What Actually Separates Progressives and Conservatives?


The media these days, it seems, is filled with only negative sentiments about political ideologies. "Those nasty liberals did this.", "Those nasty conservatives did that.", and the like.


Before continuing, I need to offer the following - as I do whenever I write about political ideologies:

When certain media outlets offer such as the above, e.g., "Those nasty liberals did this.", and the like, they are actually talking about "progressives" - NOT true Liberals. My articles Here and Here will shed some light on my insistence on the delineation.

OK! In a nutshell who is an example of someone who was a true liberal?

Donald Trump (NO! NOT HIM!) had as his campaign slogan "Make America Great Again". As a positive augmentation to Trump's message, he, in my opinion, would have been wise to repeat one of the lines from a true Liberal. When John F. Kennedy, a Liberal to the core, gave his inaugural address back in 1963 he offered this: "And, so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." JFK's short line is probably best described as focusing on personal responsibility - or, current-day, true Liberal and conservative values.

So, unless truly pertinent to a specific topic, all the below will center on "progressives" and/or "conservatives". There will be little referencing a political party, per. se. The reason? Within the Republican Party exist both progressives and conservatives.

I am certain you have heard or read the acronym "RINO". This stands for "Republican In Name Only" - or, a progressive who happens to exist in the Republican Party for some reason.

But, have you ever seen or read the acronym "DINO", or, "Democrat In Name Only"; i.e., a conservative who happens to exist in the Democrat Party? No?! I thought not. And, there is a reason for this.

A political "DINO", like the dinosaurs for which the acronym is also a nickname, is extinct.


So, what, at its core, really does separate these two political ideologies?

Is it Nationalism vs. Globalism? Conservatives strongly favor the former while progressives strongly favor the latter. However, were people from both sides of this to sit down and rationally discuss these differences, I believe some common ground, at least, could be the result. So, I don't think this is the "core" issue.

Is it the "Climate Change" debate? No, I don't think so, not the "core" issue. See my article on this. All sides of the political spectrum would agree that a clean environment is the best thing for all of humanity. And, reasonable methods/controls could be put in place so as to assure this over the "long haul". The scare tactics used by progressives, however, do not lend themselves to furthering the discussion. But, as stated before, reasonable people from both sides of the political spectrum could easily come up with the best way to proceed - if they truly wanted to.

Is it Capitalism vs. socialistic principles? (Note: I'm not using the word "Socialism" with a capital "S". I have not heard anyone of political relevance call for the capital "S".) As with the first potential, conservatives strongly favor the former while progressives strongly favor the latter. And, again, I believe some common ground, at least, could be the result if people actually reasoned with each other. So, I don't think this is the "core" issue either.

Is it personal responsibility vs. a "collective" responsibility (or, "the government knows and has the best cure for what ails you")? Like the others, conservatives strongly favor the former while progressives strongly favor the latter.

This issue hits closer to the mark. Progressives seem to be all about power and control. "Identity Politics" is a prime tool for the progressives. This has the result of dividing people based on whatever segment of the population seems "put upon" - whether factually or not. Conservatives seem more about "do what the Constitution says you should do and I'll take care of myself and my family, thank you very much."

And, obviously, somewhere in the middle is probably the right way to go. Getting to whatever that "middle" is, however, would take a bunch of "give and take" on both sides - BUT, it could be done. So, no, I don't think this is the "core" - not fixable - issue either.

Is it "Rich" vs. "Poor"? Based on what the media portrays, the Republican Party is the party of the rich and The Democrat Party is the party of the poor. Even though I offered not a discussion of political parties, I had to point out that this claim by the media is fallacious. This article, interesting in a number of ways, discusses this and is well worth reading.

The "Rich" vs."Poor" discussion is just a misdirect. When logical people discuss what are the real issues, this subject quickly "bites the dust". And, no, the core issue is not this one.

OK! Maybe corruption is the answer. Not a chance. As long as tons of money may be had by being a politician, corruption will exist wherever one looks - in the arena of conservative, progressive, Republican, Democrat, or what have you. Human nature's greed, in this case, seems to unfortunately win over character all too frequently. No, a differentiation is not to be found here.

There are many such "on the surface" issues like the above which are fed to us my our politicians and the media. And, like most things, reasonable people seeking "common ground" can and would arrive at solutions - if solutions were really the goal.

But, here's an issue that 100% separates conservatives from progressives. And, that issue is centered on the politically progressive. What is it?

When one's actions consistently do not coincide with one's words, considering the prospect of coming together on an issue, any issue, and reaching agreement seems remote at best.

On the subject of hypocrisy, at times it may be difficult to distinguish it from the propensity of the wealthiest progressives to be "elitist"; i.e., "It's mandatory for you, but I do not have to do it." kind of thing. Elitism is still hypocrisy - perhaps, even the highest form of hypocrisy.

Consider the following examples of hypocrisy on the part of progressive "leaders" and progressive politicians of our day:

Some would correctly argue that a government official betraying his/her oath of office is one of hypocrisy. And, worse, acting in a manner that would suggest it is their "right" to do so.

Progressives love to tout that immigration of even the lowest skilled is good for America and such persons, including the poorest of us who actually live in and are US citizens in our country, should be distributed across the nation to enhance "diversity" in our culture.

But, can you name but one such progressive leader/politician who argues that the immigrant/poor should be relocated to THEIR neighborhoods? Can't name one can you? Here's an article focusing on this issue re: San Francisco.

And, speaking of San Francisco, this video report is very eye-opening.

Progressives who like to affirm that they are for the less fortunate surround us, it seems. For one example, take Maxine Waters - PLEASE! (Sorry, Henny, I just couldn't resist.) Here is a video clip of Tucker Carlson offering an opinion on Ms. Waters' housing, et. al.

Here is a picture of Ms. Waters' house, by the way. I don't see any poor or immigrants hangin' about, do you?

This July of 2017 the news, both conservative and progressive, seems consumed with "did the Russians hack the 2016 election", or not.

If fact, what is clear is that someone hacked the email server(s) of the DNC. Was it the Russian government or someone paid by the Russian government? No one at this point knows with certain proof.

However, did such act truly affect our election? No evidence of actual manipulation of votes has been forthcoming. But, the information that was leaked from these emails certainly could have (not actually demonstrated that such actions did, of course) affected people's minds, it is argued from the progressive side.

While hacking is obviously wrong and criminal, the information leaked from the DNC ONLY presented facts - not lies. No one in the DNC, nor Hillary Clinton, nor John Podesta (the originator of the emails) denies that what was released was the truth.

Objectively, how can the American people being presented with the truth be considered to negatively affect our election?

The true hypocrisy here is that while the progressives scream and yell that a foreign government trying to influence or election is "dastardly", they seem to have no issue with the fact that the Obama administration used taxpayer dollars to try and influence the election of the Prime Minister of Israel.

Further, to me anyway, the whole "Putin wanted Trump as president" doesn't seem to make sense. Trump advocated a strong military, the reduction of energy prices, and Trump is known as a strong negotiator. All three of these go against the aims of Putin.

Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, was offering the opposite and had no real experience in negotiating. Add to this the fact that Ms. Clinton was directly responsible for selling 20% of the USA's uranium supply to the Putin government - with a benefit going to the Clinton Foundation. Were I Putin, guess who I would want in the Oval Office!

There is nothing new under the Sun about one country trying to affect the election of another to further its own interests. But, in this case all we see is phony righteous indignation on the part of the progressives.

Here's but a tiny example of media bias and hypocrisy. The Miami Herald ran a story about the apparent suicide of one Klaus Eberwein.

However, the article in this progressive media outlet somehow failed to mention that Eberwein was set to expose the extent of Clinton Foundation corruption and malpractice in Haiti. Selective journalism much?!

Speaking of hypocrisy, the progressives seem to have a penchant for "sanctuary cities". What, do these cities they think are medieval churches? My cartoon on this should provide a question of logic.

Moving on to Climate Change, progressives are wont to castigate us for our use (i.e., over use) of fossil fuels. They are adamant in their "Chicken Little" use of fearmongering on this subject. The most vocal on this, of course, is Al Gore who has made millions "selling his story" of 'Global Warming'.


As an aside, if you would like to see why true global warming should be happening independent of human actions or inactions AND what a "scam" the entire 'Climate Change' movement actually is, Click Here.

Well, part of Gore's "story" is that his house uses 200 times the "carbon footprint" of the normal house in America. Of course he can afford it; he has made millions from selling the "Global Warming" fear. His wealth, by the way, is not the point; the point is that what he tells us to do vs. what he does is hypocritical.

Now, of course, it's not just politicians who run afoul of the "global warming" fear mongers. Famous celebrities do so at will. To be a bit fair here, not all celebrities are "Climate Change believers" - but, many are.

Gore and entertainment celebrities are not alone in extravagant life styles and travel while castigating the rest of us about how if we don't cut back on carbon emissions the world as we know it will be destroyed. Former President Obama was a big proponent of a "carbon tax" and "cap-n-trade", both specifically designed, by law, to force all of us to adopt a greatly reduced use of fossil fuels. But, did the former president practice what he preached? Not even close.

The stories a legend of his lavish vacations while president - costing the American taxpayer upwards of $100 million. The cost of Air Force One for only one hour of flight time is approximately $200,000. To be fair here, the president may ONLY fly using Air Force One or it's partner, Marine One.

Still, an Air Force One flight from Washington, D.C. to Paris, France, for example uses 19,140 gallons of jet fuel. Lots and lots of carbon pumped out there, for sure. Oh, it gets better. During Obama's 8-year presidency he logged some 569,460 miles flying. At 5 gallons per mile (the rating for Air Force One), that means he burned approximately 2,847,300 gallons of jet fuel. Talk about your carbon footprint!

Now, if all his travel were related to the business of leading our Nation, well then, it is what it was. However, the $100 million spent on vacations had to have some flying involved? Right?

OK, now, let's add in Michelle Obama's vacation trips. Clearly, these are not part of the president's business travel. But, we the taxpayer footed the bill. How much, you ask? Click Here for but a sample. And, she was not alone on these trips - all paid for by the American taxpayer.

Next is a special class of progressive hypocrites. These people knowingly tell out-and-out lies to sell their message. They play to the understanding that their "fans" will blindly accept their word. There are so many examples it is hard to choose which to highlight. So, I have chosen two - Elizabeth Warren and Linda Sarsour.

As to Ms. Warren, here too there are many, many examples from which to choose. Here is but one.

Linda Sarsour is kind of a special case. She was the major leader of the 2017 "Women's March" on Washington, D.C. in opposition to President Trump. You know, a "Women's March" where any woman who did not support abortion was disinvited.

She is a special case as she is a prominent advocate for Muslim's rights in the US, for Sharia Law, and for Islam in general.

To start, here are a few of her "tweets":

Let's look at just a few of Sharia Laws' "reasonable" tenets; you know, some of the "details". I know the "details" will make sense to not a soul who isn't bound to Islam's tenet that requires Islam and Sharia Law be held above any nation's laws.

In a recent lecture she gave, she not only postured that the current administration, i.e., Trump's, had issued bans on Muslims, "Muslim bans" as she called them, but, also, advocated that Muslims have no responsibility to "assimilate" into our culture.

Her first proclamation is blatantly false - and she knows it. Muslims live in about every country on earth. The original 7, now 6, countries falling under the temporary ban constitute about 12% of Muslims. No ban has ever mentioned the word "Muslim" or "Islam". It was targeted at terrorism avoidance. Let me offer a simple, but applicable, analogy:

Let's say the Irish Republican Army had committed a terrorist attack on America. Trump, therefore, initiated a temporary ban on people from the country of Ireland. His detractors would immediately offer that he was banning all Roman Catholics. It's exactly the same lie as saying Trump was banning all Muslims.

Sarsour's second proclamation is to advocate that Muslims work to be separate from the rest of our citizens - totally an anti-American culture position. But, she wants to take advantage of our laws and culture - yet not adhere to or be any part of either. If this isn't hypocrisy, then please tell me what is.

In the full video from which the above clips come, Sarsour also called for "Jihad" in this country. Now, to be totally fair here, she was talking about a jihad of words, not one of violence. However, . . .

The level of sophistication, knowledge, and command of the English language of her "adoring" followers, is such that I don't believe many would understand the nuance of the two forms of jihad. Just research the current situation in Dearborn, MI to understand what I mean. The closest many of her followers may come to understand that there are different kinds of jihad is illustrated in the following cartoon:

For those who feel she represents women and/or Muslims, they should check on who her "friends" are.

Ms. Sarsour is an educated woman and knows, I believe, that what she spews are lies. After all, she is a self-identified "community organizer".


As an aside, if the only knowledge of Islam, Sharia Law, etc., you have is derived from media sources (i.e., the news), perhaps this article will add to your knowledge base.

In a recent interview, a well-respected leader of the Civil Rights movement back in the 1960s offered his opinion on the duplicity and hypocrisy of modern-day progressives. His views contrast the "way back when" Civil Rights movement with the modern-day progressives' agenda. Well worth the watch.

Moving on to a couple of the progressives' favorite topics, abortion and Planned Parenthood:

Conservatives, for the most part, are, indeed, against Planned Parenthood and some, if not many, think abortion is tantamount to murder. However, "Roe vs. Wade" is the law and conservatives will not try and subvert a standing law.

Planned Parenthood is another thing altogether. It is a progressive organization founded upon eugenics (i.e., the eradication of the "Negro Race" and all those found to be "unfit"). See my article on this organization.

For an ideology, i.e., progressivism, that promotes itself as supporting all minorities, especially blacks, their undying support to Planned Parenthood signals hypocrisy - BIG TIME.

Progressives just love to protest and rage against people; conservatives love to rally against policies - not people; people who espouse bad policies or try and subvert the laws of our Nation, yes; but not people just because they don't like them.

I use the word "rally" as conservatives, in general, do not "protest" as do progressives. And, conservatives certainly don't riot as a fundamental aspect of protesting. News footage of Baltimore, Ferguson, St. Louis, Berkley, etc., certainly shows the progressives' penchant for the "riot".

It seems from the progressive news media that anyone who disagrees with a progressive is a "racist", or some other ugly word. No matter that these progressive news media and those who blindly believe them don't seem to know what the word "racist" actually means - and, no matter that a conservative may actually be correct and factual in what they might offer.

Revisiting the environment issue for a moment, here are a couple of pictures of what the progressive protesters left after protesting the Dakota Pipeline and a sample of what they left after the "Womens' March" in D.C. against Trump in 2017.

Contrast those pictures with what conservatives left after the 912 March in Washington, D.C., where anywhere from 1.2 to 2 million people attended. Conservatives gathered in D.C. in a show of support FOR our country; they weren't protesting AGAINST anything.

Just which ideology is truly for a clean environment?

Hillary Clinton has been the subject of much lauding and condemnation - the former by progressives and the latter by conservatives.

She is an excuse to highlight one of the many examples of a certain type of hypocrisy. I feel it may be best characterized by a quote from the Book 'Animal Farm': "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - or, the progressive "elites" are treated (and, they personally, are expected to be treated) differently than the "masses".

The matter at discussion here is her having a government data server at her home - one that, obviously, was not secure. She was famously investigated by the FBI.

Progressives like to offer that "she was cleared of all wrong doing re: the server issue." This is blatantly false. She, herself, admitted to breaking several laws. James Comey, the then head of the FBI, indicated that he was not going to recommend charges as he felt that no one would prosecute her. In actuality, that was not his call; if there was evidence that a crime was committed, he should have recommended prosecution.

Not being formally charged with a crime does NOT mean one is "cleared" of any wrongdoing. (See my article on this written prior to her testimony before Comey, et. al. And, here's another one detailing the actual laws violated.)

Comey's own testimony offers a clue that in this case "some animals are more equal than others."

As to the "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", I guess General Petraeus now knows where he stands - and, for far less an offense.

The gun control issue is particularly hypocritical of the progressives. They love to offer that less guns equal less violent crime. Actually, they would prefer if guns were outlawed altogether.

This, despite the statistics that show highest gun related crime exists in those areas with the strictest gun control laws. And, despite the fact that every mass shooting in this country has been perpetuated by progressives.

Even more outrageous is that the Progressive "elites', almost to a person, employ armed guards to protect themselves. For the latest example is the July 2017 "march" by progressive feminists against the NRA and Trump.

And, speaking of the "Black Lives Matter" movement - (OOPS! Sorry, I meant hypocrisy; pardon the redundancy.), there is this:

Dana Loesch did a commericial of sorts for the NRA. A "Black Lives Matter" spokesperson generated a respose to the NRA ad.

I have included both ads in a video. I have also added in a short clip of Black Lives Matter advocating killing the police. Thus, I can only assume that Black Lives Matter only means lives of people who are black and does not apply to police - even if some of the police are black themselves.

Watch all 3 segments HERE.

Let me see, the conservative side (i.e., the NRA ad) says use the "clenched fist of truth"; the Black Lives Matter says use the "raised clenched black fist of resistance".

The Black Lives Matter ad countering the NRA ad offers that the NRA issued "a call to their constituents inciting violence against people who are constitutionally fighting for their lives..".

Someone, anyone, point me to where the NRA, directly or indirectly, have ever done so.

Further, the Black Lives Matter ad demands that "the NRA immediately remove their dangerous propaganda videos. Yet, it advocates producing their own media teaching what they preach. And, this group's ad has the audacity to stress their support for the 1st Amendment. Having researched what this group's ad presented, almost every point offered was a lie.

As a non-serious aside, maybe the "free speech" part of the 1st Amendment should be changed to: "free speech as long as what is spoken is the truth!"

Of course, it gets better. President Obama invited the Black Lives Matter group to the White House to discuss the opposing views of that group with law enforcement in general. Giving respect to a group that calls for the deaths of police officers seems totally in character with Obama. After all, he has sided with blacks over police and non-black actions almost every time - from Trayvon Martin, to Henry Louis Gates Jr., and way beyond

For a special, personal viewpoint, the Black Lives Matter group in this country is especially race-centric to the exclusion of others. But, the concept of "back lives matter" could and should have a different connotation and focus. This man puts his life where his mouth is and demonstrates what real "black lives matter" means.

Finally, everyone knows what cronyism is - the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority and/or influence without regard to their qualifications.

This seems to be considered a "right" by the progressive "elites" - and the rest of the progressives seem perfectly happy with it.

As an example:


SUMMARY:

This summary is mainly for those who like to think of themselves as progressives. The progressive movement is all about dividing us as a people - think "Divide and Rule".

This political ideology, almost to a tee, follows the "advice" of Cloward & Pivens and Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". Now, when you add in Valdimir Lenin's "A lie told often enough becomes the truth.", you have the trifecta of the progressive "elites" strategy. Objectively, if you can, look at the negativity coming from the media. Can ALL of it be true? No. If that is the case, can ANY of it be true? A question worth asking yourself.

Do not be duped; you are being used by the progressive "elites" to obtain their ultimate goal - to have the "masses" be totally dependent upon the government, which they will run.

It is my belief that most people who consider themselves "progressive" are, in actuality, Liberals. Liberals who have been swept up by their compassion for others to the point of blindness to what the progressive media and many politicians are putting forth.

A while back I did an article comparing today's media with Orwell's book "1984". You just may find it enlightening!

Accept NOTHING as truth that is offered by ANYONE. Do not blindly accept what you hear or read. Verify EVERYTHING.

Should you follow this advice, you may readily find that the information you are getting isn't exactly FACT. I offer this advice to both progressives and conservatives alike.