How to Tell a Conservative from a Progressive

I had an interesting discussion with my college-age grandson last night. It centered mainly on the 2 different ideologies in our country, how they differ, and is there any reconciliation. I asked him to explain to me his understanding of the difference between Conservatism and Progressivism.

His answer ran along the lines that Conservatives don't want change, preferring the status-quo or what worked in the past; while Progressives are for change, the change needed to fix what is wrong.

He was correct in explaining the definition of the terms according to Webster, but he did not understand the differences in their ideologies. Here is how I see the differences.

Conservatives believe:

1. The Individual is the backbone of society,
2. In the power and goodness of the Individual; that left to themselves, the Individual will try to better themselves and society,
3. That Individuals are best able to choose their destiny, what is best, and can collectively govern themselves successfully,
4. That Individuals should be rewarded for their productivity and value to the society.
5. That there are eternal truths and laws that never change, that obedience to these truths will always bring the same results.

Progressives believe:

1. The  Individual only exists to strengthen and promote the good of the Society,
2. That Individuals can not be trusted to choose what is right; that left to themselves, the Individual will lie, cheat, and steal from others and the Society,
3. That Society must monitor and regulate the Individual to prevent abuses, (corporations are now Individuals, as well,)
4. That Society should reward all individuals equally, regardless of their productivity or value to society.
5. That all truth is relative and changeable; that situations, circumstances, and desires dictate what is truth.

Using these definitions, we can see that Conservatives are generally found in:

1. The Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian and Independent political parties,
2. Countries where democracy exists, such as; The United States, Switzerland, Germany and maybe England, France, Spain and Italy.

While Progressives are generally found in:

1. The Democrat, Socialist and Communist political parties,
2. Socialist, Communist and other totalitarian governments, such as; Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, The Taliban, etc.

So, taking these things into consideration, we can see that it is fairly difficult to form any compromises with such extreme positions. 

1. Either the Individual is the backbone of society or they are the fodder that feeds society.
2. Individuals have innate goodness and can be trusted or they can never be trusted. If they can only be trusted some of the time, who decides when they can be trusted and when they can't?
3. If we have bee-watchers watching the bee-watcher, who is watching the bee-watcher, who is watching the . . . who will be left for the bee-watchers to watch?
4. If you reward everyone equally, regardless of their value or performance, won't the productive individuals loose their ambition to succeed and how can we ever motivate the under-productive to pull their own weight?
5. Without definable, unchanging truths, how can faith be established in laws or governments?

We also find Progressives slandering the Conservatives, labeling them as; greedy, selfish, stingy, and hoarders, while they applaud their idealistic goals of equal distribution of wealth, health and happiness. The Progressive motto, "the greatest good for the greatest number" sounds very great and good, but what about "the smallest group that is sacrificed for the good of the largest group"? Do they have a voice in the matter?

All people have an obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves, but Conservatives believe that is a choice for the Individual to make, not a mandate from the Government who will take what they think is needed to invest in a cause whether the Individual supports the cause or not.

Wait, who are "they"? In a Progressive Society, who governs, who decides, who controls the money and the people? 

Those who instigated the system. Individuals. 

But Progressives don't believe that Individuals can be trusted to make the right choices and it looks like they may be right. There has never been a Progressive/Socialistic/Communistic/Totalitarian government where the leaders have not stolen, conscripted, taxed, or taken everything they possibly can from the Society. Russia, China, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, Columbia, England, France or the United States of America, the story is all the same. Take as much as you can as fast as you can.

Every deposed dictator left office with hundreds of millions of dollars in their personal bank accounts. Who was the King of Graft?

The Palestinian Liberation Organization had been given billions of dollars to help them establish a homeland in the Middle East. When Yassar Arafat, the leader of the PLO, died, it was discovered that he had over $2 BILLION US DOLLARS socked away in Swiss bank accounts. His posterity is still fighting with the PLO over who has the rights to the money.

Leaders in our own country enter the Congress or other government service with modest incomes and retire as multi-millionaires, with millions more accumulated as they dance around the speaking circuits. Hillary Clinton stated that when she and her husband left the White House, they were so deep in debt they were paupers, but 14 years later, they have a net worth of over $80 MILLION dollars. Bill Clinton even received $500,000 for a speech he never gave.

Well, these are all just facts. You, the reader will need to determine whether our country will be better off with the Progressive path or the Conservative course. 

Choose wisely or someone else will choose it for you.

Photos courtesy: http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/12/saturday-funnies-137/

The Gingrich Who Can't Handle Money

Poor Newt.
The old guy from the establishment, who thought he was anti-establishment.
The old guy who thought he was the only "true Conservative" in the campaign.
The old guy who couldn't remember who he was supposed to sleep with.
Now, he is the old guy who can't handle money.

After a hard-fought battle for the Republican Presidential Nomination, consisting mainly of flailing helplessly at shadows on the wall and ghosts from his past, Newt Gingrich finally tossed in the towel.  He will grudgingly be forced to support Romney as the Primary Pick, but not because he feels Romney is the right choice.  It is because it is the only way to get someone to bail him out of the mess he made. You see, Newt's campaign owes about $4,000,000.

Regardless of what he believes or says, the only "true Conservative" spends more than he makes.  Not only was his campaign spending more than it was taking in, he was hypocritically stating how he was the best choice for President so he could bring the Country back into balance.

Joel Siegel stated in his article in Good Morning America entitled, Newt Gingrich $4 Million in Debt: Staffers and Creditors Fume how much is owned and to whom.

Now, Romney and the Republican National Committee are suggesting that they may help to bail him out of this mess.  That would be a big mistake.  Newt, the size of the mess you make is not nearly as important how well you clean it up.

Julie Bykowicz in her article entitled ‘Newt Inc.’ Bankrupt as Campaign Operates on Shoestring, explains that while the campaign is upside down, Newt has amassed over $7,000,000 in assets before the campaign began from his consulting the past 10 years.  Therefore, the honorable and truly conservative action on his part would be to liquidate enough assets to pay back the debt that he created.

My advice to Mitt: Don't bail Newt out.  He is a big boy and has the means to fix his own mistakes.

Photo from Blue Herald