The Danger Of Progressive Liberalism

The Danger Of Progressive Liberalism

by Charles Gross

Paperback

$16.95
View All Available Formats & Editions
Choose Expedited Shipping at checkout for guaranteed delivery by Thursday, January 24

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9781462005758
Publisher: iUniverse, Incorporated
Publication date: 05/02/2011
Pages: 200
Sales rank: 1,021,548
Product dimensions: 5.50(w) x 8.50(h) x 0.42(d)

Read an Excerpt

THE DANGER OF PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM

How America Is Threatened by Excessive Government, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Entitlement, and the Failures of Both Political Parties
By Charles Gross

iUniverse, Inc.

Copyright © 2011 Charles Gross
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-4620-0575-8


Chapter One

What's the Problem?

Our country is on a destructive binge of governmental lunacy and personal self-absorption. We have strayed from our original principles and philosophy. We have demonized the bases on which we became the greatest country in the history of the world. We have sacrificed many of the values that formed our culture. We have often subverted or ignored the intent of the Constitution of the United States.

Our country's founders created a unique and wonderful entity, the United States of America. The very name defines our nation as an allied group of independent states, united for the common good of all. The United States was founded on the principles of a limited central government, individual liberty, self-reliance, and individual responsibility.

Over the last seventy-eight years, we have experienced a growth in government, with its attendant high costs, and a movement away from common sense. We have let the progressive liberal Left demonize and hamstring private enterprise, a basic building block of our way of life. We are becoming a nation of entitlement and disincentive. Far too many of our citizens depend on the government for much of their income. Far too much of the income taxes, paid by those who actually pay taxes, is used to support those who do not.

The power granted to the Left by a coalition of progressives, idealists, and the uninformed is extremely dangerous. The 111th Congress (January 2009–January 2011) and President Barack Obama, assisted by an irresponsibly biased media, represented a threat to American liberty and the American economy. That coalition advocated substantially bigger government, which is incompatible with American liberty. There is a very critical need to reverse that direction.

There has been a movement to the Left, socially and politically, since the 1930s. This movement has had, and is having, a destructive effect on the current and future well-being of our country. The progressive and socialist elements in our society have wielded enough influence to move political and social policy to the Left. They have basically ignored the wishes of the less organized and often passive conservatives who support traditional American values.

Progressive liberals believe the federal government should control the economy and, in many cases, the private decision-making of individuals. They continuously introduce legislation that leads to increasing the size of the federal government and spending more money. Their legislation impedes the efforts of those who would profit from free enterprise labors and intrudes more and more into decisions on how individuals conduct their lives.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have been mostly incapable of doing anything beyond providing weak opposition to the Democrats' bad ideas. Rarely do Republicans demonstrate the courage and integrity necessary to return the nation to prosperity and common sense. Conservative citizens want Republicans to insist that the government live within its means, establish an environment of truly equitable opportunity and reward, and protect our country from destructive forces. Republican politicians have largely ignored the wishes of its political base, while often engaging in the same corrupt and unprincipled practices as many Democrats.

It would appear that doing what's best for the country is certainly not the first priority of many in our United States Congress. What's best for the country is a minor concern for far too many politicians, at best the fourth objective behind (1) getting elected, (2) getting re-elected, and (3) obtaining more power and wealth for themselves.

My opinion is that the majority of Americans want that which Congress is unwilling to provide. The majority of Americans do not want the size of the federal government to increase. They want it to shrink and they want to eliminate deficits. Most Americans do not want to increase taxes on any income level.

Most Americans want to protect the country, eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorism, secure our borders, and enforce our immigration laws. They want English to be the official language of the United States; they do not want to become a bilingual nation. They do not want any form of amnesty for illegal aliens.

Most Americans want to reduce dependence on foreign oil and adopt an energy policy that makes sense. They want environmental policies that are practical and efficient.

Most Americans do not want the government to run health care, do not want "Cap and Trade", do not believe in bailouts, and do not want government takeover of private enterprise. Most Americans know health care must be reformed but do not want the government to manage it and certainly are against the unsustainable provisions of the health care bill signed into law by President Obama in 2009.

Most Americans have traditional values and do not appreciate the political correctness that protects the religious rights of others while denying the same to Christians and Jews. Most Americans want real education taught in public schools and do not approve of the heavy secular progressive liberalism taught on college campuses. They do not want multiculturalism, which is erasing the finest culture in the history of the world.

Progressive liberal politicians, as well as many Republican politicians, do not seem to listen or even care. Our federal government does not seek to execute the will of the people. Instead, it acts as though government elitists, and only them, know what's good for us. It is obvious that many in Congress believe the populace is simply too stupid to know what's best and therefore must have decisions made for them. This is particularly true of the progressive liberals on the Left, who hold the uninformed who vote for them in great contempt.

What is wrong with our elected representatives? Both sides of the aisle seem more interested in getting and keeping power than doing the right thing. Why do they renege on the promises they made which led us to vote them into office? Why do they seem to practice sleaziness and gutless vote-casting once they become immersed in the Washington culture? What is it about Washington that saps integrity and honesty and replaces it with backroom deal-making, vote-selling, and political pandering?

Part of the problem is the environment of career politicians, elected officials who become entrenched and isolated from reality. The result is their judgment becomes affected by the headiness of power, and they take the low road of ethical poverty. In later chapters, I will discuss how we might change that environment. We the people can cause the change, if only we the people make it a point to do so.

Chapter Two

Definitions

We have a two-party political system: the Democrat party and the Republican party. Democrats believe in a more centralized government at the federal level, while Republicans believe in a more decentralized government. The difference is significant. The Democrat concept of democracy favors more sovereignty at the national level, whereas the Republican federal republic model favors more sovereignty at the state level. Many disagreements between the two parties are based on this distinction.

While we have only two major political parties, we have an endless array of ideologies along the political spectrum, from far Left to far Right. There are many adjectives or labels used to describe one's socio-political persuasion. So that the reader understands how I use these terms, I include definitions below. Even though some of these terms are not used in further discussion, it is useful to understand what the labels mean.

The Left, generally considered liberal, includes progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, Communists, Marxists, secularists, and liberal moderates:

• Progressives: those who favor ideologies advocating changes or reform that include public (government) management and liberal social policies. Progressives align with the social liberals and social democrats and are in direct opposition to conservative and libertarian philosophies. • Social liberals: those who believe that the state should· supply individuals with the opportunity and means to support themselves. They believe that the government should intervene in the economy to provide full employment and social welfare. They typically believe in extending the rights of all citizens beyond "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to include other "rights" to basic economic advantages, such as a job, decent income, housing, and health care, among others. • Social democrats: those who support the idea of a· democratic welfare state that is both socialistic and capitalistic. Social democrats aim to reform capitalism through state regulation of the market and the creation of tax-funded welfare programs to counteract or remove the social injustices they see inherent in capitalism. • Socialists: those who believe the means of production in· an economy should be controlled by the state, rather than by individuals or capitalists. Socialists are anti-capitalists, which conservatives consider anti-American. Many modern socialists profess to be pro-capitalism, which adds ambiguity to the meaning of the term "socialist." Many on the Left bristle at being called socialist by those on the Right, because they don't want to be identified as something that is considered by most to be very anti-American. • Communists: in the modern political sense, communism is· a form of socialism, also involving an authoritarian central government that plans all aspects of the economy and controls the means of production. True communism does not allow private ownership of business and promotes the notion that everyone should be cared for by the state. • Marxists: like socialists, Marxists advocate control of· industry by the state. Marxists argue that in a capitalist society, an economic minority of capitalists exploit the working class. They believe that the working class, through political power, should have control of the means of production in collective ownership. • Secularists: those who would remove the influence of· Christianity, or any religion, from matters of state. In the pure sense, secularism requires a government to be uninfluenced by religious dogma. In today's America, secularism insists that the expression of religious dogma be repressed. • Liberal moderates: those on the Left who are considered· closer to the middle, those who do not completely align with the philosophies of the Left. Typically, they favor capitalism while also favoring some of the beliefs of social liberals. Moderates are not really true Leftists.

The Right comprises those considered to be conservatives, libertarians, reactionaries, and conservative moderates:

• Conservatives: those who support limited government interference in the free marketplace, individual ownership of capital and the means of production, prudence in government spending, a strong national defense policy, and institutions and social practices that are traditional and preserve the heritage of a nation or culture. • Libertarians: those who support the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization of the influence of government. They believe that the central government should essentially be limited to providing an interface to other countries (State Department), national security (Defense Department), and a common currency (Treasury Department), and act as a venue to settle disputes among states of the union. • Reactionaries: those who are extremely conservative, basically believing that society should return to an earlier, more ideal state (real or imagined). Reactionaries are quite the opposite of progressives. • Conservative moderates: those who lean more to the Left than most other conservatives, perhaps a little to the Right of liberal moderates. They also consider themselves capitalists while agreeing with some of the beliefs of social liberals.

The term "centrist" is used to describe those who consider themselves neither Left nor Right. They may also call themselves independents. True centrists and independents do not associate with either Democrats or Republicans and may vote for a third party candidate or for the "person, not the party."

Interestingly, the Left would have you believe that Fascists, or Nazis, are also on the political Right. That is not accurate, which we'll discuss later.

Chapter Three

The Progressive Movement Since FDR

From 1933, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was first inaugurated as president of the United States, to the end of the 111th Congress in January 2011, a period of seventy-eight years, Congress was largely dominated by the Democrat party.

During those seventy-eight years, Democrats had the majority in the House of Representatives for sixty-two years, including forty consecutive years from 1955 to 1995. During those seventy-eight years, Democrats had the majority in the Senate for fifty-six years.

Republicans controlled the House for sixteen of those seventy-eight years and the Senate for twenty of those seventy-eight years. One Congress, 2001–2003, had a 50-50 deadlock in the Senate. During those seventy-eight years, Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency:

• For fourteen consecutive years, 1933–1947, with Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman • For four consecutive years, 1949–1953, with Harry Truman • For eight consecutive years, 1961–1969, with John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson • For four consecutive years, 1977–1981, with Jimmy Carter • For two consecutive years, 1993–1995, with Bill Clinton • For two consecutive years, 2009–2011, with Barack Obama

During the same seventy-eight years, Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency:

• For two consecutive years, 1953–1955, with Dwight Eisenhower • For four consecutive years, 2003–2007, with George W. Bush

So, for thirty-four of those seventy-eight years, the Democrats had majority control of the passage of legislation, while the Republicans enjoyed that advantage for only six years. For many years, the only means Republicans had available to limit Democrat control was the filibuster.

Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush never had a completely friendly Congress with which to work. Eisenhower had one for only two of his eight years. George W. Bush is the only Republican president to enjoy a majority of his party in Congress for four years, or half his time in office.

Meanwhile, FDR and Truman had Democrat majorities in both sides of Congress for all but two of their combined twenty years in office. John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter had Democrat majorities for their entire terms. Bill Clinton had them for his first two years in office. Barack Obama had them for his first two years.

What can be seen from these facts is that every Democrat president has had a friendly Congress for at least some of his term, while only Republicans George W. Bush and Eisenhower enjoyed the same advantage. Therefore, the Democrats have obviously enjoyed a far greater ability to advance their agenda than have the Republicans.

Considering the overwhelming dominance of the Democrat party since 1933, the inescapable conclusion is that the overall direction of the country for the past three-quarters of a century has been shaped by Democrat policy.

It is no coincidence that the size of the federal government increased dramatically during that period. While the period enjoyed a spectacular technological and industrial explosion, leading to an unprecedented standard of living, it also produced an expanding sense of entitlement and the corresponding increase in taxes necessary to support it.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Democrats swept into power in 1933 with a mandate to get the country out of the Great Depression, which started with the stock market crash of 1929. Roosevelt believed the government, not private enterprise, was the vehicle to take the country on the proper course. He did not accept that private industry had the power to correct the economy if left to its own devices. He and an overwhelmingly majority Democrat Congress enacted program after program designed to cure the problem. By 1933, the national unemployment rate had reached 24.9 percent. After five years of massive government growth, the unemployment rate was still 19.0 percent.

(Continues...)



Excerpted from THE DANGER OF PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM by Charles Gross Copyright © 2011 by Charles Gross. Excerpted by permission of iUniverse, Inc.. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Table of Contents

Contents

Introduction....................1
1 What's the Problem?....................5
2 Definitions....................11
3 The Progressive Movement Since FDR....................15
4 What the Left Thinks....................25
5 What the Left Says....................47
6 What the Left Does....................69
7 The Left and Business....................89
8 Republicans Aren't So Great Either....................101
9 The Third Great Islamic Jihad....................113
10 Sharia Law and Useful Idiots....................129
11 Cut Government Spending....................137
12 Real Reform....................155
13 The Elections of 2010....................177

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews