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 Great Political Switch

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Allow me to begin with the definition, without regard to its modern political attachments, of the two words which this thread is focused on.

Conservative

in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change


Progressive

advocating social, economic, or political reform


As you can clearly see the two definitions of Conservative and Progressive would match up quite accurately with what you would believe the word to mean, obviously. So what is the point of my thread? Quite simple actually, with the current political discourse in our country it has left me dumbfounded how the politics has switched so abruptly. One day those whom you assume are Progressive become the Conservatives and the Conservatives become the Progressives, how can that be?

With the Tea Party Republicans coming into Congress and the whole debate over the debt limit we clearly can see two visible distinctions between both sides. On the current interpretation of ‘Progressive’ side they are calling for any real reforms to the programs and changes over the past century to be off the table, they are bringing up the history of our social safety net, government regulation of business, and the way business is done as something which can be tweaked but overall is fine as-is. The other side however, the current interpretation of ‘Conservative’ side, is demanding an end to this ‘status quo’ and a dramatic alteration of our social safety net, regulations, and the entire role and size of government.

When Newt Gingrich blasted the Paul Ryan Medicare plan as ‘Right-wing social engineering’ and the subsequent retaliation for what he said as not being ‘conservative’ is false, in fact what he said was true. The Paul Ryan Medicare plan in fact is not philosophically conservative rather, it is philosophically progressive.


advocating, social, economic, or political reform


Now we all know the stigma attached to Progressive as it is interpreted from our historical and present understanding of the movement. You hear Progressive and think Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, or Daily Kos, when in fact they are now becoming the defenders of what was and is, refusing to move forward in altering the system. In our current debate they are now arguing from the position of conservatism, demanding that we not radically change from our current course. They are now philosophically conservative.


in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change


Our Left now favors the status quo over what is technically, by definition, progress which the tea party is advocating. Traditional values and customs are those of income redistribution, social justice, the welfare system, and the system in this country that has been held together since the New Deal. And now they are arguing against any form of abrupt change to our current system which is not only political but philosophical, cultural, and governmental.

Tea Partiers on the other hand are fighting in favor of Progress, whether or not you believe what they are advocating actually is progress. When a group demands change, and not gradual, they are forcing a change in the culture, structure, and politics of a society, that is what the Tea Party is advocating. I know saying they are the Progressives seems unrealistic as we have a visual of Progressives as Roosevelt, Wilson, and Obama but when you strip it of the current political dress and down to its original terminology, the Tea Party is now the Progressive movement.

I know ‘Progressives’ are going to be angry and say that they do not want to preserve the status quo entirely but neither does any conservative philosophy. They demand a form of change but it must be gradual and hold onto the present structure which is, without argument, what ‘Progressives’ are demanding. No touching the New Deal society that has been created these past 80 years, it must be held intact, so in effect, that is the advocacy of conservatism.

So, Tea Party and the Left, are you ready to accept who you really are? Will the Tea Party say “yes we are Progressives!” and the Left say “yes we are Conservatives!”? I doubt it but that is the fact of our present political state.




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I prefer to look at the Tea Party as regressive. Their social policies aim at rolling back centuries of Humanism, human rights, democracy et cetera. Their financial policies are aimed at rolling back a century of government intervention in the economy with the purpose of protecting the citizens from predatory capitalists. They are working to create a feudal nation of religious morons, like Tsarist Russia.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Well the point is they are trying to change our society swiftly and dramatically which immediately removes them from the conservative philosophy.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Well the point is they are trying to change our society swiftly and dramatically which immediately removes them from the conservative philosophy.


You should be referring to them as fiscally conservative.

So, trying to reign in runaway deficit spending would still qualify as that IMO.

An interesting topic nonetheless.

S&F.



edit on 7/29/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
I prefer to look at the Tea Party as regressive. Their social policies aim at rolling back centuries of Humanism, human rights, democracy et cetera. Their financial policies are aimed at rolling back a century of government intervention in the economy with the purpose of protecting the citizens from predatory capitalists. They are working to create a feudal nation of religious morons, like Tsarist Russia.




The usual label smeared on conservatives is they are like nazis. Now you want to call them "Tsarists".

But we understand where you are coming from because we also understand that communists hate both.


What about the "we just don't have the money" to create Aldous Huxley's Brave New World argument?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
progessive i would have used the word restroration to how the order things once were and should be agian.

once upon a time in america men lived their lives without their hands out and live by their own means and within those means.

the status quo in my opinion is still progressive because they seek and maintain social engineering and add more

and people follow because they are all too glady to pass the buck of their responsibility.

who wants to be responssible for themselves and who wants to make government responsible for them.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

who wants to be responssible for themselves and who wants to make government responsible for them.


Now there is probably the best current definition of conservatives and liberals. Whether you think the individual is responsible or the government.




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


wish they would take a page from ats after all "we are responsible for what we write here"


they dont seem to have a problem with that do they



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Progressive

advocating social, economic, or political reform




Aren't progressives the ones backing the 100 year old institutions called the Federal Reserve and IRS? And speaking of lefties, communism-socialist type governments are pretty old and tested ideas also only working well if large superpowers militarily protect them.

Conservatives (not political conservatives they are liars) back something akin to the government at the founding of the USA. A government that in itself is limited was very liberal at the time and is still very liberal today as most "liberal" progressives support the very old idea of giving more power to governments.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Congratulations on pointing out another PTB switch Black is white and White is black.

Talking about "Free Market and "Free Trade" when the whole blasted exchange of goods/labor is a highly regulated Monopoly/Mospony is another "Great Switch"

Orwell's Ministry of Truth is alive and well



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Well said Misoir!

Sadly you message is not being interpreted so far for its face value, instead it is through the eyes of the poltical smokescreen even many on ATS cannot seem to get around!

Even those who claim to understand the current situation refuse to believe that their very definition has been changed by the rhetoric they spew from their mouths. It's quite comedic in a sense....and yet sad at the same time!

reply to post by neo96
 


How did we go from talking about the hypocrisy within definition to "welfare hand outs" and "personal responsability"? I beggining to wonder if you even care to look at facts and truth, or if you are a Republican drone that regurgitates mantra at every chance? hmmmmm..........
edit on 29-7-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I agree with you in that respect - the Progressives and their vague liberal and socialist allies are trying to protect the status quo. The Tea Partying 'Libertarians' are trying to radically alter America and create a state that I do not believe has ever existed on this continent - of course, I have not done any research on the Gilded Age of Republican corruption and I suspect that it may be a good prototype.

I make the additional distinction that the Progressives want to move forward; they want to save the forward momentum of history, to keep up the novelty factor and constantly look to the future. The 'conservatives' look to the past and want to take America back to some imaged golden age - see Neo96's post for proof. They mythologize the past to draw some sort of lame moral from it ("people were responsible for themselves!" is the cry of those who blame the poor for being poor while stealing from their pockets). They ignore the terrible material and social conditions of the past in favour of austere, stern-faced 'virtues.' They claim to be free thinkers, but take their beliefs and marching orders from the teachings and dishonest suggestions of ideologues funded, scripted and publicized by the ultra-rich.

So, I agree with you, Misoir, about the irony of the terms 'progressive' and 'conservative' as used today. But I also disagree that the Tea Party radicals are actually progressives. They want to halt the march of progress and undo everything gained over a century and more.

edit: To be more clear, the 'conservatives' represented by Tea Party rhetoric are extremely conservative - trying to restore the kind of unrestricted corporate power that existed before labour unions and government intervention in the economy and Teddy Roosevelt's efforts to bust trusts and prevent businesses from raping America's natural treasures. Even though the Democrats are working to conserve a century of progressive institutions like the IRS and Social Security, the Republicans are working to conserve or restore something that pre-dates the twentieth century. I wouldn't be surprised a whit if they turned into antebellum Southerners after the next elections - you can already see the convergence of Southern Revisionism and conservative conspiracy nuts today.
edit on 29-7-2011 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7

log in

join