Roman-Style versus Barbarian-Style Progressivism

Today's American ideology is Progressivism, the belief that the state knows and does best, and that the average person is capable of assessing only so much as the state allows. People are not able to decide how to save for retirement or how take care of their own health care. Nor are they able to choose what kind of physician to hire or the quality of the butcher from whom they wish to purchase meat. They cannot decide how much school to attend or whether they would like to support a government program to study martians or the regulation of energy. All of these and many, many more decisions must be made by their "betters", by bureaucrats and officials educated in state-run schools and taught the catechism of the state religion--that the STATE IS GOD; that GOVERNMENT KNOWS ALL; and that BARACK OBAMA IS OUR SAVIOR.

But within America's secular faith, the faith in the omnipotent state, there is a serious competition between two schools of Progressives. One school of Progressives descends directly from the Roman dictatorship of Augustus Caesar, and so is the more reactionary of the two. The other descends from the manorial rule of the Barbarian savages who invaded the Roman Empire in the late first millenium.

The Roman Progressives hold that the plebeians must be given their due. They must be provided with bread and circus. They must be told that they are most important. The Roman Progressives know that no matter how much money they transfer to themselves, to Wall Street and to the Ochs Sulzbergers' friends, the plebeians will support them so long as they say it is done in their name and so long as they have their free bread to prove it. The Roman-style Progressives are of course the Democrats.

The Barbarian Progressives agree with their forebears, Clovis and Charlemagne, that the plebes need not be taken into account at all. They believe with Aristotle that some were meant to be masters and others meant to be slaves. They, like the Roman Progressives, understand that the public is simply too simple minded to understand that the policies that they advocate, beginning with the Federal Reserve Bank, are harmful to them. Instead of relying on bread-and-circus, the Barbarian Progressives motivate their simple minded followers with anger about the Roman-style Progressives. The Barbarian-style Progressives are of course the Rockefeller Republicans.

The term Progressivism refers to the progressive looting of those who work on behalf of those who do not; the looting of those who buy milk and bread on behalf of those who run hedge funds and the New York Times.

Progressivism rode to power on the promise that more democracy would "solve problems". Since its ascendancy in 1900 or so, it has caused involvement in at least five foreign wars; it has doused the fiery innovation and productivity growth of the 19th century; it has left Americans with a stagnant real wage; it has caused the Depression of the 1930s; the stagflation of the 1970s and the bailout of 2009; it has caused increasing wealth inequality as the Progressives oversee the massive transfer of America's wealth to the super-rich via the Federal Reserve Bank; and it has seen the crippling of cities as destructive government programs dominate their landscapes.

Ask Your State Republican Committee Chair: Does The Democratic Press Support You?

Let's say you're a fan of a Superbowl 43 football team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and that the name of the Steelers' coach is Mike Tomlin. Let's say the other team's, the Arizona Cardinals', coach's name is Ken Whisenhunt. Let's also say that the month before Superbowl 43, the Arizona media ran repeated headlines saying what a great coach Mike Tomlin of Pittsburgh is and how lucky America is that Mike Tomlin and Ken Whisenhunt are the two teams' coaches. If you were a Pittsburgh fan, might you wonder why?

In recent months the nation's leading Democratic Party newspaper, the New York Times, whose editorial views are well within the Democratic Party's socialist wing, has had nothing but positive things to say about the New York State Republican Committee's new chair, Edward F. Cox. Might Republicans have cause to wonder about this?

Why on earth would a socialist Democratic propaganda source be saying that it likes Edward F. Cox?

Dear reader, I propose to you that Republicans and Democrats are like two superbowl teams that compete every year. On one end of the field are the Democratic Party socialists, ham-handed medieval reactionaries, advocates of mid-twentieth century style "planning" whose only solution to the problems of the world is to tax the productive out of existence and reward the welfare cheats on Wall and Broad.

On the other end of the field are the Republicans, supporters of progressive, market-based innovation and spontaneous order. The advocates of ideas that work, not of feudalistic ideas that deceive.

But if the coach of the socialist Democrats praises the Republican coach to the heavens, might we conclude that the teams are not really independent, that something is crooked?

I urge you to determine whether the Democratic Party press and electronic media in your town is supporting Republicans. If so, you might ask yourself, "Why?" "Why are the Democrats supporting Republicans?"

In the case of New York, questions need to be raised about why the new chair of the Republican Committee is being praised by the socialist Democrats, and whether Mr. Cox has been on the receiving end of socialist largesse while an attorney.

Chris Edes for Rochester, NY School Board

I just mailed the following press release on behalf of the New York Republican Liberty Caucus:

--For Immediate Release--
--Republican Liberty Caucus--

Republican Liberty Caucus
--845-294-****--
--845-657-****--

The Republican Liberty Caucus of New York, a group of approximately 200 liberty-oriented Republicans around the state, has endorsed Chris Edes, who is running on the Libertarian ticket in Rochester. Mr. Edes was endorsed on October 12 at a special meeting of the New York executive committee. Also endorsed by the Libertarian Party, Mr. Edes will appear on the ballot on the Libertarian Party line.

Speaking about the endorsement, Edes said: "I'm pleased to receive the RLC endorsement. The Republican Liberty Caucus is the vanguard of Republican thinking for the 21st Century."

Mr. Edes aims to bring new ideas to the school debate. He is not part of the political establishment, and so is not part of the Democratic Party's failed educational policies that respond to political pressure from teachers' unions and an educational establishment that is encumbered by lockstep political correctness; neglect of basic three r's education; and a willingness to tax this State out of existence.

As Diane Ravitch points out in her book Left Back: A Century of Battles over School Reform, progressive education and the cumbersome bureaucracy associated with big government have left generations of students unable to perform and a nation that has flagged in the global marketplace.

To find out more information about Mr. Edes' campaign, visit his website at www.vote-for-chris.net .

The Republican Liberty Caucus favors a reduced scope of government in order to permit New York to become more competitive. Future generations will be deprived of freedom and the fruits of economic innovation because of encroaching socialism. For further information about the Republican Liberty Caucus please call:

Carl Svensson
Mitchell Langbert

Letter to Edward F. Cox

I have posted (via regular mail and e-mail) the following letter to Edward F. Cox. I invite others to write with similar concerns.

PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494

Mr. Edward F. Cox
Chairman, New York State
Republican Committee
315 State Street
Albany, NY 12210
October 23, 2009

Dear Mr. Cox:

I am a Republican committee person in the Town of Olive, New York and a member of the New York Republican Liberty Caucus. I would like some information about your positions. I understand that you are planning a run for governor. I recently met Rudy Giuliani and am considering backing him. I am considering you as well. However, I would appreciate your answering the following questions, which I will post on my blog, http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

1. What is your position on the multi-trillion dollar Bush-Obama bailout of Wall Street?

2. What is your plan for reduction of government spending in New York State?

3. What will be your strategy for dealing with Dennis Rivera’s SEIU organization, the various teachers’ unions and other pressure groups that have been sucking the state dry?

4. What is your position on curriculum reform? Are you willing to appoint Diane Ravitch to head the Department of Education and to end the use of New York’s schools for left-wing propaganda?

5. What is your plan to revive New York’s economy from its current public sector-induced death spiral?

6. The extremist left-wing, Democratic Party public relations organization, the New York Times, recently called you a “moderate”. I consider this a serious mark against you. Can you name five critical issues on which you diverge sharply from the Times’ Democratic Party editors? What are the details?

7. How would you have handled the race in the 23rd Congressional district and Dede Scozzafava’s nomination differently from Joe Mondello? Given that the Republican predecessor, John McHugh, was a loot-and-spend, big-government Republican, who was appointed to Secretary of the Army by Barack Obama, what would you have done to induce a smaller-government outcome in the north country?

I am posting this letter on my blog and await your response.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert
http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
mlangbert@hvc.rr.com