Skip to main content

View Diary: Why I became a Progressive (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Welcome to the Light Side. (7+ / 0-)

    Or what remains of it.

    It's not uncommon to find converted Republicans mentioning discomfort with rightwing dominionism, ethnocentrism and such social extremes that don't threaten the real power structure.

    But embracing single-payer, that's a bit of an eye-opener, because that puts you well to the left of the Democratic Party. And terming yourself "progressive" puts you far to the left of most converted Republicans I for one run into.

    But what the original Progressive Era introduced, and the liberal New Deal era greatly expanded on was the stripping of wealth and power from the top end and, especially with the New Deal 50 years, severe suppression of accumulation of wealth and power at the top.

    That was the sole period of civilization that created here and abroad any large comfortable middle class.

    I suspect you're not on board with such extremism; if you are, many apologies, if not, I hope you keep digging.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 09:20:07 PM PDT

    •  Well.. I used progressive (13+ / 0-)

      Because there are issues on which I am to the left of the democratic party.

      I believe the war on drugs is a monumental over reach and waste of money.. though I came at that through more conservative reasons (save jail cells for violent offenders)

      Single Payer I favor not because of some wild-eyed ideology but because the reality is without a uniform social burden, all we do is encourage people to blame each other for expenses.  A single payer system, or a unified health care program effectively ends most of that.

      I grew up with TVs that blared 'look for the union label' and in an era where there were unions that supported Republicans.  Now, Republicans - and even some democrats - go out of their way to make life hard on Unions.

      As someone who worked a job where working 70+ hours a week was 'expected' because I was salaried, I recognize that the loss of union presence has been a serious negative.

      And I won't go into sexual politics, but let's just say my views on the way we treat and handle sex issues in this country is asinine and Example: Link

      I believe our country needs one party to be truly progressive and the other to be a restraint.  

      Instead, we have one mildly progressive party VS a pack of raving lunatic Luddites.

      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

      by Chris Reeves on Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 09:35:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it's really not that unbelievable (3+ / 0-)

      the fact is that I have managed to convinced blood red conservatives on single payer simply though economical arguments.

      Further I don't think single payer is to the left of the democratic party in the slightest. The disagreement comes in implementation and that's just an honest disagreement.

      Der Weg ist das Ziel

      by duhban on Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 10:08:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Single payer is to the left of the Dem LEADERSHIP. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Musial, SouthernLeveller, Chi

        The Beltway Dems are fare more corporatist and conservative than the rank-and-file Dems.  

        "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by Kombema on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 10:13:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  While laudable, economical arguments tend to fail (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ybruti, Chi, RockyMtnLib, Simplify

        in the long run. The fact is, it is indeed cheaper to just let people die. It is more economically efficient to have a ruthless Darwinian economy in which dog eats dog and the devil takes the hindmost. Such an economy would maximize the wealth of the most able (not the most meritorious, but simply the most able to climb to the top by whatever means employed).

        At some point, the argument needs to be made on moral grounds. We shouldn't argue for a strong social safety net on the grounds that it makes economic sense because the counterargument can always be, "Economic sense for whom?" We should argue for it on the grounds that it's the right thing to do.

        •  except that no one is going to accept (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catte Nappe

          the argument that people should be left to die. Thus the first concession is exactly that, that 'something' must be done.

          After that it's incredibly easy to put enough facts forward showing that in generally some sort of competition from the government is instrumental in keeping costs down.

          Der Weg ist das Ziel

          by duhban on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 03:50:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't share your optimism (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban, Chi

            YOYO (You're On Your Own) is a firmly established attitude in the US. Remember the raw-throated glee with which Ron Paul supporters yelled their approval at the hypothetical situation of someone dying after not buying insurance because they didn't think they'd need it?

            •  it's not optimism it's experience (0+ / 0-)

              I've yet to see someone fully argue YOYO outside of nut bag libertarians and well see the nut bag part.

              They're not a majority, hell they're not even a majority of the minority.

              Der Weg ist das Ziel

              by duhban on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 11:05:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site