From The Washington Times, Language Labels and Laws, by Richard Rahn

The “progressive” Hillary Clinton wants more government regulation, spending, and taxation, while the “progressive” Bill Clinton told us two decades ago that the “era of big government is over” — and did, in fact, preside over a relatively smaller government in his second term. The progressive politicians say they want government actively involved in creating new jobs — primarily through more government spending. Yet, at the same time, they push for much higher minimum wages that kill job opportunities for the least skilled (which only those in complete denial of reality refuse to admit). The progressives tell us they want to break up the big banks. Yet, because the costs of all of the new financial regulations, which are often the brain children of the progressives, fall much harder on small banks than the big banks, the number of banks in the United States has fallen by 30 percent in the last 15 years. Labels such as liberal, progressive and conservative tell us little about which laws a politician is actually going to promote. Most people to some extent have both some libertarian and some statist views, e.g., students who are in favor of drug legalization but want “free stuff” from government to be paid for by others. Note how many Iowa farmers are in favor of smaller government and free markets, but push for ethanol subsidies.

HKO

Political semantics are important. FDR changed the term progressive to liberal and in the course completely changed the meaning. After Liberal became politically toxic candidate wanted to switch it back. Progressivism in practice is simply a highly regulated state that has viewed the constitution as an impediment to state power, presumably to improve society as they see fit, as opposed to the effort to restrain the power of the state in the pursuit of individual liberty and natural rights.

It is very telling that neither Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Hillary could distinguish between a socialist and a progressive. It is largely a question of mere degrees.

In fact, given the 100 year history of progressivism in America one could make the case that Hillary’s position is the conservative case which we need to progress from.

Tag Archives

Progressivism has Nothing to Do with Progess

Recent Posts

Recent Comments