Is America’s future progressive?
If the main focus of progressives was to promote upward mobility, they would deserve their predicted political hegemony. But current day leftism is more about style, culture and green consciousness than jobs and opportunity. It’s more Vogue’s Anne Wintour than Harry Truman. Often times the gentry agenda — for example favoring higher housing and energy prices — directly conflicts with the interests of middle and working class families.
The progressive coalition also has little to offer to the private sector small business community, which should be producing jobs as they have in the wake of previous recessions but have failed to do so this time. A recent McKinsey study finds that small business confidence is at a 20 year low, entrepreneurial start-ups have slowed, and with it, the innovation that drives an economy from the ground up.
These economic shortcomings are unlikely to reverse themselves under the Obama progressives. An old Democrat of the Truman and Pat Brown, perhaps even Bill Clinton, genre would be pushing our natural gas revolution, a key to blue-collar rejuvenation, instead of seeking to slow it down. They would be looking to raise revenues from Wall Street plutocrats rather than raise taxes on modestly successful Main Street businesses. A HUD interested in upward mobility and families would be pressing for more detached housing and dispersal of work, not forcing the masses to live in ever smaller, cramped and expensive lodgings.
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
There is no future in being progressive!
OldEnglish on December 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM
All part of the plan. Keep the masses poor, hungry and in easily managed groups.
Dr. Frank Enstine on December 28, 2012 at 10:42 AM
If we roll over and just whine we get destroyed.
If we organize and fight we don’t get destroyed.
The media has isolated and twisted our information to such an extent most people in America have no clue what reality is.
We are not alone unless we choose to be. Organize and fight.
GardenGnome on December 28, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Building a bridge to the pre-Enlightenment
Rixon on December 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Is America’s future
progressivecommunist?darwin on December 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Wasn’t this question answered on November 6th?
And it’s not Anna Wintour vs. Harry S Truman, it’s Karl Marx vs. Harry S Truman.
That which cannot be sustained, won’t.
And when they fail in their attempt to make all things equal, the inherent inequality of the human animal will exact its pound of flesh.
turfmann on December 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM
No, it isn’t.
blatantblue on December 28, 2012 at 10:49 AM
No, the future of the US is dissolution. We will become at least two separate nations because the differences between the statists and Constitutionalists is an unbridgeable chasm.
There is no common ground between us and there never will be.
The only viable alternative to dissolution is federalism wherein we segregate ourselves into semi-autonomous states that are governed by the preferences of the state’s citizens.
We conservatives will not be forced into living in an unconstitutional, socialist country where we are subjects rather than free, self-governing citizens.
I get a feeling from a lot of conservatives that their patience with this government and the Left is wearing very thin. The Left is treading on thinner and thinner ice. They seem to believe they can continue to force their will upon us without consequence.
We shall see.
Charlemagne on December 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Progressive….you keep using that word. i don’t think it means what you think it means.
Ditkaca on December 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Of course $1T+ deficits a year can’t be sustained. The question is, what happens when we crash. Will the power be taken by the federal government, or will it be taken more by the states, and the people. Sadly, I’ll believe it will be the federal government. When has anyone successfully fought the federal government. When have they ever given up power. When have they ever cut their budgets. When have they ever even “slowed the rate of growth” of their programs.
Paul-Cincy on December 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM
One of the main things going for America right now is that our Progressive downward slide is not as advanced as other industrialized nations, especially those in the EU.
The ultimate irony for the American Left is that the only thing keeping their ideology from the inevitable implosion (you will always run out of other people’s money) is conservative pushback.
That being said, I never thought I would see the day when the USA was politically to the Left of Canada, and yet here we are. Lower and middle-income families to be hardest hit.
visions on December 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM
You are so right on this point. The only thing keeping us not only from collapsing under Leftist economic policies and becoming a full on failed socialist state is conservative resistance. Can you imagine what the country would look like if we got out of their way and let them implement all their grand ideas? They’d have to build a wall to keep people from fleeing.
If not for the South we’d already be living in a socialist country.
Charlemagne on December 28, 2012 at 11:10 AM
If by progressive you mean regressive, the answer is yes for the foreseeable future. The voters of this nation no longer have first hand knowledge of hardship and will need to suffer before they learn that “progressive” will seriously harm their lives and families.
astonerii on December 28, 2012 at 11:10 AM
I agree with every word of this column…
libfreeordie on December 28, 2012 at 11:12 AM
And ensure the honest ones are unarmed so that the crooks will manage the herd for you.
Biden is an idiot savant. He got the word ‘chains’ right.
CorporatePiggy on December 28, 2012 at 11:12 AM
They’re printing money now, trillions so far that they’ve “lent” to themselves. Why would they ever stop. Then comes rising prices, and the devaluation of savings. The federal government will decide who gets what. Why would they ever give up that power.
Paul-Cincy on December 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM
You beat me to it. Unfortunately, it is looking pretty grim.
dogsoldier on December 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM
It’s funny how Leftists assume that Democrat politicians are angels….that they are “above” human nature simply because they pursued a career in politics.
Don’t they realize that power hungry people seek power?
visions on December 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM
The impending deaths of Castro and Chavez could mean the end of a lot of Cuban/Venezuelan troublemaking in Latin America, which could open that market up. This could result in negative Latino migration, as illegals here see opportunity in places with a lower cost-of-living, where everybody speaks Spanish, and wants them there.
As commenters are pointing out, Reagan happened after a critical mass of Boomers hit the point around 30, where they became more interested in buying homes and settling down–but couldn’t because of stagflation. The Millenials will start getting there by 2016. Biking to a barista gig from an apartment in Hipsterville next to the barrio is fun at 25, unacceptable at 35.
And if conservatives in the media are smart, and bring down Julian Castro, Cory Booker, or any of the other minorities, the Democrats will be stuck running an old white man or an old white woman. They won’t get the minority turnout of a Barack 0bama.
This isn’t even to mention the economic troubles coming.
Sekhmet on December 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Now actually read the column *snicker*
Sekhmet on December 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM
I read the whole thing, all of his critiques of liberalism and progressivism as “style, culture” and not “substance” are dead on. His critique of the new urban inequality is dead on (this is actually the very issue that I have devoted my career to studying). Essentially he is documenting the gradual elimination of marxism from liberalism over the last 40 years.
libfreeordie on December 28, 2012 at 11:25 AM
This is why I always try to differentiate between this “modern” Democrat party, which is completely unhinged, versus the “old time” Democrat party that this piece refers to.
This is what I tried to explain (in vain) to my low-information Obama-voting family: this is -not- your parents Democrat party. This is not the party of Truman, JFK, or even Clinton.
Nancy Pelosi was once (rightfully) considered a fringe lunatic by her own party. Then she became Speaker. That was the final turning point, IMO.
visions on December 28, 2012 at 11:26 AM
What the communists offer is the theft of what entrepreneurs earn, so why should they produce anything? I have heard politicians recently express dismay at the situation THEY created and make noises demanding that companies must hire and produce anyway.
Their demands are falling on deaf ears and empty wallets. People really don’t like a thief. They don’t like having the rewards for their hard work stolen.
dogsoldier on December 28, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Not quite. What’s documented is the rise of it. Marxism in practice has always been about creating a Marxist aristocracy and serfs. Exactly what we’re seeing today. The common man has never asked for Marxism, it’s always been pushed by the elites and intellectuals.
darwin on December 28, 2012 at 11:32 AM
You’re referring to Communism as practiced by the Soviets and China. Meanwhile there are numerous examples of marxism operating within liberal democracies all over Western Europe.
libfreeordie on December 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Of course inequality is real. It has always and will always exist, because humans are unequal. “Programs” that attempt to reduce inequality inevitably end up producing more inequality, which might not otherwise have existed. The author of this piece acts as if the US hasn’t already spent billions and billions of tax dollars over 4 decades trying to reduce “inequality.”
The only real way to reduce inequality as much as possible is to liberate the market. In their defense the GOP House has put dozens of bills forth recently to try to do that, only to be shelved by Reid.
visions on December 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM
You ever lived in Europe?
CorporatePiggy on December 28, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Sure. People belong to the government and do as they’re told. They live within the limits dictated by the elite. They’re told to be “green”, they’re told they can have no firearms, they’re told they must not do this or that, they’re told what speech is acceptable and they’re taxed to the limit.
They have the freedom to exist within certain limits and serve the state. Regardless of your romantic views of Marxism, it is nothing more than the enslavement of a populace.
Look at the US. There is now virtually nothing you can do that isn’t taxed, regulated or doesn’t require government permission. We do as our betters dictate or else.
darwin on December 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM
American lefties never actually lived in Europe. They got the cook’s tour some time in their twenties, when living in a hole in the wall and biking to wait tables was fun.
Sekhmet on December 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Libfree styles herself as an acadmic so that is likely true.
The highest form of human existence is communism – on paper.
The problem is it is fundamentally impossible. Humans have proven this over and over in graphic fashion, but there will always be dangerous idiots who want to try again.
The currency of their utopia is death.
CorporatePiggy on December 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM
the writer really needs to read up on marxism. this isn’t about progress Obama and the dems are using straight up marxism here. they want to destroy the middle class and small businesses and instead make people need government. The idiots in the GOP are screwing things up by talking about the takers/moochers/low information voter. Most of the people on gov assistance don’t want to be on it. Sure you have maybe 20% die hard moochers but the rest dream of getting off food stamps, having their own job, providing for their family. the GOP should be using capitalism to fight the marxism being put forward by Obama and the dems. Instead the GOp proposes marxism lite.
We are so freaking doomed.
people don’t even understand what is going on.
unseen on December 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM
the problem with marxism and communism is that we live in a finite world. therefore resources must be rationed. with capitalism we ration those resources with money and the work required to earn that money. In crony capitalism/fuedalism we ration those resources by who you know and where you live/what connections and titles you have.
with communism and the concept that everyoneshould have equal outcomes the resources still must be rationed and therefore for everyone to have equal outcomes of a finite resource they must have the least amount possible to ensure the most have something. And it sets up the corrupting influence of the rationers to ration a little bit more to themselves and their family.
so those that want to make communism work needs to find a way to make our finite world infinite in resources. I doubt its possible. and after a while rationing takes on massive death camps as the rationers faced with more and more finite resources must limit the amount of people getting them.
unseen on December 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM
It has to go this way. Or else, we all end up being slaves.
Mirimichi on December 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Brrrr. That one’s going in my quote archives.
MelonCollie on January 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM