Progressive or reactionary?

Australia
August 18, 2012 12:33am CST
How do we define the term “progressive”? Perhaps some of the following might give us a clue. You think health care is a basic human right, and that single-payer national health insurance is a worthwhile reform on our way toward creating a non-profit national health care service. You think that human rights ought always to trump property rights. You think political leaders who engage in "preemptive war" and invasions should be brought to trial for crimes against humanity and judged against the standards of international law established at Nuremberg after World War Two. You think that electoral reform should include instant run-off voting, publicly-financed elections, easy ballot access for all parties, and proportional representation. You think that regulating big corporations isn't enough, and that such corporations, if they are allowed to exist at all, must either serve the common good or be put into public receivership. You think that the legal doctrine granting corporations the same constitutional rights as natural persons is absurd and must be overturned. You think it's wrong to allow individuals to accumulate wealth without limits, and that the highest incomes should be capped well before they begin to threaten community and democracy. You think it's crazy to use the Old Testament as a policy guide for the 21st century. You think that anyone who desires the reins of power that come with high political office should, by reason of that desire, be seen as unfit for the job. You recognize that an economic system which requires continuous expansion, destroys the environment, relies on rapidly-depleting fossil fuels, exacerbates inequality, and leads to war after war is unsustainable and must be replaced. Score a bonus point if you understand that sticking to the existing system is what's unrealistic. You think that, ideally, no one would have more wealth than they need until everyone has at least as much as they need to live a safe, happy, decent life. This is just a sampling of attitudes that are generally seen as progressive. How do you define “reactionary”? The popular depiction for the word Reactionary gives the definition - an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism. “Reactionary is a political epithet typically applied to extreme ideological conservatism, especially that which wishes to return to a real or imagined old order of things, and which is willing to use coercive means to do so. The term is primarily used as a term of opprobrium (groups rarely identify themselves as reactionary), meant to assert the idea that the opposition is based in merely reflexive politics rather than responsive and informed views. More specifically, the term "reactionary" is frequently used to refer to those who want to reverse (or prevent) some form of claimed "progressive" change. Both definitions are used by the two sides of the political spectrum to denigrate their opponents. And boy oh boy, don’t we see it here a lot. It seems to me that there is a world-wide reactionary movement of the very worst kind which is making great inroads into progressive advances, and I wonder how long it will be before we begin to see murder and mayhem turning up as tools in the debate. Perhaps it's time to choose your side. Lash
2 people like this
6 responses
@p1kef1sh (45681)
18 Aug 12
There seems to be an assumption that the term progressive means an improvement. We know that this is often not the case. The issue as I see it is not about pointscoring of capitalism and socialism or vice versa. But that western society's morality generally has become skewed. The big issue is that emerging economic superpowers are aping the West's clothing. I do not believe that the situation is irredeemable, and I have no problem with the concept of capitalism provided that it is tempered with reason and balance. We now automatically disbelieve our politicians when they say that they are doing things for the common good. There is more than sufficient evidence to show that most western governments, of whatever hue actually put the interests of large corporations before those of the ordinary people, the voters. In Europe at least, many of the largest corporations have a substantial shareholding that is foreign and therefore grind an axe that is not necessarily one that supports the European perspective. Perhaps that's progress! But I doubt it somehow unless your name happens to be Trump, Rothschild or Branson.
2 people like this
• Australia
18 Aug 12
I suppose I would have to say that when progressives get it wrong, mostly it only costs a bit of money, but when reactionaries get it wrong people suffer. I too have no problem with capitalists, as opposed to Capitalists, or perhaps I should say entrepreneurs, as long as there are checks and balances that block the sort of magnificent obsession politicians seem to hold for big business. Thus the ideas on stopping people from becoming obscenely rich, because it seems to me that that such wealth almost always comes at the expense of the weak and vulnerable, and, increasingly, at the expense of the environment and thus the future. When you investigate government/business claims that projects will create jobs, you find that (a) the proportion of jobs in relation to the labour pool is infinitesimal; (b) that more often than not such projects, particularly mining or land development projects, actually cost as many or more jobs than they create (e.g. the development of a port to handle a major mine project that kills off the local tourist industry); and (c) many of the jobs so created attract people from other projects rather than from the unemployed pool, for the simple reason that these days there is almost no such thing as an unskilled labourer in major projects. And while I would not claim that progressives can't be or aren't ideologically blind, I'd suggest that they are so at a far lesser rate than the reactionaries, who almost by definition react from the knee. Lash
• Australia
19 Aug 12
Not the state over individual rights, but the collective over individual rights. I am far more fearful of a right-wing fascism than a left-wing version in today's world. Lash
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
19 Aug 12
I'm sure you are. Trouble is, the right in America is constantly advocating limited government. Less government spending, less regulation, and individual liberty. So, please tell me how that would give them the power to practice 'fascism'?
@oXAquaXo (607)
• United States
19 Aug 12
I really enjoyed reading this post. I think that a lot of conservatives and conservative media have construed the term "progressive" into making it seem like this evil idea, just like Socialism. Nowadays, it seems like the word has a negative connotation. Progressives, they must believe in Communism and taking money away from people and spending all of our money. It's nice to give people a clear view of what progressives believe in. We aren't this evil people trying to turn the entire world socialist. We have a set of firm, rational beliefs, just like other groups out there. We believe in equality, and we believe in giving everyone a chance, no matter how bad their lives are. Thanks for sharing! ~ Annie
1 person likes this
• Australia
19 Aug 12
Actually, aqua, reactionaries see precisely those things as evil and dangerous, because in the main they react from the knee and seem incapable of looking at any issue without the filters of their political ideology. Lash
@oXAquaXo (607)
• United States
19 Aug 12
Good point, haha
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Aug 12
Liberals for the most part do want to take money from Americans and spend it. And villianizing those who try to keep them from doing so, is also a liberal trait. You both are well read; have either of you read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism", he has shown the link between communism/fascism and the modern progress school of thought. Since you both have claimed to be well read, I suggest it as a good read.
@JenInTN (27514)
• United States
19 Aug 12
If I had to choose a definite side I would be in big trouble. I guess I would be something somewhere in between the two...maybe a progractionary. The thing that makes it the hardest to choose is there is some of both these terms that applies to my beliefs. I think the old order of things..although nowhere near as technical and advanced is actually much like it is these days. The mosaic laws exhibited in the old testament control the people down to the food that they eat. Only a certain race was a thought to be God's people at that time, according to the text anyway. As a woman, I would be no more than a foot washer or a reward for the faithfulness of certain chosen people. Throughout history we see the war and kingdom takeovers too. I also think that human rights do trump most everything, but I could also think that land rights is a part of that particular equation. I am pulled on the wealth thing. Maybe because if I am ever wealthy..I don't want a cap..lol...but at the same time, I hate the fact that there are those that have so little. Status is what really burns me more than the money. There are a lot of things that we need to do to protect the environment and I could probably be alot better at doing some of that than I am. It is certainly one of our biggest issues. Gosh you give us some tough stuff to consider...lol. You always keep me on my toes.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
18 Aug 12
Loaded question. You could switch the terms and the definitions and make a case for both. I noticed that you defined progressive with glowing examples, and I noticed you took care to describe reactionary with a bit more negative descriptions. Sorry, it is more complicated, as human society often is. I can truthfully say that in some of your descriptions of 'progressive', I can agree with you. And as one responder said, moving 'forward' is not always the best answer.
• Australia
19 Aug 12
debra, I have no problem with keeping things that work, and one of my favourite statements is the old saw, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Some progressives go too far, but as I said in answering P1ke, it usually only costs a bit of money and can generally be fixed. But most progressives believe that a lot of things are broken and need fixing; most reactionaries won't accept that change is necessary at all. The definition of reactionary is not mine, it is an accepted definition from politial science. I have to say I don't see any of the examples you gave in an earlier post as being progressive; they were totalitarian. Lash
• Australia
20 Aug 12
Incidentally, reactionaries may all be conservatives, but not all conservatives are reactionary, thus the need for a discrete term to differentiate them. Lash
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
19 Aug 12
My point was that statis, totalitarian systems named began as 'progressive' movements. Either by propaganda or outright takeover, it is all sold to the people as 'progressive'. Here's a bit from Jonah Goldbergs book, Liberal Facism. Taken from the book jacket: Replacing coveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Golberg reminds us that the original fascists were in reality on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's fascism. Free healthcare, guaranteed jobs, confiscated wealth,and government controled education to name a few. What the state giveth, the state can take away, or worse...use to control you.
@vandana7 (100526)
• India
18 Aug 12
Wow..Lash, you do have a lot of my thoughts out there. Yes, I believe all policies should have a litmus test..how does it serve the humanity. So they try to build those race courses in India, while borrowing from other developed nations, effectively wiping away some rights of needy, you wonder whats wrong with the world? Cant they see? Cant they read? Time up..get real.. We get no choice to tell the world..that we are helpless in such decisions..there are people who can do with help, yes...but there are politicians who spend fortune to get their friend's son married, and then fight with the friend. If you all had to outsource your jobs, you all should have stipulated conditions..if you dont show progress and reduction in poverty within next 5 years, you will never ever get a contract from this country..that would make industrialists monitor the politicians, not the other way round. All I can say is ..compared to us, your folks may be much better. Sorry..things are not good at your end..:(
1 person likes this
@crossbones27 (49703)
• Mojave, California
23 Aug 12
I think you did a good job of explaining this Lash. The problem is many of the right does not believe in modern science unless their own people come up with the studies.