Which is the greatest enemy to progressivism?

[Lief 🗽]

Based on a BRTD quote. It's your choose.

[windjammer]

1) Tea party: obviously
2) True Leftists: because they always finish to vote against any progressive bill because not progressive enough.
3) Moderate heroes. Seriously, Moderate heroes are for progressist what Poland was for the USSR in case of an attack: a protection against the vile capitalist, and the first to fall. See Blanche Lincoln: without her= no health care, from 2006 to 2008: the GOP would have had the control of the senate without her, so probably no minimum wage hike,... And she was literally destroyed by the GOP wawe. Moderate heroes are extremely important in politics, and many posters don't understand that.

[angus]

multiple forks...  Posh people are weird.

[IceSpear]

Obviously the Teabaggers. Moderate Heroes are a nuisance but can be used for good at times. The True Leftists are annoying but they have no clout whatsoever, so they can neither damage nor help a cause.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Moderate Heros only water down bills and embarrass the party. If we were actually able to get our full agenda out, then the R's would be either a changed or irrelevant party.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Reality.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Moderates are important, but Moderate Heroes are aggravating and simply drag the Overton Window ever more to the right.

[King]

Time.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The working class.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obviously the teabaggers. But the True Leftist and Moderate Heroes are their enablers, and there's no reason we should ignore them or give them a pass.

[Mechaman]

Obviously the teabaggers. But the True Leftist and Moderate Heroes are their enablers, and there's no reason we should ignore them or give them a pass.

Fool!  Progressives are Moderate Heroes!

[publicunofficial]

Max Baucus did more to screw up the ACA than any Republican ever did.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Religion

[Flake]

Made a long effort post and it was deleted because my session was timed out, so here's the summary of what I typed.

-every ideology is threatened by the way of time, usually economic situation
-progressive viewpoints are hurt in periods of prosperity
-conservative viewpoints are hurt in periods of recession
-depends on how long period of prosperity/recession where generations grow up with that political dynamic for a base of voters who vote reliably on one side or the other
-one shift example is the aging of reagan/nixon voters and the death of fdr/truman voters, where the 65+ demographic got more conservative/republican as the more liberal/democratic voters died off
-wartime tends to fuel conservative feelings on majority of populace
-more prosperity also leads to more focus on environmental problems, which helps progressive causes, vice versa for conservatives

[angus]

Progressives are Moderate Heroes!

Exactly.  Their level of commitment to liberty and equality mostly involves lip service, and their recognition of other principles makes more sense to them at the moment.  Their bourgeois lifestyle cannot accommodate the commitments of a full-time revolutionary insurrectionist.  They are, in principle, keen to lend their spare time to all kinds of subversive behavior, thinking that occupations and pickets can be lots of fun, but in practice their spare time is devoted to video games, fast food, concerts, posting on internet forums, and other less radical pursuits.  Progressivism is safe and it is comfortable.  It is moderate heroism at its finest.  

[Deus Naturae]

Their worldview. Anyone who believes that human history is characterized by one long march towards "progress" (with a few right-wing road bumps along the way) is likely insane.

[angus]

Their worldview. Anyone who believes that human history is characterized by one long march towards "progress" (with a few right-wing road bumps along the way) is likely insane.

Insane would be if they really did trade in their bourgeoisie lifestyle to become radical revolutionaries intent on making a difference.  I've never met a progressive that's willing to go that far, have you? 

The modern American progressives are mostly like the people that Giacomo Puccini was hanging around with when he wrote the opera La bohème.  Not bad people, really.  They do think they sympathize with the impoverished and the oppressed, and they're quick to suggest that we should help them.  But they know that when worse comes to worst, they can move back in with Mama and Daddy in the McMansion or go to grad school on a stipend.  Like the hippies of the 60s, they'll eventually turn 30, trade in their jeans for neckties, and start voting for Ronald Reagan. 

Some of them really are insane.  They put their careers on the line.  They abandon their families and their fortunes for the cause.  They sometimes even forfeit their lives for their cause.  They never grew up.  At 60 they're still fighting the good fight.  I admire those on some level.  But those never really were progressives, were they?  They were always true revolutionaries.  They only allowed themselves to be called progressives because it was a gentler label.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is a terrible thread.

(For the record, I agree with Deus, but from a different angle.)

[SWE]

Teabaggers are the only group that exists outside of the mind of atlas posters, so them

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The assumption that "progress" (apologies for my scare quotes) has a universally shared definition.

I would consider scientific progress (and therefore destruction of religion) a universally accepted progress.  I mean, you can be a religious and SAY it's not, but it's the same as a religious pointing at a duck and saying "NO IT'S A COW!". 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The greatest enemy to progressivism?

BRTD, giving progressives a bad name.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The assumption that "progress" (apologies for my scare quotes) has a universally shared definition.

I would consider scientific progress (and therefore destruction of religion) a universally accepted progress.  I mean, you can be a religious and SAY it's not, but it's the same as a religious pointing at a duck and saying "NO IT'S A COW!". 

You don't know what religion is. You literally do not know what the actual social sciences definition of religion is.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The assumption that "progress" (apologies for my scare quotes) has a universally shared definition.

I would consider scientific progress (and therefore destruction of religion) a universally accepted progress.  I mean, you can be a religious and SAY it's not, but it's the same as a religious pointing at a duck and saying "NO IT'S A COW!". 

You don't know what religion is. You literally do not know what the actual social sciences definition of religion is.

Oh, Nathan.  Look at that post.  Just read it.  Can't you ever tell when I'm just having fun? 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The assumption that "progress" (apologies for my scare quotes) has a universally shared definition.

I would consider scientific progress (and therefore destruction of religion) a universally accepted progress.  I mean, you can be a religious and SAY it's not, but it's the same as a religious pointing at a duck and saying "NO IT'S A COW!". 

You don't know what religion is. You literally do not know what the actual social sciences definition of religion is.

Oh, Nathan.  Look at that post.  Just read it.  Can't you ever tell when I'm just having fun? 

Not really, because it's hard to tell tone on the internet and I've interacted with people who would have sad that in complete unselfconscious seriousness, and also because I'd bet that we have very different senses of humor in general, but good to know.

[TJ in Oregon]

The lack of a coehesive vision for what progressivism ultimate ideal of perfection is. Progressivism is often focused on how fast we're moving, but less clear on where we're trying to go. Conservatism will always lose if it's a defense of the status quo, but progressivism can never win either because it doesn't define an ultimate goal, only that we keep changing.