The editors of the Washington Post have become hopelessly confused by the misuse of language:
There is nothing “progressive†about promising free tuition or expanded Social Security benefits, regardless of need, and regardless of resource constraints in an aging society and slow-growing economy. The real challenge for the country is finding ways to target government assistance where it will do the most good with the fewest unintended consequences. Thus the challenge for Ms. Clinton and her fellow candidates, starting Tuesday night, is to stand up for policy nuance in a party whose voter base seems impatient with it.
Today’s progressives are actually true conservatives, fighting a futile holding action in defense of an unsustainable status quo. Conservatives don’t want to conserve anything; they are radicals trying to establish an ideal society along the lines of an imagined past.
And the real challenge for the country is that far too many of the top 10% of income earners are partially or wholly dependent on government (at various level) for their incomes. The astonishing thing is that there’s anything left “to target government assistance where it will do the most good”. And does anyone concern themselves with unintended consequences any more?
Listening to the debate, it doesn’t seem that the front runners want to stand up for nuance.
Excellent post Dave. I would add two things:
– Anyone who says they can “target” the Federal government to do anything doesn’t understand the Federal government, how it works, it’s limitations, etc.
– I get your point on progressives being true conservatives (and I agree to an extent), but I don’t think they are only fighting a holding action. They continue to seek to eroded traditional authority (parents, churches, communities, private organizations, etc.) and replace it with statist bureaucratic control. Of course they don’t think of it that way, but that’s the reality of the policies they implement and support.