I'm busted!

*chuckles*

Never said the left WASN'T inclusive. Just that the right  is getting more inclusive year by year. In Texas, the three  African-American political candidates who ran for office  (and won) were all Republican.  Actually, I think if you asked most conservatives, they'd  prefer their tax dollars go to roads and schools, instead  of all the social programs in place. I don't totally agree  with that stance, but I identify with it more than many of  the leanings of the left.  When you break it all down, here's the difference between  the left and the right (at least the good people from each  side, the ones that matter). The left wants to make the  world a better place through collective action, led by the  government. The right feels the best way to make the world  a better place is to start in your own back yard. Then move  to your front yard. Everyone takes responsibility for  themselves. Lessen government's role so people have more of  the money they earned to better take care of their own  affairs.  It's a matter of whether you feel the individual parts are  greater than the whole, at least to me.  

Oh, I forgot to note Loophole's use of the word "Luddite."  I'm unsure if this is common knowledge, but the original  Luddites were workers in 19th century England that  attacked textile plants to protest the de-skilling and  loss of jobs that accompanied mechanization. The original  Luddites, were, of course, leftists, and if its used in a  neutral way, it would indicate a left-leaning position  suggesting a concern over the social effects of a  technology. Of course, over time its been used to insult  people who reject technology or question the technological  determinism that pervades our society.  In terms of the rightists Greider describes, I don't think  Luddite is quite the term to use. I like Neo-Feudalists,  since they seem to be working toward a world where the  middle class erodes, and, aside from a managerial elite,  everyone basically works at Wal-Mart or one of the many  sweatshops feeding their shelves. Of course, the  managerial elite seems to be votes in this fine nation, so  they'll probably get what they ask for.  OK, I think my duties as the resident language cop are  over for the day. :)

The progressive movement began in the 19th century when left-leaning urbanites began lobbying the government for luxuries like garbage collection and public schools. Up to that time, sanitation and education were pretty much privileges of the rich. They were also supported the labor movement, women's suffrage, and, um, progressive income taxes, so the original progressives were definitely leftists. The use of the term for a human-focused political agenda has been in pretty much continuous use since; you just may not have run across it before, Joe.

I don't see how the Left is exclusive, since its current incarnation emphasizes fair treatment of women, people of color, and persons with a diversity of lifestyle choices. As far as I can tell, the right's agenda only serves business people, people too cheap to pay for roads and schools, and hate groups like the Christian Coalition.

just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you

I dont necessarily see the right as as big a bunch of would-be luddites as the author of this article seems to but it does, from where I sit smug in my liberal middle- class intellectualism, tie together a lot of loose ends... perhaps artificiallly. I certainly don't believe there's any cabal of masterminds at work but I do think he makes a convincing case for a patchwork goal for a loosely united confederation of a great many conservative interests.

*shrugs* I certainly don't have the answers.

I will say that if he's even half right I'll be very very afraid.

...

As for the whole 'progressives' issue I think you're nit- picking. In my opinion all of these politcal pseudo-words are so overloaded as to have virtually no meaning. In the traditional dictionary sense of the word, I WOULD characterize the left as far more progressive than the right. That may just be more crafty leftist circimlocution, though. Your mileage may vary. ;)

Actually, I found the "big picture" paranoia to be the  least instructive part of the article. The author's  theories on why so many people identify with Republicans  these days (forming a more diverse, inclusive group than  ever before) was HIGHLY instructive. If the left wants to  make serious inroads, that's what they need to address. And  I hope they do, so we can back the religious right-wingers  off a bit.  (for the record, I'm the weirdest of all political animals -  a moderate, secular Republican. Even my own party hates  me.)  But I have to comment on this, because it's so funny to me.  Maybe I slept through the press conference or something,  but when did liberals start referring to themselves  as 'progressives'? You couldn't find more gratuitous self- pleasuring if you handed out jars of Vaseline in prison...