# We really need a new progressive movement in America **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2012, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444 "2012-04-11T07:35:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/282 "2012-04-18T16:16:27Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Ultimately I think this is the problem. It’s not that people wouldn’t necessarily agree with progressive ideas but that those with progressive ideas have no idea how to present them to the public, particularly in the face of a well-funded and highly experienced opposition. What you need is a number of rich, ruthless and rational progressives, of which there are very, very, very few (George Soros, perhaps; Warren Buffett in some areas such as ZPG). > > The fluffy bunny approach simply doesn’t work. I agree, which is why I wish the progressives would not keep pitching their ideas as benefitting the POOR. The poor, for the most part, are not active politically and do not read this message board. Most of the benefits of progressive ideas apply equally to most members of the middle class as they do the poor, and the middle class ARE active politically and DO read this message board. Fluffy bunny “let’s help the poor downtrodden poor people” does not have NEARLY the same appeal as “let me show you what progressive ideas can do for YOU!” ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/283 "2012-04-18T19:52:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Yes, well a general appeal to “older people are wiser” will get all the respect it deserves here … none. It’s just shame that nobody has done that. > [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I agree, which is why I wish the progressives would not keep pitching their ideas as benefitting the POOR. The poor, for the most part, are not active politically and do not read this message board. Most of the benefits of progressive ideas apply equally to most members of the middle class as they do the poor, and the middle class ARE active politically and DO read this message board. Fluffy bunny “let’s help the poor downtrodden poor people” does not have NEARLY the same appeal as “let me show you what progressive ideas can do for YOU!” The issue here isn’t that the OP has only shown that his ideas will help poor people. The issue is that he hasn’t shown any way that his ideas can work. They are all based upon a gross ignorance of economic and social and a total failure to comprehend the obvious consequences of little things like making it illegal to ask other people to write to their congressman. It doesn’t actually matter at this stage who these ideas might benefit. the problem is that they are utterly unworkable. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/284 "2012-04-18T20:11:46Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > It’s just shame that nobody has done that. > > The issue here isn’t that the OP has only shown that his ideas will help poor people. > > The issue is that he hasn’t shown any way that his ideas can work. They are all based upon a gross ignorance of economic and social and a total failure to comprehend the obvious consequences of little things like making it illegal to ask other people to write to their congressman. > > It doesn’t actually matter at this stage who these ideas might benefit. the problem is that they are utterly unworkable. No they are not. Many are good, commonsense ideas. He has not explained how to make them work to YOUR satisfaction, but given your political leanings, it is unlikely that any progressive could. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/285 "2012-04-18T20:14:13Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > Bravo on nailing this with precision and derision. > > Back in the late 60’s / early 70’s when my young idealism sprouted my Father told me, “You don’t know yet what you don’t know yet and you think that makes you smart”. > > The faux genius that such ignorance begets is fleeting and profoundly unfulfilling. One looks back on it later in life and at best recognizes that it was a learning experience . . . at worst it is regarded as a wasteful expense of time that you forever wish you could have back. Blake, what would you call this if not an appeal to the wisdom of elders? Your post comes very close to it, as well. Some of the stupidest political constituencies are composed largely of elders, see “Tea Partiers.” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/286 "2012-04-18T22:14:31Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] No they are not. Many are good, commonsense ideas. [/QUOTE] It might help if you started with specifics. Which ones do you consider good ideas…and why do you think they are good ideas? Why do you consider them commonsense, and why do you think commonsense is important? > [@](#): > > He has not explained how to make them work to YOUR satisfaction, but given your political leanings, it is unlikely that any progressive could. And yet Blake has at least gone to the trouble, fairly extensive actually, in pointing out WHY he thought the ideas were bad, ill-advised, impractical or otherwise flawed…something you have not bothered to do, merely attempted to cloud the waters by pointing out politics. So, why don’t YOU input something into the discussion and point out what you think is good in the OP and why you think it’s good and practical…or, hell, that you think it’s good, even if it’s totally impractical? > [@](#): > > Fluffy bunny “let’s help the poor downtrodden poor people” does not have NEARLY the same appeal as “let me show you what progressive ideas can do for YOU!” So, take the bull by the horns (rather than what comes out the other end) and show us all what progressive ideas can do for the average Joe American, not just for the poor. Step up and help the OP out by participating in more than some one liners and political snipes. Lets seem some meat to go with the potatoes. -XT ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/287 "2012-04-18T23:01:18Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Blake, what would you call this if not an appeal to the wisdom of elders? Your post comes very close to it, as well. Some of the stupidest political constituencies are composed largely of elders, see “Tea Partiers.” It’s an appeal to experience. Like when you learned there was no Tooth Fairy. And when examined, these idealistic broad-stroke Freshman rants stand on as much substance. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/288 "2012-04-18T23:05:58Z")
[quote=“XT, post:286, topic:618444”] It might help if you started with specifics. Which ones do you consider good ideas…and why do you think they are good ideas? Why do you consider them commonsense, and why do you think commonsense is important?\ Fair enough. Don’t have time enough to do them all at once. But we can go one at a time. > [@OP](#): > > A movement that will reject the free market as the utopian solution to our economic problems, and instead advocate a mixed economy. An unregulated free market, as history proves again and again, is a fricking NIGHTMARE. The excesses of the early days of the industrial age, with people working literally for starvation wages, children working long hours in dangerous conditions, etc. etc. are proof of that. The stagnant wages of the middle class for the last few decades, with the wealthy grabbing all the economic gains, is further proof. The Great Depression proved that banks must be regulated to keep them from gambling all our money away on dubious financial instruments. The Crash of 2008 and the resulting Bush Depression proved the same thing … again. It happened because too many people bought that line about free, unregulated markets being good. they are not good, they are bad. They crash. The wealthy grab all the economic gains while the middle class and the poor just limp along, or things get worse. We need regulation and a strong social safety net to keep our economy healthy, not the outright theft and greed characterized by the “free market.” ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/289 "2012-04-18T23:07:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It’s an appeal to experience. Like when you learned there was no Tooth Fairy. And when examined, these idealistic broad-stroke Freshman rants stand on as much substance. It’s just a variant on argumentum ad hominem. Sad, really. Find another leg to stand on. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/290 "2012-04-18T23:15:37Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] Fair enough. Don’t have time enough to do them all at once. But we can go one at a time. [/QUOTE] That’s fair. I totally understand about RL impacting posting. I’ve been lucky this week and have had more time than usual to post and read through threads, which has been a real treat. > [@](#): > > An unregulated free market, as history proves again and again, is a fricking NIGHTMARE. Well, whether that’s true or not true seems, to me at least, to be irrelevant, since we don’t have an unregulated free market. We have a highly regulated free market, but the regulation is spotty in places (several iterations of regulation, deregulation, new regulation, modified regulation, etc etc) and inconsistent…and not always rationally applied OR enforced. > [@](#): > > We need regulation and a strong social safety net to keep our economy healthy, not the outright theft and greed characterized by the “free market.” Actually, I agree, but the devil would be in the details. Just saying we need regulation doesn’t really mean anything, since we HAVE regulation already. We don’t HAVE an unregulated free market system, and in truth we’ve never had one…in fact, I’m unsure if, historically, such a beast ever existed anywhere in the world. There have ALWAYS been some regulation or impact by the government on any economic system or market. Same with the social safety net…pointing out that we should have one is ignoring the fact that we DO have one. Now, specifically, you might put forth that we need a better one, with more straps on the net, and I might or might not agree with you. It all comes down to details. In THEORY what you are asking for here is something that most people would agree on, while pointing out that we already have it. The devil would be in the details. -XT ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/291 "2012-04-19T02:33:29Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It’s just a variant on argumentum ad hominem. Sad, really. Find another leg to stand on. Guess you need to look up “ad hominem” then. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/292 "2012-04-19T03:49:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Guess you need to look up “ad hominem” then. Oh, right, mean argument to authority. Oops. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/293 "2012-04-19T04:44:35Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Oh, right, mean argument to authority. Oops. No problem. But it’s not an Appel to Authority either. In an Appeal to Authority, the person with Authority in subject A, say physics, makes a claim in a field having nothing to do with his expertise, say… opera. Now if you insist on categorizing it as a fallacy, might I suggest: an _Appeal to Knowing What The Fuck One Is Talking About._ ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/294 "2012-04-19T05:40:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No problem. But it’s not an Appel to Authority either. In an Appeal to Authority, the person with Authority in subject A, say physics, makes a claim in a field having nothing to do with his expertise, say… opera. > > Now if you insist on categorizing it as a fallacy, might I suggest: an _Appeal to Knowing What The Fuck One Is Talking About._ No, an appeal to authority is exactly what it sounds like, “You must accept what this man or woman says because they are learned and wise” without any regard for what is being said. It does not matter if he or she is speaking in their field or not. It is simply an appeal to the authority of the source of the assertions, without reference to the assertions themselves. Which is definitely what your claims were. In an honest debate, you examine the claims themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/295 "2012-04-19T06:13:36Z")
> [@Eric\_the\_Green](#): > > If car companies can make an electric car and batteries today, why couldn’t they make them two or three decades ago? Did the physics of how to make a battery change in that time? No, it’s because the CEOs of the car companies decided not to do the research and development. Without government prodding and investment, change for the better does not occur. Only change that might make a profit. If enough ordinary people are willing to pay for a “change for the better”, then actually giving them what they want is a good way to make a profit. Your argument is essentially that the government should “prod” the car companies into building cars that no one wants to buy. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/296 "2012-04-19T07:18:19Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > 2008 showed how much economists and corporatists and conservatives know, in a TOTALLY unrefutable way. You can spit words at failure all you like, but … you failed. Merely a hiccup in their ongoing project, which is not so much to “comport with reality” (per **magellan** ) as to buy the rights to it. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/297 "2012-04-19T07:46:09Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > If enough ordinary people are willing to pay for a “change for the better”, then actually giving them what they want is a good way to make a profit. It doesn’t work; it often does not. > [@](#): > > Your argument is essentially that the government should “prod” the car companies into building cars that no one wants to buy. Industries in the national interest need to be prodded. What individuals want is not a good guide to what we all NEED. We need to switch off of fossil fuels, and we need to do it fast. Waiting for the market will not work. It hasn’t worked for 40 years. Time is up for your misguided method. what you are asking is that the people continue to pay for this rotten system, with no alternative, until many are priced off the road and our planet no longer supports us. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/298 "2012-04-19T08:06:54Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Because battery technology that exists today didn’t exist 2 or 3 decades ago…or, if it did, it was incredibly expensive and completely experimental. Baloney. People failed to require them to develop and make them. > [@](#): > > Because even TODAY, with as much as gas costs AND 2-3 decades more advancement in battery technology it still can’t compete on either a cost OR performance basis with ICE technology. The market for AEVs is miniscule, and even hybrids are more a niche product, though the market for them is growing. 2-3 decades ago, even if the technology existed (which it didn’t), no one was going to pay a hell of a lot more for a vehicle with such starkly inferior performance characteristics. Because it’s pure fantasy that car companies haven’t been putting money into R&D for alternative technologies to ICE for the past 2-3 decades and spent literally hundreds of billions on that R&D. Electric cars work great. Test drive a Tesla and see. We’ve always had electric cars. It was just more convenient to use oil. I’ve heard all this nonsense before; don’t think I haven’t. They didn’t want to spend the money on it. They could have done so. If they can do it now, they could have done it then; and did. They needed to put out more of them so the price could come down; decades ago. > [@](#): > > Etc etc etc. You didn’t even bother with the Motor Trend cite I provided earlier, did you? You didn’t see the Heat documentary I linked here earlier, did you? > [@](#): > > You are locked into a total fantasy, and are willing to jump through hoops of rationalization to make it ‘logical’ to your own mind. I mean, seriously…we had comparable battery technology to today 2-3 decades ago? And every car manufacture on the planet went along with the charade? Everyone did? For what possible reason? I mean, even assuming they DID have the technology, why wouldn’t someone trot it out? If there was a market for it then money was to be made, if nothing else. Greed and all that. Electric cars are not a fantasy. Tell that to Ford who advertised on this very page for their green car. Fantasy? These cars exist now for sure, and the car companies need to be forced to make nothing else BUT. Progress on that forcing, is being made in spite of _your_ reactionary extreme-right-wing politicians, and those you would like to elect (Romney) or re-elect (the dopey tea party congress) this November. The only obstacles are, and _ever were_, political obstacles put up by free-market believers and corporatist shrills. > [@](#): > > It’s ridiculous. Huge leaps in material science as well as control systems (you know…all those computer thingies you have probably read about) have occurred in the last 2-3 decades. I mean…2-3 decades is the time frame that many of this boards members entire lives can be put into, for the sake of the gods! Think about the huge changes that have happened during that time…yet we are to believe that battery technology has languished all that time and was as good or better then as today? That Big Auto has sat on it until today…and then trotted out something that still, even today is sub-par compared to current ICE technology? Really? And everyone in the world went along with it? All those Japanese auto manufactures went along with it. All the European manufactures went along with it? Russian auto manufacturers, Czech, Polish, Chinese…everyone just went along with it? Or weren’t smart enough to figure it out on their own? Or didn’t see that there would, someday, be a market for it…a market that they could make, you know, that money stuff by catering to it? They for sure sat on it. “Leaps” are made because time and money is put into the research. It wasn’t. Just like the oil companies don’t invest in alternatives either. If you think they do, you have been hoodwinked by ads. And you look to Eastern Europe and Asia for advanced tech 3 decades ago? Look again. _Computer thingees_ have little or nothing to do with electric car batteries, which can be built in a mechanic’s garage. And in any case they would not exist without the government space program. If you had been in charge in the 60s, with your ideology, we wouldn’t even _have_ computer thingees like we have today. Not to mention no highways for your precious gas guzzlers to drive on. > [@](#): > > It’s not some vast conspiracy, and GM didn’t ‘kill the electric vehicle’, there simply wasn’t a market for them given their cost and their performance characteristics. > > -XT Right, there was no conspiracy; market forces were allowed to rule, meaning the convenience of the CEOs instead of what is in the interest of the people, and this allowed GM to kill the electric car; and the result is the polluted and endangered planet and overpriced transportation methods that we’ve got. Thanks to you guys, and ONLY you guys. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/299 "2012-04-19T13:23:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > No, an appeal to authority is exactly what it sounds like, “You must accept what this man or woman says because they are learned and wise” without any regard for what is being said. It does not matter if he or she is speaking in their field or not. It is simply an appeal to the authority of the source of the assertions, without reference to the assertions themselves. Which is definitely what your claims were. In an honest debate, you examine the claims themselves. Is it possible **magellan** recognizes appeals to one’s own authority in an unrelated field as fallacious, but is ok with appeals to outside authority in a relevant field? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/300 "2012-04-19T13:45:40Z")
> [@Eric\_the\_Green](#): > > Electric cars work great. Test drive a Tesla and see. Great idea, since a “test drive” is about all that 90% of Americans can afford. > [@](#): > > Right, there was no conspiracy; market forces were allowed to rule, meaning the convenience of the CEOs instead of what is in the interest of the people, and this allowed GM to kill the electric car; and the result is the polluted and endangered planet and overpriced transportation methods that we’ve got. Thanks to you guys, and ONLY you guys. Why wasn’t this dream car of yours produced in any of the numerous “progressive” countries out there in past decades? Where’s the Swedish Volt from 1970 or the French of German version? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/301 "2012-04-19T13:58:45Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > Is it possible **magellan** recognizes appeals to one’s own authority in an unrelated field as fallacious, but is ok with appeals to outside authority in a relevant field? Sure, it’s possible but it’s still an appeal to authority. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444.md?page=16)