It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Anti-Progressive Party

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I am pretty set on creating this political party; but there is no point if the American populous cannot understand it; or if no one cares any longer. So here's a test bed for discussion.

What is the Anti-Progressive Party?

Beginning with the Southern Confederacy; progressivism was born. It was born as a historical insite to why Blacks should be slaves, and later was adopted by the US Political elite in general, forever changing the meaning of the United States.

Progressivism served a short-term purpose; it universalized voting; it brought politics closer to the individual; and it made Senators more accountable to the people.

But the later of these things were not what the US was founded upon.

Abraham Lincoln; when justifying the Civil War, did so by invoking the Declaration of Independence; which already stated "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as the principles of our nation...that all men are created equals.

Thus: The US did not need progressivism.

In fact; progressivism was a product of the 1840s with Marx and Hegel and had little to do with making the United States more "just" and "equal".

The accomplishment of progressivism was the birth of "Big government".

In 1900 the most influential government in your life would have been the Local government. In 1900, the majority of voters voted.

In the 1960s progressivism finalized its grandest statement of the "Rational State". The Federal Government became realized as we know it today; a massive bureaucracy meant to be a body of rational citizens at the behest of a rational citizenry to enact perfect legislation over all our every day lives.

Naturally; this disruptive change in politics is the cause of the decline in voter turn out to the point where only 40% of voters actually vote.

The Founding Fathers would not recognize today's nation; but they need not be forsaken or disheartened. This is not any fault of their establishment but the fault of a change in ideology.

A change I believe is for the worse.

The Founding Fathers believed in limited government: Benjamin Franklin said, "You have been given a Republic if you can keep it!"

James Madison said, "Government is a necessary evil for we are not angels."

These men were classically educated; not educated in the sciences.

They were masters of Latin and ancient Greek; they knew the histories of those people and they knew their follies.

They knew why Democracies failed in the past.

Fractionation.

And they sought a way to limit it; by limiting the authority any one government had.

Today we are consumed by fractionation because the Federal Government is everything; the local and state governments are jokes.

Look to Hurricane Katrina; the largest responsible player in that disaster in New Orleans was the New Orleans Municipality; yet they brush off their failures to the State who in turn brush off their failures to the Federal Government.

The Founding Fathers believed in Natural Rights.

The Progressives believe in Rights attained through a history of rational thought.

The Founding Fathers would not compromise their Rights; nor did Lincoln, whose principles matched that of the Declaration of Independence and thus he fought a war to a bitter end.

The Progressives are the same as the Southernors...they would and do re-interpret the US Constitution as they see fit.

The Founding Fathers believed the US Constitution could not be "interpreted" any other way that it was established by the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers and thus the only method for changing the US Constitution is amendmentation.

However; progressivism allows us to simply say "this Amendment or section means this and not that" and no longer do we have to amend the Constitution...we merely have to have 5 Judges say our interpretation is correct.

Progressivism is the enemy of the free world.

The Founding Fathers and their beliefs in Natural Rights were what made the US a great nation until the Civil War.

And it is that fading glory and momentum that the US was propelled into the 20th century but now we see it fading as Progressivism takes its final toll.

Are we to go the way of every other democracy in the world today? Fractionated coalitions fighting against eachother over socialist crap?

Or are we to re-establish the great wisdom of the Founding Fathers?

Elect officers who know history; not those who can barely comprehend yesterday.

Elect officers who do not need speech writers.

Elect officers who can understand that Rights are given to man by God and can be taken away only if an individual allows them to be given-up...the Federal Government is not the Steward of your well-being.

Nor should it be ever!

This is the basis of the Anti-Progressive Party!




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
In my opinion, why form another third party, when getting steam behind the ones that already exist is hard enough?

The idealisms held by the founding fathers are presently reflected in the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party.

I believe that those of us that are "fed up" with the way things are going in the two major parties, need to get together, and stand behind one of them - even if there is a small compromise on each of our parts. For instance, I am 100% behind the Constitution Party, but if we can get more people behind the Libertarians, I will follow... even if I disagree with a few of their views.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
You are wrong about both of them. The Constitution Party is a right-wing religious party that wants to re-affirm religion in Government. It also is more Hegelian in thought than not.

The Liberterians are anti-Federalists to the extreme; and have no understanding of the principles found within the Declaration of Independence.

Both of those parties are reactionaries to the Democrat and Republican dominance; and have little to do with actual historical roots.


Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Okay - you've established that we both have our own opinions. Congratulations on that.

Now, answer me why should you start another third party, when it will never gain any legs? Like I said, the existing ones that have been around for quite a while are still relatively unknown by the mainstream public.

[edit on 3/28/06 by VeeTwin60]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeeTwin60
Okay - you've established that we both have our own opinions. Congratulations on that.

Now, answer me why should you start another third party, when it will never gain any legs? Like I said, the existing ones that have been around for quite a while are still relatively unknown by the mainstream public.

[edit on 3/28/06 by VeeTwin60]


The existing ones aren't unknown; it's just that their politics don't appeal to anyone. When they get out their message they rant about crap that most people find offensive or strange.

What is offensive or strange about declaring the principles of the US and to fight for a return to the sovereignty of the people as the Founding Fathers intended?

The way the Republican Party is going...it'll be losing its conservative base to whomever can fill the conservative ideals. At the mpment that's no one so the Republicans still exist. The Democrats have unamerican ideals involving mostly semi-socialist and Hegelian garbage that a good portion of the nation now follows. So this party is not directed at gathering voters from that pool but voters from the pool of people who still think we're the nation the Founding Fathers invented.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Progressive by definition is; "Moving forward; advancing." If you were Anti-Progessive, that in turn would mean you were never going to change the status quo. This isn't good for Society and would create a very era-dependent culture.

If you return to the Early Days, of the United State's you go back to a time when Homosexuality and many things were illegal and make drugs were legal. You'd do a complete shift in society and lock it in place, to what you define as right completly unaware that norms change. And since Emile Durkheim's book about Society and Crime, people have accepted stasis isn't healthy and we can open the History Books to check this.

Things need to shift, to change over time so that they adapt to what people want. It's unfair to move back to a time when people were punished because we see it as morally wrong but rather move forward to a Society, where we begin to punish those who [directly] harm others.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
The existing ones aren't unknown; it's just that their politics don't appeal to anyone. When they get out their message they rant about crap that most people find offensive or strange.


I disagree. Even though it is slow, they are gaining steam.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
What is offensive or strange about declaring the principles of the US and to fight for a return to the sovereignty of the people as the Founding Fathers intended?


Absolutely nothing. I agree with every point in your original post. You, however, are missing mine. Why start another party, to further split the group of people that are fed up with Dems and Reps?



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Would people of color have a place in your new party if you get it started? Because by your interpretation of the Constitution, they would be "three-fifths" of a human being? Does that mean that they would get "three-fifths" of voting rights in your primaries?

[edit on 29-3-2006 by ceci2006]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join