Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com continues to provide the most insightful and useful blog on politics in the world. While the utility dropped off after the election ended, the quality of Nate's thought and methods remains unmatched anywhere in political analysis.
Recently, Nate broke down the current struggle within the progressive movement, and much of the Democratic Party, into two broad streams.
He breaks down the "progressive" movement into two distinct streams that will look obvious to Canadian observers, or really anyone in any country outside the United States.
In one camp, Silver places "rational progressives" based on the 18th century Enlightenment movement of liberalism, founded by Locke, Comte, Montesquieu and others. This is a movement that is inately optimistic, result-oriented, ideologically maleable, prone to elitism, and based around the rational promotion of good ideas.
In the other camp, he places "radical progressives" based on the 19th century socialist movement, best articulated by Marx and Engles. This is a movement that is inately pessimistic, process-oriented, ideologically rigid, prone to demogogery, and based around the radical battle of will that is the class struggle.
Anyone in any nation but the United States would easily identify these two streams as "liberalism" or "liberal democracy" and the second stream as "social democracy."
This very struggle consumed the British Labour Party in the 1990s, but it is most easily described in the Canadian party system where the rationalists equate directly with the mainstream of the Liberal Party and the radicals with the NDP.
Both positions are legitimate, indeed necessary, but both must also be mindful of the limitations of their respective positions.
- Mike Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
Ah hah!
A debate on the merits of social progression.
The mere calling of oneself a social progressive immediately gives that person the moral high ground over anyone else.
And in that simple fact lies it's ultimate weakness.
Social progression is full of crap.
I loathe social progressives.
Their calling card?
Doing nothing.- Posted 16/02/09 at 9:27 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
- Frobisher Grove from Oskiweewee, Canada writes: "Social progression is full of crap."
Thanks, Mike! And a special shout out from us pre-industrial agrarians! The luddites send much love, too.
Your stellar contributions to political thought have earned you yet another BS Degree from Cartoon U.
Hey, is that your gum stuck in the PM's taint?
Summa cum laude!- Posted 16/02/09 at 11:28 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
- Mike Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
Inherent in the social progressive's mind is the absolute conviction he has the moral high ground.
I mean, look at the words.
Progression.
How could it go wrong?
It's progressive, if only for the sake of appearance.
Moral ambivalence is the way of the social progressive.
Never take a stand.
It's progressive.
They believe in nothing.
This gives them the moral high ground over those who believe in something.
That's how that works.
Social progression is a sham.- Posted 17/02/09 at 1:11 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
- Mike Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
Given that we have established that moral ambivalence is the high ground of the social progressive, we shall now try and get the social progressive to admit they believe in something.
Other than social progression.
Watch them squirm.- Posted 17/02/09 at 1:13 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
- You (BeerBelly Buddah, from Canada) wrote: @ Sharp who is less so...
Using your reductus-absurdum definitive criteria the "Progressive party" from the 1920's must have been full of 61 MP"s all commited to doing nothing? How wrong.
You sir, are the epitome of the weak-minded flabbergasted apologist. Yet, ironically, you are absolved of having to render a reply or apology: your ignorance excuses you.
Read your Sharp (1948), read your Morton, read your Milliband, read your Laycock (and if you want, about 2,000 US works on the subject)- read the writings of Henry Wise Wood of the UFA of Alberta, or Crerar's Hansard speeches in 1921-24. Nowhere have I ever seen a bigger misrepresentation of the term 'progressive' than here... congratulations.
Thanks ... you have confirmed my suspicion that the tribe known as the 'ugly intellects' is alive and well!
Jeesus. help us!- Posted 17/02/09 at 3:25 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
- Mike Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
We have our first squirmer.
A man who believes in nothing yet who claims the moral high ground.- Posted 17/02/09 at 11:07 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
- You (BeerBelly Buddah, from Canada) wrote: @ Sharp - thanks for labeling me. T'was anticipated.
Always curious that insular character's such as yourself would rather label than 'read & learn'. By the way, want to really understand the roots of Social Progressives - read Richard Allen's "The Social Passion".
I'll now leave it to you to now label me again.
p.s. BTW, it's not 'squirming' that informs my posts - it's 'knowledge'. You wish to character assassinate fine. But misrepresenting all social progressives as whining Lefties is passe. Find a new playground. Textual bullying (labeling) is simply tiresome. You wish to engage in a real and respectful debate - let me know @ beerbellybuddah@gmail.com.- Posted 17/02/09 at 2:40 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
[** p.s. Mr. Sharp has yet to write!]
2 comments:
I'm flattered.
That changes nothing, though.
The social progressive has as his foundation the concept of moral ambivalence.
It doesn't stand the test of time.
Well, I'm flattered.
The premise remains, though. The trademark of the social progressive is moral ambivalence.
When you built your house on that foundation it collapses shortly after.
Post a Comment