• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where do you land

Where do you land?

  • I am wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 8 11.4%

  • I am not wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 27 38.6%

  • I am wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I am not wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 23 32.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 12 17.1%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    70
CaptainCourtesy said:
Tell me who you are referring to when you are discussing "early" progressives.
Click to expand...

Wilson, some of the none politician Social Darwinist who influenced political society.
Can't remember all their names off the top of my head.
During the Gilded Era and somewhat afterwards a lot of self described progressives were borderline fascists.

Even ole Teddy believed in some of morally offensive stuff, like eugenics iirc.

Edit:
Note I do not believe that even a simple majority of modern progressives hold any of these things, she asked when it was started.
I offered my answer from the early time in America, when it began, in my opinion of course.
 
Last edited:
I voted other. "Wealthy" is a very nebulous term. Wealthy in relation to what? I fall into the top 4% of wage earners in the U.S., from what I've been told, does that make me wealthy? In the area in which I live, I'm pretty average. I most certainly do not want the wealthy to get screwed, by and large they've worked and earned what they make, they deserve to bring that money home just like anyone else does. You cannot punish success, just because it doesn't affect you.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Wilson, some of the none politician Social Darwinist who influenced political society.
Can't remember all their names off the top of my head.
During the Gilded Era and somewhat afterwards a lot of self described progressives were borderline fascists.

Even ole Teddy believed in some of morally offensive stuff, like eugenics iirc.

Edit:
Note I do not believe that even a simple majority of modern progressives hold any of these things, she asked when it was started.
I offered my answer from the early time in America, when it began, in my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a very different era when belief systems were different. For example, 200+ years ago, many of our most brilliant thinkers felt that blacks were an inferior race. When one takes out some of these beliefs that were based on the social mores of the day, or the understanding of science of the day, most of the beliefs weren't all that different from what progressives believe, nowadays. Efficiency, attacks on corruption, reform, federal strength over state's strength, decisions based on science, and modernization. I disagree with the thought that progressivism aimed towards fascism. Most progressives wanted a more direct democracy. The disagreement is that progressives believe in legal positivism and that making laws and decisions for society should be based on rationalism.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You're talking about a very different era when belief systems were different. For example, 200+ years ago, many of our most brilliant thinkers felt that blacks were an inferior race. When one takes out some of these beliefs that were based on the social mores of the day, or the understanding of science of the day, most of the beliefs weren't all that different from what progressives believe, nowadays. Efficiency, attacks on corruption, reform, federal strength over state's strength, decisions based on science, and modernization. I disagree with the thought that progressivism aimed towards fascism. Most progressives wanted a more direct democracy. The disagreement is that progressives believe in legal positivism and that making laws and decisions for society should be based on rationalism.
Click to expand...

Let me just take a stab at the zealous federalism point for a second. Regardless of what we believe in personally, shouldn't states be more diverse in everything from their political and judicial structures all the way to their social culture? Please don't distort this statement by stretching it and claiming I support anarchy and a weak unity of states. Instead, when balancing the needs for state freedom and the need for national unity, I still weigh more body weight towards the state's rights (as does the constitution) because the opposite would be a prosaic and repetitive society based on strict, draconian laws that supersede the free rights of individuals. But I suppose individual freedom might be a little farther down on your list.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Let me just take a stab at the zealous federalism point for a second. Regardless of what we believe in personally, shouldn't states be more diverse in everything from their political and judicial structures all the way to their social culture? Please don't distort this statement by stretching it and claiming I support anarchy and a weak unity of states. Instead, when balancing the needs for state freedom and the need for national unity, I still weigh more body weight towards the state's rights (as does the constitution) because the opposite would be a prosaic and repetitive society based on strict, draconian laws that supersede the free rights of individuals. But I suppose individual freedom might be a little farther down on your list.
Click to expand...

National unity wins out over states rights. Ultimately, we are not at nation of little fiefdoms. We are a unified nation who's dealings with the rest of the world occurs together. Your opinion that this creates strict, draconian laws is ridiculous. The laws would be unified, but beyond that, they would be what they would be.

As far as individual rights go, they are certainly high on the list. But I imagine that we think of rights in very different ways.
 
molten_dragon said:
I voted other.

I'm not in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy, I'm in favor of completely restructuring our tax system. I think a progressive income tax is necessary, but I don't like the way we currently do it. If things were changed the way I want them to be, and the end result was that the rich ended up paying more than they do now, I'm okay with it, as long as it isn't a ridiculous amount more.

As far as my personal situation goes, I am definitely not rich, but my wife and I are both engineers, so we're comfortable.
Click to expand...

my uncle is a small business owner - one of the 'rich'. but his business is operating on the edge in the recession. you raise his taxes, the next day he has to fire employees to keep it in the black. generally, yeah, he will continue to do alright -he may have to sell his house and just eat the depreciation. it's his (former) blue-collar non-college-educated employees who will really suffer.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You're talking about a very different era when belief systems were different. For example, 200+ years ago, many of our most brilliant thinkers felt that blacks were an inferior race
Click to expand...

this is not really accurate. the notion that blacks could be considered a scientifically inferior race was developed later, in the 19th Century. some of the Founders owned slaves, but they weren't racist in the sense of American Racism that we remember from history.

When one takes out some of these beliefs that were based on the social mores of the day, or the understanding of science of the day, most of the beliefs weren't all that different from what progressives believe, nowadays. Efficiency, attacks on corruption, reform, federal strength over state's strength, decisions based on science, and modernization.
Click to expand...

those are not Progressive Ideology; they merely formed the claims for Progressive ideology. the Founders had a much more confined picture of federal strength (the powers were 'few and defined': progressives wanted a state that was all-powerful)

I disagree with the thought that progressivism aimed towards fascism. Most progressives wanted a more direct democracy. The disagreement is that progressives believe in legal positivism and that making laws and decisions for society should be based on rationalism.
Click to expand...

that is precisely what the Fascists pushed as well. a Third Way based on pragmatism and so forth.
 
BDBoop said:
Interesting. 17/17 tie, with 8 'other'.
Click to expand...

BDBoop, the data from your poll is interesting.
National statistics indicate that approx. 5% of the US are millionaires, i.e. based on net worth. The poll indicated that 9/52s, 17% of ‘us’ in the poll are wealthy. My standard for wealthy is $1,000,000 or more net worth for a family, I’d consider 750,000 for a single person to meet the standard.
100% of the wealthy were not against raising their taxes. The sample of this position was 9, but 100% is significant in a small sample of 9. However, there were many arguing that we are all exceptions.
The participants that do not consider themselves wealthy split 22 to 21 on raising the taxes on the wealthy. All I can say to the ones that say don’t tax the wealthy more is: Thanks for looking out for the stupid wealthy.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
BDBoop, the data from your poll is interesting.
National statistics indicate that approx. 5% of the US are millionaires, i.e. based on net worth. The poll indicated that 9/52s, 17% of ‘us’ in the poll are wealthy. My standard for wealthy is $1,000,000 or more net worth for a family, I’d consider 750,000 for a single person to meet the standard.
100% of the wealthy were not against raising their taxes. The sample of this position was 9, but 100% is significant in a small sample of 9. However, there were many arguing that we are all exceptions.
The participants that do not consider themselves wealthy split 22 to 21 on raising the taxes on the wealthy. All I can say to the ones that say don’t tax the wealthy more is: Thanks for looking out for the stupid wealthy.
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing out exactly what I and my housemate were wondering. What's the mindset here? "Someday I'll be wealthy, and therefore?"
 
BDBoop said:
Thank you for pointing out exactly what I and my housemate were wondering. What's the mindset here? "Someday I'll be wealthy, and therefore?"
Click to expand...

And your data indicate that by the time someone makes it to wealthy they'll change there position.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Let me just take a stab at the zealous federalism point for a second. Regardless of what we believe in personally, shouldn't states be more diverse in everything from their political and judicial structures all the way to their social culture? Please don't distort this statement by stretching it and claiming I support anarchy and a weak unity of states. Instead, when balancing the needs for state freedom and the need for national unity, I still weigh more body weight towards the state's rights (as does the constitution) because the opposite would be a prosaic and repetitive society based on strict, draconian laws that supersede the free rights of individuals. But I suppose individual freedom might be a little farther down on your list.
Click to expand...

Actually, extreme states rights is not Federalism. Historically, the people that were against the Constitution because it took away states' rights were Anti-Federalist. That's a legitimate point of view, but don't misname it. No state law can supersede the Constitution.

"One Nation under God." Not 50.
 
cpwill said:
this is not really accurate. the notion that blacks could be considered a scientifically inferior race was developed later, in the 19th Century. some of the Founders owned slaves, but they weren't racist in the sense of American Racism that we remember from history.
Click to expand...

Racism as a social construct came about because the worst nightmare of the elite in the South was that poor whites would realize that they had more in common with slaves and join with them in a rebellion. Therefore, they promulgated the idea that blacks were inferior to whites, because it made the poor white servants think they were better than the slaves.
 
cpwill said:
this is not really accurate. the notion that blacks could be considered a scientifically inferior race was developed later, in the 19th Century. some of the Founders owned slaves, but they weren't racist in the sense of American Racism that we remember from history.
Click to expand...

You are again straw manning my comments. I never said the founders were racist. I would not consider the belief that blacks were an inferior race, THEN, as being racism, because it was the prevailing theory at the time. And it is certainly accurate that people in that era believed that blacks were inferior to whites.

those are not Progressive Ideology; they merely formed the claims for Progressive ideology. the Founders had a much more confined picture of federal strength (the powers were 'few and defined': progressives wanted a state that was all-powerful)
Click to expand...

I always love it when conservatives try to tell me, a progressive, what progressive ideology is. They always get it wrong... as you did. Everything I said are the tenets of progressive ideology. Have been since TR.

that is precisely what the Fascists pushed as well. a Third Way based on pragmatism and so forth.
Click to expand...

Which is pretty irrelevant and not logical. Fascist push science, so anyone who pushes science is a fascist? Like I said. No logic behind that.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You are again straw manning my comments. I never said the founders were racist. I would not consider the belief that blacks were an inferior race, THEN, as being racism, because it was the prevailing theory at the time. And it is certainly accurate that people in that era believed that blacks were inferior to whites.



I always love it when conservatives try to tell me, a progressive, what progressive ideology is. They always get it wrong... as you did. Everything I said are the tenets of progressive ideology. Have been since TR.



Which is pretty irrelevant and not logical. Fascist push science, so anyone who pushes science is a fascist? Like I said. No logic behind that.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Racism is racism wherever, and whenever, it occurs. Just because racism was the norm back then doesn't make it "not racism." I mean, hell, even Abe Lincoln was a racist.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I disagree. Racism is racism wherever, and whenever, it occurs. Just because racism was the norm back then doesn't make it "not racism." I mean, hell, even Abe Lincoln was a racist.
Click to expand...

By modern standards, sure. But standards change and just because we think one thing today doesn't make what we think necessarily true. Next year, we might think something different, is it fair to apply the future standards to you today?
 
****. I voted for the wrong one. I meant to vote for "I am not wealthy and favor tax hikes for the rich"
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
National unity wins out over states rights. Ultimately, we are not at nation of little fiefdoms. We are a unified nation who's dealings with the rest of the world occurs together. Your opinion that this creates strict, draconian laws is ridiculous. The laws would be unified, but beyond that, they would be what they would be.

As far as individual rights go, they are certainly high on the list. But I imagine that we think of rights in very different ways.
Click to expand...

I never said federal law should not trump state law, but I do believe the federal government should be strictly limited to the role set forth in the constitution. ANYTHING that is not explicitely defined in the constitution as a federal responsibility is ultimately up to the interpretation of state governments. Hence, Amendment IX and X of the Bill of Rights.

And I never would have guessed that someone who believed people are generally too stupid to govern themselves would actually care about individual rights.
 
rocket88 said:
Actually, extreme states rights is not Federalism. Historically, the people that were against the Constitution because it took away states' rights were Anti-Federalist. That's a legitimate point of view, but don't misname it. No state law can supersede the Constitution.

"One Nation under God." Not 50.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about "extreme states rights." I actually referred to the zealous federalism of Captain Courtesy which is a prevalent idea among progressives. I'm not an anti-Federalist, but I do strongly believe that the constitution, as it was originally intended, extremely limits the role of the federal government. It also unifies the states, which I support. But anything not explicitely mentioned in the constitution as a federal responsibility is a matter best left up to the states. No state law can supersede the constitution, but the ninth and tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights gives the states an enormous amount of freedom. Probably more freedom than you're willing to tolerate.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I disagree. Racism is racism wherever, and whenever, it occurs. Just because racism was the norm back then doesn't make it "not racism." I mean, hell, even Abe Lincoln was a racist.
Click to expand...

Cephus is right. Context means everything. Looking back, to us, today, it was racism, but it would not have been classified as such to folks back then.
 
ElijahGalt said:
I never said federal law should not trump state law, but I do believe the federal government should be strictly limited to the role set forth in the constitution. ANYTHING that is not explicitely defined in the constitution as a federal responsibility is ultimately up to the interpretation of state governments. Hence, Amendment IX and X of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

And the framers of the Constitution, Madison and especially Hamilton recognized that not EVERYTHING could be put in that document. And, Hamilton especially, saw the US as needing a strong central government, more powerful than the states. I agree with this.

And I never would have guessed that someone who believed people are generally too stupid to govern themselves would actually care about individual rights.
Click to expand...

It is REALLY a good idea that you do not do this. REALLY a good idea.
 
Cephus said:
By modern standards, sure. But standards change and just because we think one thing today doesn't make what we think necessarily true. Next year, we might think something different, is it fair to apply the future standards to you today?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's not understandable. I'm saying it's still racism. Call it what it is. Standards for what truly qualifies as racism or racist don't change over time. Racism has a very specific definition. Just like one thing isn't socialist one day, then not-socialist then next. Racism isn't time-relative; just because everyone else is racist in your society doesn't make you not a racist. Words have meaning.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
I'm not saying it's not understandable. I'm saying it's still racism. Call it what it is. Standards for what truly qualifies as racism or racist don't change over time. Racism has a very specific definition. Just like one thing isn't socialist one day, then not-socialist then next. Racism isn't time-relative; just because everyone else is racist in your society doesn't make you not a racist. Words have meaning.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Racism's definition never changes. A racist in 1776 is a racist in 2011. What changes over time is the normality and acceptance of racism.
 
theplaydrive said:
Exactly. Racism's definition never changes. A racist in 1776 is a racist in 2011. What changes over time is the normality and acceptance of racism.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree for a few reasons - the best of which is there was no such thing as racism in 1776, therefore there were no "racists" per se. What changes over time is the definition ... the word racist didn't exist (nor did racists) before 1932. Earlier words meaning basically the same thing like racialism, were from 1871. Racism's definition in 1932 and into the late 1930's was originally used in the context of Nazi theories and was not about those from African decent. The definition was expanded during the civil rights movement and adopted by the same.

Online Etymology Dictionary

Opentopia agrees with the entymology:

Etymology
Opentopia said:
The term "racism" appeared in the 1930s, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. It was considered distinct from the "theories of race," which had existed for at least 100 years before that. Pierre-André Taguieff (1987) shows that "racism" and "racist" appeared in the French Larousse Dictionary in 1932, with "racist" being defined as "the name given to the German national-socialists, designating, rather than the sole Nazi Party (NSDAP), the whole of the völkisch movement. The word "racist" is also occasionally used in Edouard Drumont's anti-Semitic La Libre Parole or by Maurice Barrès concerning the "French race".
Click to expand...

Racism - Find out more on Opentopia
 
Ockham said:
Totally disagree for a few reasons - the best of which is there was no such thing as racism in 1776, therefore there were no "racists" per se. What changes over time is the definition ... the word racist didn't exist (nor did racists) before 1932. Earlier words meaning basically the same thing like racialism, were from 1871. Racism's definition in 1932 and into the late 1930's was originally used in the context of Nazi theories and was not about those from African decent. The definition was expanded during the civil rights movement and adopted by the same.

Online Etymology Dictionary

Opentopia agrees with the entymology:

Etymology


Racism - Find out more on Opentopia
Click to expand...

The CONCEPT of racism, and racist attitudes, have existed forever. There just wasn't a word for it.

Obviously, racism in the past didn't take the form that it does now, and people in the past didn't think the same way about racism the way we do now, but at the core of its definition, racism is still the belief in the superiority of one race over another. And that, is a timeless concept/attitude.

btw this thread has been so derailed its not even funny. My apologies.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Totally disagree for a few reasons - the best of which is there was no such thing as racism in 1776, therefore there were no "racists" per se. What changes over time is the definition ... the word racist didn't exist (nor did racists) before 1932. Earlier words meaning basically the same thing like racialism, were from 1871. Racism's definition in 1932 and into the late 1930's was originally used in the context of Nazi theories and was not about those from African decent. The definition was expanded during the civil rights movement and adopted by the same.

Online Etymology Dictionary

Opentopia agrees with the entymology:

Etymology

Racism - Find out more on Opentopia
Click to expand...

Right, but racism is a word that describes a reality that has existed for centuries. CC claimed that thinking blacks were inferior to whites was not racism in 1776, but that's not true. Racism is by definition believing in the superiority of one or more races over others, so regardless of whether the word for that attitude existed in 1776 and regardless if thinking of one race as superior to others was normal, it was still racism. What other word describes "the belief that one race is superior to another"?

A similar example would be if a capitalist society existed before the invention of the word "capitalism", it was still a capitalist society regardless if that word was used at the time. I'm arguing from the perspective that a word is a just a word and that the meaning is what has always existed. So while racism - the word - has not always existed. The meaning of the word - the reality that it describes - has always existed and it's the same in every time period, no matter how normal it was.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom