Is Obama a Socialist?

[DuncanONeil]

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Progressives is that they seek to work in the shadows and hide their true intent.

No more so than any other political entity.

Not quite Progressives actually “prefer” the shadows for two reasons. They know that the people would not willingly accept what they want and they espouse the “end justifies the means”.

That intent is clearly describe thus; "While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms.

If it is not then how does one expect anything to get done? And exactly which reforms are you speaking about?

Which reforms? Any of them! All of them! That which is directed to be reformed from the Halls of Government! Perhaps actively involved was a weak statement. The position is that ONLY the Government is capable of effecting reform. And the only way for that to occur is for the Government to control that being reformed.

The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.

Which is exactly what the founding fathers intended. That our government be able to change from within without the need to have a blood spilling confrontation at every turn. No one is saying anything about abolishing the Consitution eaither or the entire system of government...only following the elastic clauses that our Founding Fathers put into it on purpose so that it could grow without threatening the abolishment of the state. There is no Biblical warning for fear of revelation in the Constitution saying that we all go to hell if we change anything. The founding fathers never ment for the document to be unchangeable or become stangnent. Sounds like common sence to me.

Here I must vociferously disagree. No one can deny that the Declaration of Independence is a founding document. That document clearly states; “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “ Hence the position that the only redress that the founders foresaw was “our government be able to change from within without ... confrontation at every turn.” is not accurate. Further if the founders had intended to create a readily elastic document as apparently many believe, well the process would not be so stringent. Yes the Constitution can and has been changed but not on a whim. Something that has been occurring all to often of late without even the input of Congress let alone the people. Unchangeable and stagnant are neither in the lexicon of the Progressive, they perceive the Constitution as obsolete and an impediment to Government.

At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.

Hence all amendments, the Founding Fathers themselves even saw the need to be able to change right from the get go, any close study of the Constitution and or the Federalist Papers or written history can tell anyone that.

Changeable is different that free to be interpreted in any manner a person sees fit are not the same thing. Way too much of the power of our modern government can be traced to an unfettered interpretation of the phrase “provide for the common welfare”? For me to apply that small phrase would require something applying to the people as a whole not a small portion of the people to the detriment of the rest.

Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction -- the vision -- needed for true progressive government. 'All that progressives ask or desire,' wrote Woodrow Wilson, 'is permission -- in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.'"

And that was aplicable back when Wilson said it...it may or may not still be aplicable today that remains to be seen. We are just as mindful as any other American of the need to avoid lapsing into somthing that is not desirable. We do not want a totalitarian state. We do not want things that will be bad for our country or it's people for we the people are the state.

But it is just exactly that. The Progressive movement will lead to a totalitarian state. It can do no less as the position is that ONLY the Government knows what is the correct thing to do. For that to occur the Government has to impose actions on the people, the very definition of totalitarian.

Surely Progressives believe these things are good. But even the simplest of their ideas, throwing away the Constitution and let the Government do what it will can be seen as a bad row to hoe. If one is honest that is what Washington is now trying to do. Also I have never identified Progressives as associated with either major political party. They are in fact neither.

No I a will stop there.

Blinks....no one wants to throw away the Constitution least of all the Progressives!

How is it that “the Constitution is an impediment to Government” eludes you? How can that be interpreted in any manner than the Constitution is in the way and needs to be removed?
“The Constitution was written and ratified to secure liberty through limited government. Central to its design were two principles: federalism and economic liberty. But at the beginning of the 20th century, Progressives began a frontal assault on those principles. Drawing on the new social sciences and a primitive understanding of economic relationships, their efforts reached fruition during the New Deal when the Constitution was essentially rewritten, without benefit of amendment. In a new Cato book, Richard Epstein traces this history, showing how Progressives replaced competitive markets with government-created cartels and monopolies. Please join us for a discussion of the roots of modern government in the Progressive Era. “ (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2655)
“One of the most telling moments in the healthcare reform debate occurred when Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trademark expression of perpetual astonishment kicked into hyper-drive after a reporter inquired about the constitutional status of ObamaCare. Pelosi paused and asked, “Are you serious?”
The shocking nature of the question jarred her sufficiently to repeat her response, pushing out something like a rhetorical hiccup. The subtext was impossible to ignore: progressives simply do not take the Constitution seriously, a point that also informed the statement issued by her office later, which assured all interested parties that the federal government can do pretty much what it wants through the commerce clause.” (http://www.thecitizen.com/blogs/dr-m...y-constitution)

The main problem with all this anti-progressiveness that stems from the more consevative side of the party is that instead of listening they are too busy pushing or spouting their agenda. They seem to refuse to step back from the fear mongering for just a second and see that the people they are debating with are indeed fellow Americans.
Unlike the liberal side that “instead of listening they are too busy pushing or spouting their agenda. They seem to refuse to step back from the fear mongering for just a second and see that the people they are (shouting) with are indeed fellow Americans.” Add to all that direct personal attacks and insults. Present company excluded! Some credit for that surely accrues to Tantric.

So for a change why don't you set the example for your constituents and actually listen without pre-judging what is said; that way instead of trying to put words into the other persons mouth or use sophistry to twist what was said into somthing that was not after the fact we can actually move forward.
My constituents? I assure you I have many inputs. I receive correspondence from the Democrats, Media Matters, Huffington, several news sources (although papers are the least of these) such as Broadcast news and news magazines (and several specialty magazines).