...and give your left brain some food for thought. This editorial piece is rather lengthy but brings up some interesting discussion. B.K.

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/articl...RmMTlhNGEyNGM=

Very well written, though it's hard to verify some of the statements when it comes to presenting the 'history of progressives'. I disagree that there has been a monolithic, unchanging "progressive" cabal that has been pushing a certain agenda for over 100 years. There seems to me to be some cherry picking in what events he decides to latch on to as far as examples of this in history. I mean, as an example, today 'progressives' are advertised as being in favor of expansion of civil rights (although that term is open to debate these days) but back in the 1960s, today's "progressives" ar ethe Democrats who, in the 1960s were *against* civil rights - at least the Southern Democrats were.

But then there's the distortion when talking about the 'health care push'. The author mentions a list of previous attempts and then says:

"The objective is rather to remove about a sixth of the economy from private control and bring it under the thumb of the state, whose “experts” will choose and ration its goods and services"

I have a lot of problems with this statement.

1) "The objective is". Umm.. Who said so? Was he in on the Secret Progressives Cabal Organizational Meeting And Pot-Luck Lunch? Or is he doing what my ex-wife did - saying she knew the REAL reason I did things, not what I said but what she "knew" I was thinking. He says it as if it were statement of fact. If I were him (with the point of view he seems to have), I would have said "The objective SEEMS to be to curry favor with voters to perpetuate and grow their power base" - or, in short, "buy votes".

2) A sixth of the economy? Umm.. It wasn't always that way. You used to be able to have a baby in a hospital for $20, adjusted for 'normal' inflation, it's a few hundred dollars today. Back in 1987, the MINIMUM was over $5000. *Today* it's grown that big because of the costs - and if the costs weren't so outlandish, it wouldn't be apolitical issue.

3) "...from private control and bring it under the thumb of state". Well, Medicare certainly isn't under private control and reports say that 50% of our health care costs can occur in the last 2 years of life.

4) "whose “experts” will choose and ration its goods and services" - as opposed to insurance company 'experts' who's first loyalties are to the *stockholders*.

That being said...

I certainly DO agree with the writer's opinion that 'the left' very much DID over-read the results of the 2008 election. I've long said that it was more a repudiation of Bush than an embrace of Obama.

To address the statement you have "a lot of problems with." Let's look at the entire quote, by Matthew Spalding; PhD. with a doctorate in government with studies on political philosophy and early American political thought, a national scholar, author, executive editor of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution which is a line-by-line analysis of each clause of the U.S. Constitution, ummmm, an adjunct fellow of the Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies...the list can go on and on but that's enough for you to verify...lol, just razing ya' . The entire quote: "The objective of progressive thinking, which remains a major force in modern-day liberalism, was to transform America from a decentralized, self-governing society into a centralized, progressive society focused on national ideals and the achievement of 'social justice.' Sociological conditions would be changed through government regulation of society and the economy; socioeconomic problems would be solved by redistributing wealth and benefits." ....
Prior to this quote, Spalding stated:

"We can trace the concept of the modern state back to the theories of Thomas Hobbes, who wanted to replace the old order with an all-powerful “Leviathan” that would impose a new order, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who, to achieve absolute equality, favored an absolute state that would rule over the people through a vaguely defined concept called the “general will.” It was Alexis de Tocqueville who first pointed out the potential for a new form of despotism in such a centralized, egalitarian state: It might not tyrannize, but it would enervate and extinguish liberty by reducing self-governing people “to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.” ,,,

"The Americanized version of the modern state was born in the early 20th century. American “progressives,” under the spell of German thinkers, decided that advances in science and history had opened the possibility of a new, more efficient form of democratic government, which they called the “administrative state.” Thus began the most revolutionary change of the last hundred years: the massive shift of power from institutions of constitutional government to a labyrinthine network of unelected, unaccountable experts who would rule in the name of the people."
If you'd like to verify some of these statements, I suggest you read http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~eagleton...rogressive.htm

http://pdamerica.org/

and follow-up with reading some of the writing of these Progressives like Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. President in 1901. Their writings and their agenda speaks for itself.

I would hope this addresses the difficulties you may have with Spalding verifying "some of the statements when it come to presenting the 'history of progressives.' "

Your problem with who said the "objective...who said that,?" let's give context for the relevance of what the author said, " It was in the Progressive party’s platform of 1912. It came back under FDR and Truman, then Johnson, then Clinton, and now Obama. And the goal all along has had little to do with the quality of health care. The objective is rather to remove about a sixth of the economy from private control and bring it under the thumb of the state, whose “experts” will choose and ration its goods and services."

Who said that? The Progressive Party.

Quoting from the Progressive Platform of 1912 (source Teaching American History, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/
HEALTH

"We favor the union of all the existing agencies of the Federal Government dealing with the public health into a single national health service without discrimination against or for any one set of therapeutic methods, school of medicine, or school of healing with such additional powers as may be necessary to enable it to perform efficiently such duties in the protection of the public from preventable diseases as may be properly undertaken by the Federal authorities, including the executing of existing laws regarding pure food, quarantine and cognate subjects, the promotion of vital statistics and the extension of the registration area of such statistics, and co-operation with the health activities of the various States and cities of the Nation."



Your points numbered 2 and 3 are the exact agreement many see against allowing the Progressive movement to take more control of individual rights and hand them over in a hand basket to the federal or state governments.



Point number 4: "whose “experts” will choose and ration its goods and services" - as opposed to insurance company 'experts' who's first loyalties are to the *stockholders*.


Who ever would become the government "experts," I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball, but don't you think the government experts and the "insurance experts" would, in the end, be one and the same..

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

To address the statement you have "a lot of problems with." Let's look at the entire quote, by Matthew Spalding; PhD. with a doctorate in government with studies on political philosophy and early American political thought, a national scholar, author, executive editor of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution which is a line-by-line analysis of each clause of the U.S. Constitution, ummmm, an adjunct fellow of the Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies...the list can go on and on but that's enough for you to verify...lol, just razing ya' . The entire quote: "The objective of progressive thinking, which remains a major force in modern-day liberalism, was to transform America from a decentralized, self-governing society into a centralized, progressive society focused on national ideals and the achievement of 'social justice.' Sociological conditions would be changed through government regulation of society and the economy; socioeconomic problems would be solved by redistributing wealth and benefits." ....
Prior to this quote, Spalding stated:

"We can trace the concept of the modern state back to the theories of Thomas Hobbes, who wanted to replace the old order with an all-powerful “Leviathan” that would impose a new order, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who, to achieve absolute equality, favored an absolute state that would rule over the people through a vaguely defined concept called the “general will.” It was Alexis de Tocqueville who first pointed out the potential for a new form of despotism in such a centralized, egalitarian state: It might not tyrannize, but it would enervate and extinguish liberty by reducing self-governing people “to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.” ,,,

"The Americanized version of the modern state was born in the early 20th century. American “progressives,” under the spell of German thinkers, decided that advances in science and history had opened the possibility of a new, more efficient form of democratic government, which they called the “administrative state.” Thus began the most revolutionary change of the last hundred years: the massive shift of power from institutions of constitutional government to a labyrinthine network of unelected, unaccountable experts who would rule in the name of the people."
If you'd like to verify some of these statements, I suggest you read http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~eagleton...rogressive.htm

http://pdamerica.org/

and follow-up with reading some of the writing of these Progressives like Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. President in 1901. Their writings and their agenda speaks for itself.

I would hope this addresses the difficulties you may have with Spalding verifying "some of the statements when it come to presenting the 'history of progressives.' "

Your problem with who said the "objective...who said that,?" let's give context for the relevance of what the author said, " It was in the Progressive party’s platform of 1912. It came back under FDR and Truman, then Johnson, then Clinton, and now Obama. And the goal all along has had little to do with the quality of health care. The objective is rather to remove about a sixth of the economy from private control and bring it under the thumb of the state, whose “experts” will choose and ration its goods and services."

Who said that? The Progressive Party.

Quoting from the Progressive Platform of 1912 (source Teaching American History, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/
HEALTH

"We favor the union of all the existing agencies of the Federal Government dealing with the public health into a single national health service without discrimination against or for any one set of therapeutic methods, school of medicine, or school of healing with such additional powers as may be necessary to enable it to perform efficiently such duties in the protection of the public from preventable diseases as may be properly undertaken by the Federal authorities, including the executing of existing laws regarding pure food, quarantine and cognate subjects, the promotion of vital statistics and the extension of the registration area of such statistics, and co-operation with the health activities of the various States and cities of the Nation."



Your points numbered 2 and 3 are the exact agreement many see against allowing the Progressive movement to take more control of individual rights and hand them over in a hand basket to the federal or state governments.



Point number 4: "whose “experts” will choose and ration its goods and services" - as opposed to insurance company 'experts' who's first loyalties are to the *stockholders*.


Who ever would become the government "experts," I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball, but don't you think the government experts and the "insurance experts" would, in the end, be one and the same..

For doing such a great job in presenting the facts.

Too bad the liberals/progressives do not believe that they are being led down the primrose path to the destruction of America. I assume they are being duped, I would hate to think that they are all in agreement with this movement.

Excellent article, inspite of what some others might think. Makes many sound points.

Good article Thank you BK.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

To address the statement you have "a lot of problems with." Let's look at the entire quote...

...don't you think the government experts and the "insurance experts" would, in the end, be one and the same..

Very well stated by someone obviously well informed. Thank you, bk.

Originally Posted by cashman

Too bad the liberals/progressives do not believe that they are being led down the primrose path to the destruction of America. I assume they are being duped, I would hate to think that they are all in agreement with this movement.

cashman, I understand your sentiment, and I wish I could share your optimism in regard to the progressives simply being duped. History, unfortunately leads me to believe otherwise.