Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 03:28:31 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: Which Way is PROGRESS? People who think of themselves (or at least CALL themselves) "Progressive" have been promoting positions that were considered conservative, right-wing or even reactionary just a few decades ago. Let me cite some examples. When I was young, the "peace party" was Republican, and especially the conservative wing. The "war party" was the Democrats. They got us into WWI, WWII, and Korea (AKA Truman's War). During the 1930's and early 40's the Republicans were pushing the neutrality act, while FDR was trying to get the US into the war in Europe. Even to the point of ordering the Navy to attack German ships and to keep their actions secret The Ruben James incident for example. (Imagine a President doing that today). Pearl Harbor got him off the hook on that. But in those days it was reason enough for the Liberals to go to war just to remove a really bad dictator. They didn't need to show that he was a direct and immanent threat to US. It was enough that he was "gassing his own people". Now it is Conservatives who say that a dictator being really bad is reason enough for war. In the 1960 election, it was the Liberal JFK who wanted (and did) cut tax rates, especially for the "rich", with a top income tax rate reduced from 91% to 70%. That is more than Bush wants to reduce it. And it was Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater who opposed the JFK tax cuts because they would mean deficits. In those days, it was Hoover and the Republicans who worried about deficits, and Liberals who didn't. Who said "Don't worry, we owe it to ourselves"? Foreign Trade: Jerry Brown, Ralph Nader and Russ Feingold have joined with Pat Buchanan and Jesse Helms to oppose GATT just as they opposed NAFTA. The claim is that international organizations will overrule our "national sovereignty". This is not a new issue: free trade vs. protectionism has been debated since the country was founded. And yes, there is a tradeoff between nationalism and involvement with the rest of the world. Protectionists have always argued that "we" should keep "our" jobs here and can stay rich by letting the rest of the world remain poor. Those who supported this view were called Conservative in the 1930's and they lived in fear of "one world". Those who favored foreign trade were Liberal or Progressive and saw themselves as "internationalists". Remember that Robert M. LaFollette, Godfather of the Progressive movement, was a leader in the fight against the Payne-Aldrich tariff, and he urged President Taft to veto it. Social Security and Progressive Taxation: Liberal Democrats and others who want to claim the name "progressive" have been in the fore front of those praising Social Security while the only criticism of it has come from Barry Goldwater in his 1964 campaign, and Milton Friedman (even most conservative politicians have been afraid to speak out against SS- the 3rd rail of US politics). The SS tax is now a significant part of Federal income. It is a flat tax that applies only to earned income, starting with the first dollar but exempting all income above a limit (currently about $80,000). This is "progressive"? Even the most Right Wing people I have heard of want a flat tax on income that stays constant for all income. New Technology: Russ Feingold has taken the lead in fighting bio-technology with his battle against rBGH. The "progressive" Madison Capital Times supports him even when he is using political pressure to block the UW ag school from conducting research on it. Other self styled "progressives" were trying to block the Human Genome project fearing that it might lead to politically unacceptable knowledge. Today it is a strange combination Left and Right that fears genetic engineering. Religious Conservatives fear that stem cells will be successful in treating a variety diseases, and some Liberals fear that GMO crops will provide cheaper and more nutritious food, or become a source of new medical treatments. Again there is a long history of tension between those who want to expand knowledge and welcome new technology; and those who fear that expanded productivity will throw people out of work and that new knowledge will undermine the social order, be dangerous, or be used for evil. But progressives used to be on the other side of this debate. And finally, a Capital Times editorial complaining about California's Proposition 13. Passed in 1978 it reduced a rate of property tax increase of 10% per MONTH to 2% per year. But, it laments, to get additional revenue the state had to increase car registration fees! So this is the new "progressive" position: better that people should be taxed out of their homes than that cars should be expected to pay part of the cost of road construction. ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834 ADDED Nov 2003. stephen.fromm@verizon.net (Stephen J. Fromm) wrote: > >There was once a debate in the math community as to whether it should >come out officially against Reagan's "Star Wars" program. In an >exchange in the letters to _Notices of the AMS_, someone pointed out >that von Neumann was on the conservative side of the fence. Hi, By "conservative side of the fence" I assume that you mean he favored taking a chance on investing in a new and untried technology? Is that the normal or historic use of the term "conservative"? Or has the culture in modern American society altered and maybe even reversed the meaning of terms like Conservative and Liberal?