It is not just in Iraq that the political Left has an investment in failure. Domestically as well as internationally, the Left has long had a vested interest in poverty and social malaise.
The old advertising slogan, “Progress is our most important product,” has never applied to the Left. Whether it is successful black schools in the United States or third-world countries where millions of people have been rising out of poverty in recent years, the left has shown little interest.
Progress in general seems to hold little interest for people who call themselves “progressives.” What arouses them are denunciations of social failures and accusations of wrongdoing.
One wonders what they would do in heaven.
We are in no danger of producing heaven on earth but there have been some remarkable developments in some third-world countries within the past generation that have allowed many very poor people to rise to a standard of living that was never within their reach before.
The August 18 issue of the distinguished British magazine The Economist reveals the economic progress in Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American nations that has given a better life to millions of their poorest citizens.
Some of the economic policies that have led to these results are discussed in The Economist but it is doubtful that members of the political left will stampede there to find out what those policies were.
They have shown no such interest in how tens of millions of people in China and tens of millions of people in India have risen out of poverty within the past generation.
Despite whatever the left may say, or even believe, about their concern for the poor, their actual behavior shows their interest in the poor to be greatest when the poor can be used as a focus of the Left's denunciations of society.
When the poor stop being poor, they lose the attention of the Left. What actions on the part of the poor, or what changes in the economy, have led to drastic reductions in poverty seldom arouse much curiosity, much less celebration.
This is not a new development in our times. Back in the 19th century, when Karl Marx presented his vision of the impoverished working class rising to attack and destroy capitalism, he was disappointed when the workers grew less revolutionary over time, as their standards of living improved.
At one point, Marx wrote to his disciples: “The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing.”
Think about that. Millions of human beings mattered to him only in so far as they could serve as cannon fodder in his jihad against the existing society.
If they refused to be pawns in his ideological game, then they were “nothing.”
No one on the left would say such things so plainly today, even to themselves. But their actions speak louder than words.
Blacks are to the Left today what the working class were to Marx in the 19th century — pawns in an ideological game.
Blacks who rise out of poverty are of no great interest to the Left, unless the way they do so is by attacking society.
The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 but the Left has shown no more interest in why that is so than they have shown in why many millions of people have risen out of poverty in Latin America or in China and India.
Where progress can be plausibly claimed to be a result of policies favored by the left, then such claims are made.
A whole mythology has grown up that the advancement of minorities and women in America is a result of policies promoted by the Left in the 1960s. Such claims are often based on nothing more substantial than ignoring the history of the progress made prior to 1960.
Retrogressions in the wake of the policies of the 1960s are studiously ignored — the runaway crime rates, the disintegration of black families, and the ghetto riots of the 1960s that have left many black communities still barren more than 40 years later.
Whatever does not advance the Left agenda is “nothing.”
2007-08-21 05:17:36 · 13 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So what's your question?
2007-08-21 05:21:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
"The August 18 issue of the distinguished British magazine The Economist reveals the economic progress in Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American nations that has given a better life to millions of their poorest citizens."
You do realize that these are left leaning nations and it is their progressive leftist policies which account for their success?
Women's and minority rights are due to "progress made before 1960." You realize this progress, if any, came to fruition in the 60's?
I'm not a leftist, I'm a moderate, but this tirade you have written is one of the silliest things I have ever read. I wish I could have those few minutes back. I gotta quit reading this stuff, I can feel my brain twisting into knots.
2007-08-21 05:29:51 · answer #2 · answered by zero 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You do know that Brazil, Argentina, other Latin American nations, China and India progressed economically through progressive changes don't you?
If I have this correct, you seem to be saying progressives are not good because they don't look at examples of progressive ideas improving other nations.
2007-08-21 05:25:41 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who has an 'agenda' of equality and revamping a system that was designed to elevate merely a few and keep millions of others down ...would gladly and willingly stand down when this equality is achieved!
Happily so!
This entitlement progam of the wealthy wasn't designed by nature or divinity...it was totally designed by man and greed!
2007-08-21 05:36:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Left has NO investment in failure.
It is THEY the Left that believe the American dream belongs to everyone.
The right is an elitist ruling class party that DEPENDS on the poor staying poor to stay in power.
So no, you are wrong.
2007-08-21 05:25:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you're going to continue to just cut & paste questions, how about just posting the link? Better yet, try posting your own thoughts.
2007-08-21 05:22:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's just as true as saying, "when the rich stop being rich, they lose the attention of the right."
2007-08-21 05:20:10 · answer #7 · answered by Steve 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It's not about the people it's about the votes.
It's not about diversity it's about the votes.
It's not about what's right or wrong for our nation... it's about the votes.
2007-08-21 05:25:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I actually read the whole thing. thats got to be worth something.
2007-08-21 05:21:25 · answer #9 · answered by secretservice 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
another example would be global warming , for some reason the left is ignoring facts and hoping for a disaster so they can so i told you so
2007-08-21 05:21:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
For me yes, at that point they could survive.
2007-08-21 05:22:18 · answer #11 · answered by edubya 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋