Wattree's picture

    THE CONSERVATIVE CORRUPTION OF PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT - WHAT DO YOU THINK?

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

    THE CONSERVATIVE CORRUPTION OF PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT - WHAT DO YOU THINK?
    .
    This is a reprise of an article that I wrote in January of 2010. I thought it appropriate to readdress this issue due to a situation that I'm currently experiencing with a supposedly progressive website. 
    .
    As one who has always tried, with varying success, to be progressive in my thinking, I'd like to make a few personal observations on the contemporary progressive movement. I want to preface my remarks, however, with the assurance that I have long since recognized that I corner the market on neither knowledge, wisdom, nor intellect, but I'd like to share my thoughts nevertheless - not as a condescending edict handed down by a self-appointed pundit, but in the hope that the thoughts of an average man with common facility are worthy of public discussion.
    .
    It is my firm belief that the appropriate attitude for a progressive to bring to every discussion is a firmness of thought and an open mind to divergent ideas. A progressive, by definition, should have the intellectual capacity to recognize that one can neither scream, nor insult, one's way to a solution to any problem. And what should always set a progressive apart from all others is an affinity for humanity, independence of thought, and a fierce determination to remain a seeker of truth above all else, regardless to where that truth may lead.
    .
    But those values no longer seem to be the case among many who define themselves as progressives today. Many contemporary 'progressives' tend to possess the very same rigidity of thought, and meanspirited, knee-jerk adherence to ideology that the progressive movement was created to combat. The response that many of these people bring to even the slightest divergence from their rigid ideological beliefs can only be described as one of radical reactionism.
    .
    That concerns me greatly, because while conservatives and today's so-called progressives remain completely divergent in their views toward governance, in terms of intellectual disposition they've become different sides of the same coin. I've often heard it stated that the regimented intolerance of reactionary conservatism is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. That may, or may not be true. But if it is, it must also be acknowledged that the intolerant regimentation of many contemporary radical 'progressives' represent the USSR at best.
    .
    Many modern progressives have allowed themselves to become infected with the exact same kind of intellectual rigidity that we previously associated with the radical conservative mindset. In fact, many who define themselves as progress today could very accurately be called latter-day conservatives. They have a slightly updated set of values, but their rigidity and rabid defense of those values will surely morph into the closed-minded conservatism of tomorrow.
    .
    That's the primary reason that the conservatives' reckless campaign of rampant disinformation is winning the battle over reasoned and logical thought. So many contemporary progressives have taken on the conservative mindset of anger before contemplation, and reaction over reason, that there's no one left who's actually thinking. Everyone is simply reacting through anger, ignorance, and disinformation. That's an environment in which the Republican Party thrives, since as any thinking person would know, radical conservatism is reactionary by definition.
    .
    Progressives cannot out-scream the Republican Party, and we shouldn't try. The disinformation that's currently being disseminated by the GOP must be met with facts, a well thought-out plan of action, integrity, and character.
    .
    The American people are not stupid. They desperately want these qualities in their governance, but the current progressive movement is not giving them a viable alternative. Regardless to what our intent, we're acting with just as much thoughtless anger and reckless abandon as the Republican Party.
    .
    The problem is, we have not coalesced into a solid front with a clear and viable agenda. We've divided ourselves into so many factions with so many different agendas that the people no longer know what we represent. And the reason for that is that too many of us really don't know what it means to be progressives ourselves.
    .
    Too many of us fail to understand that the primary goal of the progressive movement is to create a viable democracy that serve, respect, and honor ALL of the people. But due to the destruction of our educational system, the corrupting influence of Republican governance over the past twenty years, and an irresponsible media, our ideals and what we represent as a people is only a rumor up for debate for an entire generation of Americans.
    .
    But what's worse, and the subject of this contemplation, is the above is also true of young people of the left who consider themselves progressives. The fact is, while they know that their political orientation is liberal, what they don't know is there's a vast difference between being simply liberal, and being a progressive. As a result, many of these young people approach our democracy like it's a sporting event - our team against their team. Period.
    .
    What they fail to realize is that the progressive movement is much more than just a synonym for left-wing liberalism. Progressives have also served as America's philosophers, intellectuals, and conscience. Thus, true progressives don't see conservatives as the enemy. They understand that both liberals, and conservatives, play an important role in our society. They recognize that both are necessary in order to maintain a balanced America. And they clearly understand that while there's a burning need for a Martin Luther King to remind America of its humanity, there is also a need for a Gen. MacArthur to ensure our security.
    .
    Thus, the progressive movement is not so much a political ideology as it is a philosophical attitude towards human behavior. A true progressive, as oppose to an ideologue of any stripe, will always give truth, logical thought, and the interest of humanity priority over ideology. And regardless to how much he or she may admire any politician, he will always hold that politician accountable for truth, justice, and his fidelity to mankind.
    .
    I can cite an example of that in my personal life. I'm a huge supporter of President Obama because I agree with more of his positions on public policy than I do with the Republicans. But I have both friends, and family, who go absolutely crazy on those occasions when I write a column critical of him when I disagree with something that he does, or something that he fails to do. They take the position that I'm only serving to help the Republican Party drag him down.
    .
    I take the position, as both a journalist, and a progressive, that while I support Obama, it is not my job to censor information when in my opinion he's taken a position that's not in the best interest of the people (failing to follow the rule of law regarding the atrocities of war committed by the Bush Administration, for example). Neither is it my job to protect Obama's presidency. It is Obama's job to protect his presidency, by making the right decisions in office.
    .
    Barack Obama is a politician, and a democracy can only remain viable by holding EVERY politician's feet to the fire. So it doesn't matter how I feel about him personally, as a journalist, and as a progressive, all I'm concerned with is what he does to, or for the people.
    .
    In my opinion, that's what it means to be a progressive, and I find it extremely disheartening to watch the corruption of such an essential component of our political environment. What's even more disheartening, however, is the impact that it's loss is sure to have on American life. With the demise of a vigorous and thriving progressive movement America is becoming a place where power and political ideology takes precedence over justice and the welfare of humanity, and that's a scenario that can only lead to our ultimate destruction.
    .
    Eric L. Wattree 
    wattree.blogspot.com
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    The thing is that when your opinions are challenged, you remain as rigid in your position as you claim "so-called Progressives" are in theirs.


    To be fair, I think Wattree is significantly trying to soften his position - the least rigid post I think I've seen him write.


    Peracles,

    I'm not trying to soften anything.  I wrote that article almost 6 years ago to a group of thoughtful people.

     


    Ah well, was trying to be nice and encourage a break in the tension - never mind.


    RM,
    .
    I hold to my position because it's my position. But I'm not an ideologue. I don't have knee-jerk reactions to the "party line."  If a person gives me a well thought-out reason to change my position, I will, but as yet, you haven't.

    .

    DONALD TRUMP: WIG-WEARIN' HITLER
    .
    "I'D KILL TERRORIST FAMILIES"
    .
    HMMM... WHAT ABOUT THE FAMILIES OF DRUG DEALERS, WEED SMOKERS, AND ALL REGISTERED DEMOCRATS?
    .
    WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE - AND VOTE!!!

     

     

     


    People feel that you have not made a convincing argument. They are following their moral code and thought process. There is disagreement. That is human nature. It is also why a consensus on how to enact change is unlikely. Black Lives Matter has its methods of dealing with police abuse, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund has theirs, and Al Sharpton has his. Opinions differ. That again is human nature. Which method should be primary?


    The pursuit of justice and welfare of humanity is also an ideology. I take your point that many people argue and fight on the basis of conviction without considering any other point of view than their own. That lack of reflection is indeed a source of great suffering. But a willingness and practice toward opening oneself up that way doesn't turn one's own beliefs into something that is not an idea. Our willingness and practice might make it more than one.

    When you say: "The problem is, we have not coalesced into a solid front with a clear and viable agenda", how is that supposed to happen if enough people do not embrace enough of the same ideas for it to become a plan?

    There are unnecessary conflicts but there are also people fighting over rights and privileges with real time consequences. The way I want to educate my kid stands a great distance away from how others want to educate theirs. The way I want to share resources is sharply at odds with others. Ideology is not just a set of beliefs but where our differences are clashing against each other everyday on so many levels of work and experience.


    Moat,
    .
    I'm not talking about sharing personal resources. I'm talking about coming together in pursuit of justices for all, and making sure that our NATIONAL RESOURCES are shared equitably - in education, the creation of jobs, and so forth.  The government needs to play a role in that, just like it did during the New Deal era.  That became the most prosperous time in American history.
    .
     


    I don't recognize my comment in your reply. I certainly wasn't challenging your post on the basis of whether we should share personal resources or not. You added the word "personal."

    My intention was to challenge your primary thesis regarding ideology.


    There is no conservative corruption of of progressive thought. There's plenty of thoughtful discussion and debate here and elsewhere, just not on your blogs. No one thinks it's possible to have a thoughtful debate with you. People post because they think you've said something blindingly stupid or offensive. We push back because we don't want other readers to think that with our silence we are idiots that agree with you.

     


    Ocean-Kat,
    .
    Grow up. 


    /shrug I'm already grown up.

    Look, the evidence is overwhelming. You got push back with your blindingly stupid and anti-semitic post claiming that Goodwin's law was created by the Jews to corner the market on the holocaust and to keep other groups from claiming similar genocide and oppression. You got push back recently for what many considered misogyny and it's not the first time. You got push back for your crazy notion that Hillary spent 50 years as a republican mole in the democratic party because she worked for Goldwater as a teenager. I could go on.

    You really should realize by now that people comment on your blogs mostly to push back against the crazy or offensive things you post. It's similar to the reasons people commented against Resistance's crazy and noxious posts


    Ocean-Kat,
    .
    You don't get it, do you?  Don't you have sense enough to realize that you're flattering me? You're reminding me of the GOP trying to throw spitballs up at Obama. It's a sign that they're frustrated and intellectually exhausted.  Man, you can't touch me. I've spent my entire adult life preparing to make people just like you, feel just like you are. So the more spitballs you throw, and the more you jump up and down, the more gratified I feel. You're placing me in a Black man's paradise.  I remember when I was the one jumping up and down in frustration - then I educated myself. So you see, I know what you're REALLY angry about, and I think you do too.


    I'm telling it like it is. Not angry or frustrated and really dude, you can't touch me either. I don't expect you to see it. I expect you to do what ever it takes to protect your ego. As I've said, I don't comment on your blogs to talk to you. I'm talking to the other readers and I'm sure many of them see it just as I do. I feel the same way about you as you have posted to me, " I don't give a flyin' shit what you think."


    You know, Wattree - it's one thing when the white boys line up against you, or even the pushback from the ladies that you frequently get, but you've even lost Rmrd - yet you take that as a badge of honor, as somehow more proof that you're right.

    Those "spitballs" simply mean you're out in the rain. Alone. Rent an umbrella or come back in the big tent. There is no grand movement or ground-swell of reason out there that you're defending.

    Contrary to how you now treat Ramona say, 5 years ago you wrote:

    I'd like to share my thoughts nevertheless - not as a condescending edict handed down by a self-appointed pundit, but in the hope that the thoughts of an average man with common facility are worthy of public discussion.
    .
    It is my firm belief that the appropriate attitude for a progressive to bring to every discussion is a firmness of thought and an open mind to divergent ideas.

    But now you claim that you don't care what others think, that you post what you post, and readers should take it as is or (foolishly) leave it. What gives? What happened these last 5 years?

     


    For all the doom and gloom we hear here I'm actually more hopeful than I've ever been about young people's intelligence, knowledge, and ability to debate rationally. When I discovered World of Warcraft 8 years ago I thought the game sounded interesting but with what I had heard about "gamer" culture I thought dealing with "kiddies" would be difficult. At 50 I was among the older players in the game. Much of what I heard about the gamer culture is true but my experience was that it was a small minority of players.

    I don't start political dialog in the game, I just want to have fun playing the game. But to my surprise others regularly started serious conversations in Trade chat and I've joined in. The conversations are mostly civil and these young people are paying attention to the news. They write well and make cogent arguments. And they are mostly of a liberal bent. I recently had a discussion with some Sanders supporters. There was no hate, they listened respectful as I defended Hillary. No one brought up the extreme ridiculous talking points from Fox. Just as I will vote for Sanders if he happens to win the democratic nomination they all said they would vote for Hillary if she won. Conversations like these definitely changed my mind about the stereotypes I heard about gamers

    I also have a lot of contact with young people working on immigration and border issues here in southern Arizona. After hiking in the hot dusty mountains doing water drops for the migrants they often stop by Ruby to wash and cool off in the lake here. They're bright, knowledgeable, articulate, and committed. Most of the young people I meet give me hope for the future.


    Like Peracles, without referring to his comment specifically, I wonder about the change. Your post is often inclusive and thoughtful (from nearly six years prior), yet as of this writing your comments are angry and divisive. Why did you post an old article here, now, if you don't seem to hold the same reasoned opinion you once did? What was the intent?

    While I'm sure you'll disagree, my feeling is that you're looking for confrontation. That your ego is fed by it; your claimed reputation enlarged by it. You don't allow comment on your site, and so the only push-back you accept is on social media and places like Dag. Here, you not only know what to expect, you depend on it.

    So far, we've fed you. Ocean thinks we need to respond in order to publicly defy you. I don't think you're anywhere close to being that important. I think you're a mouse with a big mouth trying to proclaim himself king. And I find that laughable.


    Barefooted,

    I posted the current article in lieu of what I initially wanted to post, because Michael indicated to me in a private email that he wanted to spare you my initial post. And I don't allow comments on my site because I simply want to publish my thoughts and walk away to my next article. What you think is insignificant to me. If you disagree, you just disagree. There's nothing that's ever been written, including the Bible, that everyone agrees with.  So when I find that I disagree with a writer a significant amount of the time, I simply stop reading him.

    That's the problem with joining knitting circles. It's the bane of all writers, because the members of the circle expect you to toe the party line and only spew and regurgitate their sentiments. That's Fox News, and I'm not interested in becoming a part of Fox News. I write to express what I think, not what you think. So whenever I write anything, I write with the mindset that others can either accept what I have to say, or reject it. I don't want to waste my time having to cater to wounded egos, or nurse irate children. I'm a writer, not a nursemaid.   

    I know many writers who simply don't respond to readers at all, because they're serious writers, and they aren't interested, nor do they have the time, to become part of a knitting circle. I may follow suit, because just the time I'm wasting here responding to your rant - which has absolutely nothing to do with the article - could be used much more productively.

    So I'm not going to allow you to pull me into your world of "let's form a concensus and not violate it under any conditions."  That's group-think, and it's one of the primary problems that we have in the world today. Such thinking spawned ISIS, right-wing conservatism, Nazism, and every form of hatred and bigotry the world has ever known - "Anyone who doesn't share our view of the world is evil."  I don't buy into that mode of thinking, and I'm going to totally dismiss anyone who says I should.

    Thus, I write to place my thoughts in the public domain, period - not to cater to the whims of a knitting circle. If you don't like that, stop reading me.  

    .
    "In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs, it is the rule." Friedrich Nietzsche 

     


    Will check out of the) "knitting circle" - already made my point and now just padding your numbers. Tried to communicate, but as you note, you just want to pontificate. Hasta.

    There are disagreements about Sanders vs Hillary, Israel, race, etc at dagblog. Differences of opinion are common. If someone were to come by a say here are a set of criteria that blacks must reach before they can expect their unalienable rights, there will be discussion. People may agree that Cornel West is a waste of carbon atoms, but disagree about the value of Black Lives Matter. That is not knitting circle behavior.

    Serious writers know the power of words. If you speak of a woman in ways that can be rationally interpreted as calling her your possession, you can expect pushback. A serious writer would realize that explains that the two people in a relationship use "my" as conformation of a committed relationship. It is no big deal to explain the meaning. During conversations, we ask follow up questions to confirm our understanding of what is being said.

    Defining a serious writer is a fascinating issue. We can say that Ta-Nehishi Coates is a serious writer. How do we define serious? Is it the author's faith that his words have merit? Is there a requirement that others confirm that an author is serious? How do we define serious?

    Nietzsche notes that the belief of an individual about personal strengths is an inadequate measure.

    _There are no facts, only interpretations.

    _Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

    _A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.


    RM,

    Rita refers to me as "my man" as well. Do you have a set of rules for that too?  How MY WOMAN and I choose to refer to one another is nobody's business but our own.  The only reason that it's become an issue here is due to a group-think mentality - I'm refusing to adhere to the Feminist Manifesto, and I don't intend to, because other than the need for women to be given equal opportunity and access, I totally disagree with the feminist philosophy. First, I think much of what they focus on is silly nitpicking and nonproductive nonsense, like in the very discussion; secondly, they denigrate womanhood itself by assuming that in order to be equal to men, women have to put on pants and imitate being a man; and finally, I don't like people who try to tell me how to think, and then get angry when I refuse to go along. It's childish.
    .
    God, or nature, didn't provide us with separate and individual brains instead of merely instincts for nothing. If you want to think a certain way, then do it, but don't try to shove what you think down my throat, and then get angry when I refuse to swallow. It's one thing to try to persuade others to see things from your point of view, and quite another to try to INSIST that they accept your point of view, and that's the problem with group-think.
    .
    In addition, people who tend to gravitate toward group-thought often lack both self-esteem and intellectual competence. That's why they need the group - to bolster what they lack as individual, and to have an entity to tell them what to think.  So from my point of view, group-thought and non-thought are synonymous.
    .
    I quit the church when I was 14 years old, and I haven't joined a group since, and highly resent anyone who suggests that I should.
       
    .


    Sigh, I'm shutting down this thread too. Folks, please refrain from criticizing your fellow dagbloggers, explicitly or indirectly. I ask this not because dagbloggers don't deserve criticism but because personal criticism in an online forum invariably deteriorates into flame wars that destroy the possibility of civil debate. Thank you for your cooperation.


    Latest Comments