Skip to content

Progressives really are ignorant

June 28, 2011

Can Jon Huntsman Be President? –

This is a typical MSM/NY Times why this weak-kneed RINO should be the Republican candidate piece a la 2007 and John McCain, so I truly have no reason to link it, EXCEPT for a comment by one of the multitude of idiots who apparently read the Times.

The commentor, appropriately named “Winning Progressive”, also appropriately from Obama’s adopted home town of Chicago, IL, had this to opine:

While Huntsman is not as reactionary as most GOP Presidential candidates, that is exactly why he will never be there nominee. [emphasis added]

Reactionary?  Seriously!?!  To quote Enigo Montoya, “You keep using that word.  I don’t think it means what you think it means.”  You are so right Enigo.  For Winning Progressive’s (Charlie Sheen?) benefit, I have done the hard work and posted the definition of this term from

of, relating to, or characterized by reaction, esp against radical political or social change

To expound on the definition.  First, it is called reaction based off the predication that any policy of a reactionary is a reactive attempt to stop change to the status quo.  So first, for one to be a reactionary, they must embrace the status quo.  Secondly, this term has an interesting history, also from

In Marxist use, opposed to revolutionary  and used opprobriously in ref. to opponents of communism (1858).

In regards to the second definition, perhaps Winning Progressive is somewhat accurate in describing the GOP candidates, though ironically not Jon Huntsman.  But I think he was attempting to use the standard layman’s definition which is to describe right-wing Nazi extremists kitten killers.

But think about the definition a bit, a resistance to change characterized by policies that are a reaction to any attempt at modifying the status quo.  Whom does this describe more accurately, the current progressive or the current conservative?

Let’s see.  1. Uncontrolled spending is the status quo, who defends it?  2.  A blind-eye to illegal immigration is the status quo, who is suing states who are seeking to do something about it and also telling his enforcement forces to ignore the law?  3.  Ever-growing entitlements are the status quo, who dubs anyone seeking to fix them as “killers” of the elderly?  4.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in desperate need of oversight and reform, who is telling us “nothing to see here”?  5.  Union defined benefit plans are the staus quo, who is rioting in the streets to stop any attempt at curbing this unwarranted and unsustainable taxpayer security?  6.  Ever increasing education spending coupled with lack of competition is the status quo, who is blocking any attempt at curbing the costs of public education as well as maintaining the government imposed barriers to entry?

The roles have changed.  Traditionally the right was reactionary because the best we could hope for was to maintain the status quo against the progressive push to socialism that has been going on for a century.  Now, the right are the purveyors of “Hope” and “Change” and the progressives have become the big defenders of the status quo, resistant to any and all changes or attempts to fix problems that are universally accepted as so.

The reactionary party is the democrat party.  Make sure you point that out next time someone tries to lay that handle on you in the future.

edited for readability – 6/28/2011 1:02pm EST

2 Comments leave one →
  1. June 28, 2011 11:58 am

    Excellent, Colin. The part of Hope and Change is really the Party of Hope for No Change. that seems to nail it pretty well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: