Modern Progressivism/Socialism – What the Founders warned against

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Trollll Out, Feb 20, 2019.

  1. Trollll Out

    Trollll Out Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2016
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Intro for liberals – History 101 in reference to changing psyches within a civilization
    Life is not static. And inadvertently due to this fundamental (and desirable) principle, as fallible humans we often mistake the present-context as equating to that of the past. In this thread I’ll try to give context to the Founders’ beliefs and, most importantly, acknowledge the nature of life up to the very modern era. I’ll give an example by focusing on the, shall we say, *caveats* implied in America’s Constitution and related principles. I will not propose a Solution as this is a complicated subject that I believe as a species we haven’t entirely figured out. One thing’s for sure though:

    The simpering, lifeless nature of Liberalism/Progressivism is not the answer.

    Context in the framework of the Founders
    Let me tell you a brief story.

    Approximately 250 years ago, a budding civilization was forming in the newly founded Americas. Harkening to the what I’d describe as the best of English culture/philosophy (namely Classical Liberalism) these hardy and sturdy people felt that nagging, almost compulsory collective feeling (which embodies budding civilizations On the Rise everywhere) that they could branch off from the Old System and forge a new and better form of governance. Namely, they decided that they didn’t need a overarching Monarchy to dictate their future. Instead, the Common Man could have a knowledgeable and well-informed say in the country’s decisions – i.e. Democracy.

    Now, in reference to the theme of this post, most of us moderners don’t fully appreciate the gravity of just what these Founding Fathers (and Americans generally) proposed. As is usually the case with history context is everything. The following is what they proposed:

    Natural Rights and Equality with regards to those Natural Rights are the imperative– i.e. Monarchies (the Old System) ignore the existential aspects of human nature – in a word, the pursuit of one’s own interests – Individual Freedom. This is regardless of whether one lives within an established civilization or within a local commune like our native ancestors did. We reject the decadence of the classical European model and strive to move towards a better foundation based in relative Natural Rights-based equality.

    And thus was the original basis of America’s founding principles. As usual, though, to understand the Founding Fathers’ intent – who emphasized pragmatism more than most other philosophies did – the fine print is essential. Let’s go through some pretty well-established caveats to the above italicized proposition.

    The Fine Print in the Constitution
    Some of the following propositions will be unpleasant to Modern Liberals/Progressives. Primarily due to un-curtailed Hedonism and a sense of Entitlement without historical precedence, the following fine print in the Constitution (which is based around the circumstances all of our ancestors faced up until Modernity faced) will be foreign. Nevertheless:

    1. The Constitution assumed that citizens of the Republic would accept the *very real* possibility of catastrophic failure on an individual level – up to and including an untimely death, but more commonly manifesting in financial destitution. I.e. as Moderners we generally don’t conceptualize the inherently risky nature of life before our era – and thus we don’t know how to deal with even the very concept of its possibility.

    2. Following with (1) – the Constitution assumed that its citizens would tacitly (usually implicitly) acknowledge this foreboding reality. The burden was on the Individual to accept this fundamental principle and act accordingly and/or morally – at worst, one would accept their fate and not blame the new system of governance (namely Capitalism and Classical Liberalism), nor even necessarily themselves. At best they would make like the O.G. Stoics and actually find a sense of humor in embracing things outside their own control. Given the Much Harsher life people faced in that era and in turn the moral foundation they developed to cope with that more difficult reality, most of the original American citizens embraced this freedom-loving (versus security-based) ideology.

    3. Items (1) and (2) are the only basis around which a Democracy/Republic can *possibly* work in the long run. A sustainable Democracy requires acknowledging, on an individual basis, the very real chance of failure. If the great majority of citizens don’t philosophically accept this principle then what happens? Well, to quote Benjamin Franklin:

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

    Enough said.

    Conclusion
    There’s no other way to put it than the following: Modernity and the accompanying Hedonism (sense of Entitlement, i.e. Something for Nothing) so characterizing Progressivism/Leftism is not sustainable. Our ancestors were tacitly aware of such an ideology and the risks associated with it – which is why they used the heuristics alluded to above to avoid such a sentiment becoming pervasive amongst the general population.

    In other words, our Society’s weakest elements – most characterized by Leftists and their ideology generally – are incapable of acknowledging the harsher realities of existence – within civilization or without. Namely that personal security/comfort comes at the inevitable cost of freedom. They would gladly trade *temporary*, womb-like security and local comfort over freedom rather than face the risks humanity had to face up until the prior era.

    Given this dynamic one is pressed to question whether modern Progresssives/Liberals are even alive in the traditional sense of the word…

    Discuss.
     
    RodB likes this.
  2. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We were doomed the minute we started the welfare state and deficit spending. There’s nothing to do now except ride this out until the entire house of cards collapses and we have a violent revolution.
     
  3. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The best way to manipulate people is to instill fear and Trump has done a super job
     
    AZ. likes this.
  4. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is ok to fear some things.

    Do you often pet rattlesnakes that wander into your yard or do you fear them?
     
  5. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m not full of fear.

    I know we have some difficult challenges ... an invasion of illegals (22 million since 1986, 30 million more by 2050), far left demands for socialism, etc.
     
  6. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    When they wander into my yard I fear them but when someone tells me that rattlesnakes from Florida are going to come to New York and I should be afraid, I’m not
     
    AZ. likes this.
  7. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Well the good news is the invasion as you call it, and infestation as Trump and Hitler called it, has been declining every single year for decades. But Trump knows his base and made it scary
     
    TomFitz and AZ. like this.
  8. Trollll Out

    Trollll Out Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2016
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Just 30 years ago a Socialist (read: Democratic Socialist and other forms of Socialists-lite) candidate for presidency would be met with this response by 95%+ of the population:

    "Huh?"

    You can quite literally watch this unfold and it's fairly entertaining - it's Democracy gone amok - i.e. the worst/weakest elements of a society (see people like Renee here for an example per posting history) shrugging and essentially saying 'well **** it' with regards to the old rules around which said society was based around.

    Fascinating stuff!
     
  9. TomFitz

    TomFitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,413
    Likes Received:
    15,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Enough said, indeed.

    Man, what nonsense. If you're going to parade your right wing stereotypes, at least you can keep it short like the rest of the Trumpsters. Geeeez.,

    BTW, if you knew anything at all about the Constitutional Convention, you'd know that most of what you conjured above is nonsense. The Constitution did certainly reflect enlightenment views. And, while you can certainly make an argument that self reliance was the general assumption at the time, it was not the subject of discussion in the convention, nor in some imaginary "fine print".
     
  10. Trollll Out

    Trollll Out Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2016
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    43

    See the below, re-read and come back to me:

    1. The Constitution assumed that citizens of the Republic would accept the *very real* possibility of catastrophic failure on an individual level – up to and including an untimely death, but more commonly manifesting in financial destitution. I.e. as Moderners we generally don’t conceptualize the inherently risky nature of life before our era – and thus we don’t know how to deal with even the very concept of its possibility.
    --> This wasn't unique to America's founding. It was literally the state of life everywhere. The Fine Print you're referring to was very real as it was an inescapable part of life regardless of governance/economic systems at the time.

    Now, I mentioned that many of our Liberal/Progressive friends here in the States refuse to acknowledge this fundamental characteristic (i.e. the very high possibility of failure at one's endeavors) - they must do mental gymnastics to justify such sentiments. Typically their tactic is to posit that they are 'above' such unpleasant features of life.

    For example, take public education administrators - among the most parasitical and least competent of professional career paths generally. Basically a career in this field involves a. opting out of the competitive pool of the free markets and b. having to justify that *by any means* deplorable decision. Some of these public education administrators - probably as a form of overcompensation - go through the aforementioned mental gymnastics to justify their decision (both to themselves and unto others) to such a degree that somehow they are convinced they are the moral/ethical ones.

    I.e. Up is Down, Left is Right, Backward is Forward. Mind-boggling.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
  11. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Discuss? Pathetic hyperbole on your part. End of story.
     
  12. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Very well written and informative post. Two things: Virtue was considered the foundation of a constitutional republic. That might coincide with the individual way of life you describe. Also, the fundamental political goal of the progressives is a strong central government. The founders and framers viewed that as the worst thing that could happen to a constitutional republic and would inevitably lead to tyranny and autocracy.
     
  13. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,505
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We reduced the millions coming through to just hundreds of thousands? Yay us!
     
  14. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,505
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After that entire post, that is your constructive and well thought out response?

    Run along.
     
  15. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And yet in 1621 the pilgrims of the Plymouth Bay colony welcomed Massasoit and at least 90 Indian braves into their midst to share the bounty of the first harvesti9ntheirnew home with the indigenous people.The Indians in turn went out and hunted and killed five deer which they then dressed and cooked and added to the feast.The first thanksgiving lasted at least two weeks.Socialism prevailed with the pilgrims.Let each contribute according to their means and abilities.
     
  16. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The founders were strict libertarians and definitely opposed liberalism. However modern conservatives are also very far from the founders as well. Their support of a strong military is even more in opposition to the view of the founders than even liberals.
     
  17. TomFitz

    TomFitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,413
    Likes Received:
    15,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Repeating yourself does not improve your argument.

    And "fine print" was your term not mine. I acknowledged that you could make that argument for society in general at the time. However, it is clearly not in the Constitution, nor was it an important topic of discussion at the Convention. Why you keep trying to insist that this world view is non existant "fine print" in the Constitution is beyond me. It simply isn't there at all.

    Making general assumptions about how society is structured and trying to codify them in a governing document is not practical. And the framers knew that perfectly well. It was neither desirable nor necessary. The Consitution is a living document, and its use and interpretation have evolved over time.

    Which is the only reason it has survived. The framers may not have contemplated a welfare state, but they didn't contemplate the stock corporation, the holding company, railroads, radio or the internet either.

    As for you rant about education administrators...….

    Do you know any?

    Have you ever set foot in a public school (after high school graduation).

    Are you at all informed on issue regarding public education (and not just the anti intellectual rants that regularly appear in right wing blogs)?

    Your baseless rant strongly suggests yet another right winger spouting stereotypes.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2019

Share This Page