« Progressive Visions of America Part I | Main | The Scandal Brews... »
February 12, 2007
Progressive Visions of America Part II
by Tina Grazier
A more mainstream progressive vision can be found in a talk given by Bill Moyers titled For America’s Sake. Bill begins by painting a picture of the down and out and then ,i>progresses by taking pot shots at Reagan:
Here is the real political story, the one most politicians won't even acknowledge: the reality of the anonymous, disquieting daily struggle of ordinary people, including the most marginalized and vulnerable Americans…blah, blah, blah… searching for dignity and fairness against long odds in a cruel market world. Everywhere you turn you'll find people who believe they have been written out of the story. Everywhere you turn there's a sense of insecurity grounded in a gnawing fear that freedom in America has come to mean the freedom of the rich to get richer even as millions of Americans are dumped from the Dream.
Reagan's story of freedom superficially alludes to the Founding Fathers, but its substance comes from the Gilded Age, devised by apologists for the robber barons. It is posed abstractly as the freedom of the individual from government control--a Jeffersonian ideal at the root of our Bill of Rights, to be sure. But what it meant in politics a century later…is the freedom to accumulate wealth without social or democratic responsibilities and the license to buy the political system right out from under everyone else, so that democracy no longer has the ability to hold capitalism accountable for the good of the whole.
There are several points to be made here since this same old sob story has been used by democrats for decades. Reagan’s story of freedom was not superficial. It did rely on the notion that in America anyone can achieve his dream…and that to do so he must define it and work toward it responsibly with his own will, brains and energy. And Reagan didn’t believe, as progressives do, that most people can never achieve their dreams without the aid of some government program. Reagan’s story never meant “freedom to accumulate wealth without social or democratic, (I would call it civic) responsibility”. Indeed, the proof that this is pure fantasy is revealed in a new book, “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks. According to Professor Brooks:
"If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent."
Mr. Brooks has said his research uncovered facts that were the opposite of what he expected to find. He checked them twice, just to be certain, and found that conservatives donate money to charity more often than liberals and at a higher percentage of their incomes even though liberal families average 6% higher incomes than conservative families. He found that conservatives donate more of their time as well.
If America was truly the unfair oppressive place that Bill asserts then the thousands upon thousands of rags to riches stories we have seen in America would never have happen. Folks like Ronald Reagan and Oprah Winfrey would never have been able to achieve their dreams. Astronauts would not have gone to the moon and beyond. Cell phones and flat screen TV’s would not exist. Cures and medicines would not be discovered and produced. America is vibrant with the contributions of Americans from all walks of life pursuing their own individual idea of happiness.
Bill’s Moyer's assertion that the conservative idea of freedom from government means “the license to buy the political system right out from under everyone else” is a fine example of a democrat source myth. He conveniently leaves the very progressive democrat elites in Hollywood donating thousands, even millions, to democrat coffers…and certainly activists like Mr. George Soros, from his mix of those buying political clout.
This vision of Americans living in a contented bliss of fiscal equality just doesn’t fly any more. People don’t all want the same things. They take charge of the affairs of their lives and succeed in different and varying degrees...by choice. Their success or failure is not dependent on their station in life or their personal finances, it is determined by their own desires and ambitions.
At the heart of our experience as a nation is the proposition that each one of us has a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As flawed in its reach as it was brilliant in its inspiration for times to come, that proposition carries an inherent imperative: "inasmuch as the members of a liberal society have a right to basic requirements of human development such as education and a minimum standard of security, they have obligations to each other, mutually and through their government, to ensure that conditions exist enabling every person to have the opportunity for success in life." Moyers quotes Paul Starr
Excuse me? “As flawed in it’s reach as it was brilliant in it’s inspiration…”? Is he saying the founders were silly dreamers who couldn’t possibly have known how much we would all need big government down the road? And here’s another corker, “…"inasmuch as the members of a liberal society have a right to basic requirements of human development…they have obligations to each other, mutually and through their government, to ensure that conditions exist enabling every person to have the opportunity for success in life." Enabling? He said, “enabling”! Isn’t that one of the things at the very heart of ADDICTION? Government as the enabler…now there’s a call to service and leadership!
Mr. Moyers goes on quoting from the deep well of liberal think:
" The free-market view "cannot provide us with a philosophy we find compelling or meaningful," John Schwarz writes. Nor does it assure the availability of economic opportunity "that is truly adequate to each individual and the status of full legal as well as political equality."
No Bill, it’s the Constitution that assures legal and political equality. The free market is a system of commerce that is open to participation by anyone. That’s why we call it “free”. But he continues and manages to use a great quote from Plutarch :
"…an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics"
But once again he fails to acknowledge or include the many sources of all this disparity between rich and poor, not the least of which has been failed liberal government programs, institutions and ideals. Our public schools are not educating children in ways that support and further their future prospects. Welfare programs have broken up family structure and consigned generations of people to dependency and a limited, hopeless future. A hyped-up vision of what constitutes success consists mostly of dreams that young poorly educated kids absorb with the idea of being rich only by becoming a rock star or athlete…and isn’t that’s cool. The liberal idea that freedom means doing whatever you want, with whomever you want, whenever…without thought to civic impact has born a drug culture and an incredible divorce rate that has absolutely led to relational, spiritual and fiscal failure in peoples lives.
Blaming those who have put their energies into building a future, growing a company, obtaining an education or building a career, for the ills of the less fortunate is easy and convenient but it is flawed. It is, however, a great way to buy votes. Here comes the knife:
It would certainly help if at least as many people who believe, say, in a "literal devil" or that God sent George W. Bush to the White House also knew that the top 1 percent of households now have more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined.
Yes Bill, and it would certainly help if those same people would realize that the top 1-5% of wage earners are busy feeding their hard earned cash to the government that you want to expand by paying about 90% of the taxes. It would also help if they understood that a well-paying job will likely be offered them by someone with money.
The progressive vision is one that says we are incapable of producing a satisfying life from our own vision, effort and means. It is a world designed to assuage guilt and stroke the infullfilled need to 'make a difference'. They design and invision fiscal equality eminating from a cold and insensitive government program taking the means from the rich by way of an unequal, complex and restrictive system of high taxes and fees. This good reader is NOT progress...it is instead, a way of division and, for the "less fortunate", an assignment to the poverty class.
Posted by Post Scripts at February 12, 2007 11:28 PM
Comments
It is interesting to note that while progressives speak volumes about political liberty, they all together ignore economic liberty.
They imagine an impossible world where you possess political liberty while an elite redistribute wealth.
The truth of the matter is that there is no reasonable political liberty without economic liberty. The right to property has been the driving force for the cause of liberty.
In fact I would go far as to say that without economic liberty, political liberty is all but meaningless. Who really cares about voting if it is simply a choice between who is going to take your money away from you for the purpose of redistributing it to a larger constituency?
For a progressive, its all about ensuring that you are one of the intellectual elites who gets to distribute the wealth.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at February 14, 2007 07:12 PM
For a progressive, its all about ensuring that you are one of the intellectual elites who gets to distribute the wealth.
This is the bottom, bottom line...Hillary and Queen Nance have their thrones all picked out!
Posted by: Tina at February 15, 2007 08:37 PM