Liberal vs. Conservative, Republican vs. Democrat, what's the real deal? Progressivism

So this is my first my first real blog. If you read my little profile snippet then you might have a good sense of who I am, you probably know me personally already. As you may or may not know, I have been posting little things on Facebook for a long time now. After a few different conversations with people I respect, I decided to try this medium as a way to further my "cause" and be able to broaden my perspective, you can only write so much on a Facebook status and the point doesn't always come across the way it was meant to. I will still post things there, but I will be able to reference to here, it's still a great place to stir up some debate and unload a quick thought.

I thought I would start with the basics of the premise of where I think we are headed. That would be something that is at least similar to socialism. As a very basic foundation, which is where one should always start, some definitions.

Webster Comprehensive Dictionary:

liberalism n. 1. An attitude toward social, economic, political, and ecclesiastical policies, favoring gradual reform and ordered change rather than reaction or revolution and opposed equally to arbitrary censorship and undue license in dealing with ideas. 2. A doctrine often equated with laissez-faire economics, holding to free trade and to minimum interference by the state with economic activities: contrasted to socialism, syndicalism, and communism. 3. In political theory, adherence to policies of gradual reform through parliamentary procedure, the upholding of civil liberties as central in a free society, and a belief in the doctrine of progress: opposed to conservatism. 4. (pertains to both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches) 5. Loosely, general opposition to conservatism and reaction in any field.

conservatism n. Conservative principles and practices, as in criticism. theology, politics, ect.; disposition or tendency to be conservative.

conservative adj. 1. Adhering to and tending to preserve the existing order of things; opposed to change or progress 2. Conserving; preservative. 3. Moderate; cautious; within a safe margin: a conservative estimate or statement -n. A conservative person.

progressive n. One who believes in progress or progressive methods; especially, one who favors or promotes reform or changes, as in politics or religion; a radical: opposed to conservative or reactionary.

socialism n. Public collective ownership or control of the basic means of production, distribution, and exchange, with the avowed aim of operating for use rather than for profit, and of assuring to each member of society an equitable share of goods, services, and welfare benefits: as a system of social and economic organization planned, attempted, or achieved through various methods- in Utopian or Christian Socialism, through cooperative communal groups holding all things in common (approximating the philosophic anarchism of Thoreau, Tolstoy, and Kropotkin, and the communalism and commensalism of the early and undivided church); in Guild Socialism, through the organization of producer groups and the professions in syndicalist guilds to be represented in a federal legislative body; in Fabian or British Labour Party Socialism, through parliamentary democracy using gradualist evolutionary processes; in Marxist-Leninist State Socialism, through revolution, expropriation, and dictatorship of the so-called proletariat, in short, Communism. Compare MIXED ECONOMY. - creeping socialism Anything considered as a gradual or piecemeal encroachment upon the system of private property and free enterprise through state action: used as an epithet.

democrat n. 1. One who favors a democracy. 2. One who believes in political and social equality.

republican adj. Pertaining to, of the nature of, or suitable for a republic; also, of or pertaining to any party supporting republican government. -n. One who advocates or upholds a republican form of government or belongs to a party upholding republican government; one who believes in equality and liberty.

The progressive movement has been around since close to the beginning of the 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was a progressive. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was a progressive. Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was a progressive. There was a Progressive Party, in fact, it was incarnated three times. The first time was by Teddy Roosevelt and his running mate, Hiram Johnson, in 1912. They were defeated in 1916 by Woodrow Wilson. After Roosevelt's death, Hiram Johnson was leader of the Progressives, although, there was no official party in existence, and server several terms in congress.

The second try was led by Robert la Fayette in the 1920's because the Democrat Party was not far enough left to implement social change. This was a more socialistic platform than the first inception, calling for government control over private industry. The Socialist Party and the Farmer-Labor Party along with the unions, joined forces with The Progressive Party, but the Worker's Party (Communist Party) was turned away, because it would have been political suicide. It didn't matter, they got less than 1% of the vote. The party faded away again, but was successful on the state level in the 1930's in Wisconsin, where La Fayette's sons won state level political bids.

The last attempt for the Progressive Party stemmed out of the FDR administration. FDR was a progressive Democrat and, like every other president, surrounded himself with like-minded people. He appointed Henry Wallace as Secretary of Agriculture, where he immediately started implementing radical policies and writing legislation. FDR named him as his running mate in his 1940 campaign. The 1944 FDR campaign was different, southern conservative Democrats didn't like his views on equal rights for blacks and women and he was ostracized from the party. He was appointed a cabinet position, but was eventually ousted by Truman, and became the leader of the Progressive Party.

How does this pertain today? The Progressive Party is all but defunct. But, the progressive movement still lives and is in good health. Hillary Clinton has described herself as a progressive, she is supposed to be one of the most intelligent women in the country, do you think she doesn't know what that means. Barack Obama described himself as a progressive. Nancy Pelosi, a progressive. There are a host of progressive Democrats. There are a host of Republican progressives, also. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, they're all progressives. Progressive ideology has been permeating politics for decades. The problem is that progressive ideals are based on a lack of personal/individual freedoms and liberties, that people can't or shouldn't function without government intervention, that we need to be monitored like children because we can't function on our own. They are based on the idea that every thing is stacked against the average citizen, on purpose, and there needs to be "social justice" to level out the inequities. One of the problems with "social justice" is that it doesn't level the field in the middle, it only brings all classes to the lowest level, which gives government ABSOLUTE power.

We are headed into a storm of socialist concepts and ideas, all of them designed with one goal, ABSOLUTE power. Card Check, gives way too much power to the union bosses. Cap and Trade, is based on a false concept and estimates for per family taxation ranges from $1500 to $3000 per year. "Health Care" reform doesn't reform health care, but adds a whole new tax base, not for the needed funds, because it's nowhere close, but to break small business. If the three bills go through, it will be the trifecta of death for small business. Over 40% of employment comes from businesses with less than 25 employees. What happens when they're gone? Government nanny state. Government ownership. Government employment. Government food supply. Government energy supply.

AIG, Fanny and Freddy, GM, Chrysler, and really, who knows how many other banks and insurance companies are already government controlled. I hear people say they aren't actually controlling them, but who fired the CEO of GM earlier this year? The point is, it's already happening, whether one chooses to see it or believe or not, it's happening. Democrats and Republicans are both in the pockets of big business across the board. It doesn't make it right. It makes them equally guilty for selling out the American people and compromising our sovereignty.

That's the foundation. It is so much deeper and complex than this. I implore and encourage everyone to do their own research. I am just a schlub and I get things wrong and have been known to get stuff from questionable resources, although I am trying to wrangle that problem in. There are valuable resources out there. There are voices out there that I think have it right, and some that are just towing an agenda line. What we have is too important to throw away to elitists who think they know better, but they haven't lived your life, or your friends and families lives, or my life. I know what's better for me, how about you?