Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker, covers a topic that’s been sticking in my craw for a while now – the hijacking of the word “progressive” to repackage failed and/or subversive leftist ideologies.
Buried in the term “progressive” (as the left uses it) is the assumption that history is moving inexorably, even if by fits and starts, in a certain direction, one that is understandable to those who possess the secret decoder ring. This is why government is so necessary. It alone can bring order to the chaos and messiness which individuals, left to their own devices, impose on their masters, and on the intellectuals who see so clearly what the rest of us cannot perceive.
Check out the rant at http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
Now those guys are what I call progressive.
Hi, just discovered your great blog – so wanted to find a Canadian voice like this. This post got me remembering, in the 90s (not sure if they still do it) it was academic fashion to call the times “late capitalism” – the hegemonic structures that victimize are about to collapse under the weight of our “progressive” critique. So which coinage is funnier? Denounce every market success but your own – ethos for the “neoMarxist” who cannot live without the romantic lie.
One of the traditions and very effective tactics of leftism since the beginning has been to deliberately change/shade the meanings of words.
It serves two purposes:
It confuses the issue. Hey, no one’s against “fairness”, “justice”, and “rights”, right? So whole political campaigns can be phrased in such a way as to not scare the middle class, while the speakers mean radical chnages in society.
It makes it difficult, or outright impossible, to argue intelligently against them them. e.g. You get redefined as racist, or a hate monger suddenly. Or you say “freedom”, and they say “freedom” (from want, hunger, etc..) which implies almost polar opposits concepts.