Progressive Nincompoopism
June 15, 2006 · By Tom Cerber
Dr. J. and Mr. K. alert us to this nonsensical call to progressive arms published recently in the Globe and Mail. I don’t have much to add to their criticisms (link to their website; I can’t figure out how to link to the specific entry for June 14).
This mush in the Globe and Mail editorial, by two politicos – one a Labor advisor and the other an advisor to Jean Chretien – deserves special attention:
The core of this message was that while the country was feeling confident, it could do better, and that the role of government was to build the infrastructure to help it do so, to mediate the new social and intergenerational contracts that would be needed.
I would like to know what a progressive – whose ideology is predicated on the state taking over many many aspects of civil society, including marriage – means by government mediating “new… intergenerational contracts.”
I don’t mean to imply anything other than what kind of ideology requires the state to take over the very handing-down of traditions, usages, and ideas, from civil society institutions that include family. For those of you new to this blog wondering about the connection I draw between their statist views about “intergenerational” contracts and marriage, see this.
“…the role of government was to build the infrastructure to help it…mediate the new social and intergenerational contracts that would be needed.”
That is so typical of the windbag pronouncements made by liberals nowadays. Make a statement so general and so vague that no one can possibly disagree with it, yet meaningless enough that you won’t ever have to explain it. But say it in such a way that it sounds vitally important.
There was a Toronto Star article a couple months back by some professor who was advising on policies to renew the Liberal Party. The entire piece was filled with statements like “We must come up with new ideas to leverage our cultural diversity into new economic opportunities…” and “New policies must be developed to increase the value added component of green energy productuction…” I almost vomited. Talk about saying a lot while saying absolutely nothing.
RR: And “building bridges”. Don’t forget “building bridges”.
Liberals love talking about “building bridges”. Which, of course, they feel is best accomplished by caling anyone who disagree with them racist/sexist/redneck/knuckldragger/etc., rather than, you know, actually building bridges either metaphorically or literally, such as the one the Native terrorist rebels burned down in Caledonia in an act of terrorism, threatening to shoot the volunteer firefighters who tried to save it.
Yes, “building bridges”, “reaching out”, “facilitating intercultural exchange and understanding”, “bringing communities together”, “forging links between diverse groups”, “encouraging the exchange of ideas between various stakeholders”, blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Oh, and Paul Martin’s favourite, “Building a bigger tent”.
But the reality is, lots of cosmopolitan idiots lap this stuff up. It conveniently helps them feel morally justified while being, as Ann Coulter says, Godless.