It is the political doctrine which exalts the Supreme good of society progress. The immediate difficulty for its semantic understanding comes from the definition to be granted to the concept of progress.
Progress can be anything other than keep. Progressivism has precisely as ultimate goal to destroy what exists to build a new reality.
Progressivism is a form of fascism, a single and totalitarian, thinking that aims to convert citizens to their faith in the renunciation of everything established, for this way, build a new world, because live us there is too much injustice and misery, oppression, privileges.
The progressives are not Democrats, because they consider that there can be no other interpretation of democracy than they do. They abjuran of individual freedom, because they think that freedom is not required to establish a better world, moreover, the liberty has been the main argument that conservatives have used to build the world to suit. As Lenin became famous question: democracy, for what?, the progressives started questions, he: freedom, why?.
Progressivism does not speak of freedom, because you prefer to do it rights, but with a negative bias. The right to abort prevails over the right to life, the right to die freely prevails on the live freely. Progressivism, is in fact, materialism, an antihumanism, which believes that human beings are only important as a whole, as a society. This is ratified in the allocation of the adjective “social” or “collective” to all human essences in politics: social education, social justice, social health, social welfare, social policy, social reality, social struggle. Progressivism swallows up to humans to make a social juice with them, in this ideology, human beings are classified in a quantitative way, because they are considered as clones, quite the same. There is no place in the Progressivism for the difference.
The progressives have tuned the socialism, to disassociate itself from the failures of real socialism, derived from the strange interpretations that the statist have made Marxism. For progressives, there are the individual or the person, as there is no class; they based their prevalence on the collective patronage, doctrinal and sectarian, which supposedly have been excluded from power so far: feminism, homosexuality, environmentalism, pacifism, nationalism, alterglobalization, “aliancismo”, to represent the human drive in relation to their claims and interpretations.
Progressivism denostará tradition, the history, the existing situation, the established order, the laws in force, because it considers that they are a product of the hegemony of a conservative order that prevents the shift towards their utopia. The existing world today is a product of a privileged order unfairly, either by inheritance or achievement, finally and after the opportunities that have excluded the majority and who have favored those who departed in advance with advantage.
Progressivism, is hide the failures of Marxism, an attempt to save the stuff after the resounding wreck of the Soviet model in social and political organization, and of course, economic package. It is a regressive move, which aims to recreate the socialism, because it just does not support its decline and degeneration in a corrupt bureaucracy.
Finally, progressive values everything new, permanent modernity, artistic innovation, ideological relativism, the cult of the avant-garde, and the “iconization” of reality with new idols, replacing the previous. It is a movement exhibitionist, acting boldly, whereas power is an instrument to its service to organize the world in their favor.
Sin duda, utiliza todos los medios a su disposición para implantarse, desde los recursos públicos hasta los medios de comunicación a los que subvenciona, y en su fanatismo excluye la posibilidad de alternativa o sustitución por parte de otros. Who can govern the world better than we, the progressives?.
Progressivism is displaced by the transversality
They have not heard the Progressives of the short time remaining in power, because immediate information, free communication and free flowing in the network, will finish with them.
Mainstreaming is the opposite of progressivism, firstly because it represents the plurality that settles on the recognition of differences, exactly the opposite of thinking only of this pernicious ideology.
Transversality acts politically upside to progressivism, different positions should establish an agreement beneficial to all, not only a position must be set to what is good for all. In this sense they are antithetical. Why the transversality recognizes that democracy is a space conducive to agreement between different positions, while progressivism believes that democracy is a tool at the service of its claims.
From transversality, the individual human being takes effect, like freedom. The maximum principle of transversality, or the transversalism is not harming anyone, while from progressivism is for the benefit of the majority or of its clientele, but it is detrimental to everyone else.
Transverse relativism is positive, since it is considered that from different positions the reality is not in the same way, while progressivism believes that if reality is not as stated from their budgets, it is that others are blind.
The transversalism aspires to the mixture of the Assembly in the best possible alternative, while progressivism disowned from his segregacionismo of any exchange with who does not share their political objectives. Being cross is live in the present, without renouncing to the past, not the future. Be progressive is to live in a living, because there is no present, but a past that will not just RID and a future that doesn’t quite reach.
And this leads us to the exaltation of wastage that holds us progressivism in its nihilism, live today as if it were tomorrow. Unconsciously, since moral patterns established progressivism induce citizens to live as if they were sentenced to death without reprieve. The beyond is where you might be exceeding the limits, which cannot exceed the progressive exposure to reality, and see as in their stubbornness is imposed upon his induction to be changed.
The only problem we have in Spain is called progressivism, and is represented by parties of the left such as the PSOE and IU, and also by various nationalisms that parasites and are parasitized by the progressive parties; the only solution to the Progressivism is called mainstreaming, a movement that is both the Progressivism of the PSOE and the conservatism of the PP, is in reality far from all exclusively political options.
Transversalism, it is a new dialectic between citizens and their representatives political conceived on a permanent dialogue and not on the delegation of sovereignty of citizens in politicians. Power control should remain in citizens, and not remain cystic in the bosom of the political parties. We go directly towards a new social contract, in which citizens and politicians will again be equal, political corruption is eradicated, and important decisions will be assumed by all directly, not exclusively represented by politicians.
Universal suffrage, as well as political representation, will be overcome by participatory democracy. The needs of citizens are not determined rather than by themselves, and in politics they will not fit more than the best, the most capable, demonstrating his qualities to manage resources.
That is the test that comes to the citizens and politicians, citizens are prepared to overcome it, but there are very few politicians who will be saved from burning, a cantonal in power, lying, wasting the resources of all, and acting as a genuine feudal when in fact are prisoners of bondage to the sovereign decisions of citizens in Spain.
Progressive and conservative politicians do not know that the machinery of power has been underway, and this time, unlike in the previous, they are the only representation of absolutism to eradicate. Not only citizens have the right to vote, also have the right to veto, and the freedom to exercise it.
Paul Ryan’s return to Wisconsin on the day after his selection as Mitt Romney’s choice for the Republican vice presidential nomination was billed as a “homecoming.”
But Ryan did not actually go home to Janesville, the blue-collar town where he was born and raised. Janesville is a Democratic city that backed the ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden in 2008, and that might well do so again in 2012. Indeed, the headline on a news story from Janesville published Sunday read: “Residents and Officials Say Ryan Brings Welcome Attention Even if He Won’t Get Their Vote.”
Instead, Ryan and Romney appeared in Waukesha County, the state’s Republican stronghold.
In Waukesha, Ryan announced: ”I am a Wisconsinite through and through.”
“My veins run with cheese, bratwurst and a little Spotted Cow, Leines and Miller,” he declared, mentioning three of the state’s many beers. “I was raised on the Packers, Badgers, Bucks and Brewers. I like to hunt here, fish here, snowmobile here, and I even think ice fishing is interesting.”
What Ryan did not mention was the political philosophy that underpins what is universally recognized as “the Wisconsin Idea.” The vice presidential candidates’s thinking was shaped by Atlas Shrugged author Ayn Rand and Austrian economists, not by the progressive political ideals of the first Wisconsinite to lead a national political ticket into serious competition for the White House: governor, senator and 1924 presidential candidate Robert M. La Follette.
In fact, the House Budget Committee chairman is expressly at odds with his home state’s progressive tradition.
In 2010, Ryan told conservative commentator Glenn Beck: “What I’ve been trying to do is indict the entire vision of progressivism because I see progressivism as the source, the intellectual source for the big government problems that are plaguing us today. And so to me it’s really important to flush progressives out into the field of open debate—so people can actually see what this ideology means and where it’s going to lead us and how it attacks the American idea.”
“I love you!” gushed Beck.
Beck referred to progressivism as “a cancer.”
“Exactly,” replied Ryan. “Look, I come from—I’m calling you from Janesville, Wisconsin, where I’m born and raised, where we raise our family. [It's] thirty-five miles from Madison. I grew up hearing about this stuff. This stuff came from these German intellectuals to Madison–University of Wisconsin and sort of out there from the beginning of the last century. So this is something we are familiar with where I come from. It never sat right with me. And as I grew up, I learned more about the founders and reading the Austrians and others that this is really a cancer because it basically takes the notion that our rights come from God and nature and turns it on its head and says, No, no, no, no, no, they come from government, and we here in government are here to give you your rights and therefore ration, redistribute and regulate your rights. It’s a complete affront of the whole idea of this country and that is to me what we as conservatives, or classical liberals if you want to get technical.”
La Follette and “those first progressives,” Ryan said, “tried to use populism and popular ideas as a means to getting—detaching people from the Constitution and founding principles to pave the way for the centralized bureaucratic welfare state.”
OK, we know what Ryan thinks about progressives, contemporary and historic, and about the ideals for which La Follette and the first progressives.
So what would La Follette, the true progressive, have thought of Ryan?
Well, Ryan is most identified with the conservative campaign to mangle Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, while La Follette and the Wisconsin progressives fought to establish old-age pensions and protections.
Ryan is proudly opposed to healthcare reform, while La Follette (and, it should be noted, Teddy Roosevelt) began talking up national healthcare in the early 1900s.
Ryan wants to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, while La Follette and the Progressives declared themselves for “a taxation policy providing for immediate reductions upon moderate incomes, large increases in the inheritance tax rates upon large estates to prevent the indefinite accumulation by inheritance of great fortunes in a few hands” and “taxes upon excess profits to penalize profiteering.”
While Ryan’s a steady critic of government, the Progressives wanted to nationalize the railroads and utility companies. And they declared in their 1924 platform: “We demand that the power of the federal government be used to crush private monopoly, not to foster it.”
Where La Follette and the progressives sought to cut federal spending on the military, Ryan has consistently sought to increase funding for the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex about which Eisenhower warned. La Follette’s 1924 Progressive Party platform called for the “curtailment of the $800 million now annually expended for the Army and Navy in preparation for future wars” and “the recovery of the hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from the Treasury through fraudulent war contracts and the corrupt leasing of the public resources.”
While Ryan has been a steady supporter of wars and occupations abroad, as well as Wall Street–sponsored “free trade” agreements—which have devastated his hometown of Janesville—the Progressives denounced “the mercenary system of foreign policy under recent administrations in the interests of financial imperialists, oil monopolists and international bankers, which has at times degraded our State Department from its high service as a strong and kindly intermediary of defenseless governments to a trading outpost for those interests and concession-seekers engaged in the exploitations of weaker nations, as contrary to the will of the American people, destructive of domestic development and provocative of war.”
Ryan’s right that the first Progressives favored referendums. They even wanted “to extend the initiative and referendum to the federal government, and to insure a popular referendum for or against war except in cases of actual invasion.”
La Follette and the pioneering progressives of Wisconsin believed in democracy—political and economic. They wanted Americans to be truly empowered to shape their communities, their states, their nation and their future. It was a radical vision. Far more radical than what most contemporary “progressives” espouse.
The “first progressives” so ardently decried by Ryan challenged the crony capitalism of Wall Street and Washington. They believed that the combination of corporate capital and political power created a toxic combination that threatened to overwhelm the power of the people and render democracy meaningless.
They called the combination “the money power.”
Robert M. La Follette, the greatest Wisconsinite to step onto the national political stage, fought against “the money power.”
Paul Ryan, the latest Wisconsinite to step onto the national political stage, fights for “the money power.”
What Is Progressivism? We will attempt to define progressivism. It is essential to know exactly what makes a person, a philosophy, or a company progressive. It does not sound that complicated. In terms of Progressive Politics, we think of progressives as people who are on the forefront, always trying new things and new mindsets. In truth, it is not quite that simple. Who decides what progress really is, anyway? Who’s to say that one thing is better than another? Obviously, the word progressive needs a much clearer and more compact description.
We have to do a brief overview of the history of progressivism in order to better
understand it. Progressivism in the United States came about at the end of the 19th
century, and gained significant traction around the beginning of the 20th century.
Historians point to President Theodore Roosevelt as an early proponent, as he
spearheaded the Progressive or ?Bull-Moose? political party in the early 1900′s.
This organization had the greatest success of any progressive movement in American
history. Other adherents included Robert La Folette, who was a governor and Senator
The first progressives adhered to a three-pronged set of ideas. Among them were
Social and Political reform, elimination of the so-called ?Invisible Government,?
and Direct Democracy. Many ideas about progressivism in America are still prevalent in today’s social and political climates, including progressivism in education
In it’s most rudimentary form, progressivism means nothing more than the promotion
of change and forward thinking in government and via governmental authority. The
question is, what exactly is the force behind the change? Although this is a
timeless argument, perhaps the clearest way to depict it is like so:
What Progressivism Is:
What Progressivism Isn’t:
Hesitant to adopt change
You will see that each of the attributes in the two lists offset one another. For
example, Respectful vs. Self-Righteous, Inventive vs. Close-minded, and so on.
This is progressivism in its simplest form. Progressives are constantly searching
for ways to evolve positively, and implement new programs to better our lives,
assuming that they adhere to the descriptions above. At its core, progressivism
means change, whether it be repairing the damaged, standing up for those who cannot,
or demanding accountability in the government.
Consider some of the many government programs that are an afterthought for many of
us. More often than not, these programs were the work of progressives. We genuinely
hope that Americans for years to come will be able to look back and know that
progressivism addressed the challenging issues, and set forth plans to improve the
future… So What Is Progressivism ?