. The wet blanket. The Debbie (Stabmenow, Wassermann-Schultz, etc) Downer. The angry divorcee'.

A failed, and forever failing, human thought operating system.

SGT Ted said...

Not a one of us is anti-free market. -Matt

Healthcare should not be a for-profit business. -Matt


Fucking comedy GOLD!

Fen said...

That alone is one reason the progressives are offended.

Really? The little marxist fucks are offended? Good.

george said...

So does this mean that Obama DIDN'T seek out Marxist professors as his mentors? You mean he DOESN'T want to make decisions for everyone about everything from what insurance we can/must buy, to what cars we choose/are forced to build, to what energy sources we are allowed to use? Are you now saying there aren't scads of other sub-moronic, would-be tyrants in Congress just like him?

Gosh, amazing how a word here or there can change reality. I did not know West had this power. Good thing he misspoke because who would want to live in such a world where we are ruled by people who take Marxism and class warfare seriously as a ruling philosophy.

We really dodged a bullet there!

SGT Ted said...

If the Progressives of Matts imagination don't like Government control any more than they like corporate control, then why are the Progressives in Government seeking ever more Government controls, especially on corporations and their alleged fellow citizens?


Hitler's letter to U.S. Ambassador Thomas Dodd on March 14, 1934: The Reich chancellor requests Mr. Dodd to present his greetings to President Roosevelt. He congratulates the president upon his heroic effort in the interest of the American people. The president’s successful struggle against economic distress is being followed by the entire German people with interest and admiration. The Reich chancellor is in accord with the president that the virtues of sense of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline must be the supreme rule of the whole nation. This moral demand, which the president is addressing to every single citizen, is only the quintessence of German philosophy of the state, expressed in the motto “The public weal before the private gain.”

Sounds like "paying your fair share" and "spreading the wealth around" to me.

Roosevelt and his “Brain Trust,” the architects of the New Deal, were fascinated by Italy’s fascism — a term which was not perjorative at the time. In America, it was seen as a form of economic nationalism built around consensus planning by the established elites in government, business, and labor.

Progressive FDR also locked Japanese up in Camps during the war.

Notice who is in charge? Societal "Elites"; a new Aristocracy where there didn't used to be.

Notice whats missing? Ordinary citizens input or Constitutional notions of Liberty that might conflict with and limit what the Progressives want to do.

Progressivism is soft fascism at the end of the day. We're seeing it with the Progressive solutions of ObamaCare and energy policy and just about anything else they come up with.

There's nothing free market about it. Matts own contradictory postings reveal that as well.

Fen said...

Matt: Healthcare should not be a for-profit business.

That has to be the dumbest thing I've read this month.

If the healthcare industry was not for-profit, we'd be treating cancer with a 9mm.


"If it was up to the NIH to cure polio through a centrally directed program, you would have the best iron lung in the world but not a polio vaccine." - Samuel Broder, director of the National Cancer Institute.

Fen said...

Matt, all these new medical advances, all these new drugs and vaccines... do you think they just fall from the trees like ripe fruit?

SGT Ted said...

Progressives and their ideological bretheren have long avoided addressing their anti-American, elitist, authoritarian ideas.

It's time to hold them to account for their vile, anti-Liberty ideology.

kistenjc said...

Columnist David Sirota says, "...traditional 'liberals' in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society," while the term "progressive" rightfully applies to "those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules."

David Sirota says "Economic liberalism has typically focused on using the government's Treasury as a means to ends, whether those ends are better health care (Medicare/Medicaid), stronger job growth (tax credits) or more robust export businesses (corporate subsidies). The idea is that taxpayer dollars can help individuals afford bare necessities and entice institutions to support the common good.

Economic progressivism, by contrast, has historically trumpeted the government fiat as the best instrument of social change – think food safety, minimum wage and labor laws, and also post-Depression financial rules and enforcement agencies. Progressivism's central theory is that government, as the nation's supreme authority, can set parameters channeling capitalism's profit motive into societal priorities – and preventing that profit motive from spinning out of control. "