Sunday, March 28, 2010

Why Progressives Hate Democracy and the Tea Party

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the Tea Party is the Democratic Party media's reaction to it. Rather than attempt to understand the Tea Party, the Democratic media and the party it represents have been chiefly interested in slandering the individuals who participate. Nothing threatens "progressives" more than democracy and true participation in it. Progressives aim to permit participation in politics by average Americans only in the Orwellian sense of participation that obeys progressives' direction.

For example, there have recently been lies aired on all of the progressive media, including Fox and its O'Reilly program as well as MSNBC, CNN and the networks, that the Tea Party has engaged in violence when it has not and that it is especially prone to violence. The Republicrat media fail to compare violence rates among equivalently situated "progressive" movements such as labor unions and the Tea Party. In fact, the Tea Party is not violent, and the Democratic Party media's claiming so is but one more bit of evidence of its authoritarian nature.

Peter Levine wrote a book New Progressive Era that argues that the Progressivism of the early 20th century, depicted as particularly democratic and participative, ought to be recreated. Although Progressivism advocated democratic forms, its essence was to centralize power and install dictatorial "experts" in a wide range of newly created, dictatorial roles such as the Federal Reserve Bank and the hoped-to-be socialistic Federal Trade Commission. In fact, like the totalitarians depicted in George Orwell's 1984, Levine uses the language of democracy to justify iron fisted authoritarianism.

The "progressive" media's reaction to the Tea Party is a case in point. Progressivism curtailed democracy while at the same time encouraging wider latitude to public debate. The wider latitude is a strategy to reduce democracy because the public lacks the ability to discuss the wider span of technical issues that are then downloaded onto dictatorial experts of the progressives' choosing. As well, as Mancur Olson and George Stigler have shown, wide democratic latitude facilitates extraction of special interest rents because voters are unable to monitor complex decision making. The result of Progressivism was less freedom and less democracy despite the illusory democratic formalism. When there are beginnings of democracy, the "progressive" media steps in and begins a process of slander and deception to stop it.

Progressives' instinctive reaction to the Tea Party, which is a more robust working class movement than the labor movement that Levine and his Progressives glorify, is not to appreciate that new kinds of people who have been repeatedly abused by the two party system have become active and started to participate, but rather to slander them. There is nothing that Levine and his authoritarian left wing colleagues want to see less than democracy and they will stop at nothing at suppressing democracy. Should progressives like Levine and Barack Obama succeed in fully obtaining power, they will not flinch at totalitarian methods, suppression, imprisonment and forcible unemployment of dissenters. Political correctness in universities, whereby tens of thousands of conservatives have been excluded from faculty posts in a barrage of authoritarian suppression much, much greater in extent and force than McCarthyism, is an example of what "progressives" and Orwellian advocates like George Soros would institute.

In particular, the idea that central planning or government rather than markets can result in economic progress for the average American is historically demonstrated to be crackpot nonsense, yet the "progressive" media and the two party system claim that through government they can "solve problems". But every problem they aim to solve through socialism such as poverty, social security, Wall Street, the business cycle, urban planning, all end up much worse because of the planning. In countries where central planning and socialism have been taken furthest, such as the Soviet Union, the life expectancy is still well below norms for the industrialized world and the standard of living is far below that of other industrialized countries.

Progressives hate democracy because they want to install policies that harm the average American. The motive behind the intention to destroy Americans' quality of life is power. Instinctively the progressives know that protests must be suppressed if their lie-based belief system is to succeed. By nature, progressives have authoritarian personalities. Unless they can control, dominate and suppress the average American, or participate in such suppression, they grow violent.


Peter Levine said...

I don't imagine for a moment that it will do any good, but I feel I must say, in case anyone is willing to listen, that I and my book are against the centralizing tendencies of early-20th-century progressivism. I am profoundly committed to freedom and pluralism. I would never want to see anyone jailed in the United States for expressing views contrary to my own. I have never endorsed any form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism in any forum, including any of my books--unless it is authoritarian to defend the kind of mixed economy that developed in the mid-20th century. I love democracy and don't hate the Tea Party movement, whose legitimacy I would defend even though I don't think I share its objectives.

Mitchell Langbert said...

Thanks for your comments.