Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Progressive vs the Conservative
Topic Started: May 15 2004, 06:41 AM (413 Views)
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
The Progressive vs. the Conservative

Friday, May 14, 2004
By Ken Adelman

Policy fatigue may hit the Bush administration soon. The Abu Ghraib (search) prison scandal — as well as the gruesome murder of American civilian Nick Berg (search) — is yet more bad news from Iraq. As Shakespeare says, woes come not as single spies but in battalions.

Come November, the American people may catch policy fatigue — feeling they need a respite from all the churning out of Washington. Naturally, Sen. John Kerry would benefit from that.

After all, he’s the real conservative nowadays. President George W. Bush is the real progressive. Not, of course, in terms of ideology. Here, Bush is true blue conservative, and Kerry is a real progressive.

It’s in a leadership sense that Kerry is conservative, with a stand-pat foreign policy, whereas Bush is progressive — even radical — in his global approach.

Soon after taking office, Bush showed he was a real progressive by freeing America from the straightjacket of outdated, or just bad, treaties. Take, for instance, the ABM Treaty (search). For 20 years, Presidents Reagan, Bush the First and Clinton danced around this real barrier to protecting America. Then along comes Bush, the progressive, who kicks this barrier aside, and thus opens up possibilities of innovative technology to safeguard our homeland.

Likewise with the Kyoto Treaty (search), which languished in the Senate for years. President Clinton never pushed for its ratification, since 95 senators voted that it had fundamental flaws. Bush courageously stopped this shenanigan, and frankly told everyone that the Kyoto Treaty was passé.

The second big indication of Bush’s progressivism was the pre-emption doctrine (search). Adopting it broke with past U.S. strategic doctrines of containment and deterrence, recognizing that Al Qaeda fanatics can neither be contained, nor deterred.

An offshoot of pre-emption gave the grounds for liberating Iraq. Granted, it’s been a big surprise that weapons of mass destruction haven’t been found there. But Saddam sure wanted them, and, had he stayed in office, sure would have developed them again. President Bush’s actions pre-empted that nightmare.

The third, and most radical of Bush’s progressive approaches, is his advocating democracy across the Arab world. No president — not Nixon nor Ford, Carter nor Clinton, and especially not Bush the elder — would have ever dared anything this jolting to the status quo. They were all conservative, feeling that Arab countries can pretty much stay as they are domestically, but should accept Israel internationally.

It’s precisely President Bush’s progressive actions which drive his critics up the wall, and which threaten policy fatigue. Should that ensure this fall, John Kerry will be a big beneficiary.

For the past 30 years, Kerry’s consistent approach to foreign policy has been, well, consistency. Throughout the 1980s, he opposed the progressive moves of Ronald Reagan, when he advocated “regime change” for a communist dictatorship in Central America, SDI (“Star Wars”) and a robust military buildup to prompt “regime change” even in the Soviet Union.

Instead, Kerry sought the conservative, steady-as-she-goes approach to world problems. Don’t change much because, either not all that much needs changing, or not that much can be changed.

Years ago, leadership scholar James McGregor Burns (search) made a telling distinction between transactional leaders — those who keep their desks clean and react to staff papers — and transformational leaders — those who direct their staffs and fundamentally flip the whole debate. Transactional leaders seek office to be someone. Transformational leaders seek office to do something. And that “something” is sure not the way it’s being done now.

President Bush’s merging conservative ideology with transformational leadership is rather remarkable. Most conservative leaders are, well, conservative in approach.

Sen. Kerry could gain steadily over the next six months, simply by daring to be dull. This he does awfully well. But it might sell well to a people exhausted by the waves Bush has caused over the past four years.


Mr. Adelman was a U.N. ambassador and arms-control director in the 1980s, accompanying President Reagan on his superpower summits with Mikhail Gorbachev. He now serves on the Defense Policy Board, and co-hosts www.TechCentralStation.com.

*******************************************************************

This OPINION piece is from the FoxNews website.

I teach in the management/leadership field. I am posting this piece simply because I am curious to see the response. I am thinking of developing and proposing a course based on Burns book in fact.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
I don't think it is a progressive/conservative issue.

Progressives tend to be such in the area of social policy.

The term conservative may be a misnomer since they tend to be "progressive" about economic policy.

Non-leaders/managers tend to be about the status quo (Kerry?) while another form of non-leader/manger tends to lead from behind backing whatever is popular (Clinton?)

Both Bush and Kerry need to give us thier vision of the world with a plan of how they intend to aceive that vision.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I though it was interesting, perhaps you know there is a natural balance in a democracy. At point 1 people have become unhappy with the status quo and elect some form of progressive Government which will change things. At point 2 after a few years people have seen so much change that they want stability and time for those changes to bed down so they elected some form of Conservative to consolodate the situation, and so it goes on.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Personally, I always loathed when liberals started calling themselves "progressives", when all they wanted was government nannying and free (no consequence) sex for all. (Yes, this is what a lot of what it boils down to... the lack of personal responsiblity). I just don't find that terribly progressive.

On the other hand, equal opportunity (of application, not outcome) for all is real progressiveness.

Just my $0.02.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
Wichita,
I find the observations made in the article accurate for the most, except the supposition of policy fatigue. The American people suffer from short term memory. We had better get Terrorist Fatigue again! To remain engaged we must not have a slouch in the White House like John Kerry. Even if policy fatigue were to happen and so called bad news continues, the alternative is so insipid that he shall not benefit.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Admiralbill_gomec
May 15 2004, 08:55 AM
Personally, I always loathed when liberals started calling themselves "progressives", when all they wanted was government nannying and free (no consequence) sex for all. (Yes, this is what a lot of what it boils down to... the lack of personal responsiblity). I just don't find that terribly progressive.

On the other hand, equal opportunity (of application, not outcome) for all is real progressiveness.

Just my $0.02.

I loathed when Leftists started calling themselves liberal. A liberal is a person that favors individual liberty, which include the right to self-defense or the right to own a business which employees people and run it pretty much anyway you see fit. Leftist are the ones that make it virtually impossible to terminate people in some industries and some countries. It's Leftists that want to take guns away from law abiding people, and then place in jail law abiding people who end up using a gun to defend themselves from a thug. And for some people, like some women, a gun is the only thing that truly equalizes the situation when that average 5'7", 130 lbs. woman is being attacked by the average 5'10", 170 lbs. man.

So called Liberals need to face the facts, most every single one of them is as rigid and dogmatic as any Christain fundamentalist.

They're not liberals, they're Leftists.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Um, Bill, where can I sign up for that free sex you were talking about. I' feeling pretty cheated, being a Democrat for years and never getting any of that free sex or government nannying you're talking about. :P
In truth this article come pretty close to my view about leadership: activist versus conserveator.
Bush is a great example of an Activist. He can stand to not do something. Waiting, reseaching, brainstorming, meetings these things drive Activists nuts. Woodward's two books on Bush often refer to this about his personality; he even admits it about himself. Now just because Bush is reactionary (see we progressive liberals can call names, too) in his politics dosen't mean that he won't do anything; in fact, he wants to turn back the clock on many issues and go back to many policies that were rejected long ago (abortion, laissez-faire capitolism, abstinance only sex education, ect.).
Okay, I'm getting too partisan here. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Abraham Lincoln are great examples of positive political Activist leaders.
Conservator leaders belive in working within the system and usually make slight changes. Revolutionary changes or untried methods drive these guys insane.
The elder Bush is a great example of that. His most sweeping action was Gulf War I and even then he worked within the UN and diplomatic circles, making sure the Middle East balance of power remained the same afterward.
As always the results determine the sucess of the leader. Executive power usually favor Activist approaches, so Activist presidents usually get the glory.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I say I am a liberal because I believe people should have equality of opportunity (and sometimes the state is needed to help) and personal freedom (unless the freedoms of others are being infringed).

So to give an example on equality of opportunity, with no state invervention bright kids from poor backgrounds might well end up in low payed, low skilled jobs because they could not afford an education. When the state invervenes that same child could go all the way to Cambridge or Oxford at no charge and then pay the country back when they are earning big money.

On personal freedom, I take the example of Gay marriage. That is about allowing people personal freedoms where no-one elses freedoms are being stepped on. To allow say sex in a public place, or to legalise paedofilia would be infringing on the freedom of others. Thats why I support a ban on smoking in public, because the smoker is causing physical harm to others around him/her.

I also believe that where possible peoples attitudes should be changed by force of argument rather than dictating to them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
, I take the example of Gay marriage. That is about allowing people personal freedoms where no-one elses freedoms are being stepped on


Not true DS, Marriage as a legal institution forces third parties to recognize the relationship meaning that desicions to employ, rent, sell, and insure become forced actions under the provisions of equal protection under the law. Therefore, an emplyer, renter, seller, or insurer has there freedom of choice and association stepped on by the state mandating that a gay couple have all the rights and privelages of married couples already recognized as legitimate by the state.

Might as well make public sex legal. At least I can walk away from the act without being accused of violating someone elses socalled rights.

The problem with educational help, at least in America, has been the politicisation of it. Rather than give a minority student a schalorship based on merit, we tend to give help based soley on minority status. Higher education even subscibes to the myth of a critical mass of diversity to help educate "all' students. The results of state actions is a lowering of acceptance standards and the refusal to admit more qualified majority students to make room for minorities.

So both your cases, prove liberism = statism.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
ds9074
May 16 2004, 09:38 AM
So to give an example on equality of opportunity, with no state invervention bright kids from poor backgrounds might well end up in low payed, low skilled jobs because they could not afford an education. When the state invervenes that same child could go all the way to Cambridge or Oxford at no charge and then pay the country back when they are earning big money.

I understand your basic point, however this is not true of the opportunities in this country. Case in point is Oprah Winfrey. Bright kid, born poor and with two minority strikes against her.
My point is that if you get off your ass and work hard every day, play by the rules(don't do illegal crap like reefer), and try your best every day you can achieve more than most people do, especially if you are bright.
You are also entitled to scholarships and or student loans if you are bright. :yes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
May 15 2004, 09:39 AM
I though it was interesting, perhaps you know there is a natural balance in a democracy. At point 1 people have become unhappy with the status quo and elect some form of progressive Government which will change things. At point 2 after a few years people have seen so much change that they want stability and time for those changes to bed down so they elected some form of Conservative to consolodate the situation, and so it goes on.

Agreed - and I believe that at this point in time we are seeing the beginnings of a concretive swing here in the US.


Quote:
 
So to give an example on equality of opportunity, with no state invervention bright kids from poor backgrounds might well end up in low payed, low skilled jobs because they could not afford an education
They might, or they might apply them selves and become something better. Its all just a matter of will. I by no means come from a rich background, and my parents struggled for years just to get surpass the statues of poor. But I was able to go to college as well as my other two siblings. We all worked from the age of 16 until graduation to pay for our school.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!

Quote:
 
Sen. Kerry could gain steadily over the next six months, simply by daring to be dull. This he does awfully well. But it might sell well to a people exhausted by the waves Bush has caused over the past four years.


I've thought this all along. It seems to me as if all Kerry has to do is not misspeak to have a fighting chance in this election.

Why are we labeling these two men as either/or? What if they have tendencies that go both ways? Can't being progressive or a radical be characteristic of a conservative? Mr. Adelman has eloquently cited many examples in his opinion piece.

There is one thing that is absolutely true. November is half a year away. Might as well be an eternity. For the many that are interested in politics, it's like Christmas everyday. There too are those who can't bother with the political games. They inform themselves on sound bytes and running headlines on the cable news channels. Political fatigue will wear us down and for people like me, the alternative, any alternative will look very very good in November.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Call it statism if you will, but it is not a nanny state intefering because it can that I want to see, it is a liberal state that steps in when it needs to. Can you imagine if every parent had to pay for their childs education from primary to university. Sure some of the poor might find a way, but the majority would be left without skills or prospects.

I like the idea that the state guarantees me an education to the age of 19 if I want one, and then provides significant support for me to continue to degree level. Here the state provides most of the funding but it is for the Universities to decide their admissions policies.

I dont understand your argument about gay marriage Annova, you have to do those things as a result of marriage anyway because the state created it
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ds9074
May 17 2004, 01:06 PM
I like the idea that the state guarantees me an education to the age of 19 if I want one, ....

DS9074, just curious why you added "if I want one". How long is mandatory education in England?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
May 17 2004, 07:06 AM
Call it statism if you will, but it is not a nanny state intefering because it can that I want to see, it is a liberal state that steps in when it needs to. Can you imagine if every parent had to pay for their childs education from primary to university. Sure some of the poor might find a way, but the majority would be left without skills or prospects.

I like the idea that the state guarantees me an education to the age of 19 if I want one, and then provides significant support for me to continue to degree level. Here the state provides most of the funding but it is for the Universities to decide their admissions policies.

I dont understand your argument about gay marriage Annova, you have to do those things as a result of marriage anyway because the state created it

Quote:
 
it is a liberal state that steps in when it needs to.

So, when does a "state" know that it "needs" to step in. What are the metrics that calculate these parameters? Isn't that awfully... TOTALITARIAN??

Quote:
 
Can you imagine if every parent had to pay for their childs education from primary to university.

Imagine it? I already to it. Even if my son didn't go to private school, I'd STILL be paying for his education through school district taxes. Guess what... I'd be paying these taxes if I didn't have children. So, I'm paying for his primary school education twice. This country also has something called a guaranteed student loan that allows students who can't afford to the chance to go to college (university, as you'd say).

Quote:
 
I like the idea that the state guarantees me an education to the age of 19 if I want one, and then provides significant support for me to continue to degree level. Here the state provides most of the funding but it is for the Universities to decide their admissions policies.


The state does not guarantee you an education. Your attending a compulsory school guarantees you an education. It is paid for by taxes, it is not free. As for having the state provide "significant support for me to continue to degree level" I find that appalling. Are you doing anything to earn that support, or are you just going to school? My best friend, had parents who made too much to qualify for Pell grants, but could not afford to put him through school. He is the youngest of four, each kid spaced about 18 months apart. He worked summers to earn enough for tuition and books, and worked minimum wage type jobs full time to pay for room and board while in school, in addition to holding down a full course load. He graduated with a double major (Finance and Accounting) in four and a half years (the standard college program is four years). He "cheated" a little bit... he often found food service jobs (e.g., McDonalds, pizza places) so he could save on groceries. While he had a car (a 1969 Mercury Marquis), he only used it for the occasional visit home. He either rode a bike or a shuttle bus. He did his landlord's taxes to get breaks on his rent. He graduated in 1983 with nearly $5000 in his savings account. It took hard work, and he sacrificed a lot of "social" time to do it, but he did.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus