Progressivism, Feminism, Consumerism, and Wars

[Daktoria]

There are a few things I want to talk about here.

The first is the obvious correspondence between progressivism and wars. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR are classic examples of this in considering their progressive commitments as well as their engagement of the Spanish-American War, WW1, and WW2. To a degree, LBJ can be included here as well due to his involvement with the Great Society and Vietnam.

The second thing to consider is how many people take exception to progressivism and FDR being the real cause of WW2. After all, the Great Depression followed the Roaring 20s of Herbert Hoover.

However, if you look at what actually got the Roaring 20s off the ground, you might be surprised to realize it had little to nothing to do with supply-side economics, but rather had to deal with the demand side of the equation:



(Skip to 2:35, the opening is rather slow)

What this tells us is while Hoover might have taken a hands off approach to the economy, he wasn't the actual driving force behind consumption. (You might notice as well the encouragement of feminine exhibitionism which coincides with consumerism.)

In fact, if you really insist on learning about how consumption became more influential than investment, I insist you read about the rise of progressivism's predecessor - pragmatism:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3ETlmt ... on&f=false

(p.41-56)

The last thing to consider is how this even extends into today's day and age, especially in light of the War on Terror and War in Iraq.

This might seem like a rather bizarre consideration. After all, these wars were declared under a neocon Republican administration. They couldn't possibly be progressive, could they?

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/JOP2009.pdf

While this paper predominantly emphasizes the matter of civil wars in authoritarian, third world countries, it also has something interesting to say about the effects of Democratic Peace Theory:

However, Hudson and den Boer argue that it may be in the state leaders’ self-interest in maintaining
internal social order to send and expend bare branches in imperial wars and foreign expeditions (207–27). In
essence, their argument relies on the diversionary or scapegoating theory of war (Levy 1988, 666–72). Gelpi
(1997) shows, however, that only democratic states engage in diversionary tactics but authoritarian states
do not, while Pickering and Kisangani (2005) show that only mature democracies, consolidating autocracies,
and transitional polities engage in diversionary tactics (Oakes 2006). Both of these conclusions seem to
suggest that China would not wage interstate wars in order to divert attention from its domestic problem
of bare branches.

Later on, the paper goes on in its regression analysis to demonstrate that democracy seems to be a rather weak explanation for preventing interstate conflict. In fact, Islam, despite condoning polygany, is actually a better DETERRENT not only of interstate conflict than democracy, but of civil war as well.

I'd like to note two other things behind Islam:

One, Islam was the primary terrorist motivator in 9/11 which lead to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Two, Islam actually CONDEMNS consumerism.

Ergo, if Islam is a better deterrent than democracy, and Islam acted out so badly, what does that tell us about the potential of democracy? Would that not tell us that the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were more effective in diverting American men than Islamic men? Would this not especially be the case among economically struggling backgrounds where things such as crime rates and gang violence are more prominent?

This is a pattern I've come across very often when discussing politics with troops coming home. Many people enlist in the military due to social alienation, especially from the working class where the concept of a "poverty draft" is often used. These men (which they predominantly are), will even surrender 100% to social liberalism on all fronts just for the chance to get a job by being politically correct. Heck, some of these men are even participating in Occupy Wall Street.

To be clear, if you know anything about modern American politics, this isn't a recent phenomenon. Progressively influenced Rockefeller Republicanism has been alive and well for decades, but the effect it's having now is unsurpassed.

No Child Left Behind... yea, OK.

[monk]

We used to have a politics forum for subjects like this, but I think we decided Random Weirdos is where it goes because while feminism is kind of related, it is in a very minor way.

[Aum]

Your thesis is not concise. You're addressing several MAJOR topics in there that could all have their own threads.

Can you please break this down into a summary and then ask your question for discussion? I'm not really clear on what you are asking the reader. And if you have nothing to pose to the community here, then I'd rather not read your academic rants anymore.

[Daktoria]

I think what I'm saying is that there are better ways to go about social equality than via progressivism. If anything, progressivism should be ridiculed by feminists because it leads to consumerism and wars, but instead, feminists are still hiding behind it.

I'm asking if people agree or disagree and why.

[Aum]

You're assuming that he progessive/feminist combination is even true. I'm a feminist and do not support consumerism. Yes, I am still a consumer at the same time though, because I have to live within this system; but it doesn't mean I'm in favor of this system.

I don't really think your thesis is based in what's really happening. Sorry.

[monk]

I think what I'm saying is that there are better ways to go about social equality than via progressivism. If anything, progressivism should be ridiculed by feminists because it leads to consumerism and wars, but instead, feminists are still hiding behind it.

I'm asking if people agree or disagree and why.

Right now, Progressivism is a good stop gap to keep vocal and wrong headed elements from slowing down if not outright halting social equality. The vote in Mississippi is a good example. It's showed that when put to the test people will show how they feel on sensitive subjects but without the state enforcing those mandates on a day to day basis our country would be badly divided by region on social issues.

As for Islam. The only reason that Islam is a better deterrent to civil war & interstate conflict is because a theocracies punish dissent much more harshly than democracies do, while at the same time they stifle progress and innovation. A theory as to why this is so maybe the absence of a true Caliphate in the Muslim world.

My question back at you. What method do you think would be better than Progressivism for social equality?

*Daktoria, if you would like a discussion, I would recommend you parse your comments down to under 1000 words and closer to 500 and to keep your recommended reference links to one maybe two examples. If we want to look up references we already know how.

[Daktoria]

Right now, Progressivism is a good stop gap to keep vocal and wrong headed elements from slowing down if not outright halting social equality. The vote in Mississippi is a good example. It's showed that when put to the test people will show how they feel on sensitive subjects but without the state enforcing those mandates on a day to day basis our country would be badly divided by region on social issues.

It doesn't really seem that progressivism itself is the defining factor here, but rather that progressivism serves the role of anti-religious extremism. If another ideology came along that opposed anti-religious extremism, the same effect would be taking place.

To call progressivism a "good stop gap" though is something I really have to disagree with because it dismisses the dignity of the minority in the majority - smart, white, working class, nonprejudicial, men. Progressivism has no answer to dealing with these people at all. If anything, progressivism has encouraged making fun of these people a la "stuff white people like" and "angry white male". Heck, it could be argued that progressivism's approach of these people BEING prejudicial is a self-fulfilling prophecy because many people in this demographic turn towards prejudice in order to become socially assertive and socially assimilated. You see this especially among far-right groups who call libertarians "pussies" for example.

As for Islam. The only reason that Islam is a better deterrent to civil war & interstate conflict is because a theocracies punish dissent much more harshly than democracies do, while at the same time they stifle progress and innovation. A theory as to why this is so maybe the absence of a true Caliphate in the Muslim world.

I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion. Despite the authoritarian character of Islam, plenty of Islamist political conflict has still risen up whether in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, or Thailand. In contrast, there's been very little political conflict in western democracy, yet still, crime rates and gang violence are still noticeable.

My question back at you. What method do you think would be better than Progressivism for social equality?

Classic liberalism, especially with deontology.

Again, the main problem with taking a classic liberal approach is people view it as weak. It doesn't aspire to do much if anything with government in terms of social engineering, so people look at classic liberalism as something vulnerable to exploit.

The key to maintaining classic liberal strength is due process and due diligence, but people don't like to think. This is why consumerism has to be disengaged - it's one of the cornerstones of how we're intellectually spoiled into believing "stupid is cool". Furthermore, this "stupid is cool" attitude encourages economic intervention such that people can let government think for them.

Again, though, letting government think for people is detrimental for people who can think for themselves. It's especially detrimental when society believes the smart are obligated to serve the dumb despite how the dumb only care to bully the smart.