The View From 1776

The Causes and Consequences of Liberal Superiority Complex

Liberal-progressive-socialists, from Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte in the early 1800s and Karl Marx in the mid-1800s, to present-day liberal-progressive members of the Democrat/Socialist Party, have believed as an article of secular religious faith that their superior intellects alone are capable of intuiting the inevitable course of history.  Those who disagree with their reading are written off as cranks or imbeciles, unworthy of serious consideration.

For liberal-progressives, apparently, the inevitable triumph of socialism is “settled science” with which all the world’s important people agree.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 03/19 at 10:34 PM
  1. Not everything liberal-progressives have done has been for the positive. But without their drive to expand the boundaries of knowledge and humanism we would still be living in Medieval times, a time of Church control and flat earth.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/20  at  09:52 AM
  2. What an intelligent comment! If you would, define what you mean mean by 'liberal-progressive', without platitudes, please! What you call liberal-progressives, really didn't exist in an institutionalized form before the Jacobins of the Revolution in France and the Reign of Terror. Humanity was not an abstraction to medieval Christianity. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity or Death! sums up the liberal-progressive (jacobin) mentality. It's all about coercion in the name of the abstract and unattainable, by definition a game for tyrannical fools.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/20  at  10:24 AM
  3. TC, you are too ideologically toxic to respond to.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/20  at  12:16 PM
  4. People deserve very good life time and home loans or financial loan will make it better. Just because people's freedom relies on money state.
    Posted by DICKERSONColette  on  03/20  at  10:42 PM
  5. Please explain, da, if you can. You speak in platitudes sprung from ignorance and yet you say nothing. You will not address the issues and are happy wallowing in silly prejudices. Toxic thought from baseless presumptions.

    BTW, the thought offered by folks on the cement-head left is harmless enough when kept seperate from the coercive power of the state. When combined it is an extreme danger and should be fought every step. Believe what you want to believe but do us all a favor and leave the rest of us alone.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/21  at  03:21 PM
  6. David actually wrote : "But without their (progressives of the last 150 years) drive to expand the boundaries of knowledge and humanism we would still be living in Medieval times, a time of Church control and flat earth."

    If only he knew history and how it all happened!

    Western science and the expansion of human knowledge was founded on the Dominican and Franciscan universities established in eleventh century western Europe. Most of the hard scientists that subsequently advanced physical science and engineering were devout Christians and had broken most of the barriers to scientific knowledge long before the "progressive" philosophers came on the scene.

    Saint-Simone, Compte and Marx were "soft-science" philosophers who invented virtually nothing except abstract tomes of musings about political and economic theory which have done little to advance the lot of individuals.

    Modern prosperity in the West had totally outstripped every other area of the world by 1850. It was done by ordinary people, entrepreneurs, physical scientists, and engineers. All the liberal progressives have ever done is come in during the last 100 years and try to redistribute the well being that others created among their own favored clientele. The liberal-progressives have had absolutely nothing to do with advancing knowledge, prosperity, or freedom.
    Posted by bill greene  on  03/21  at  06:56 PM
  7. "The liberal-progressives have had absolutely nothing to do with advancing knowledge, prosperity, or freedom."

    If only you really understood bill greene. The Dominican and Franciscans you mentioned were the liberal progressives of their day. With their teaching and knowledge making they inadvertently started the roll-back of the Church's authority and its control over humankind.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/21  at  11:24 PM
  8. Yes, David, the moral and rational Christians have always been the real progressives--fighting for individual liberty, scientific discovery, and making life better for the common people.

    Today's secular Leftists have nothing in common with those Christian progressives that built Western civilization except that they may call themselves "progressive" and often claim to represent the people. However, their real objective is to rule over the common people from the top by reducing individual freedoms and rights.

    Obama, Pelosi and Reid are motivated and rule much like the Kings and Court of Nobles did in 16th and 17th century England that the Puritans, Presbyterians, Quakers, and Calvinists struggled against for freedom.

    Like King George, and King Charles before him, this new elite look down with fear and loathing on the commoners who cling to their Faiths and Guns.
    Posted by bill greene  on  03/22  at  10:12 AM
  9. bill,

    I am sure that if you lived back then you would have dislike the progressives of the past just like dislike the progressives of today. Back then I bet you would have been up in arms as you are today. The difference is that you were born accustom to them and were not embroiled in the change they instigated.

    It is just that you conservatives can't deal with and are threatened by immediate change. But I am sure that if you happen to be around in say 200 years you will see today's liberal progressives as heros, just like the Dominican and Franciscans you worship today.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/22  at  10:59 AM
  10. David--I adore change! I could tell you hundreds of things that need change in America today.

    But I would only change things carefully and simply with the following guidelines:

    1- The benefits must exceed the costs,
    2- the policy must reward good behavior and discourage bad behavior.
    3- The change involved must create added fairness, remove inequities, and create a more level playing field for all participants.
    4- The opportunity for corruption and bribery must be reduced--not increased
    5- Negative side effects and unintended consequences must be considered
    6- The designated change should be able to be fully detailed in less than 100 pages of double spaced font type 12 with big margins, and a 1 page executive summary.
    7- The proposed change, if controversial, should be tested for a limited time period in a limited area--(like P&G might test market disposable diapers in Cincinnatti, or like Coca Cola might have tested its New Coke before rolling out nationwide inventories)
    8- And, there should of course be the obvious requirement that no one be forced to do something against their will, or withhold life support from anyone, or kill or destroy a life.
    I don't believe the yesterday's 2800 page national health care Legislative "change" meets a single such prudent requirement.
    Posted by bill greene  on  03/22  at  11:46 AM
  11. "The benefits must exceed the costs, "

    You think it is possible to predict or know that beforehand? If you think so you are delusional. There is always the law of unintended consequences, either way.

    Conservative want iron clad guarantees before they accept change, which is impossible. The result is that conservatives stonewall everything, like they did the Civil Rights and Voting Acts in the 1960s.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/22  at  12:08 PM
  12. ". . .conservatives stonewall everything, like they did the Civil Rights and Voting Acts in the 1960s."

    Wrong-ay-vu, David. The original civil rights move was achieved, first, when Truman desegregated the armed services, and then, followed up in the 1950's by Republican President Eisenhower, his Supreme Court appointees, and his dispatching the military to enforce desegregation.

    The additional work in the 1960's was just a continuation of that initial creative and ground-breaking change by Eisenhower. That's the kind of change I believe in and applaud.
    Posted by bill greene  on  03/22  at  12:45 PM
  13. Good for you! And America today is continuing and following up on that change, bring fairness and just to all.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/22  at  01:06 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.