Ringing in a conservative year

Ringing in a conservative year By George F. Will, Published: December 30 Although they have become prone to apocalyptic forebodings about the fragility of the nation’s institutions and traditions under the current president, conservatives

I suggests that when George Will uses the word "conservatives" her really means right-wing whack job lower my taxes and the taxes of corporations and roll back the security net for the old, the lamek, the blind, the halt, the economically disadvantaged, the employment rejected huddling masses which are not white males"

should stride confidently into 2012. This is not because they are certain, or even likely, to defeat President Obama this year. Rather, it is because, if they emancipate themselves from their unconservative fixation on the presidency, they will see events unfolding in their favor. And when Congress is controlled by one party, as it might be a year from now, it can stymie an overreaching executive. In 2011, for the first time in 62 years, America was a net exporter of petroleum products

interesting - and how large is our reserve of petroleum? How long can this be sustained? Is it even a good thing to do so?

. For the indefinite future, a specter is haunting progressivism, the specter of abundance. Because progressivism exists to justify a few people bossing around most people

umm, Georgie Porgie - t'ain't nary a one of dem dar progressives in a position of authority to go bossin' round! - Just saying'

and because progressives believe that only government’s energy should flow unimpeded, they crave energy scarcities as an excuse for rationing — by them — that produces ever-more-minute government supervision of Americans’ behavior.

The Definition of Progressivism 1 Short Definition 2 Origin and Etymology 3 Concerning the "Progress" in "Progressivism" 4 Fuller Definition 5 Progressivism vs. Liberalism 6 Progressivism vs. Conservatism 7 Additional Resources Short Definition Progressivism may be defined briefly as the core principles and beliefs of Progressives. However, this begs the key question: what, exactly, are these principles and beliefs? A fuller definition therefore requires an exposition of Progressive convictions. As no two Progressives hold precisely the same beliefs, and as Progressive views have developed and changed over the course of time, precise definition will always be somewhat elusive. Nevertheless, a more complete definition can be offered; but this will require us to provide a bit of background. Origin and Etymology The first citation of the term "progressivism" in the Oxford English Dictionary is dated to 1892, in England. At that time the St. James Gazette used it as a term of derision, equating it with "radicalism". However, the St. James usage doesn't suggest that a neologism was being coined for the occasion (nor does the OED say as much). The term, therefore, seems to be of indeterminate late 19th century British origin, and originally meant something rather different from what the term has come to mean today. It also began to be used in the United States toward the close of the 19th century. The need for a new term for reform-minded Americans was driven by the undesirably close association of the term "liberal" with the policies of President Grover Cleveland, and the association of the term "populism" with the political radicalism of the 1890s. The concept of progress was very much in the air at the close of the 19th century owing partly to changes in the way that business was being conducted, partly to the immense changes brought about by the industrial revolution, and partly by the ideas of Darwin, as adapted to the context of politics by British and American sociologists. The need for political reforms and the broad appeal of the concept of progress was, then, rather neatly conjoined in the term "progressivism"; and initially the term had considerable appeal to what would today be considered Liberals and Conservatives alike. Concerning the "Progress" in Progressivism All things both Liberal (in the American sense of that term) and Progressive have their ultimate origins in Rationalism. This is, roughly, the belief that only reason and evidence can properly serve as the foundation of our convictions.

Stunning. I doubt that one "conservative: or one "liberal" out of one hundred of each would know or even think this!

If we try to subsititute something else for reason and evidence, the question immediately arises how we are to justify that something else — and the moment we try to do that, we begin to employ reason and evidence. The three great branches of rationalism are mathematics, science, and philosophy. While rationalism had its origins in ancient Greece, it was largely eclipsed during the Dark Ages, and didn't re-emerge as an influential current of thought until the Renaissance, and later during the historical period now known as The Enlightenment (which ran its course throughout the 18th century in Europe). While many Christians had viewed the presence of humanity on Earth as deservedly miserable and fleeting (and as something soon to end in a final Judgment), the philosophers of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment opened the door to a novel and entirely different perspective: that of a better quality of life here and now.

This, assuredly, is not how the political, academic, and news-transmitters think, today. Nor is it even remotely close to the present American way of doing "bidness:" via the corporate welfare / warfarwe state

Once that possibility began to be further examined another idea surfaced: there was no obvious reason why the quality of life could not be improved indefinitely. Here, of course, was the essence of the idea of progress. As an abstract concept, progress might have seemed like so much empty rhetoric had not developments in mathematics and science led to numerous advances in technology and medicine that in fact, and pretty inarguably, improved the quality of life; while developments in philosophy led to the advances in governance that culminated in modern democracies — democracies that in fact, and pretty inarguably, improved the quality of life of their citizens. In short, rationalism began to deliver handsomely on its promises of progress. The idea of progress received a further impetus with the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) . In a celebrated passage there, Darwin had remarked:

As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works soley by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental environments will tend to progress towards perfection.

Here was a startling and unexpected argument from biology to progress; but Darwin was a naturalist, and the implications of his suggestion remained to be worked out for ethics and politics. This task was initially undertaken by another Englishman, Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903), and later by Americans William Graham Sumner and Lester Ward. As it turned out, the identification of biological evolution with social advancement was based on confused and ultimately false ideas; but Spencer's elaboration of an essentially inevitable and indefinite social progress proved extraordinarily popular — even among those who would today be described as conservatives. (Spencer and Sumner were both arch conservatives.) Among those most taken by Spencer's ideas was the young Englishman Winwood Reade, who popularized them in The Martyrdom of Man. Reade's book, originally published in 1872, was read so widely that it reached an eighth edition just twelve years later — shortly before the St. James Gazette would use the term "progressivism" in its pages. But if biological evolution and social progress were entirely different things, it remained to be understood what was properly meant by social progress. There also arose in tandem issues concerning the best means of achieving progress. The reform-minded Americans of the late 19th and early 20th centuries began, at least, from a very clear picture of what they didn't want. Perhaps first and foremost, many Americans had first hand experience of working long hours at grinding labor for minimal pay, frequently in dangerous conditions; and this included both women and children. Moreover, such labor often occurred far from public scrutiny, in meat packing plants, sweatshops, and coal mines. This was a startling development in a country where the majority of Americans had been proudly independent farmers just a few short years before. Moreover, those who didn't have such experience first hand, soon learned of it at second hand in the magazines of the day. Pretty clearly, young children losing fingers and toes in factories didn't amount to progress. Further shocking revelations concerned political corruption, and living conditions of poor families in cities like New York and Chicago. The business activities of men like John Rockefeller included dynamiting competitors — and having striking employees shot dead. Much of what was so clearly wrong had, in one way or another, a great deal to do with the large corporations that the industrial revolution was giving birth to. And then there were so many other troubling matters. American women had no right to vote. African Americans were being lynched in the South. Foods and "medicines" were often contaminated or poisonous. (For additional details, see the Progressive Living Progressive Era Timeline, and Brief History of Progressivism.) If nothing else, it was apparent that regulation of businesses and business practices was badly needed. The hands-off approach, known as "laissez faire", and extolled by businessmen, was recognized by most to be a thoroughgoing catastrophe. So while populism and Progressivism began from a strong sense of shrinking economic opportunities, they soon broadened into a more general recognition of the need for social justice; and the key obstacle to both was the large corporation or "trust". It was precisely this tension between the desire for a better life for all, and its obstruction by the very wealthy owing to the instrument of the corporation that gave Progressivism its most distinctive characteristics. (Europe, broken up into many smaller countries, and rife with cultural and linguistic barriers, gave rise to liberalism; but European liberals never had to contend with anything quite like the titanic, monopoly-seeking American corporation.) Fuller Definition We are now in a better position to offer a fuller definition of Progressivism: it is the specifically American development of Liberalism and populism that seeks social justice above all else, and specifically with reference to the obstacles posed to social justice by large corporations. Though Progressives strongly support civil liberties, the "progress" in Progressivism is thought to lie, most fundamentally, with ensuring, as the American pledge to the flag puts it, "justice for all". Progressivism vs. Liberalism It should now be clear where, broadly, the differences between Liberalism and Progressivism lie. In the United States today, elections are broadly controlled by the mass media (which are themselves among the largest of big businesses) and by a system of legalized bribery (sometimes referred to euphemistically as "making campaign contributions"). In this system, the very wealthy owners and officers of large corporations are vastly better placed than most Americans to influence political outcomes. Progressives would say that many of the politicians who have called themselves Liberals — and who must daily face the reality of a need for a great deal of cash in order to be elected — have largely resigned themselves to the political corruption this entails, and have been weak critics of corporate abuses. This has led to a dissatisfaction with the term among many of those who consider themselves to be Progressives. Progressives also tend to be somewhat more populist in outlook than Liberals. Progressivism vs. Conservatism Like other forms of Liberalism, Progressivism represents a commitment to the rule of law, with governance of the people, by the people, and for the people. Progressives seek such governance as the means to the greatest good of the greatest number. Progressives would say that political and economic conservatism (but not cultural conservatism) is committed to political and economic elitism, with governance of a wealthy elite, by a wealthy elite, on behalf of the economic interests of a wealthy elite — by force, if necessary, but preferably by means of bribery, rigged elections, packed courts, and mass media propaganda. Recently, conservatives have sought an all-powerful "unitary executive" role for the Presidency, in keeping with authoritarian ambitions. More Concerning Progressivism Further resources concerning Progressivism at Progressive Living: The essay Progressivism provides an essay describing the essentials of contemporary American Progressivism, while a related page provides an overview of all the major topics relevant to Progressivism. The Reconstruction Timeline provides background to the sort of corruption that was to lead up to the Progressive Era, while the Progressive Era Timeline provides an overview of the developments of that period. The History of Progressivism provides a brief account of Progressivism from its earliest American origins, down through the 21st century. The definition of Progressive education provides both a definition and some background to educational Progressivism, while the Progressive Education Field Guide provides a broader array of resources. Progressive economics are described at the Field Guide to Progressive Economics.

Imagine what a horror 2011 was for progressives as Americans began to comprehend their stunning abundance of fossil fuels — beyond their two centuries’ supply of coal. Progressives responded with attempts to impede development of the vast, proven reserves of natural gas and oil here and in Canada.

And just how long will those proven reserves last?

They bent the willowy Obama to delay approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canadian tar sands; they raised environmental objections to new techniques for extracting gas and “tight” oil from shale formations. An all-purpose rationale for rationing in its many permutations has been the progressives’ preferred apocalypse, the fear of climate change. But environmentalism as the thin end of an enormous wedge of regulation and redistribution is a spent force. How many Americans noticed that the latest United Nations climate change confabulation occurred in December in Durban, South Africa?

So what, George?

The futility of this nullity signaled the end — probably for decades, if not forever — of a trivial pursuit that began 14 years ago with the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. Senate would not even bring to a vote. The pursuit was for a 194-nation consensus obligating a few nations to transfer enormous wealth to many other nations’ governments, to be politically distributed by them, with the supposed effect of ending global warming, if such proves to be.

Not to worry George, you'll be dead long time by the time man made climate change is proven beyond the doubts of those who like you believe in unlimited resources and that the bidness of America is BIG bidness

Meanwhile, back in the nation that probably would have ponied up the largest portion of this money, sales of the electric-powered Chevrolet Volt were falling short of General Motors’ goals even before reports about fire hazards in crash tests. And a Wall Street Journal headline proclaimed: “Americans Embrace SUVs Again.” Because of the Energy Department’s myriad scandals and other misadventures as a venture capital firm (Solyndra, Beacon Power Corp., etc.), it is probable that 2011 will be remembered as the high-water mark of industrial policy. This is another way in which events are draining the Obama presidency of some of its power for mischief.

Dem Obamamanians have ways for mischief, and the power to commit it that are pretty much unprecedented!

If in November Republicans capture the Senate, which must confirm many senior officials of the executive branch and agencies, only weakness of Republican will can prevent, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board from being unconstrained instruments of presidential decrees. Political logic suggests that this year Obama will try to rekindle the love of young voters with some forgiveness of student debts. But one-third of students do not borrow to pay college tuition. The average debt for those who do borrow to attend a four-year public institution is $22,000, and the average difference between the per-year earnings of college graduates and those with only a high school diploma is . . . $22,000.

So, when tax breaks are given to po' folk, it is in order to bribe them for the next election - but when tax breaks are given to white folk, it is so that ginormous corporations can fire more employees than ever gefore!

It will be interesting to see how such a bailout

T'aiomn't gots nuttin on the Goldman Sax bail out, or the Savings and Loand Bail Out, or the ....

of young and privileged borrowers will appeal to voters, who will begin to be heard from in Iowa. Before this year is many months old, discerning conservatives may decide that Obama probably has been rescued by the Republican nominating electorate and hence it is time to begin focusing on two things other than the 2012 presidential election. One is capturing the Senate. The other is preparing the ground for a better presidential nomination competition in 2016. In any case, nothing that happens this November will bring an apocalypse. America had 43 presidencies before the current one and will have many more than that after the end of this one in 2013 or 2017. Decades hence, it will look like most others, a pebble in the river of U.S. history.

Oh Georgie Boy - puddin' and pie, kissed all the girls then made them die!