The danger of "progressivism."

Progressivism has encouraged just such a danger [to political liberty], not only in its subordination of individual liberty to its expansive, paternalistic social agenda, but in undermining the boundaries between the three branches of the federal government and denying the reality of fixed constitutional limits to federal governmental power.

The new Congress can take the first steps to mitigate this danger. It is critical that the House lead the budget process as constitutionally intended–as the body tasked with proposing specific appropriations for specific purposes, not as a hostage to presidential veto threats and “shutdown” and “default” deadlines. The Senate, among other things, must vet the president’s judicial nominees with care, measuring them against their willingness to regard the Constitution as it is “in fact . . . a fundamental law,” and their ability to judge accordingly.^[1]

The second paragraph of the above is interesting to show in very few words what a "real" political party would do. GOP conduct is remarkable for how it is absolutely, positively exactly never like anything described in that paragraph. "Deer in the headlights" comes to my mind, at the best of times. "Active connivance" does too, and it's just as good a fit.

But, be that as it may, I want to focus on the first of the paragraphs quoted above. "Progressive" is a nonsense word that is used by the left for only one purpose – to provide a fig leaf for communists who believe at all costs they must remain hidden from the citizens and who therefore hide amongst liberals and socialist. Voila! "Progressives," kindly and honest people who are in favor of, well, progress. Progress to moral, cultural, and financial bankruptcy? some do ask but to no avail. No. Progress is lovely, sweet, painless, and just. It just is.

It's a measure of the success of "progressives" that the shape shifting evolution from "liberal" (classical) to "liberal" (one who despises of traditional America) to 60s activist (mindless radical and communist collaborator) to progressive (ultra-left, all-purpose grease trap for traitors and and subversives plus a layer of naive and witting fellow travelers and minority malcontents) continues to befuddle citizens searching for a taxonomy adequate for understanding the immensely destructive events in our political life in the last half of the 20th century. If the name of the internal enemy keeps shifting, not to mention being camouflaged at the outset (by means of Soviet training), how can citizens organize against their enemy?

Tinkering with labels is a play borrowed from Stalin's "popular front" campaign to have communist parties under his iron control appear to make common cause with non-communist parties in Europe to oppose the greater menace of National Socialism in the 1930s. The threat from Germany was such that many politicians and officials did indeed feel threatened so there was a common cause to some extent. However, it was for the non-communist parties nothing less than cuddling with a rattlesnake.

This deliberate semantic confusion is also visible elsewhere as with the duplicitous campaign to refer ceaselessly and forever without end amen to Nazis as "far-right." To borrow from William F. Buckley, you'd have a hard time running a string of dental floss between the Nazis and the Soviet communists. Both were far-left entities intent on controlling every aspect of national economic life and the lives of their citizens. Both had secret police organs that terrorized ordinary citizens and the party faithful both.

So progressives are communists and their ranks also include all those who are content to be in the company of socialists and communists. (E.g., Al Franken.) No "right winger" would be permitted to be within 100 yards of David Duke without being dragged though the grinder of the MSM, but the ultra left claim absolute immunity from being tarred with the "communist" brush for anyone in their ranks. No. They just enjoy the fraternal company of communists.

However, for people looking in and trying to keep score, it's helpful to remember this: Lie down with progressives but don't be surprised that you woke up with communist fleas. Progressives who don't like the communist taint can denounce and separate from communists at any time they choose.

But they never do.

The deliberate semantic obfuscation involved in the use of the word "progressive" is but a tip of the iceberg.

Diana West has the story (American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character) on the incredible extent to which communists infiltrated American government and society and mounted influence operations against us. If she's half right, we were without a doubt had by Stalin. Gauging by the vicious attacks on her for writing her book, you can conclude that she was right much more than half.

With this in mind, do not be under any illusion that, when progressives undermine individual liberty and the constitutional scheme, they do so as some kind of a warmed over variant of Tammany Hall or the League of Women Voters. No. They do so as people determined to implement nothing less than the full-blown communist agenda.

Hear "progressive." Think "communist." Know "communist." Remember secret police, concentration camps, and the killing fields.

Do not doubt me. These people are "dead serious. A "living Constitution" and a "propositional nation" are the least of our worries. Communism is alive and well and much more entrenched as as an internal enemy than was even the case during the Cold War.

Notes
^[1] "When Constitutionalism is a Dangerous Thing. There are no ‘least dangerous’ branches." By David Corbin and Matt Parks, The Federalist, 1/5/15.