"Progressive" Not So Much

In case you haven"t noticed, though I am sure you all have, the use of the word "progressive" appears to have been born again if you are to believe the media supporting half of our national politcal establishment in the Democratic Party.

Frankly, its as if they are attempting to aid in the removal of "liberalism" in terms of politcal ideological conotations. Its as if insiders are throwing in the towel in its fight against who else but the right wing radio monopoly of the airwaves and suddenly now calling themselves "progressives". The shift stikes me as remarkable. The Party continues its courtship with the term, but the politics behind it strikes me very little of progressivism.

Progressive by definition refers to:

proceeding in steps, continuing steadily by increments, promoting or favoring progress towards a better contribution or new policy idea or method.

relating to the Progressive Party platform of 1924

or simply advaning or moving forward

So are we to beleive that because someone may wish to move the nation forward via change of leadership or policy that the result is a form of "progressivism". Somehow I just do not buy it. You see history proves that very "liberal" leaders may have "progressive" ideas, I would use FDR as the best example or even or own Woodrow Wilson, but that simply does not make you a Progressive. Its been the tradition of Progressive movements to seek not to expand government or increase citizens dependence upon such government or welfare state or even a particular politcal party apparatus for that matter.

Should there not be a test with regard to the truth in labeling. If you are going to call yourself a "progressive" I think you have to come to the table with alot more than simply an anti-Bush, anti-right agenda or framework. The very same people using the guise of progressivism are the same who have attempted to throught workers within labor unions the right to secret ballot. My friends the Progressive movement sought to protect workers from the very power that such measures the current ideology of the Democratic Congress appear so eager to endorse.

Senator Majority leader Harry Reid has been quoted continually referring to illegal immigrants as simply "undocumented workers" and his implications are that there are no individuals here in America illegally. You see Mr. Reid has a very narrowly defined view on just what it is that makes a person an American to begin with. Reid implies its simply a matter of presence. If they are here they are Americans. The second these folk cross our borders they become Amercians. Folks thats not a Progressive ideology thats just flat out Liberal one.

Progressivism has been at work in many ways in our country. One could call Teddy Roosevelt progressive at times or even Abraham Lincoln if you hold firm to its very defintion. But in an era where it has become perfectly acceptable to carry oneself without the least diginity or class we see the very essence of progressivism in this country being twisted by political means for no greater purpose than as a tool of deception.

In fact if you break down the current policy agenda of the power structure and the forces behin d it (yes big lobby groups) you can see that when you look at an immigration policy that does not work, a single payer healthcare system with dependence upon the government, a narrow almost naive view of the ramifications of its own foriegn policy desires and the need for a so-called "fairness doctrine" applied to the public airwaves I feel these very people claiming to be progressive in ideology on matters of policy are nothing more than regressives.

The insiders are fully aware that "liberalism" has not won the hearts and minds of America so we are seeing what pundits call a "shift to the center" and are using the word "progressive" to remove the stigma of the label "liberal" in an attempt to sway voters.

In their minds after all if they call themselves "progressive" enough we may just be dumb enough to believe they are.