What happens if Libertarians don't do what is necessary to get progressives on board?

[progressiveforpaul]

What happens if Progressives don't get on board?
Scene I: Ron's retirement
Scene II: Obama II
Scene III: Romney I
Scene IV: The Gay Friendly Military Industrial Revival
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-happens-if-progressives-get-on.html

[silverhandorder]

Sorry but no one here is interested to compromise on economics. We agree on social issues be happy with that. Most progressives that we are gaining are because of areas of agreement I see no reason to compromise to be progressive light.

[AuH20]

Only 25% of Americans identify themselves as progressives. So it's not a major loss.

[Spikender]

Only 25% of Americans identify themselves as progressives. So it's not a major loss.

Seems like a major loss to me. I didn't know the parasetic brain leech known as progressivism had spread so rampantly throughout our population.

Although, knowing politics, I'm sure some of those people don't really understand what a progressive is. On the other hand, I'm sure some of them do. And those are the ones that worry me.

[pcosmar]

We really need to get the "progressives" educated to the fact that they are the PROBLEM.

It was progressives that put us in our present condition.

[Spikender]

We really need to get the "progressives" educated to the fact that they are the PROBLEM.

It was progressives that put us in our present condition.

Exactly. The fact that a full quarter of our population identifies as progressives should worry us. We have to be prudent about taking progressive support, as they are the political philosophy that we are currently trying to defeat. Any progressives who come on board have to be taught that progressivism is what got us into this mess in the first place, and that the only way to fix it to reverse course from the very things they advocate.

[PastaRocket848]

anyone who calls themselves "progressive", whilst knowing what it actually means, should be ashamed. if they're not, they should look at greece, spain, and italy, then question themselves.

[Miss Annie]

This is one question I would have for the OP, ... if, knowing how corrupt the parentage has been - why would one wait for Chelsea to become president?

[AuH20]

We really need to get the "progressives" educated to the fact that they are the PROBLEM.

It was progressives that put us in our present condition.

True. We live in a world dominated by progressives. But I like to call them Re-Gressive because it's essentially the path to neo-feudalism.

[Sam I am]

Sorry but no one here is interested to compromise on economics. We agree on social issues be happy with that. Most progressives that we are gaining are because of areas of agreement I see no reason to compromise to be progressive light.

How about this for a reason: The general libertarian movement is small enough that if you don't compromise with somebody, you will lose every single time

[silverhandorder]

How about this for a reason: The general libertarian movement is small enough that if you don't compromise with somebody, you will lose every single time
Not anymore. Last poll showed 23% with fiscally conservative and socially liberal views.

[Spikender]

anyone who calls themselves "progressive", whilst knowing what it actually means, should be ashamed. if they're not, they should look at greece, spain, and italy, then question themselves.

I completely agree. Anyone who actually believes the tripe that the progressive idealogy comes with has brought shame on themselves and their family.


True. We live in a world dominated by progressives. But I like to call them Re-Gressive because it's essentially the path to neo-feudalism.

Yes. Just yes. I always think to myself that we live in strange times where people actually believe that government is the answer. And I always say to myelf afterwards... HAVE THESE PEOPLE LOOKED AT HISTORY?! HELL, HAVE THAT LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING EVERYDAY?! How can someone honestly believe that government is the answer when the entire history of the human race has been one of extreme government oppresion and the trampling of rights? I just find it ludicrous to trust something that has never done a single good thing for mankind.

I think progressives believe that today is different, that we're smarter, that our governments are more trustworthy. They are dead wrong. Our government is not only more hard headed and more bold than ever, they are also more dangerous than ever. Governments used to be powerful, yes, but it was also a lot easier for a civilian to get their hands on weapons that were of similar power to their oppressors. A peasant's sword is just as good as a knights; a peasant's bow is just as good as an archers; a tree fashioned into a battering ram is just as good as some fancy crap that feudal lords devised; the guns that civilians wielded were just as effective as the ones that their governments wielded.

But then that changed. The divide between the firepower of the people and our governments has been rapidly expanding for some time, and now has reached absurd levels. We as Americans can, at most, legally purchase small arms. I'm sure many of us also know how to make explosive materials, or know how to obtain some. But then compare our capabilities to our government's (USA's as an example): body armor, tons of small arms, helicopters, armored vehicles, tanks, jets, battleships, cruisers, submarines, sound weaponry, artillery, missles, nukes, riot police, SWAT team, Seals, Marines, Navy, Airforce, snipers, mines, other explosives, thermal imaging, night vision, and there's probably a lot more that I'm either forgetting or don't know about.

What progressives don't understand is that if they build this huge government that is supposed to control the private sector, then they also build a government that cannot be fought against. It's even worse when you consider that progressives don't want the average citizen to even have access to firearms. Progressives are literally building the very thing that they will grow to hate.

[Sam I am]

Not anymore. Last poll showed 23% with fiscally conservative and socially liberal views.

It's one thing to consider yourself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It's another thing entirely to be a full-fledged libertarian.

I'm willing to bet you, that most of those 23% would not be comfortable with abolishing public schools, nor comfortable with abolishing public police, or public roads.

At least 5% of those 23% likely want either social security or medicare to exist in some form or another.

You'll probably find stragglers that oppose gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization.

[pcosmar]

Progressive History.
http://www.constitution.org/col/cuddy_nwo.htm

[pauladin]

here's the compromise we make with progressives:

we want to end the programs.
they want to keep the programs.

compromise: 50% reduction in spending. that's how ron paul rolls.

[silverhandorder]

It's one thing to consider yourself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It's another thing entirely to be a full-fledged libertarian.

I'm willing to bet you, that most of those 23% would not be comfortable with abolishing public schools, nor comfortable with abolishing public police, or public roads.

At least 5% of those 23% likely want either social security or medicare to exist in some form or another.

You'll probably find stragglers that oppose gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization.
Same could be said of any self-described group.

[AuH20]

Progressive History.
http://www.constitution.org/col/cuddy_nwo.htm

Hillary Clinton has stated numerous times that she is a throwback to that Progressive "Golden Age" which turned America on it's collective head at the turn of the century. Really chilling words and she's considered by many to be a democratic moderate, as opposed to Obama.

[Spikender]

Hillary Clinton has stated numerous times that she is a throwback to that Progressive "Golden Age" which turned America on it's collective head at the turn of the century. Really chilling words and she's considered by many to be a democratic moderate, as opposed to Obama.

Chilling words indeed. If she's supposed to be moderate... well, I really just don't know what to say.

[jmdrake]

What happens if Progressives don't get on board?
Scene I: Ron's retirement
Scene II: Obama II
Scene III: Romney I
Scene IV: The Gay Friendly Military Industrial Revival
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-happens-if-progressives-get-on.html

I can tell you what would happen if Ron Paul followed your advice. He'd loose Iowa badly and the campaign would be over. The only way to reach out to progressives is to get them to see reality. Obama isn't going to face a primary challenger, so if they like anything about Ron Paul they might as well vote for him in the primary. If Ron wins the primary it will force Obama to play hard to the left on foreign policy. If anybody else wins Obama will play to the right and become even more hawkish than he already is...if that's even possible. If you want an end to the Afghanistan war, if you don't want troops being sent to Uganda and freaking Australia, if you don't like the idea of the military having the power to assassinate and/or arrest U.S. citizens without trial then you have no choice but to vote for Ron Paul. Well yeah, you do have a choice. You can choose to put economic ideology over political reality.

[jaktober]

Same could be said of any self-described group.

Agreed! That is the problem, using terms and associations to judge yourself or others. A lot of people call themselves Libertarian (Roemer) but aren't what most "libertarians" think the term means. Most people who call themselves "progressive" relate more to Kucinich/Sanders/Nader than they do to Obama/Clinton. Bob Barr was the libertarian Presidential Nominee, what if everyone thought everyone who described themselves as libertarian was a Barr supporter.

Stop being a "libertarian" and just be yourself (isn't that the whole point?). It is the same thing with progressives, the 99%, liberal, conservative, christian, buddhist, whatever. Be yourself. Don't hide behind labels. Give others the same respect. I don't care what someone calls themselves, or what they look like, I care about what they say and do.

Don't regard people as groups, but as individuals. Not gay, not black, not libertarian, but individuals. That is the revolution. It happens in YOUR mind. It won't be televised.

[Xenophage]

Agreed! That is the problem, using terms and associations to judge yourself or others. A lot of people call themselves Libertarian (Roemer) but aren't what most "libertarians" think the term means. Most people who call themselves "progressive" relate more to Kucinich/Sanders/Nader than they do to Obama/Clinton. Bob Barr was the libertarian Presidential Nominee, what if everyone thought everyone who described themselves as libertarian was a Barr supporter.

Stop being a "libertarian" and just be yourself (isn't that the whole point?). It is the same thing with progressives, the 99%, liberal, conservative, christian, buddhist, whatever. Be yourself. Don't hide behind labels. Give others the same respect. I don't care what someone calls themselves, or what they look like, I care about what they say and do.

Don't regard people as groups, but as individuals. Not gay, not black, not libertarian, but individuals. That is the revolution. It happens in YOUR mind. It won't be televised.

Or you could define your terms. A libertarian could be any number of things, but in general we believe in minimal government and maximum liberty. Isn't it easier to define what a libertarian is, than it is to exhaustively list all of your unique political opinions every time someone asks you, "What are your politics?"

If you want to get more specific you can call yourself an anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, whatever....

[jtstellar]

How about this for a reason: The general libertarian movement is small enough that if you don't compromise with somebody, you will lose every single time

we aren't libertarians.. we're a new generation above that. many establishment/beltway libertarians only understand issues half way. in fact many of them support military actions overseas.

to your point about numbers. ok so you gather 49% for bush, maybe 60% for obama. then what? great work. i think we will savor the qualified for change that has meaning, instead of scavenging the bottom of the barrel, thank you. we will grow steadily and slowly, not having to rely on the ilks you fancy to achieve short term results. it's for the good of the country. some great work your kind has done.

[jmdrake]

I just read the blog post itself. It's a lot better than the title the OP (and blog author) gave here at RPF. The title at his blog is:

What happens if Progressives don't get on board?

That's a far cry from:

What happens if Libertarians don't do what is necessary to get progressives on board?

One title puts the onus on progressives. The other puts the onus on libertarians. As a constitutional conservative (I don't like the "L word") I'm all for reaching out to progressives as long as there is no compromise on principle. I think Ron Paul supporters who brave going out to "Occupy" events help, not hurt, our cause. Ron Paul said himself that the occupy movement is "legitimate" even if is misguided. I encourage others to actually read the blog post. Those are decent talking points for talking to progressives. And talking to someone never hurt anybody. If Ron Paul is right that we should talk to Iran than he's also right in that we should at least talk to progressives. For a more positive spin on all of this go to: http://www.bluerepublican.org/

[TheDrakeMan]

We will get a good portion of Progressives on board if we win the general. The war issue alone is enough, compromising on anything else is foolish and anti-productive.

[progressiveforpaul]

I was satirizing the shallow politics of my fellow progressives... chelsea may one day become a politician and if so I hope she learns from her parents's successes and failures.


This is one question I would have for the OP, ... if, knowing how corrupt the parentage has been - why would one wait for Chelsea to become president?

[progressiveforpaul]

JMDrake,
Thanks for the constructive critique. I did deliberately change the title here for two reasons. I truly believe the onus is on both sides to engage the other and I have found that if I am not provocative, my posts get little attention. Perhaps I'll give the positive approach another chance. I do think that robin Koerner's blue Republican approach has been helpful. The problem I have with it is that it essentially invites us to cooperate with libertarians in doing everything we agree on and submitting to their economic policies while they have the white house. I say this not just because I happen to disagree with libertarians on economic policy but because another stalemate is not what this country needs. I truly believe that with some creative thinking we can meet half way and get positive things done that actually grow the economy, create jobs and lowers most people's taxes, shrinks the overall size of the federal government and substantially reduces debt. I would think that libertarians would rather get somethings done on economic policy through coalition with progressives rather than nothing done on the matter in opposition to progressives. For example, we might find a way to agree to allow Ron Paul to get his opt out if we got in exchange our public option. However, I and other progressives will fight Paul tooth and nail to prevent him from using half of the savings from cuts in military adventurism on subsidizing the opt out. Do libertarians really think that they can find 60 Senators to prevent us from obstructing such a plan? Why not say, neither of us is going to get all that we want but if we don't cooperate in getting some of what we want we will get nothing at all. (Again my focus here is on what we disagree on, economic policy.) Thanks again for your thoughtful comment and I promise I'll go positive the next time.

I just read the blog post itself. It's a lot better than the title the OP (and blog author) gave here at RPF. The title at his blog is:

What happens if Progressives don't get on board?

That's a far cry from:

What happens if Libertarians don't do what is necessary to get progressives on board?

One title puts the onus on progressives. The other puts the onus on libertarians. As a constitutional conservative (I don't like the "L word") I'm all for reaching out to progressives as long as there is no compromise on principle. I think Ron Paul supporters who brave going out to "Occupy" events help, not hurt, our cause. Ron Paul said himself that the occupy movement is "legitimate" even if is misguided. I encourage others to actually read the blog post. Those are decent talking points for talking to progressives. And talking to someone never hurt anybody. If Ron Paul is right that we should talk to Iran than he's also right in that we should at least talk to progressives. For a more positive spin on all of this go to: http://www.bluerepublican.org/

[Miss Annie]

I was satirizing the shallow politics of my fellow progressives... chelsea may one day become a politician and if so I hope she learns from her parents's successes and failures.

Ah, thanks for splaining that! I have a question, :) .What policies do you think would prevent progressives from getting on board? Not that I would consider compromise, I am just curious as to what might hold them back.

[Cabal]

Seems like a major loss to me. I didn't know the parasetic brain leech known as progressivism had spread so rampantly throughout our population.

Public education.

[progressiveforpaul]

I think that progressives are concerned primarily that Ron Paul wants to remove government completely from any form of intervention in the economy, get rid of public roads, public education, medicare, social security, etc. My response to this fear is Ron Paul will not be able to implement all of his agenda.
Ah, thanks for splaining that! I have a question, :) .What policies do you think would prevent progressives from getting on board? Not that I would consider compromise, I am just curious as to what might hold them back.

[VBRonPaulFan]

I think that progressives are concerned primarily that Ron Paul wants to remove government completely from any form of intervention in the economy, get rid of public roads, public education, medicare, social security, etc. My response to this fear is Ron Paul will not be able to implement all of his agenda.

My response to progressives on that would be that you guys already have us by the balls because our ONLY choices are basically public school, public roads, we have to participate in medicare/ss/etc with no other options. Ron Paul's first step would be to give us the choice on whether or not to participate in those things, not just out and out get rid of them. And is giving a chance for people to make their own decisions really that terrifying to progressives?

[progressiveforpaul]

My response to progressives on that would be that you guys already have us by the balls because our ONLY choices are basically public school, public roads, we have to participate in medicare/ss/etc with no other options. Ron Paul's first step would be to give us the choice on whether or not to participate in those things, not just out and out get rid of them. And is giving a chance for people to make their own decisions really that terrifying to progressives?
Would you be willing for us to pay for medicare coverage before we retire if we allow u to not have to pay medicare payroll taxes? Workers are being vice-gripped by businesses that employ them, not allowed the freedom to organize labor unions, forced to work without real wage increases or affordable medical insurance. The private sector is no less oppressive than the government.

[Revolution9]

Or you could define your terms. A libertarian could be any number of things, but in general we believe in minimal government and maximum liberty. Isn't it easier to define what a libertarian is, than it is to exhaustively list all of your unique political opinions every time someone asks you, "What are your politics?"

If you want to get more specific you can call yourself an anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, whatever....

Or ya could drop the labels altogether. They mean dick on a stick because every definition by someone is different. Just like when you back a feminist into the corner on their philosophy it is slicker than a greased pig to pin down.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Would you be willing for us to pay for medicare coverage before we retire if we allow u to not have to pay medicare payroll taxes? Workers are being vice-gripped by businesses that employ them, not allowed the freedom to organize labor unions, forced to work without real wage increases or affordable medical insurance. The private sector is no less oppressive than the government.

I don't want nor need no steenkin' medical coverage. All that that does is put my health in the hands of those who treat symptoms and do not cure. I have enough diagnostic medical training to take care of myself. Eating properly is the best medicine and if it costs me for medical insurance then that is a lower quality and quantity of life giving and health sustaining food I can eat. My last doctor visit was in 1987. I was fine. I still am.

Rev9

[silverhandorder]

Would you be willing for us to pay for medicare coverage before we retire if we allow u to not have to pay medicare payroll taxes? Workers are being vice-gripped by businesses that employ them, not allowed the freedom to organize labor unions, forced to work without real wage increases or affordable medical insurance. The private sector is no less oppressive than the government.

I wouldn't mind for a government run alternatives to any service or business as long as government part is not given any monopoly privileges or involuntary funding. So if medicare can be converted to a fee based system then all the power to anyone who would participate. I don't see how it can be done better then business but if you do then let's see it.

[progressiveforpaul]

Rev. you're a god.... you don't need medical insurance.

I don't want nor need no steenkin' medical coverage. All that that does is put my health in the hands of those who treat symptoms and do not cure. I have enough diagnostic medical training to take care of myself. Eating properly is the best medicine and if it costs me for medical insurance then that is a lower quality and quantity of life giving and health sustaining food I can eat. My last doctor visit was in 1987. I was fine. I still am.

Rev9

[VBRonPaulFan]

Would you be willing for us to pay for medicare coverage before we retire if we allow u to not have to pay medicare payroll taxes? Workers are being vice-gripped by businesses that employ them, not allowed the freedom to organize labor unions, forced to work without real wage increases or affordable medical insurance.

dude, i don't know what you're talking about. the fight is about unions in public sector jobs where they have no real singular 'employer' (the taxpayers are technically the 'employer') to negotiate with and don't give people coming into the sector the option on whether or not to participate in the union - it's mandatory they join. you have more than enough freedom in any private organization to form a union to try to negotiate for better benefits.


The private sector is no less oppressive than the government.

LOL, if I decide to not to do something in the private sector, I don't thrown in jail, I don't get fined, I don't get the things or land i've worked for stolen, at worst I just... don't get a job and have to move on.