Conservatism vs Liberalism vs Progressivism

I will attempt to explain the differences between

Conservatives, Liberals & Progressives

A vast majority of conservatives are bible believing  Jesus followers. The standard conservative values revolve around living a moral, legal, and honest life and showing integrity of spirit! So the values would be inline with the following virtues:

Abortion is a no no! Thou shalt not kill period. A fetus at conception has a soul and spirit! Their is a spiritual dynamic that takes place at conception in which God has ordained that event in the womb!

Constitutional Rights are a God given list of rights that came with the founding of our nation. One Nation under God. We support our constitution in it's fullest capacity!

Freewill - God has created the earth and galaxies and has given man, who is made in His image a body, soul and spirit that is free and should not be ruled by a tyrannical authority of any kind!

Morally Upright - They don't condone, out of wedlock sexual activity, normally civil unions are off limits, same sex anything is wrong, perversion, pedophilia, lgbt agendas and lifestyles, or the selling of one's God given body for money!

Conservatism in the United States is a political and social philosophy characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, limited government, support for Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business, opposition to trade unions, strong national defense, free trade, anti-communism, pro-individualism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by communism, socialism, and moral relativism.

As with all major American political parties, liberty is a core value. American conservatives generally consider individual liberty—within the bounds of American values—as the fundamental trait of democracy; this perspective contrasts with that of modern liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice and emphasize the need for state intervention to achieve these goals.[8][9] American political conservatives believe in limiting government in size and scope, and in a balance between national government and states' rights. Apart from some right-libertarians, they tend to favor strong action in areas they believe to be within government's legitimate jurisdiction, particularly national defense and law enforcement. Social conservatives, many of them religious, often oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, and civil unions, and would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. They often favor Christian prayer in public schools and government funding for private Christian schools.

Liberalism allows for pushing beyond the normal limits of defined conservative boundaries to allow for a lifestyle of what the motto stands for that says, "if it feels good do it", encompassing low morals standards and undisciplined behaviors! It's like instead of having 1 teaspoon of sugar in your tea, you dump in 3 or 4.

Activists aren't unusual within the confines of this ideology!
Liberals usually embrace globalism.
Liberals are often Democrats.
Liberals are often materialistic and lack true spiritual values.
It's not easy to define liberalism in just a few sentences.
Philosophy: Liberalism—both as a political current and an intellectual tradition—is mostly a modern phenomenon that started in the 17th century, although some liberal philosophical ideas had precursors in classical antiquity and in Imperial China.

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism.

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free trade and free markets. Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and governments must not violate these rights. While the British liberal tradition has emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.

Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe and South America, whereas it was well-established alongside republicanism in the United States. In Victorian Britain, it was used to critique the political establishment, appealing to science and reason on behalf of the people. During 19th and early 20th century, liberalism in the Ottoman Empire and Middle East influenced periods of reform such as the Tanzimat and Al-Nahda as well as the rise of constitutionalism, nationalism and secularism. These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within Islam, which continues to this day, leading to Islamic revivalism. Before 1920, the main ideological opponents of liberalism were communism, conservatism and socialism, but liberalism then faced major ideological challenges from fascism and Marxism–Leninism as new opponents. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further, especially in Western Europe, as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars.

Progressives seem to want to change everything we've been accustomed to pushing even the limits of liberalism and going into a narrative of wrong is right, bad is good, immoral is moral, dark is light and so on. They are the enemy of conservatism and God!

I will quote a few descriptions of progressivism from LTC Robert L. Maginnis book "Progressive Evil".

Robert L. Maginnis writes in the preface on pg. VII "In fact, cultural Marxism is the tool of the contemporary progressivism, an evil concept that has ancient roots and apologists through the ages, like nineteenth-century German philosopher Geog Wilhem Friedrich, Russian leader Vladimir Lentin, former US Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, and more contemporary American progressives apostles like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, among others." (emphasis mine)

He goes on to say on pg. 10 in the chapter 'What Early American Progressives Believed About the Role of Government', "Progressivism is the idea of the inevitability of historical progress and the perfectibility of man- and his self-realization-through the national community or collective. While its intellectual and political advocates clothe its core in populist terminology, and despite the existence of democratic institutions and cyclical voting, progressivism's emphasis on material egalitarianism and societal engineering, and its insistence on concentrated, centralized administrative rule, lead inescapably to varying degrees of autocratic governance. Moreover for progressives there are no absolute or permanent truths, only passing and distant historical events. Thus even values are said to be relative to time and circumstances; there is no eternal moral order- that is, what was true and good in 1776 and before is not necessarily true and good today. Consequently, the very purpose of America's founding is debased.

Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform. Based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition, progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society. Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.

The contemporary common political conception of progressivism emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late-19th century. Progressives take the view that progress is being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and the intense and often violent conflict between capitalists and workers, arguing that measures were needed to address these problems.

The meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives. Early-20th century progressivism was tied to eugenics and the temperance movement, both of which were promoted in the name of public health and as initiatives toward that goal. Contemporary progressives promote public policies that they believe will lead to positive social change. In the 21st century, a movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions".


This article is from a liberal - progressive news site thus reflecting it's negativity for conservatives!

What does/did Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death mean for the supreme court?

A replacement for the liberal justice could reshape the court for a generation, marking Trump’s most lasting legacy

Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2017. Her death sets up a landmark battle for the court’s future.
Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2017. Her death sets up a landmark battle for the court’s future.

Sat 19 Sep 2020 02.10 BST

The supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Friday evening. As messages of grief and gratitude for her life and career swept the country, here’s a look at what the liberal icon’s death means for the supreme court and what happens next.

What does this mean for the court?

Ginsburg’s death has set up nothing short of a historic war for the future of the court – and American life under the law. Donald Trump and Republicans in the Senate are determined to replace Ginsburg with a conservative justice. Their doing so could decisively tilt the ideological balance of the court for a generation and would probably constitute the most lasting legacy of the Trump presidency.

What’s at stake?

Reproductive rights, voting rights, protections from discrimination, the future of criminal justice, the power of the presidency, the rights of immigrants, tax rules and laws, and healthcare for millions of vulnerable Americans, to name a few issues. Every big issue in American life is on the line.

Why is so much at stake?

Replacing Ginsburg with a young conservative justice would fundamentally shift the ideological balance of the court, creating a seemingly bulletproof conservative majority of five justices (excluding chief justice John Roberts, who would make six conservatives but who is seen by the far right as less reliable). This new majority could usher in a new legal landscape that could last at least 30 years.

Didn’t Trump already appoint two justices?

Yes, Trump appointed justice Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. But they replaced justices who were nominated by earlier Republican presidents. They have pulled the court right, but not as far right as replacing Ginsburg with a conservative would. Ginsburg was nominated by Bill Clinton in 1993.

That sounds dramatic. Is it really such a big deal?

Yes. An ideological tilt of this kind on the supreme court has not happened for 50 years. Since 1969, Republican presidents have appointed 14 out of 18 justices elevated to the court – but certain Republican appointments, such as Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter turned out to occupy moderate ground or even drift liberal on some issues. In the recent hyper-partisan age, that middle ground on the court has mostly disappeared.

Can Trump and the Republicans pull this off?

It’s not a sure thing. Any new appointment by Trump must be confirmed by straight majority vote in the Senate. Senate leader Mitch McConnell has said he would confirm a new justice before the election. But McConnell is working with a narrow 53-47 majority, and if Trump nominates a conservative with extreme views, confirmation might be more difficult.

But yes, there is definitely the time and the will for Trump to pull this off. And the willingness of Republicans to violate every norm in the process should not be underestimated. The Republican senator Joni Ernst of Iowa said in July that a Trump pick could even be confirmed during a lame duck session of Congress, meaning after the 3 November election but before a new Senate is installed.

Who will Trump pick?

He’s released a list of potential picks, among them Amy Coney Barrett, 48, whom Trump appointed to the US court of appeals for the seventh circuit in 2017. Barrett worries progressives as a committed Roman Catholic with conservative views on social issues. At Barrett’s circuit court confirmation hearings, the Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein expressed concern that the judge would be guided by church law instead of the constitution.

“The dogma lives loudly within you and that’s a concern,” Feinstein said, “when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”

Astonishingly, earlier this month the president augmented the list with the names of three sitting Republican senators among 20 additional names, including Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton, who then tweeted “It’s time for Roe v Wade to go”, referring to the landmark 1973 court ruling that led to the legalization of abortion in the US.

Could Trump fail to confirm a Ginsburg replacement?

Trump sees appointing conservative judges as a political winner with his base, and a third supreme court justice in his first term could help him win re-election.

But the hypocrisy in a move by McConnell to confirm a Trump pick with so little time before the election - after McConnell blocked the Barack Obama nominee Merrick Garland in March 2016 on the grounds that “only” eight months remained before that year’s election – could be politically costly.

Because McConnell might be more worried about helping Republican senators win in close races, allowing McConnell to keep his leadership post, than helping Trump win a long-shot race, the political will to push a Trump nominee through might falter.

The resistance to the confirmation would be extreme and the political fight would be all-consuming.

Just hours before Ginsburg died, moderate Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had remarked hypothetically, it was reported on Friday evening, that she would not confirm a new justice until after the presidential inauguration in January, 2021.

19th Sept. 2020

  • Comments