Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-02-20 at 11.46.30 AM
The greatest.


  • ***


« ObamaCare's tyrannical fairness | Main | Dear Sen. DeMint: Choke on it »

February 09, 2012


Robert Lipscomb

This begs the questions of whare progressives, liberals and socialists.

Contrary to the GOP version, liberalism quite simply means a belief in protecting personal liberty in opposition to the government or other institutions taking away those liberties.

Socialism is government owned institutions, such Social security or public schools.

Progressivism is a commitment to entertaining making changes to the status quo of political and social institutions.

Neither liberalism nor progressivism is a commitment to bigger government. However, progressives are willing to embrace the option expansion of socialist programs if the existing institutions are inadequate or inefficient. progressives are equally open to eliminating or reforming socialist programs when they prove to be ineffective or inefficient.

In either case, liberals would be concerned about the effect on personal liberty (in the political, personal or economic arenas) resulting from actions or inactions.

Conservatism is a useful resistance to change in government or social institutions or norms in the form of "change for change sakes" which also embrace.

Modern movement conservatives is no longer a a constructive criticism of change. It is an enemy of all change. Because the past century has seen a growth in government (socialism and regulations), movement conservatism has become sworn enemy of progressivism (expansion of socialism and regulations -- and including changes to social norms).

As a consequence, movement conservatism liberalism has morphed into libertarianism.

For movement conservatives, progressives and liberals are no longer the loyal opposition. we are the enemy. Negotiating a peace accord with us is the same as treason.

The comments to this entry are closed.