That was my score. How Progressive Are You? Apparently, that puts me just below Donald Rumsfield on the scale of progressives.
I don't understand the score, because as much as I disagreed with the big-government side of just about every statement, I thought my humble foreign policy, separation of church and state, and strong civil liberty positions would balance me out somewhat.
I am glad, however, that the term "progressive" is being used with more frequency to describe the basket of pro-government policies. It leaves open the possibility that "liberal" can be re-claimed by those, like myself, who identify with classical liberalism. I hesitate to link to the Wikipedia article, as I don't like the term laissez-faire, but it's close enough for jazz.
As a follow-up to my previous comment on advocating the decriminalization of drugs, Glenn Greenwald will soon be presenting a report at CATO showing Portugal's success since decriminalizing drugs in 2001.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The spiritual and the temporal are different spheres which ought not to be confused. -FA Hayek
Justus' shared items
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(180)
-
▼
March
(23)
- The Road to Fascism - Libertarians vs. Republicans
- TARP
- Book Reviews and Griffin Bell
- 148
- On Vacation
- Sin Taxes
- Outrage & AIG
- Gay and Marriage
- The Future of Church
- What's for Lunch
- Art: Racist or True?
- Republicans and Democrats
- Speaking of Smaller Government:
- Change = Stepping on the Gas
- Quote of the Day
- Christians and Murder: Bonhoeffer
- Music and Politics
- Crazy Day
- Cool Catholic Word: Subsidiarity
- Pulse on Obama
- How Rare are Gold and Platinum?
- Brown Paper and White Chalk: GK Chesterton
- Practical Wisdom
-
▼
March
(23)
8 comments:
243. This test confirms my suspicion that I'm a liberal... strike that - progressive. With a capital P. It appears that my ailment is even worse than we initially thought.
Also, does this mean that I can't be a baptist anymore, based on their data?
Yikes.
It must have been that post-graduate education. Are you part Latino, by chance?
I highly question the validity of the quiz. Many of the statements are open to interpretation, and it depends on if you focus on the sentiment versus the implications.
One phrase roughly said "America should give more to less fortunate countries." If it said Americans should give more, I would have agreed, but it was really saying "America's government should force it's people to give more."
So yes, you can still be a Baptist, albeit a darn sentimental one. ;-)
I wonder if the questionnaire isn't weighted to accentuate extreme responses - so if you responded 0 or 10 to an answer, it had far more of an impact than a 9 or 1 would. Because I had a couple of 10s or 0s that may have had a bigger than expected impact.
In any case, trying to figure out how progressive or regressive is useful only for discussion purposes unless you're an elected official or a power broker with actual influence over policy.
One tangential observation - from a sloganeering standpoint, progressive is a great choice for the left because its opposite would be regressive. Subtle hint that the progressives are moving forward while the non-progressives/regressives are moving backward. Now, I'm not commenting on whether that's actually the case, but it is a deft maneuver by those on the left.
Yes, politicians, especially "progressives", think they are so clever, with their shiny new ideas meant to move society forward.
That is, unless it's true that there is nothing new under the sun. As the Greek guy says in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" - "My people were studying philosophy while your people were swinging on trees."
I am still looking for someone that can improve on Aristotle.
With all due respect to the good Doctor, given that the intellectual roots of Progressivism in America lie with Mussolini sympathizers, Darwinists, social engineers and eugenecists, the act by those on the left of referring to themselves as "Progressives" is roughly the equivalent of those on the right walking around calling themselves "Confederates." Alas, our knowledge of history ain't what it used to be.
I agree with both of you that there is a disconnect between the word Progressive and the effect of most "Progressive" policies. But most folks aren't bright enough to discern the difference. In today's political world, emphasis is placed more on the branding than on the substance, and intentionally so. My point didn't address the substance of the Progressive movement, just the savvy use of sloganeering
JB, I assume you're speaking tongue-in-cheek when you say that the intellectual roots of the progressive movement are with Mussolini and eugenicists. On the issues where I fall squarely within the "Progressive" camp, I can assure you my position is not guided by my inner fascist or a desire to create the ubermensch...
Of course I am not casting you in with that crowd. Nevertheless, I am 100% serious about the intellectual roots of Progressivism in America. Just a few days ago, Hillary Clinton, who has really been the driving force behind relabeling liberals with the "Progressive" euphamism, was presented Planned Parenthood's highest honor, named for Margaret Sanger, the Progressive icon and advocate of negative eugenics. I really could go on and on; no need to belabor the point. I know you mean perfectly well, Doctor.
Besides, is it me or did you just admit that Progressive policies rarely have the intended effect? Care to rethink, then, your support of the policies?
Post a Comment