I have many Democrat friends. Honestly, seldom do I enter political discussions with any because seldom do those discussions result in any meaningful discourse. More often than not when current events make such conversations appropriate they usually end in anger — not on my part but on theirs.
To be honest, I must admit I usually fuel their fire of anger. How? I always want to know when in those discussions they make “factual” points, what are the facts on which they base their conclusion and if those points really are “factual.” That’s when they erupt. Want an example?
Take “Climate Change.” Here’s a sample of how each of the conversations I’ve had with Democrat friends regarding seem to always sound:
(Friend): “Dan, why don’t you believe in climate change?”
(Me): “I believe that climate conditions change from year to year but not in any major way that impacts the Earth permanently or because of one or several human actions.”
(Friend): “Oh, you don’t believe the Science that proves climate change is real?”
(Me): “I know there are some scientists that claim they have proof. But the proof they present is immediately refuted by data from other scientists that proves the exact opposite and disproves climate change.”
(Friend): “But don’t you see how drastic the weather is around us? Multiple hurricanes in the southeast U.S., fires all over the word, massive changes in temperatures, flooding and famine? That’s proof!”
(Me): “I know those things happen. They always have and they always will. Those only prove one thing: weather changes in patterns that even science cannot define or prove they happen because specific to man made causes. But those do not prove the inevitability of what climate zealots are preaching like ‘The world as we know it will end in 12 years!’”
(Friend): “You simply refuse to accept facts! How can you be so ignorant? There’s no talking to you, you won’t listen to anyone. You’re just like every other Republican!”
(Me): “I’m not a Republican.”
(Friend): “Oh, and you’re not a racist either!”
When emotions takeover, very little can be accomplished by continuing those conversations. But you know what? Liberals think like that! It’s virtually impossible for them with facts to prove most of their positions. So in such conversations, they can escape by simply doing something we all learned as kids: when you are losing a schoolyard verbal back-and-forth, you simply call the other kid a bad name and walk away.
Somewhere in the recent past, liberal leaders felt like their tag of “Liberal” was being thought of as a brand of an illegitimate group, especially politically. So they decided to regain what credibility they owned in the past — they needed to change their name. (note: what they don’t know is they never had any significant credibility!) So someone came up with the idea they decided to morph their political party and its adherents into: Progressives.
They didn’t make a name-change announcement. They didn’t throw a “name reveal” party in which they put balloons in a big box and made a grand announcement releasing the balloons that all had their new name on them. They just quietly switched names thinking no one would catch on. But we did. And when it happened the inquisitive person that I am, I asked a simple question:
Why did liberals change their name from “Liberals” to “Progressives?”
Let’s puzzle through the answer together.
They never were very liberal. And the policies of today’s Democrat Party are anything but progressive. I guess what they determined was to “Confuse people as to they you are by naming themselves something they’re really not might work. People will not catch on. They’ll just think you’re who you say you are.” There’s really no other explanation. Does that make any sense?
Let’s take a look.
Definition of liberal: “of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.”
Definition of progressive: “making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.”
- Is the promotion of a policy of taking away guns from private citizens or abridging what types of guns may be privately owned express support for “the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties?”
- Does government confiscation of Americans’ wealth through 50% to 75% income taxes for the consumption and use by our government express support of “the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties?”
- Does allowing any groups like ANTIFA to run wild, attacking individuals and destroying private and public property at legal and permitted “Free Speech Rallies” OK? ANTIFA is there to stop people from speaking out in support of the First Amendment. Is that an act to express support of “the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties?”
- Are the non-stop attacks on the Rule of Law in America at local, state, and federal levels “advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc?”
- Is the demeaning of the President, members of his Cabinet, leaders of ICE and the Border Patrol for their insistence of the enforcement of our borders “advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc?”
- And what about the liberal/progressive federal judges who make rulings from the bench that stop the Administration’s actions to insure the enforcement of all of our borders and insist on anyone and everyone who comes into this country legally and Constitutionally “advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc?”
There are many more examples of our government — federal AND states — taking steps to ignore the laws passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law to prevent law enforcement officials from doing their jobs. None of these actions are by their definition “liberal” or “progressive.” These actions could more correctly be called “regressive” and even “totalitarian.”
To be honest, many if those who promote these policies do so militantly are promoting actions of true Facsism!
We’re seeing more and more former liberals and progressive walkway from their previous political positions. That in itself is not unusual. But what is unusual is that instead of applauding those who do so standing up for their First Amendment rights, those on the Left demean them as traitors and as intellectually deficient. Hollywood is a prime example of that.
Rather than continue down this road here, let’s wrap this up by listening to one such Hollywood elite give us his perspective on the matter. Take a listen to Piers Morgan — a very vocal and demonstrative liberal/progressive — give us his perspective:
I could’t say it better myself!