The Real Definition of "Progressive"

I am, I must confess, quite tired of hearing the term “progressive” to describe American politicians of the Left.  Progressive? In what way?  The dictionary defines the term as meaning, among other things, “moving forward,” or “ongoing,” and the word progress as “moving toward a goal.“  So “progressive” politicians believe in progress.  Toward what?
A huge, overbearing government heavy on regulation and diktat?  Burdensome taxation driving up the cost doing business and, in turn, driving up the cost of living? Not to mention driving many businesses away from our shores.

And with respect to liberty, is it “progress” to restrict what people say and write in an atmosphere of extreme political correctness?  Is it progress when attempts are made to restrict our Second Amendment rights to defend ourselves?  And how about efforts to remove faith from every bit of public discourse, eviscerating two hundred years of Judeo-Christian tradition?  And yet, on the other side of that coin, our government plans to let in tens of thousands of adherents to a religion that regards church — or mosque– to be one and the same.

Is it progress to render nearly one half of our population dependent on government largesse via welfare and food stamps, ensuring that many families may never get off the government dole and become self-sufficient?

Are the following phenomena indicative of progress?

Progress – A woman can terminate her baby for whatever reason right up to the moment of birth yet millions of dollars are spent trying to protect the breeding grounds of a mosquito.

Progress – A couple can lose their business because they do not want to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage, an act that is against their religious beliefs. At the same time members of a different religion can cover their women from head to toe and even refuse to remove the headgear when it is necessary to identify them, say, in a court of law . . . or boarding an airliner because it’s their religion.

Progress – The “rights” of abortion and “gay marriage” are somehow found in the Constitution while the explicitly defined right to bear arms is explained away as being “outdated” and “unnecessary.”

Progress – Leaving our borders virtually unprotected allowing millions of illegals to come in and then totally lose track of them, regardless of who they are, where they are from . . . and what they intend to do here.

Progress – Emasculating our military by enormous cutbacks in funding while trying to “degrade” an intractable enemy bent on religious domination and the overthrow of Western Civilization.  At the same time, our servicemen are struggling to accomplish their mission under ridiculous “rules of engagement” that practically guarantee they will fail.

Progress – Politicians, governors, mayors, and even heads of corporations telling conservative individuals — and even some businesses — to “get out of town” because they don’t accede to the “progressive” narrative.

Progress – Race relations are set back decades with a president who has divided this nation as it has not been since the Civil War.

And then there are the scandals, so numerous I cannot even remember all of them.

Progress?  Hardly. Today’s “Democratic Party” is not democratic at all; rather it is the party of what deTocqueville called soft tyranny;  “In effect, soft tyranny occurs whenever the social conditions of a particular community hinder any prospect of hope among its members. For Tocqueville, hope is the driving force behind all democratic institutions. As such, whenever this all-encompassing hope is taken away from the people, liberal democracy fails.” (Wikipedia)

In essence, the Democratic Party has created and nurtured a permanent underclass that relies at least partially, if not wholly, on government-provided handouts, thus insuring their dependence on government and, of course, their continued political support of same.  Although the following quote is often misattributed to Tocqueville (it was actually said by a man named Elmer Peterson in 1951), it is pertinent today:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.” (Wikipedia article on Alexis de Tocqueville)

So the “progress” desired by people such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is actually the transformation of the United States into a giant version of Sweden with confiscatory taxation,  “cradle to grave” security, government interference in virtually every asset of daily life, and reluctance to invoke military force to defend itself and its allies. (I’ve barely touched on foreign affairs here – the total mishandling of our Middle East policy — if such it can be called — the repeated snubs to the leader of Israel, the disastrous Iran deal, the failed Russian “reset” — they speak for themselves.)

To those who think dependence on government is desirable, I would remind you that what the government giveth, the government can taketh away (with apologies to Job).

Progress, huh?  Well, you can have it.  My definition of progress?  The utter rejection of Democrats running for office this November from the presidency on down.  And it cannot come too soon.