Comments on: The Era of Progressive Ascendancy as Branding Error?

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:54:51 +0000

I think Mr. PsuedoP’s analysis is spot on with the addition of one point, e.g. the Bush’s were not ‘conservatives’ rather RINO’s, Neo’s, and EMI fellas. Further it was the reactionary Tea Partiers (grassroots elders) who sought to recapture republican principles for the GOP and further it was the TPers who failed to come out for the Rino/Neo/EMI Romney. Consquently, the GOP is divided (torn asunder) and dying a Whiggish death,… slow and painful. The good news is nature abhors a vacuum and whatever rises, Prometheus like, outta these ashes will surely sweep away the detritus and excrement left by the current crop of clowns.

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:26:44 +0000

So I just got back from Carrollton (which was fine) and I’m too far behind. I still you guys ain’t getting my drift and are too defensive about the origins of defensive progressivism.

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:37:55 +0000

I think he believes fiat currency enough to accept it and spend it. He seems to have moved on to scamming libertarians now.

By: Pseudoplotinus

Pseudoplotinus — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:29:15 +0000

“Beck could turn anything into crazy for a buck.”

I don’t think Beck believes in fiat currency anymore … gold coins perhaps.

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:35:00 +0000

John is right about Rorty’s and Achieving Our Country’s probable impact on Obama’s rhetoric. Especially about the need for a successful left-politics to also be a politics of national self-respect instead of left-wing national self-hatred and self-marginalization.

Beck could turn anything into crazy for a buck.

By: Carl Eric Scott

Carl Eric Scott — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:19:53 +0000

John’s got it right. About what we can know.

As for blaming Claremont for Beck-ism and “New Deal is unconstitutional,” hmm….

By: From Liberal to Progressive » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:15:01 +0000

[...] agree with Paul Seaton in this thread. The move from “liberal” to “progressive” was mostly a [...]

By: Sam Haysom

Sam Haysom — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:20:31 +0000

Which minds were changed? It is possible that the new leftist-shill media hegemony might end the historical tendency of people to grow conservative as they age, but Romney got the majority of whites under 25. When is the last time that many young minds were persuaded to vote Republican. This entire post is prefaced on explaining an act of rebranding/ persuasion that never occurred. Does this simply reflect a fear of facing the reality of the coming racial politics, or is the writer honestly not aware that demographics and demographics alone explain Obama’s victory.

By: Pseudoplotinus

Pseudoplotinus — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:28:16 +0000

Mr. Obama let me introduce you to Mr. Hegel.

By: John Presnall

John Presnall — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:20:44 +0000

Maybe an easygoing kind of progressivism depicted by Rorty’s Achieving Our Country (where principles are reduced to doing no harm and social solidarity of our own contingency) is enough. That book from the 90s doesn’t use the term progressive in my memory, but maybe it was enough to give “substance” to the new brand. It was the first account I had ever heard of to speak of an open ended march of things “we” consider to be good from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall–to quote Buzz Lightyear, “to infinity and beyond.”

When Hilary used progressive, it was to put old wine in a new bottle against the old bottle liberal. Many Americans didn’t like liberalism and didn’t remember progressivism as anything other than a term indicating a good thing, i.e., progress.

So Obama is all about progress. If it is liberalism or progressivism, Obama might reply that he is pragmatically beyond such narrow labels. He is simply using policy to prod along the arc of the moral universe. He is redescribing American history and politics–providing a new narrative–standing for what all rational people recognize as true–etc.