Defining Progressivism

[canpakes]

.
“If I repeat the scary-sounding words enough times while really saying nothing at all, Republicans will win the next election!”

There will be other words to worry about that may slow your campaign down a bit, Hound:

Grocery prices
Healthcare
Housing costs
Childcare costs
Inflation
Recession

[Kishkumen]

Let me share my thoughts on socialism, Gunnar. In America, it is often the misguided intellectuals and complacent college professors who promote socialism. However, socialism does not align with the concept of freedom.

Many college professors consist of individuals who struggled to succeed in the professional world, leading them to seek refuge in academia, where they find a stable career that often lacks the demands of traditional work. Individuals with this fragile mindset are drawn to socialism as it reflects their perspective on status.

However, for those who have not been influenced by the prevailing ideology often referred to as wokeism, it is clear that socialism has not succeeded in the majority of countries where it has been put into practice. Consider the comparisons of Taiwan with Mao Zedong's China, West Germany with East Germany, or North Korea with South Koream the model that embraces economic freedoms consistently outshines the socialist model.

Socialism is unwelcome in America, and I demand its removal from my party! In 2024, I experienced the first instance in my life where I felt I wasted my vote, fully aware that the candidate I supported had no real chance of winning. If the Democratic Party nominates a socialist in 2028, and I’m still around, I will vote Republican regardless of their candidate, as a way to protest against the party I have known my entire life.

Fortunately, I genuinely believe that the progressive movement is being dismantled by the Trump administration, and I value what he is doing for the Democrat party! He is emerging as the savior of the Democratic Party, as many moderate Democrats seem fearful of being canceled by the socialists you apparently hold in high regard.

I have additional articles to share with you, even though I realize you may not be inclined to change your perspective. However, I have yet to complete my definition of progressivism, and I believe they will prove to be beneficial.

So which Democratic Party do you pine for, HoH, the southern Democratic Party of the early to mid 20th century?

One of the beefs I have with this mantra about socialism is that it has all of the nuance of a story told by a kindergartner. There is such thing as democratic socialism. The whole idea that a blend of socialism and democracy either does not exist or is impossible is contradicted by much of the recent history of Western Europe and the United States. It is also entertaining to watch Hound lump together all forms of communism and socialism into one thing and then contrast it with "freedom," which he never defines.

Hound has little understanding of politics, economics, or history, all of which exist in his mind as simplistic, emotionally triggering symbols. It is clear that if Hound was a Democrat, he was always a poorly informed one, and, as such, he really does belong in MAGA with the other crooks, kooks, dupes, and ignoramuses.

Congratulations for finding your people and your Orange Messiah, Hound.

[Chap]

This thread, started by Hound of Heaven, is called "defining progressivism".

So one might reasonably expect him to do that at some early point in the thread. But he hasn't.

So I have explained to him how definitions are done, and gave him an example (see below). Then I asked him to define "progressivism".

But he still hasn't. Nor has he explained why he won't do so, despite the title he chose for his thread. It's simply bizarre.

Can somebody explain this situation?

It looks a bit as if HoH is puzzled by requests to explain what he means by 'progressivism'.

When I make that request, what I want is for him to write a few words setting out a clear idea of what, for him at least, this thing he calls 'progressivism' means. Like, for instance:

"Communism is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement, whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need."

You might think that 'communism' really means something quite different from that, but if I was to give that definition in response to the question "What do you mean by communism?", you would have a pretty good idea of what I meant by "communism".

Now HoH: following that model, please explain what you mean by 'progressivism'.

[Hound of Heaven]

Let me share my thoughts on socialism, Gunnar. In America, it is often the misguided intellectuals and complacent college professors who promote socialism. However, socialism does not align with the concept of freedom.

Many college professors consist of individuals who struggled to succeed in the professional world, leading them to seek refuge in academia, where they find a stable career that often lacks the demands of traditional work. Individuals with this fragile mindset are drawn to socialism as it reflects their perspective on status.

However, for those who have not been influenced by the prevailing ideology often referred to as wokeism, it is clear that socialism has not succeeded in the majority of countries where it has been put into practice. Consider the comparisons of Taiwan with Mao Zedong's China, West Germany with East Germany, or North Korea with South Koream the model that embraces economic freedoms consistently outshines the socialist model.

Socialism is unwelcome in America, and I demand its removal from my party! In 2024, I experienced the first instance in my life where I felt I wasted my vote, fully aware that the candidate I supported had no real chance of winning. If the Democratic Party nominates a socialist in 2028, and I’m still around, I will vote Republican regardless of their candidate, as a way to protest against the party I have known my entire life.

Fortunately, I genuinely believe that the progressive movement is being dismantled by the Trump administration, and I value what he is doing for the Democrat party! He is emerging as the savior of the Democratic Party, as many moderate Democrats seem fearful of being canceled by the socialists you apparently hold in high regard.

I have additional articles to share with you, even though I realize you may not be inclined to change your perspective. However, I have yet to complete my definition of progressivism, and I believe they will prove to be beneficial.

So which Democratic Party do you pine for, HoH, the southern Democratic Party of the early to mid 20th century?

One of the beefs I have with this mantra about socialism is that it has all of the nuance of a story told by a kindergartner. There is such thing as democratic socialism. The whole idea that a blend of socialism and democracy either does not exist or is impossible is contradicted by much of the recent history of Western Europe and the United States. It is also entertaining to watch Hound lump together all forms of communism and socialism into one thing and then contrast it with "freedom," which he never defines.

Hound has little understanding of politics, economics, or history, all of which exist in his mind as simplistic, emotionally triggering symbols. It is clear that if Hound was a Democrat, he was always a poorly informed one, and, as such, he really does belong in MAGA with the other crooks, kooks, dupes, and ignoramuses.

Congratulations for finding your people and your Orange Messiah, Hound.

Progressivism had its moment years ago, and I believe that if self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders had run in 2016 instead of Hillary, he would have defeated Trump. However, that was in 2016, a time when traditional media held greater influence and authority over the news sources selected by the American public.

Today, alternative media has nearly rendered traditional media obsolete, and in the next decade, traditional media may very well disappear. Democrats should focus on identifying liberals capable of conducting a credible interview lasting 3 to 4 hours. Whether one agrees or not, podcasts and independent newscasters driven by their political convictions represent the future, serving as a primary source for citizens seeking information about global events. There's nothing we can do about that; technology has advanced too much.

It seems like your mind is caught in a loop of confusion! The Democratic Party faces a decision, to shift further left or to gravitate toward the center. It is evident to those who rely on common sense that the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, and the presidency have been granted to the Republicans. In a rational world, this would typically signal to Democrats to shift towards the center, increasing their chances in the next election to attract more moderate Democrats and independents who either voted for Trump or chose not to vote at all.

However, the Democratic Party is being swayed by individuals who lack common sense and those with academic backgrounds, such as complacent college professors and dishonest lawyers, who believe that pushing boundaries is the best approach, even as the nation shifts towards more conservative ideals.

It's a disastrous move politically, and it's all due to the progressive movement having turned into a cult. They've lost the capacity for common sense and are bound to their core beliefs, which closely resemble socialism. They would rather face destruction than compromise with orange satan.

[Kishkumen]

This thread, started by Hound of Heaven, is called "defining progressivism".

So one might reasonably expect him to do that at some early point in the thread. But he hasn't.

So I have explained to him how definitions are done, and gave him an example (see below). Then I asked him to define "progressivism".

But he still hasn't. Nor has he explained why he won't do so, despite the title he chose for his thread. It's simply bizarre.

Can somebody explain this situation?

Hound behaves like a chatbot.

[Kishkumen]

It seems like your mind is caught in a loop of confusion! The Democratic Party faces a decision, to shift further left or to gravitate toward the center. It is evident to those who rely on common sense that the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, and the presidency have been granted to the Republicans. In a rational world, this would typically signal to Democrats to shift towards the center, increasing their chances in the next election to attract more moderate Democrats and independents who either voted for Trump or chose not to vote at all.

Of course, moving to the center is not how the GOP reacted to the political challenges of the new millennium at all. Rather, it was overtaken by kooks, psychos, cons, and extremists. It fell prey to a malignant brand of the populism that was sweeping the country on account of the Democratic Party's centrism. The Democratic Party is in trouble precisely because it successfully fended off the populist wave, whereas the GOP succumbed. So, contrary to your daft analysis of the situation, the Democratic Party's problem is not wokeism so much as its centrism.

No one really believed the Democratic Party would fight for the people. They understood, and I think rightly, the Democratic Party promoted wokeism because it was a distraction from the underlying corporatism and plutocracy that came to dominate the post-Reagan Democratic Party. Given a choice between being woke while doing nothing to alleviate the financial suffering of average Americans and actually doing something, the Democratic Party was happy to choose woke virtue signaling. They are still paying for that sleight of hand to this day.

The successful con the Republican Party has pulled, as is obvious even up to today's date, is that they found a phony populist in Donald Trump who would behave as a populist while fleecing the populace and aiding his plutocratic supporters in fleecing everyone. Now MAGA is a faux-populist personality cult that holds up Donald Trump as the answer to everything, no matter how obvious it is that he is incompetent, ignorant, rapacious, and corrupt. So, like you, Hound, I do blame the Democratic Party, beginning with Obama.

Obama was Trump's precursor in being a phony populist. People mistook Obama for a populist because of his opposition to the Iraq War. When he became president, he had the opportunity to help average Americans, but his billionaire sponsors convinced him that the rational thing to do was to facilitate a massive heist by using the taxpayer to prop up the plutocrats, while blaming Americans who took out bad mortgages and viciously suppressing Occupy Wall Street. The Democrats could have saved themselves from their current, well deserved exile from power by pushing Bernie Sanders into the presidency, but the supreme arrogance of the corporate Democrats and their Thatcher-light Hillary Clinton ushered in the era of Trump.

Trump won because Obama ultimately failed to meet the challenge of the moment, and Hillary doubled down because of her supreme arrogance and ambition. The Democrats will continue to trot out Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to pretend they give a crap about Americans who suffer, but, beneath it all, they prefer to appear righteous while protecting their bottom line. Oh, and by appearing righteous I am including wokeism. To give Obama his due, he was a terrible phony, but he was a competent terrible phony, as was Hillary Clinton. Trump's big problem is that he is and always has been a complete phony in every respect. You can't actually succeed in substantive terms while being a complete phony in every respect.

[Hound of Heaven]

This thread, started by Hound of Heaven, is called "defining progressivism".

So one might reasonably expect him to do that at some early point in the thread. But he hasn't.

So I have explained to him how definitions are done, and gave him an example (see below). Then I asked him to define "progressivism".

But he still hasn't. Nor has he explained why he won't do so, despite the title he chose for his thread. It's simply bizarre.

Can somebody explain this situation?

Hound behaves like a chatbot.

And you sound like a college professor who struggles to hoist a coffee cup to your mouth without sounding like a steam engine struggling up hill.

[Kishkumen]

And you sound like a college professor who struggles to hoist a coffee cup to your mouth without sounding like a steam engine struggling up hill.

LOL! I do love your insults. You have a fan here in that respect.

[canpakes]

Of course, moving to the center is not how the GOP reacted to the political challenges of the new millennium at all. Rather, it was overtaken by kooks, psychos, cons, and extremists. It fell prey to a malignant brand of the populism that was sweeping the country on account of the Democratic Party's centrism. The Democratic Party is in trouble precisely because it successfully fended off the populist wave, whereas the GOP succumbed. So, contrary to your daft analysis of the situation, the Democratic Party's problem is not wokeism so much as its centrism.

No one really believed the Democratic Party would fight for the people. They understood, and I think rightly, the Democratic Party promoted wokeism because it was a distraction from the underlying corporatism and plutocracy that came to dominate the post-Reagan Democratic Party. Given a choice between being woke while doing nothing to alleviate the financial suffering of average Americans and actually doing something, the Democratic Party was happy to choose woke virtue signaling. They are still paying for that sleight of hand to this day.

The successful con the Republican Party has pulled, as is obvious even up to today's date, is that they found a phony populist in Donald Trump who would behave as a populist while fleecing the populace and aiding his plutocratic supporters in fleecing everyone. Now MAGA is a faux-populist personality cult that holds up Donald Trump as the answer to everything, no matter how obvious it is that he is incompetent, ignorant, rapacious, and corrupt. So, like you, Hound, I do blame the Democratic Party, beginning with Obama.

Obama was Trump's precursor in being a phony populist. People mistook Obama for a populist because of his opposition to the Iraq War. When he became president, he had the opportunity to help average Americans, but his billionaire sponsors convinced him that the rational thing to do was to facilitate a massive heist by using the taxpayer to prop up the plutocrats, while blaming Americans who took out bad mortgages and viciously suppressing Occupy Wall Street. The Democrats could have saved themselves from their current, well deserved exile from power by pushing Bernie Sanders into the presidency, but the supreme arrogance of the corporate Democrats and their Thatcher-light Hillary Clinton ushered in the era of Trump.

Trump won because Obama ultimately failed to meet the challenge of the moment, and Hillary doubled down because of her supreme arrogance and ambition. The Democrats will continue to trot out Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to pretend they give a crap about Americans who suffer, but, beneath it all, they prefer to appear righteous while protecting their bottom line. Oh, and by appearing righteous I am including wokeism. To give Obama his due, he was a terrible phony, but he was a competent terrible phony, as was Hillary Clinton. Trump's big problem is that he is and always has been a complete phony in every respect.

Thanks. This sort of response shows the potential for an excellent discussion about the topic, if Hound was actually interested in discussing, as opposed to merely repeating A.I.-fluffed right-wing talking points. It’s telling that his response to all of this was to retreat into an insult.

You can't actually succeed in substantive terms while being a complete phony in every respect.

This can be a problem for Republicans going forward. Weaponizing the judicial system, squelching free speech, constructing bogeymen out of everything one doesn’t agree with, and focusing mainly on enriching only the wealthiest part of the population all has a distinct appeal to MAGA, but there are still enough independents out there to swing elections the Democrats way, and a failure to address more basic and substantive issues related to simple economic survival can begin to knock Republican candidates back onto the sidelines. Relying solely on trotting out their scary word list has its limitations.

[Molok]

del