Progessives want to change the world

I just saw David Horowitz on Glenn Beck. He made an important distinction that goes along with the concept of perfect vs protect.

He said that Conservatives want to fix government; Progressives want to change the world.

The Conservative idea is that the Constitution, small government, free markets and individual responsibility are the time-tested, proven ways to “health, wealth, wisdom, and happiness.”

Progressives don’t care about the past, what works, what is proven. They have a Utopian vision of the future, as do other Utopians (Marxists, Socialists, Communists) which means that power, and government control are needed to implement their vision of social justice. Regardless of the fact that it has never worked, that it always degenerates into a self-serving Animal Farm, misery, corruption, and slavery.

Previous Post

Progessives to create the Obama-nation

Next Post

We need to agree on what “bipartisan” means

Comments

    • Jeff Simon
    • February 15, 2010

    Ok, good to know. I figured you had to have typed in the URL as this site is not linked anywhere. I just started posting to it a few days ago, and wanted to get a “rhythm” going before linking it anywhere.

    • Reader
    • February 15, 2010

    Just drifting actually. “Oofdah” is a term I use on occasion, and on a whim I searched its .com. I’m surprised it’s not very active actually; each post is short and to the point and very open to response.

    • Jeff Simon
    • February 15, 2010

    By the way, I am wondering how you found my blog, as it is not “very well connected.”

    • Jeff Simon
    • February 15, 2010

    Yes, agree. There are precious few who in the long run have not “sold out.”

    Yet I have hope, as their are a number of Conservative voices now that are standing on principle.

    • Reader
    • February 14, 2010

    I agree completely, yet I wonder how possible it would be in this era. I mean, you look at how much money and “investment” goes into every noteworthy politician nowadays and you have to ask if corruption is even avoidable anymore. I desperately hope to be proven wrong, but I can’t see anyone with enough backbone to truly stand up for their political beliefs getting a seat of power any time soon.

    • Jeff Simon
    • February 13, 2010

    I am all for “sensible” — of course, *my* definition of sensible. Which I believe is Conservative values.

    The problem is that our elected Federal government, no matter which persuasion and including conservatives, in my lifetime have *never* given us “small government, free markets, etc.” The anger of the Tea Party movement is based in part upon the fact that when Republicans get in power, they “sell out” their principles.

    What we really need is a Conservative movement that walks the walk. The challenge of our time is not merely unseating those that oppose “sensible”, but to elect those who not only talk “sensible”, but also “walk” it once they get into the position of facing the temptations.

    • Reader
    • February 12, 2010

    Because constitutional integrity, small government, free markets and responsibility is what conservatives have given us so far. Come on man. Those are great ideas, but neither side is going to support them. They’ll both say that they will until the cows come home, but in the end, it’s all just the same product with a different label stuck on it. Why does it have do be conservative, and why does it have to be progressive? Why can’t we just have sensible?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *