Progress into entropy

posted at 6:45 pm on February 22, 2010 by Doctor Zero

In his keynote speech at CPAC, Glenn Beck invested an intriguing amount of effort in identifying “progressives” as the danger facing America. He criticized both Republicans and Democrats for accepting these dangerous progressive ideas. Writing on his Web site, Beck says:

The progressive idea of a big, bloated government has infected both parties. In a survey, 80 percent said “the main thing that influences what members of Congress do in office” is either “personal self-interest” or “special interests.”

But it’s not just Congress; state governments are doing it too. There are 21 states who currently have under-funded pensions and entitlements. And, even if you’re in a “safe zone,” it doesn’t mean you’re safe.

[...] Politicians don’t think the rules apply to them. They only think about getting themselves re-elected. They’ve run through the boundaries of the Constitution.

And what about us? We think we are entitled: This is America! We deserve it! But, just like Tiger Woods said, we were wrong. It’s got to stop. And it starts with us. And that’s what the president needs to tell the American people.

Washington needs to stop the spending, yes, but you have to make sacrifices too. I just mentioned the pensions. In what world does it make sense to continue to promise funding a system where this routinely happens.

It’s interesting to see the progressive label applied to the Left in a negative way. They often like to use the term for themselves as a compliment, flattering their intellectual vanity by praising themselves for looking forward, and following the inevitable flow of history. Beck might be waiting to pounce with the checkered history of the early 20th-century Progressive movement, including their infatuation with eugenics, if the Left responds to his CPAC speech by claiming they’re proud to wear the “progressive” mantle. I hope I don’t spoil his fun by discussing it now, but it’s a topic that has interested me for a long time. Safely navigating the end of the New Deal calls for an understanding of how it began… and why it was always doomed to end this way.

The great intellectual obsession of the early 20th century was the belief that scientific methods could be used to design a superior society. This is, without question, the most deadly and tragic falsehood the human race has ever talked itself into believing. Untold poverty, tyranny, murder, and warfare have resulted from it. From the perspective of the next century, it’s not hard to see why. After a society is designed, it must be constructed, and human beings suffer beneath the application of hammers and nails.

Every theory of social design – from fascism and communism, to the elitist grab bag of Progressivism, and the command economics rotting away the wealth of America and the West today – requires force to implement its programs. All of these designs assumed a powerful central State, a concept that seemed as natural and reasonable to the academics of the 1920s as the notion that a ship must have a helm. Nourished by the intellectual energy of collectivist thinkers, these growing States quickly realized they would have to compel obedience to their designs, because a substantial number of their citizens would never comply willingly. How many modern Americans would be happy to mail checks to the government, specifically to pay their share of TARP, the “stimulus” bill, or union subsidies?

These programs are advanced forms of the same cancer that produced Italian and German industrial policies in the 20s and 30s. In each case, a supposedly brilliant group of central planners set about imposing their theories and emotional preferences upon a populace that was required to trust them.

When the modern American Left identifies itself as “progressive,” it’s saying that a massive, growing government is our inevitable destiny – progress is measured solely by the growth of government power, and the only way to “care” about a social issue is to throw tax money at it. In reality, this is progress toward entropy, a system doomed to starve itself to death. As Glenn Beck puts it, after quoting the new Republican governor of New Jersey on the lucrative pension plans of state employees:

You pay $124,000 into the system and get $3.8 million out of the system? Forget about “fair,” how is that sustainable? It can’t last.

[...] We expect it. We assume big government will be there for us every step of the way.

Well, I hate to be the Friday buzz-kill, but it’s not always going to be there. America has been recklessly spending in the last few decades and it’s catching up to us rapidly.

Now, we’ve got a choice to make: Do we choose the fundamentally transform America to a Marxist, spread the wealth, cradle to grave nanny state? Where no one gets a boo-boo? And, as we have seen in country after country, is only sustainable through the barrel of a gun? Or do we come to our senses and realize that spending and taxing kills business? And stop with the pensions that literally pay out 30 times what we put into them!

The reason Big Government is unsustainable is that it really only has one coin to spend: compulsion. All of its resources are gained by extracting them from the citizens who produce them. The federal government doesn’t really spend money; it forces citizens to do so. Compulsion suffers from the law of diminishing returns – the more it’s used, the less value it can appropriate. In a relatively free society, clear and simple laws can generate enormous resources for the State. Here at the twilight of the New Deal, the acolytes of Big Government are reduced to proposing thousand-page bills that will regulate what kind of light bulbs you can use, or levy fines for failing to purchase government-approved health insurance.

Each of these increasingly desperate power grabs reduces the overall wealth of society, because wealth is a function of choice. It is only generated by free men. The slaves of a totalitarian State may be able to generate subsistence, but they don’t produce a significant amount of wealth. The more freedom government takes from its citizens, the weaker they become, dramatically worsening the problems a supposedly compassionate, progressive State claims it can solve.

You can read an example of this in the New York Times piece on the millions of people who might remain out of work for years to come. The Times tries to pin this on “institutional investors who crave swift profits,” and amazingly blames “the declining influence of unions” for making it “easier for employers to shift work to part-time and temporary employees.” Ah, yes, if only we had larger and more powerful labor unions, demanding unsustainable benefits and work contracts for everyone, and siphoning huge amounts of corporate cash into the pockets of union leadership. Employment would skyrocket! If only all businesses could produce a quality product… like the public schools, whose union workers won’t put in an extra half hour a day to resolve a crisis!

Progressives have no ideas beyond increasing State power, so their ideology is unable to cope with the dynamics of a vast economy. Look at the absurd Thomas Friedman, blubbering that “we’ve gone from the age of government handouts to the age of citizen givebacks,” and quoting a Johns Hopkins foreign-policy expert who says “the great task of government and leadership is going to be about taking things away from people.” Wrong. The great task of a resurgent America is taking things away from the government, and the intellectually bankrupt Left.

We will soon begin correcting the tragic error of progressive thought. Their “nation-building” days are over. A nation of free men and women builds its own future, with innovation and energy beyond the comprehension of a Left devoted to the belief that progress only runs in one direction: down into the ruin of a titanic, collapsing State. The current President offers himself as a hospice nurse, armed with fabulously expensive drugs that can ease the pain of a dying nation. His successor will be required to perform that service for a morbidly obese government that never should have been allowed to gorge itself on our liberty until its heart gave out.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Dr. Beck I presume?

Mr. Joe on February 22, 2010 at 6:48 PM

But he is right about these government pension plans. They are crazy and unsustainable.

Mr. Joe on February 22, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Great great great, Doc. This is one of my favorites evah, esp. this:

After a society is designed, it must be constructed, and human beings suffer beneath the application of hammers and nails. Every theory of social design – from fascism and communism, to the elitist grab bag of Progressivism, and the command economics rotting away the wealth of America and the West today – requires force to implement its programs.

Weight of Glory on February 22, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Progressive is just a different strategy for removing your personal freedom. Progressives remove the freedom band-aid slowly. Socialists remove the freedom band-aid fast. Add up all your pain, and it’s the same.

RBMN on February 22, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Keep the true nature of progressivism front-and-center in your essays, Doc. Sunlight will fry this damned bloodsucking ideology.

OhioCoastie on February 22, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Beck might be waiting to pounce with the checkered history of the early 20th-century Progressive movement, including their infatuation with eugenics

He’s touched on the subject previously Doc.

thomasaur on February 22, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Extremely important and extremely meaningful piece. Great writing as always!

Cinday Blackburn on February 22, 2010 at 6:59 PM

A nation of free men and women builds its own future

Gov’ment, get out of the way.

davidk on February 22, 2010 at 6:59 PM

This is an awesome post DOC!!

HondaV65 on February 22, 2010 at 7:01 PM

It’s interesting to see the progressive label applied to the Left in a negative way. They often like to use the term for themselves as a compliment, flattering their intellectual vanity by praising themselves for looking forward, and following the inevitable flow of history.

Yes it is, and we have Glenn Beck largely to thank for that.

Another thoroughly absorbing essay, Doc. Thanks.

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 7:02 PM

I think this essay calls for a link to Cpt Mal’s speech from Serenity but I’m at work so I can’t get to youtube…somebody wanna take that one?

TBinSTL on February 22, 2010 at 7:03 PM

The reason Big Government is unsustainable is that it really only has one coin to spend: compulsion. All of its resources are gained by extracting them from the citizens who produce them.

Perfectly stated.

fourdeucer on February 22, 2010 at 7:03 PM

And every last liberal, every one, believes they themselves will be chosen to run things and make the decisions for the rest of us. Not a one thinks they and their sparkling intellect would be passed over and thus lumped-in with the common serfs.

You think Ayers or Gore or Obama would allow themselves to be part of the faceless pack, reduced to grubbing for survival with the rest of the proletariat. They’re communists at heart.

Bishop on February 22, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Doc, you always have the best analysis.

portlandon on February 22, 2010 at 7:07 PM

I am still looking for a transcript of Beck’s speech. Can anyone help me out?

Vatican Watcher on February 22, 2010 at 7:07 PM

“Progressivism”: the progression from liberalism to socialism to communism.

And we’re on the way, folks.

Yephora on February 22, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Human Beings have free will and Progressives really can’t stand the idea there isn’t some way to control that “Will” they are doomed control is an illusion.

Dr Evil on February 22, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Great read, Doc.

David Combs on February 22, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Powerful as usual Doc. This should be mandatory reading for all of congress. And yes Beck keeps educating us all about the progressives and how they like to eliminate the opposition.Thanks Doc!

tim c on February 22, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Excellent, Doc, but how can we stop this…how can we take on the unions? In this a perpetual motion/wheel of fortune, who wants to be the one to stand in front and say stop?

lovingmyUSA on February 22, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Home Run Doc…
Glenn Beck, Andrew Breitbart, and Doc Zero; real men!

Keemo on February 22, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Doctor Zero strikes again! I wish I could post that applause .gif….

IronDioPriest on February 22, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Hey, I really like the way that the “Progressive Insurance” ad pops up on the sidebar when an article is posted about progressivism. The facts are that Progressive Insurance is owned and operated by leftists that use their profits to sponsor leftist causes.

Just in case there are a few left out there that don’t know it.

trapeze on February 22, 2010 at 7:29 PM

One positive step re unions would be to get some politicians here in California with guts enough to let some municipalities go bankrupt, to rid themselves of the pension burden. That could get the attention of all government employee unions.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM

The first thing that I must say is Doc…I “HEART” you!

Second…

The great task of a resurgent America is taking things away from the government, and the intellectually bankrupt Left.

But I thought that I was a part of the stupid, uneducated class that needs the “educated elite” to take care of me! /sarc
I think that the resurgent America is up to the task. “We will not go gentle into that good night!”

texgal on February 22, 2010 at 7:32 PM

I like Marks Levin’s take on it, they are STATISTs.

I bet if we (conservatives) don’t get the WH, sen and house by 2012 there will be a revolution. It may just be a tax revolt but it may be more hands on, if you get my drift. There are way too many Americans that will die before be they’ll be subjected to tyranny.

Live free or die.

TheSitRep on February 22, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Well said. Over 22 million people in this country are on a public payroll. Benefits and pensions paid for by the rest of us dumb enough to try and make it in the private sector.

repvoter on February 22, 2010 at 7:33 PM

I just figured out why you’re called Doctor Zero.

Because when you’re done dissecting a subject in your laboratory, there is about zero left to say about it.

The Monster on February 22, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Love your style and substance, Dr Z. You’re second only to Krauthammer on my favorite read list.

mugged on February 22, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Because when you’re done dissecting a subject in your laboratory, there is about zero left to say about it.

The Monster on February 22, 2010 at 7:34 PM

ABSOLUTELY!

texgal on February 22, 2010 at 7:38 PM

The Progressives preach the virtues of “spreading the [READ: your] wealth around” [AKA federal extortion] to those whom they rob with their pious, legalized pickpocketing.

While using every tax shelter, IRS flimflam, trust funding trick and deceptive payroll practice to remain aloof from their impoverishing decrees.

Chuckling “Let them eat kobe!” behind their gated preserves and spike-walled compounds.

A schizophrenic deceit which actually worked before they could be observed online, daily, and their grotesque lifestyles documented in real time, in preposterous contrast to their hypocritical “man of the people” harrangues.

Search engines are the seige engines of modern Liberty.

profitsbeard on February 22, 2010 at 7:44 PM

The Repubs complain that Beck criticizes them and says they must share in the blame for the mess. But he’s right. Oh sure there are a few Repubs who are true Conservatives and don’t swerve from the path. But for many years the majority of Repubs have either been complicit or looked the other way while Progressive ideas have been introduced. Some have even espoused some of the Progressive ideas. Are they as bad as the Dems? In some ways they’re worse. At least the Dems are who they are and don’t pretend otherwise. The Repubs complain but do nothing, and use all kinds of excuses for why.

Deanna on February 22, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Who is John Galt?

RedLizard64 on February 22, 2010 at 7:50 PM

I’m a Mark Levin fan but was disappointed that he spent the first hour or more of his show today seemingly defending “R” progressives. It was odd, he would digress for a while and agree with Beck, also criticizing the party, then switch gears and trash Beck for doing the same, (claiming that the Republican party is all fixed now), but then switching again and claiming that we need to replace the bad apples in the party. (I thought you said it was fixed, Mark.) Back and forth he went. He even blew Beck’s speech entirely out of context and proportion, (he had to), by claiming that Beck had attacked all Republicans AND conservatives everywhere. Right out of Media Matters play book.

The worse part is that Mark acts as though he is entitled because he wasn’t an alcoholic and he didn’t come from a dysfunctional family and he’s been in politics longer, etc. I’d love to ask him, what about your friend Rush, who was a drug addict, Mark? Is he any less credible for that reason? I don’t think so, so why do you keep criticizing Beck for the same reason?

I love ya Mark, but your envy is unbecoming. You and Beck both have a lot to offer. While I’m on the subject, your constant harping about “back benchers” is petty and unnecessary.

FloatingRock on February 22, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Doctor Zero, I wish you would have elaborated on the connection between the progressives and the enviromentalist movement. Perhaps your intend was to get us to read the links you provided. I did read the links and thank you for providing them. When the last moral objections to abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia are gone I have no doubt the attempt at racial purity in the eyes of the progressives will begin again.

fourdeucer on February 22, 2010 at 8:00 PM

FloatingRock on February 22, 2010 at 7:53 PM

I knew Levin would trash Beck today so I didn’t listen. Rush and Hannity did the same in their own way. What is really grating to me is that all three of them are showing that they are basically republican team players more than they are conservative team players. The most important thing to them is that the republicans win. I can understand this to a point, but it just eventually brings us back to where we were if you continue to vote republicans in who slowly inch closer and closer to democrat positions.

I actually thought Beck had a pretty good response to his critics of CPAC at the end of his show today. He made it clear he would prefer there not to be a third party, but that means that the republicans have to put forth worthy conservative candidates. It’s up to them really.

KickandSwimMom on February 22, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Doc Zero, CPAC Blogger of the Year 2011!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on February 22, 2010 at 8:04 PM

There is a very interesting series on Progressivism at NRO’s Uncommon Knowledge, with Peter Robinson interviewing Charles Kesler (Part 1 here). Progressivism is pointless, beyond brutal, as it misplaces the role of government and society… to the grief of society and the benefit of few. A fascinating series and well worth watching.

ajacksonian on February 22, 2010 at 8:05 PM

So you and Glen think Progressive politics are a cancer and you describe the worst offshoots of the movement.

What do you think about women wanting equality before the law? Or women voting? How do you feel about national parks? You want time, and America, and our Constitution to stand still? Any idiot can look for themselves and see what progressives did rather than take yours and Beck’s flimsy dross.

You and Beck try to frame the progressive movement as being left wing or or socialistic and it isn’t. It had some bad ideas and is linked to some of our bad history but the movement also produced America’s greatest third party and was critical in making America the great country it is today.

lexhamfox on February 22, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Doctor Zero.

Your “handle” should have a sarc tag after it, like, fer sher and stuff.

Doctor Zero /s

There is nothing, zero, about your contributions that warrants the association with the valueless integer.

Progressive appears to be an intangible adjective, depending on one’s definition of progress.

I, for one, don’t consider the continuing and ever-increasing encroachment of the capital-S State to be progress.

hillbillyjim on February 22, 2010 at 8:12 PM

TBinSTL on February 22, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Can’t find it on Youtube but I found it written through IMDB.

Y’all got on this boat for different reasons, but y’all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave. –Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 8:15 PM

I actually thought Beck had a pretty good response to his critics of CPAC at the end of his show today. He made it clear he would prefer there not to be a third party, but that means that the republicans have to put forth worthy conservative candidates. It’s up to them really.

KickandSwimMom on February 22, 2010 at 8:03 PM

That’s how I feel about it, too. Mark did have a good point, (one of only a few), that the way to fix the R party is from the ground up, pointing out that he used to go door to door to promote conservative candidates. Even this he morphed into another attack against Beck, apparently because Beck isn’t knocking on doors.

Well, Mark, you certainly don’t go door to door anymore, you’re not in a position to with your radio show and all, and neither is Beck. But Beck has played a far bigger role in promoting the tea parties. He’s already working on the problem from the ground up.

FloatingRock on February 22, 2010 at 8:23 PM

I would love to have someone read this essay to our current President and ask him to explain where it errs.

KGB on February 22, 2010 at 8:26 PM

progressively bigger government
progressively more taxes and fees
progressively more intrusion in our lives
progressively fewer choices
progressively less freedom
progressively weaker defense
progressively less productivity
progressively more dependent citizens
progressively bleaker future
progressively further away from their stated utopian goal
That’s the kind of progress that I can do without.
Another excellent post Doctor! Keep ‘em comin’.

ontherocks on February 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM

A 3rd party would be divisive for Republicans. Wouldn’t the 3rd party be predominantly disgusted Republicans with conservative values? If a 3rd party gained momentum, wouldn’t the Republicans be left with the RINOs? I assert that the RINOs are the 3rd party.

ericdijon on February 22, 2010 at 8:41 PM

So very well articulated!
Hats off, and I can’t add any more accolades than have already been thrown your way.

I felt I had to extract one paragraph, and I gotta tell you it was hard. You nailed (on so many levels) why we are on the wrong path. But here’s my fav:

The reason Big Government is unsustainable is that it really only has one coin to spend: compulsion. All of its resources are gained by extracting them from the citizens who produce them. The federal government doesn’t really spend money; it forces citizens to do so. Compulsion suffers from the law of diminishing returns – the more it’s used, the less value it can appropriate. In a relatively free society, clear and simple laws can generate enormous resources for the State. Here at the twilight of the New Deal, the acolytes of Big Government are reduced to proposing thousand-page bills that will regulate what kind of light bulbs you can use, or levy fines for failing to purchase government-approved health insurance.

Chewy the Lab on February 22, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Even this he morphed into another attack against Beck, apparently because Beck isn’t knocking on doors.

FloatingRock on February 22, 2010 at 8:23 PM

His personal vendetta against Beck is getting very old for me. I don’t see Beck constantly berating Levin. It’s time for Levin to chill out.

KickandSwimMom on February 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Live free or die.

TheSitRep on February 22, 2010 at 7:32 PM

And not alone.

Maquis on February 22, 2010 at 8:49 PM

The great task of a resurgent America is taking things away from the government, and the intellectually bankrupt Left.

I’m up for the task Doc. Already voted in the Texas Republican primary … too anxious to wait till next week.

Nov 2nd can’t come soon enough.

redridinghood on February 22, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Eugenics, the term was coined by Darwin’s cousin Galton. the idea is a direct result of the theory of evolution. as Darwin said:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

we’re still dealing with the two most pernicious ideas of the 19th century, Marxism and Darwinism, both have their roots in atheism

right4life on February 22, 2010 at 9:00 PM

right4life on February 22, 2010 at 9:00 PM

What and that is progressive? Please stop with the bollocks.

lexhamfox on February 22, 2010 at 9:02 PM

What and that is progressive? Please stop with the bollocks.

lexhamfox on February 22, 2010 at 9:02 PM

its called a history lesson, get a clue.

right4life on February 22, 2010 at 9:03 PM

I’m happy to see you quoting Glenn Beck, Doc. It sounds like you don’t watch his show regularly, though, because he’s been working on revealing the progressives for some time. Granted, Jonah Goldberg did it as well, in Liberal Fascism. The CPAC speech was a brief summary.

The P’s will drag everyone into their pyramid scheme until it collapses on all of us. I suppose they are honestly convinced that it can work, but Obama probably doesn’t care one way or another. His goal is to bring the American economy to its knees anyway. Then he’ll bring the troops home since we won’t be able to afford a worldwide presence anymore (nor will we need to, under a one-world gov’t). By that time they’ll be needed to “restore civil order.”

In this way the progressives are simply his dupes.

Obama clearly stated during the summer of 2008 that he didn’t care if tax revenues dropped due to redistibution of wealth – his prime objective was to close the gap between rich and poor. That means making us all poor.

Michelle-ma-belle was on the Chicago board of directors for the Council on Foreign Relations. You might want to put some research into this “nonpartisan” organization. Need I add that you can skip the Wikipedia site, which is carefully preened by the left.

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Lexhamfox has a lot of learning in front of him/her.

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:08 PM

I am still looking for a transcript of Beck’s speech. Can anyone help me out?

Vatican Watcher on February 22, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Go to glennbeck.com – why cheat yourself out of the delivery? He’s quite a showman.

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:12 PM

But for many years the majority of Repubs have either been complicit or looked the other way while Progressive ideas have been introduced. Some have even espoused some of the Progressive ideas.

Deanna on February 22, 2010 at 7:46 PM

What we need is education, Deanna. Many lefty ideas are seductive because they are draped in false compassion. We all need to learn how to expose progressivism for the rot it is. I don’t believe that most of our elected representatives are deep thinkers.

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Doc, What planet has you been living on for the last year? Beck and talked about this over and over again. Apparently you have you never watched the show.

devere252 on February 22, 2010 at 9:20 PM

FloatingRock on February 22, 2010 at 7:53 PM

I’m disappointed in Levin, and sorry to hear he’s attacking Glenn Beck. I generally don’t listen to him because his voice is so grating.

The fact is that there are so many different angles from which to attack the statists/progressives (all progressives are statists but not all statists are progressives).

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:20 PM

I love ya Mark, but your envy is unbecoming.

FloatingRock on February 22, 2010 at 7:53 PM

OH – that reminds me of what Beck said about the class envy that Obama incites. He said that of the seven deadly sins, envy is the only one that doesn’t afford even a moment of pleasure.

Think about it.

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:23 PM

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:23 PM

That was George Will, but it was still a great line. :)

FloatingRock on February 22, 2010 at 9:26 PM

What do you think about women wanting equality before the law? Or women voting? How do you feel about national parks? You want time, and America, and our Constitution to stand still? Any idiot can look for themselves and see what progressives did rather than take yours and Beck’s flimsy dross.

You and Beck try to frame the progressive movement as being left wing or or socialistic and it isn’t. It had some bad ideas and is linked to some of our bad history but the movement also produced America’s greatest third party and was critical in making America the great country it is today.

lexhamfox on February 22, 2010 at 8:11 PM

You are an ignorant twit. Is Margaret Sanger, the Mother of Birth Control, one of your heroes? Did you know she was a virulent racist, and supported welfare for the subpar (with the codicil that they be forcibly sterilized?) That’s the only way they wouldn’t continue to spawn generations of losers sucking off the teat of the State.

Young lady/man, you really should get yourself an education!

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:29 PM

That was George Will, but it was still a great line. :)

FloatingRock on February 22, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Thanks for the correction! I was punchdrunk on CPAC speeches :-)

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Dang it. Screw this. I don’t have any work right now. Doc. I’m printing this out, and I’m going to distribute this throughout my community. Enough of this. If the local sushi shop can put their menus under the windshield wipers at my Walmart, then I can advertise what you’re serving up! Let my generation see the death of progressivism!

Weight of Glory on February 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM

His successor will be required to perform that service for a morbidly obese government that never should have been allowed to gorge itself on our liberty until its heart gave out.

Dr Zero, you obvioulsy have a great mind and I for one understand the gift you give us with your insight. I have a question for you based on the paragraph above. Say there is a new President, the successor lets say for this argument is Sarah Palin because she strikes me as a person who wants the best around her, it doesn’t have to be all her, and she comes to you before the inaguration and say, I’ve been reading your stuff for years… Then she asks you to give her the top 5 things she should do to start paying off the huge deficit and start the restoration process…could you do it?

CCRWM on February 22, 2010 at 9:33 PM

OH – that reminds me of what Beck said about the class envy that Obama incites. He said that of the seven deadly sins, envy is the only one that doesn’t afford even a moment of pleasure.

Think about it.

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Great quote, but I thought George Will said that during his CPAC speech? Did Beck, too?

KickandSwimMom on February 22, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Sorry, I didn’t see upthread on the envy quote.

KickandSwimMom on February 22, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Excellent. Really insightful. Par for the course for this writer.

Doc Zero and Bill Whittle are my favorite essayists.

aquaviva on February 22, 2010 at 9:57 PM

You and Beck try to frame the progressive movement as being left wing or or socialistic and it isn’t. It had some bad ideas and is linked to some of our bad history but the movement also produced America’s greatest third party and was critical in making America the great country it is today.

lexhamfox on February 22, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Care to back up your asserations with facts and links like Doc does his?

CCRWM on February 22, 2010 at 9:58 PM

I pray you are right. But Scott Brown voted with the communist forces today so our wins are illusory.

petunia on February 22, 2010 at 10:06 PM

So, based on what I’m reading here, when Beck says this:

“I have not heard people in the Republican Party admit yet that they have a problem. I haven’t seen the Come-To-Jesus moment from Republicans yet.”

He’s perfectly legitimate in pretending that there are no conservative Republicans fighting back against this crap.

But when Rush Limbaugh points out that there ARE conservative Republicans fighting against this crap, he’s “slamming” Beck?

I didn’t hear what Levin said, but I doubt he was, “attacking” Glenn Beck.

I did read what Limbaugh said, and nowhere did I see him “defending progressive Republicans.”
IMO, the problem with Beck’s speech is that he had virtually NO POSITIVE message in it. He should have highlighted the people who are in the Republican Party who can lead us OUT of this mess, not pretended they don’t exist.

JannyMae on February 22, 2010 at 10:06 PM

I used to listen to Larry Elder on my drive home everyday…he was good!… then one day…I don’t know why….Larry is gone and Levin is there…I tried to listen to him… I didn’t disagree with him but after a while I noticed that I was litening to MUSE on my way home…he just didn’t keep me tuned in but it wasn’t due to a disagreement… I think he tired me out…

CCRWM on February 22, 2010 at 10:18 PM

This is all I have to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUsQGxkY60s

paulsur on February 22, 2010 at 10:19 PM

I am still looking for a transcript of Beck’s speech. Can anyone help me out?

Vatican Watcher on February 22, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Beck was good but if you have watched his show it was a repeat…

The best speech in my opinion was George Will. It was brillant!

So many of us are on the same page. But we still have the next several months to make a huge mistake. And then a lame duck congress who could do anything at all.

And then the hard part. Will the new congress really put a stop to the insane spending? Will they repeal Obama’s health bill if Republicans have signed on to it?

Scott Brown proved today that he will given in to democratic pressure. He will spend too. It’s very disappointing.

What happens to people when they go to Washington? Does their soul just shrivel up and die?

petunia on February 22, 2010 at 10:20 PM

He’s perfectly legitimate in pretending that there are no conservative Republicans fighting back against this crap.

JannyMae on February 22, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Beck’s right. The Republican Party apparatus hasn’t had a come-to-Jesus moment. He was speaking in the context of the nations problems having being caused by progressives on both sides of the isle, (which is what the speech was about), and there are still progressives on both sides of the isle and they continue to control the reins of the R party apparatus. That’s why they haven’t had a come-to-Jesus moment.

He should have highlighted the people who are in the Republican Party who can lead us OUT of this mess, not pretended they don’t exist.

The allegation that he was criticizing all Republican’s or pretended that there aren’t any good ones, in Washington or the rank and file, is a fiction. He was very clear about whom he was attacking, even writing “progressive” on his chalk board. Trying to score points against Beck on a contrived fiction is futile.

Keep it real.

FloatingRock on February 22, 2010 at 10:27 PM

JannyMae on February 22, 2010 at 10:06 PM

IMO, the problem with Beck’s speech is that he had virtually NO POSITIVE message in it.

Then you weren’t listening. Watch it again. Actually, watch his show, and you will understand why he referred to the puke-on-your-shoes sickness we have to deal with. You think he should pull punches to appease queasy types like you? If you want rainbows, look elsewhere – like Obama-On-Campaign.

He should have highlighted the people who are in the Republican Party who can lead us OUT of this mess, not pretended they don’t exist.

Why? He was talking about hearing crickets instead of people who ADMIT they screwed up. Who among Repub ranks didn’t lose sight of conservative principles? It’s not his job to select a few “examples” for us.

But since you’re convinced there are some pure spirits out there. list ‘em for us.

disa on February 22, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Part of the problems with Beck’s fixes is he isn’t looking at everything involved, just taking a thumbnail sketch and running with it.
The NJ retirement thing, the guy they’re talking about in that example is retiring at 49! Why 49? Who gets to retire that young? Is he injured or what else is going on. That’s why the pension figure is so large.
Beck’s other thing is that he wants to bump Social Security’s payouts up to the mid 70s or higher, because when originally planned, SS wasn’t supposed to kick in until well after the average life expectancy of men.
Well the problem with that is that many people don’t simply sit behind a desk all day. How is a 75 year old guy supposed to dig ditches or lay bricks or do any sort of physical work and still be productive? Is is his fault he got stuck in a job that didn’t have a fabulous retirement plan and now he’s hoping for a little bump from SS to help out?
There just aren’t any simple answers, but Beck, who makes a ton of money, wants others to suck it up and find ways to get by.
It’s just not always that easy.

postaldog on February 22, 2010 at 10:28 PM

I didn’t hear what Levin said, but I doubt he was, “attacking” Glenn Beck.

JannyMae on February 22, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Well, unlike you, I actually did listen to Levin’s show today, and he actually did attack Beck, unmistakably, though not specifically by name.

FloatingRock on February 22, 2010 at 10:31 PM

What do you think about women wanting equality before the law? Or women voting? How do you feel about national parks? You want time, and America, and our Constitution to stand still? Any idiot can look for themselves and see what progressives did rather than take yours and Beck’s flimsy dross.

lexhamfox on February 22, 2010 at 8:11 PM

There are so many non sequiturs in your screed. I can’t begin to address them. How are those things that well connected–except by a historical narrative that posits a positive progressive force that deemed it time for them all.

I’m pretty sure you want Rowe v. Wade to “stand still”. I hear so many progressives talk about someone “eroding” Rowe v. Wade. What? They want Time and the Cons to stand still. The thing about progressives is that they thing that there is a time clock for all this–which is precisely what makes their bad ideas so important. Eugenics wasn’t “standing still”. The forced sterilization of “imbeciles” wasn’t “standing still”. It was advancing, with the march that THEY SAW of history.

Progressivism is about responding to a particular, academic and minority narrative of history. Democracy definitely allows people to vote based on their historical narrative–it should never invalidate those people who find that narrative convincing–but it doesn’t make it the central point.

Nobody wants time to “stand still”, that is hyperbolic straw man of the progressives. If it all isn’t going the way they want, then it’s “standing still”. Supposing that America would just have stood still, what would National Parks have accomplished? You can only preserve land that is going to change otherwise.

Your own narrative admits of a historical trend of a particular time, but the only thing about that trend of that time is that it does not fit the narrative. You guys wrap yourselves so tightly within your narrative that you object when anybody pricks the skin and respond with a Non-sequitur-fest based again upon the progressive narrative.

Axeman on February 22, 2010 at 10:33 PM

postaldog on February 22, 2010 at 10:28 PM

You just don’t get it, do you? THERE ISN’T ENOUGH MONEY. For example, lots of police and fire-and-rescue guys get full retirement after 20 or 30 years. If they start at 18, they’re done by 38 or 48. And if you think there are only a few who take advantage of that, you’re deluded.

Social security was designed for the wrecks who simply couldn’t work any longer and would soon die.

Do you understand now?

disa on February 22, 2010 at 10:34 PM

This is all I have to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUsQGxkY60s

paulsur on February 22, 2010 at 10:19 PM

You’re wasting your time if you think anybody here is going to jump on your Truther bandwagon. Try KOS or Huffington Post.

FloatingRock on February 22, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Leftist progressiveness is really regression to medieval days when all wealth and power were centered in the elitists royalty and the masses were dependent on the largesse of the ruling class.

docdave on February 22, 2010 at 10:42 PM

The reason Big Government is unsustainable is that it really only has one coin to spend: compulsion.

All government at its core is the use of force. This is why government must be limited, because force can easily be overused.

Big Government, no matter how well-intentioned or even visionary, ultimately falls back on the use of force to accomplish even its loftiest goals. Big Government owes its viciousness to the overuse of force. Making an effective government is all about giving the government effective use of force. Making a free government is all about restricting the use of force. Free government and effective government are in a state of tension, because one so easily comes at the expense of the other.

You’ll notice I am not disagreeing with your point. Rather, I’m just extending the line of force or compulsion from Big Government, AKA Statism, to smaller government.

The key is always the judicious use of force, to only those ends which are unquestionably desirable.

While you use the term Big Government, and while I find the term useful enough to adopt it myself, the opposite of this Big Government — the goal we should strive for — is not Small Government, but Limited Government.

I think this points to the real difference between Bush and Obama. George W. Bush was hardly a president who shrunk the size of government. But he sought limited government. Even when proposing some bureaucratic program that involved spending more government money, which would be the classic sign of the Progressive Republican that Beck apparently refers to, he always tried to structure it so that the individual did not give up power to the state. The Medicare prescription plan was a case in point. Rather than just create a new government program where all the decisions were made by bureaucrats, he tried to leave as much of the control of the program in the hands of the individual using the prescription plan as possible.

I think Glenn Beck sometimes loses sight of the fact that not all spending is automatically bad. Reagan, for example, dramatically increased military spending. But spending on the nation’s defense is probably the single most appropriate use of the government’s power to spend, because it is focused on a legitimate government need — self-defense — while not enhancing the level of government control of our lives.

Some uses of force by the government are simply never acceptable. For example:

Creating a utopia
Creating a privileged class
Supporting one class of people at the expense of others
Applying special restrictions to a group of people
Forcing anyone to buy something they don’t want
Forcing people to give approval to things they find immoral

There are many others, of course. It would be hard to conceive of every possible abuse of government power.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 23, 2010 at 1:48 AM

What and that is progressive? Please stop with the bollocks.

lexhamfox on February 22, 2010 at 9:02 PM

its called a history lesson, get a clue.

right4life on February 22, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Lol!! a lesson in history… from Dr Zero who warns of slow growth under a statist or scialist economy… or warnings of progressives from a someone trying to set up their own third party with BS about taxes and getting back to our permanent and unchanging Constitution. It’s pure BS and doesn’t stand up under the slightest test of history or economic fact.

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:29PM

Yes I know. What does that have to do with women getting the vote or having equal access to the law or the workplace.

Rather than making snide comments …address the issues I raised. If Progressives are that bad, point out how the party ruined America when it actually took power or explain how women voting is bad or why slavery should be reinstated or why eradicating diseases is somehow merely a leftist concern…. I have an education. Thx. No doubt you think children should be in the workplace working hard. Good for you! Build a time machine.

Progressives went out of fashion because both major parties adopted their populism and addressed their issues.

lexhamfox on February 23, 2010 at 2:03 AM

disa on February 22, 2010 at 10:34 PM

No disa, I do understand, you’re missing the point. No one retiring at 38 is receiving full social security benefits. That does not kick in until 65. And while I haven’t seen millions of retired 38 year old cops and firemen, whatever their retirement package is, is negotiated with their local municipalities.
It’s one thing to tell a fully functioning person in their 40s that they may have to wait for full benefits because of budgetary restraints, but it is quite another to tell a battered, tired person at 65 that they’ll have to find some way to keep on at their job until they are 80. That is absurd.
There have to be other ways to work on the problem besides simply throwing hard working people under the bus. My point is that the solution to the problem isn’t simply one of denial.

postaldog on February 23, 2010 at 3:44 AM

postaldog on February 23, 2010 at 3:44 AM

I was referring to public pensions, which is another problem ready to explode. You can means test SS if you must, but it wearies me just to think about giving bureacrats yet another task which they aren’t up to.

Dog, can you just wrap your head around one thing: THERE ISN’T ENOUGH MONEY. Keep repeating that until you get my drift.

disa on February 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM

Lol!! a lesson in history… from Dr Zero who warns of slow growth under a statist or scialist economy… or warnings of progressives from a someone trying to set up their own third party with BS about taxes and getting back to our permanent and unchanging Constitution. It’s pure BS and doesn’t stand up under the slightest test of history or economic fact.

really now? hate to tell you, but the eugenics movement is a direct outgrowth of evolutionary theory, why don’t you try looking it up? Galton coined the term ‘eugenics’, he was darwin’s cousin. Marx thought Darwinism gave a scientific legitimacy to his socialist creed.

the progressives have a long RACIST EUGENICIST history…truth hurts. progressive is just another attempt to disguise marxism.

right4life on February 23, 2010 at 7:44 AM

Rather than making snide comments …address the issues I raised. If Progressives are that bad, point out how the party ruined America when it actually took power or explain how women voting is bad or why slavery should be reinstated or why eradicating diseases is somehow merely a leftist concern….

this is just laughable. progressives didn’t eliminate slavery CHRISTIANS DID. and progressives, like Wilson, and Sanger are RACIST as hell.

right4life on February 23, 2010 at 7:45 AM

as far as eliminating diseases, people like Pasteur were christians, how did the progressives, who have a long history of killing people, go about curing diseases? this should be good!!

right4life on February 23, 2010 at 7:46 AM

Progressives went out of fashion because both major parties adopted their populism and addressed their issues.

lexhamfox on February 23, 2010 at 2:03 AM

the progressives never went out of fashion, its still alive and well in people like Hillary, with that racist sanger as her hero, and kim jon il, Castro, chavez, etc…

the 20th century was the bloodiest in history thanks to progressives!

right4life on February 23, 2010 at 7:51 AM

In reality, this is progress toward entropy, a system doomed to starve itself to death.

Well put. Unchecked progressivism will increasingly push us as a nation inexorably toward a state of social anarchy in which our political system can no longer function. This is its primary aim, which it accomplishes through the destruction of all that is uniquely American.

Progressivism attacks on several fronts: deconstructing traditional morals and standards, elevating relativistic multiculturalism, and fostering concomitant economic policies which promote dependence, learned helplessness, and a sense of entitlement.

We are a long way down the road toward the destruction of the American identity, and it is an open question whether we can stop the accelerating forces destroying our social cohesion. The only way to fight the force of entropy is to apply greater force against it. A cadre of voices such as those of Beck, Breitbart, the tea party activists, and the libertarians seem to have begun serious push-back, and this is reason for optimism. It is an interesting time to be alive.

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 7:59 AM

Who is John Galt?

RedLizard64 on February 22, 2010 at 7:50 PM

My fear is that it may be time to start looking for our Hari Seldon.

MarkTheGreat on February 23, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Lexhamfox has a lot of learning in front of him/her.

disa on February 22, 2010 at 9:08 PM

As a liberal, he’s already convinced himself that he knows everything.

MarkTheGreat on February 23, 2010 at 9:07 AM

I post sometimes at Salon. I marvel at the reasoning of these people and just have to point things they do not think of out to them.

We were discussing “the past” recently and they were forwarding their lie that republicans are KKK members and the republicans from the south were it’s beginnings. I just love when this comes up and I get to point out that it was republicans that were the revolutionaries that established themselves in responce to the democrat slave owners who would not give it up. I also love to point out that it was southern DEMOCRATS that started the KKK.

Then I learned the bloody history of “progressives” and their connection to eugenics, and even to the birth of Hitlers nazis. I too was very interested in this history.
No wonder liberals want to re-write history when THEY are the cause of Hitler’s society! If people REALLY understood what being a progressive means they would RUN SCREAMING from the term. Then those left we would know are truely communist radicals.

After I posted this history on Salon, it was surprising but no one wanted to comment. Everyone left the thread and no further comments were made. I am surprised I was not banned. I do not do it to troll, I just like opening their eyes. In recent days they have been pointing out republicans that took stimulus money and that they are hypocrits so I am asking them who among the liberal rich have continued paying their taxes (for those of them that DO pay taxes) at the rates before the Bush tax cuts. So far I have no answers on that either. It’s weird!

patriotparty1 on February 23, 2010 at 10:40 AM

The great intellectual obsession of the early 20th century was the belief that scientific methods could be used to design a superior society.

Hayek called it “constructivist rationalism” — the idea that we should view societies against the yardstick of a single conscious design, which goes counter to the evolutionary, harmony-of-many-ends nature of society, and plays directly into the idea that one set of ends should govern all the rest.

Deadly stuff.

DrSteve on February 23, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Doctor Zero
-Absolutely fantastic!

Keemo on February 22, 2010 at 7:29 PM
The Monster on February 22, 2010 at 7:34 PM
CCRWM on February 22, 2010 at 10:18 PM
-Completely agree.

For anyone who wants an honest take on the “defined benefits” (such as social security), may I suggest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmCdS57xqw

JiyuLife on February 23, 2010 at 6:32 PM